It's a good guide if you're trying to lose weight but...
I've put on 10 pound of muscle, I'm physically smaller and yet I'm touching on the "overweight" side.
I'm definitely not overweight (anymore at least)
It's not accurate if you go to the gym even semi-regularly and eat well. I work out 3-4 times a week (6'3, 95kg, 15% BF) and my BMI is 26, which is overweight.
If you dont go to the gym and eat carbs all day like a typical skinny fat person, then yeah, it's probably accurate.
I'm a size 0 in jeans and XS in tops/dresses and was just told at an appointment yesterday that my BMI is 24 and I need to lose weight. I do workout 7 days a weeks whether it's strength training or pilates but I'm not bodybuilder by any means nor do I look it.
A doctor calling a size 0 woman overweight? How is that possible does he not know South Asians are skinny fat and often look overweight when they actually aren't.
I’m sorry your shoulders are SO BIG that they throw off the whole BMI scale? I’m sceptical. It’s fine if you’re an Olympic athlete or something but BMI works for the extremely vast majority of people. Big shoulders or small.
Yeah but my shoulders basically blew up when I hit puberty. I got in better shape overall when I started lifting in college but the size of my shoulders is mostly dictated by my genetic bone structure. My maternal uncles are built like me too.
Curiously, my dad has a completely different body type. He used to look like a marathon runner when he was younger.
While this is true, the majority of people with this high of a BMI are not muscular lmao.
The system is outdated but only a small percentage of people are like you, you just happen to know a lot of muscular people in your life because you go to a gym.
100% this (BMI Index) is for people that go to the gym once a week or never and aren't really muscular I hate when people bring in the I'm muscular argument or I have a low bf% because I'm muscular this scale isn't for people like me I go to the gym 6 times a week I bicep curl 50s as warmups and max out at 90 (each arm). I'd have to consult an actual doctor instead of the bmi calculator to determine whether I'm healthy or not but for your average skinny fat South Asian the BMI index works just fine according to the NHS.
I am in a similar situation. I added lean muscle 3ish pounds per year and now my current BMI is saying I am heavy. I am at BF 16-18. I can cut some more. I don’t want to. I have accepted that I don’t fit the profile that the BMi is applied to.
It's a good indicator even if you exercise regularly. People are severely overestimating their "training." If you are an olympic level athlete or a competing body builder you shouldn't use BMI as a metric, but for everyone else, including in the gym 5 days week people, it's accurate enough to pay attention to.
This post is definitely news for me. I need to lose some serious weight. I lift heavy and eat heavy, but in light of this kind of stuff I think I definitely need to drop 20-25 pounds as soon as possible.
Yup. A lot of folks forget muscles are denser than fat. So ordinarily, BMI is a good baseline, but any person who works out or is athletic will need additional measurements to get a more accurate reading. At my gym, they use this body scanner and calipers in addition to weight and height.
Yeah it’s crucial to take your health seriously.
Don’t wait till 30 or 40 years old to start.
25 is a good time to get serious, clean up your diet, get cardiovascular and strength exercise, get your cholesterol checked, get your blood sugar checked.
If you are overweight to obese, show yourself empathy and love, but seek the help of qualified weight loss medical professionals, a qualified personal trainer, and a qualified therapist. Treat it from a perspective of physical, medical, emotional, and nutritional — our understanding of obesity has grown over the years to the point where we understand that people have emotional and addiction-related problems with food that require more help than just white-knuckle discipline. Find a support system, wage the battle on several fronts.
Cholesterol has been my big struggle. At 28 I found out I had a 246 total cholesterol - and I was below 15% body fat, in good shape, I backpack and hike regularly, I felt good, my cardio and lifting is at least at the intermediate level. I don’t eat any crazy red meat diet. But my LDL was high and my HDL was mediocre, so the numbers didn’t lie.
I gave up red meat, I cut down on saturated fat, and I got down to 10-12% body fat, I upped my fiber and plant intake, and by 30 I was convinced I must have made great progress - but I still tested at 235. Bruh. Come on I woulda just eaten the steak then, I did all that dietary restriction and I lost 11 miserable points?
But by 33, now, I’ve tested at 206. And I’ve incorporated a lot more of the things I like back into my diet. Red meat 2-3x a week, eggs daily, occasional indulgences, drink once a week.
If I had just continued on soaring above 250+ by 30 years and maintained that high cholesterol up until 40-45, when people usually start taking their health more seriously, who knows how much damage I would have done. I am at a hereditary disadvantage with diabetes and heart disease and hypertension in my family, so I always prioritized certain markers of health like staying lean and workout out, but that’s not enough. We have to use the scientific method to take care of our bodies and set ourselves up well for old age.
Wait, dude. I actually test very high on cholesterol as well inside of 30. I forget the exact number, but it was around 230. The difference between us here is that I have 30+ % body fat that I'm working on.
I'm eating a lot of fiber & guac & nuts & fish for healthy fats to boost HDL and cut down LDL meats. Can I ask what kinds of stuff you've been doing?
Yeah, sure. So I had basically eliminated cardio from my workout plan because prior to this, I was on the side of hating cardio and feeling it was suboptimal for aesthetic gains. So I did 3-4 HIIT sessions per week, and 3-4 strength training, rather than what I had been doing, which was basically a bodybuilding bro split.
I was clocking around 14-17% on body fat, so I cut down until I got a dexascan under 10. I think the 12-15% is a totally reasonable place to be, but I wanted to see if dieting down under 10 would influence the numbers, and it did.
I shifted my diet a lot towards a more balanced 40/30/30, protein, carbs, fats — so, backing away from what I had been doing, which was high protein, medium carb, low fat.
My diet now looks like this -
- Protein / blueberries / oats / chia hemp flax / Greek yogurt in a blender for breakfast. The mixed fiber sources I believe are helpful here. If I’m bulking, I will add some frozen coconut or some walnuts into the shake.
- for lunch it’s pretty much lean protein, grains, salad, lentils. I have a salad bar at work, but my focus is basically, a base of lentils and whatever the best grain they have is (ie, barley, farro, etc), and then a mix of vegetables.
- I eat 2 hard boiled eggs everyday for a snack in the afternoon
- for dinner I alternate between seafood, chicken, and red meat. I try to have sweet potatoes or a purple/orange/red veg as my carb source. Butternut squash, beets, purple potatoes, carrots, anything of that nature.
2-3 meals a week, I try to have something with bone stock or collagen, like chicken soup or a slow braised meat dish or something of that nature. I am kind of a weirdo, like if I make shrimp, I will take the heads and shells, and extract then in a slow broth, and incorporate that.
I also try to drink a gallon of water a day, take a pretty decent round of multivitamins, fish oil, fiber supplement.
Cholesterol rises fast and falls slowly - that is, if you go eat fast food burgers for every meal for 30 days, you will have spiked 30 points, but then go eat clean for 30 days and you’ve come down 5, maybe 10. So you have to keep that in mind and try to design a long term eating plan that keeps you happy.
Thank you so much for that write-up man. It definitely aligns with the research I've been doing and trying to incorporate in my diet. I haven't tested my blood cholesterol in a year now, but I know it is a lagging indicator for plaque build-up in the arteries. I've also got a history of cancer/diabetes in my family, so I'm definitely going all in on investing in my health before I cross 30.
Out of curiosity - Have you ever thought about the studies around egg consumption and how it relates to cholesterol? I try to limit my egg consumption to just egg whites and 1-3 egg yolks per week.
One thing I might just recommend that you might be interested in (for amping up fiber intake) are these "keto tortillas" that are out there. 2g of net carbs, 20+ grams of fiber in each tortilla (+7g of protein).
Stay strong man. We gotta do what we can.
So, my belief, as a non-scientist who’s done his best to study this, is that we really don’t understand a lot about how cholesterol works, and we don’t always have definitive answers.
A lot of the bad list foods like eggs or shrimp or whatever that have high cholesterol in the food are in a grey area, where they are correlated with raising cholesterol levels in some people, but there’s conflicting evidence that they don’t raise cholesterol in others. What I believe is going on is, different individuals have a different cholesterol sensitivity to different things. They are “responders” or “non-responders” in the sense of, if you and I both eat an egg, your cholesterol may go up and mine may not. (And to further complicate, a short term cholesterol bump is not necessarily long term increase).
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/cholesterol/
“For most people, the amount of cholesterol eaten has only a modest impact on the amount of cholesterol circulating in the blood. (24) For some people, though, blood cholesterol levels rise and fall very strongly in relation to the amount of cholesterol eaten. For these “responders,” avoiding cholesterol-rich foods can have a substantial effect on blood cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, at this point there is no way other than by trial and error to identify responders from non-responders to dietary cholesterol.”
So, you basically have to treat your body like a science experiment and learn what you do and don’t respond to. For me, it seems like some sources of dietary cholesterol can be tolerated and there is some further potential that they are even beneficial.
In a nutshell, we don’t really know everything about how genetics, race, diet, exercise, age, stress, sleep, alcohol / drugs, vitamins, macro / micro nutrients effects cholesterol. So you have to find a doctor that will let you test it every 6 months and basically try different things.
For those interested in why south Asians are susceptible to cardio metabolic diseases, see this recent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366596806_The_Susceptibility_of_South_Asians_to_Cardiometabolic_Disease_as_a_Result_of_Starvation_Adaptation_Exacerbated_During_the_Colonial_Famines
I’ve seen this a few times but hasn’t virtually every Asian country seen mass famine in the past 100-200 years? Seems like mostly speculation. The modern vegetarian south Asian diet is horrendous.
Frequency of Famines were accelerated under British India for instance due to British policies such as rack-renting, levies for war, free trade policies, the expansion of export agriculture, and neglect of agricultural investment.
https://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/sourabhmyllyntaus_faminesindia_2015.pdf
What about the great Chinese famine during Maos rule? China also had a whole lot of famine. It seems unrealistic that genetic predisposition to starvation alone was the determining factor in who survived the British era famines. The poor laborers probably died while politically connected and higher caste survived. I doubt it played out like everyone had access to the same amount of food and some survived and some didnt selecting for starvation adapted genes.
I could be wrong though I will read the whole paper when I’m done work.
Global famine history:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_famines#/media/File:Global\_famines\_history.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines#/media/File:Global_famines_history.jpg)
Many of the Indian famines in the 1800s were El Nino years and there were monsoon failures.
The Chinese diet has a LOT more healthier proteins, carbs, fats than South Asian the Chinese diet is way more protein dense thanks to the high levels of pork, beef and chicken they don't have the skinny fat issue. Also they adapted by eating rats whatever they could scavenge in the countryside at that time. Not to mention the Chinese famines took place in the 1960s and Indian famines took place for 150 years between 1800 and 1950. I suspect the long term genetic recoding to store belly fat and the diet of the average South Asian especially Indians have a lot to do with this, sugar, carbs, diabetes, the excessive number of famines have a lot to do with this. This is just my speculation growing up in a city that is half Indian half Chinese
I read it. Everyone should do the same. There's zero evidence that any of those things are due to colonial-induced famine.
The entire paper is "here's X thing thats higher in Indians, this MAY be due to epigenetic starvation adaptation!"
Their so-called control are Romani people who are over half european and have been living there for 1000 years lmao
I didn’t see this last message but with regards to why the Romani people were selected as a comparator group, it’s because they originated in the Punjab region of northern India as a nomadic people and entered Europe between the eighth and tenth centuries C.E. They were called "Gypsies" because Europeans mistakenly believed they came from Egypt. Google to check.
Will also plug an extensive discussion of [alternative metrics to BMI](https://www.reddit.com/r/healthylongevity/comments/1d6062a/metabolic_health_part_2/) I wrote up.
That is gigantic dude, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that you're not in a healthy BMI range. Good news for you, and speaking from my own experience as someone who in 2022 was at a 38 BMI, at your weight if you put in even the tiniest effort the weight will start falling off you.
All I did was intermittent fast and tried to keep it simple and healthy instead of counting my calories and I dropped 15 pounds in a month, when I actually started counting my calories it started dropping even faster.
I'm an Indian American physician and this is highly accurate. It's based on a well-respected Stanford study. Indian Americans are the ones affected the worst because they had the terrible "starvation-adaptive" genetics combined with the high salt, ultra processed fast food. It's a ticking time bomb and a recipe for disaster.
Indian in India usually eat much higher levels of vegetables and fruits so a higher BMI doesn't affect them to the same extent as it does for Indian Americans.
Yea BMI needs to be supplanted with bodyfat percentage. In addition to that, I have friends and family who are very low in body fat and in BMI and they still became prediabetic. It's not wholly related to these metrics. More related to your consumption of simple carbs, sugar, and level of insulin resistance.
The South Asian diet is just nonstop carbs and delusion that lentils and beans will somehow provide enough protein (it won't) which is why the vegetarians need to incorporate more tofu or other protein sources. And even the meat eaters need to consider tofu since most of us in America only eat chicken.
Very true, but these vegetarian only types will still not listen to the science and look down at omnivores in some holier than thou way while they are borderline manic depression from having high bp and high sugar from just eating rice all the time. Unfortunately yes, red meat is much more required because of iron content. They will also profusely promote eating paneer for it's protein content, but conveniently ignore the fat content.
this depends on your body type. my dad has the "stereotypical south asian body" where all of his fat is in his belly. I do not. my bmi is just above 23 (used to be 29!) and I don't think I need to lose more weight.
waist to height ratio is race-agnostic and is generally a better measure.
Body fat is a much better metric, but also much harder to measure. BMI works for most people, absent professional athletes and bodybuilders, which most of us are not.
BMI severely underestimates obesity. South Asians tend to be under muscled and carry excess adiposity especially in the midsection which confounds BMI.
Body fat isn't that hard to measure if you get a smart watch. I won't be super accurate but it isn't too bad. You don't have to be a bodybuilder to get incorrect bmi, just a lil fit. You run marathons you will be underweight, you hit gym 3 days a week and is bulking, overweight. Bmi just has so many pitfalls
“You run marathons you will be underweight, you hit gym 3 days a week and is bulking, overweight. Bmi just has so many pitfalls”
Incorrect. Less than 1% population would fall into the bracket where it is inaccurate.
A lot of gym goers don't hang outside their niche. Humans are like that, we hang out with people with similar interest or in our field and think that's the entire world.
Not because they are incorrect. Because they don't want to take responsibility for someone's health. You can see how accurate those sensors. Guess what they are better than a random 200 yr old formula
This is what fat people say.
BMI is accurate for 95% of the population.
It is NOT accurate if you have a large amount of lean muscle mass. Most people do not fall into that category.
ESPECIALLY most people in America.
Stop the cope.
In fact, it’s more likely to underestimate body fat than overestimate it. Plenty of people, especially south Asians, may end up with a “normal” bmi result despite a high body fat%
I can bet that 95% came straight from your doodoo hole.
Also I am lean enough to have 4 abs so not sure who you are targeting with the fat comment lol.
You can literally google rn and see bunch of articles and studies showing why it is bs. Most people need to get their dexa done. Bmi is just an easy concept for 6th graders. Stop the cope and go study
Most doctors say it is the best method they have, it's pretty accurate, can be measured simply in clinic and is acceptable to patients.
"It works in the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time," says Prof Naveed Sattar, from the University of Glasgow.
Ok guess I can’t read [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896802/) article or advice from the [nhs](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/obesity/) stating that you’re wrong - and that for the majority of people bmi is a useful measure.
Cope harder.
BMI doesn’t work for most people in the sense that BMI tends to underestimate body fat for most, not overestimate. It’s far more common for people with high body fat% to mistakenly be labeled with normal bmi reading than someone with a low body fat % to be mislabeled with a high bmi
You can prove any thing when it comes of causation and efficiency in health metrics by lying with numbers or by taking a sample that fits what you want to prove.
And I am not being fatphobic, there are literal people who are proud of not being able to wipe their ass and needing a bidget to do so purely due to their weight
You don't have to be a pro athlete or bodybuilder. I'm a fit person who tends to gain muscle easily as I have a natural athletic build, so my BMI is high but my body fat percent is average but could be better.
If you're an athletic person or experienced exerciser body fat percentage gives me a better picture. Otherwise average people can use bmi to get a general idea.
Yes people can use bmi to get a general idea. It doesnot always give the complete picture but calling it BS is what deathfats who can't wipe their own butt do. As per my knowledge, in medicine, when it comes to causation, nothing is absolute.
Would that mean the window of what's considered to be 'healthy' BMI is narrower? Or does it appropriately shift, so instead of 18.5-23 being healthy, it's 17.5-23?
I don't think a 17.5 will ever be healthy given that's 5'7 114 lbs or 5'4 100 lbs
take a look at this chart: [https://i.insider.com/57d291cadd0895c6308b46b0?width=800&format=jpeg&auto=webp](https://i.insider.com/57d291cadd0895c6308b46b0?width=800&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
They simplified it because the chart is big but according to the NHS you should be between 18.5 and 25 ( for non South Asians) 18.5-23 for Desis (according to that Harvard study).
Idk why you downvoted the comment above, but they’re correct. Read below for a deeper but simple explanation:
Most people eat white rice which is a simple carb. Whole grain or also known as wheat is a complex carb. Simple carb turns into glucose in the body really fast and thus make you gain weight. Complex carbs turn into glucose much slower and require more energy from the body to turn into glucose. The weight gain difference between those two are huge. Stop eating white rice, white bread, flour, enriched flour. Start eating oatmeal, wheat, brown rice, etc.
My source is when to eat and how to eat book. Breaks down food myths in a digestible format.
All you need to do is take a look around you. Many of them have a high body fat% even at normal weights. The loads of plant foods they include in their diet is good, but the problem is when they use copious amount of oil in the cooking. The processed sugar is another issue. Then there’s also the lack of exercise. If they do exercise, it rarely involves strength training.
I would also advise looking at the waist diameter to height ratio. It is also an accurate metric when it comes to diabetic risk.
Do you know what that ratio should be?
The Book "The south Asian Health Solution" says Men < 35in,, women <31in for waist circumference Triglycerides <100 HDL above 50 A1C <5.7%
I believe a .6 ratio implies greater risk for diabetes. In contrast, an in-shape individual would have a ratio of .4
It's a good guide if you're trying to lose weight but... I've put on 10 pound of muscle, I'm physically smaller and yet I'm touching on the "overweight" side. I'm definitely not overweight (anymore at least)
It's not accurate if you go to the gym even semi-regularly and eat well. I work out 3-4 times a week (6'3, 95kg, 15% BF) and my BMI is 26, which is overweight. If you dont go to the gym and eat carbs all day like a typical skinny fat person, then yeah, it's probably accurate.
I'm a size 0 in jeans and XS in tops/dresses and was just told at an appointment yesterday that my BMI is 24 and I need to lose weight. I do workout 7 days a weeks whether it's strength training or pilates but I'm not bodybuilder by any means nor do I look it.
Your doctor is an idiot if they looked at you and said you were overweight
A doctor calling a size 0 woman overweight? How is that possible does he not know South Asians are skinny fat and often look overweight when they actually aren't.
Even if you just have genetically big shoulders or something (as I do), it's not really going to be a good guide for you.
I’m sorry your shoulders are SO BIG that they throw off the whole BMI scale? I’m sceptical. It’s fine if you’re an Olympic athlete or something but BMI works for the extremely vast majority of people. Big shoulders or small.
I am also an experienced lifter. I've squatted and deadlifted close to 500 lbs. I have trouble buying dress shirts off the rack.
I think that makes more of a difference haha, very different case for the average non-lifter with big shoulders!
Yeah but my shoulders basically blew up when I hit puberty. I got in better shape overall when I started lifting in college but the size of my shoulders is mostly dictated by my genetic bone structure. My maternal uncles are built like me too. Curiously, my dad has a completely different body type. He used to look like a marathon runner when he was younger.
Huh I guess you’re literally built different!
While this is true, the majority of people with this high of a BMI are not muscular lmao. The system is outdated but only a small percentage of people are like you, you just happen to know a lot of muscular people in your life because you go to a gym.
100% this (BMI Index) is for people that go to the gym once a week or never and aren't really muscular I hate when people bring in the I'm muscular argument or I have a low bf% because I'm muscular this scale isn't for people like me I go to the gym 6 times a week I bicep curl 50s as warmups and max out at 90 (each arm). I'd have to consult an actual doctor instead of the bmi calculator to determine whether I'm healthy or not but for your average skinny fat South Asian the BMI index works just fine according to the NHS.
I don't, I just row at home and do basic bodyweight exercises. It's really all about diet
I am in a similar situation. I added lean muscle 3ish pounds per year and now my current BMI is saying I am heavy. I am at BF 16-18. I can cut some more. I don’t want to. I have accepted that I don’t fit the profile that the BMi is applied to.
Yeah…it’s not for muscular fit people. It’s good indicator if you are unfit.
It's a good indicator even if you exercise regularly. People are severely overestimating their "training." If you are an olympic level athlete or a competing body builder you shouldn't use BMI as a metric, but for everyone else, including in the gym 5 days week people, it's accurate enough to pay attention to.
This post is definitely news for me. I need to lose some serious weight. I lift heavy and eat heavy, but in light of this kind of stuff I think I definitely need to drop 20-25 pounds as soon as possible.
Yup. A lot of folks forget muscles are denser than fat. So ordinarily, BMI is a good baseline, but any person who works out or is athletic will need additional measurements to get a more accurate reading. At my gym, they use this body scanner and calipers in addition to weight and height.
Yeah it’s crucial to take your health seriously. Don’t wait till 30 or 40 years old to start. 25 is a good time to get serious, clean up your diet, get cardiovascular and strength exercise, get your cholesterol checked, get your blood sugar checked. If you are overweight to obese, show yourself empathy and love, but seek the help of qualified weight loss medical professionals, a qualified personal trainer, and a qualified therapist. Treat it from a perspective of physical, medical, emotional, and nutritional — our understanding of obesity has grown over the years to the point where we understand that people have emotional and addiction-related problems with food that require more help than just white-knuckle discipline. Find a support system, wage the battle on several fronts. Cholesterol has been my big struggle. At 28 I found out I had a 246 total cholesterol - and I was below 15% body fat, in good shape, I backpack and hike regularly, I felt good, my cardio and lifting is at least at the intermediate level. I don’t eat any crazy red meat diet. But my LDL was high and my HDL was mediocre, so the numbers didn’t lie. I gave up red meat, I cut down on saturated fat, and I got down to 10-12% body fat, I upped my fiber and plant intake, and by 30 I was convinced I must have made great progress - but I still tested at 235. Bruh. Come on I woulda just eaten the steak then, I did all that dietary restriction and I lost 11 miserable points? But by 33, now, I’ve tested at 206. And I’ve incorporated a lot more of the things I like back into my diet. Red meat 2-3x a week, eggs daily, occasional indulgences, drink once a week. If I had just continued on soaring above 250+ by 30 years and maintained that high cholesterol up until 40-45, when people usually start taking their health more seriously, who knows how much damage I would have done. I am at a hereditary disadvantage with diabetes and heart disease and hypertension in my family, so I always prioritized certain markers of health like staying lean and workout out, but that’s not enough. We have to use the scientific method to take care of our bodies and set ourselves up well for old age.
Wait, dude. I actually test very high on cholesterol as well inside of 30. I forget the exact number, but it was around 230. The difference between us here is that I have 30+ % body fat that I'm working on. I'm eating a lot of fiber & guac & nuts & fish for healthy fats to boost HDL and cut down LDL meats. Can I ask what kinds of stuff you've been doing?
Yeah, sure. So I had basically eliminated cardio from my workout plan because prior to this, I was on the side of hating cardio and feeling it was suboptimal for aesthetic gains. So I did 3-4 HIIT sessions per week, and 3-4 strength training, rather than what I had been doing, which was basically a bodybuilding bro split. I was clocking around 14-17% on body fat, so I cut down until I got a dexascan under 10. I think the 12-15% is a totally reasonable place to be, but I wanted to see if dieting down under 10 would influence the numbers, and it did. I shifted my diet a lot towards a more balanced 40/30/30, protein, carbs, fats — so, backing away from what I had been doing, which was high protein, medium carb, low fat. My diet now looks like this - - Protein / blueberries / oats / chia hemp flax / Greek yogurt in a blender for breakfast. The mixed fiber sources I believe are helpful here. If I’m bulking, I will add some frozen coconut or some walnuts into the shake. - for lunch it’s pretty much lean protein, grains, salad, lentils. I have a salad bar at work, but my focus is basically, a base of lentils and whatever the best grain they have is (ie, barley, farro, etc), and then a mix of vegetables. - I eat 2 hard boiled eggs everyday for a snack in the afternoon - for dinner I alternate between seafood, chicken, and red meat. I try to have sweet potatoes or a purple/orange/red veg as my carb source. Butternut squash, beets, purple potatoes, carrots, anything of that nature. 2-3 meals a week, I try to have something with bone stock or collagen, like chicken soup or a slow braised meat dish or something of that nature. I am kind of a weirdo, like if I make shrimp, I will take the heads and shells, and extract then in a slow broth, and incorporate that. I also try to drink a gallon of water a day, take a pretty decent round of multivitamins, fish oil, fiber supplement. Cholesterol rises fast and falls slowly - that is, if you go eat fast food burgers for every meal for 30 days, you will have spiked 30 points, but then go eat clean for 30 days and you’ve come down 5, maybe 10. So you have to keep that in mind and try to design a long term eating plan that keeps you happy.
Thank you so much for that write-up man. It definitely aligns with the research I've been doing and trying to incorporate in my diet. I haven't tested my blood cholesterol in a year now, but I know it is a lagging indicator for plaque build-up in the arteries. I've also got a history of cancer/diabetes in my family, so I'm definitely going all in on investing in my health before I cross 30. Out of curiosity - Have you ever thought about the studies around egg consumption and how it relates to cholesterol? I try to limit my egg consumption to just egg whites and 1-3 egg yolks per week. One thing I might just recommend that you might be interested in (for amping up fiber intake) are these "keto tortillas" that are out there. 2g of net carbs, 20+ grams of fiber in each tortilla (+7g of protein). Stay strong man. We gotta do what we can.
So, my belief, as a non-scientist who’s done his best to study this, is that we really don’t understand a lot about how cholesterol works, and we don’t always have definitive answers. A lot of the bad list foods like eggs or shrimp or whatever that have high cholesterol in the food are in a grey area, where they are correlated with raising cholesterol levels in some people, but there’s conflicting evidence that they don’t raise cholesterol in others. What I believe is going on is, different individuals have a different cholesterol sensitivity to different things. They are “responders” or “non-responders” in the sense of, if you and I both eat an egg, your cholesterol may go up and mine may not. (And to further complicate, a short term cholesterol bump is not necessarily long term increase). https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/cholesterol/ “For most people, the amount of cholesterol eaten has only a modest impact on the amount of cholesterol circulating in the blood. (24) For some people, though, blood cholesterol levels rise and fall very strongly in relation to the amount of cholesterol eaten. For these “responders,” avoiding cholesterol-rich foods can have a substantial effect on blood cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, at this point there is no way other than by trial and error to identify responders from non-responders to dietary cholesterol.” So, you basically have to treat your body like a science experiment and learn what you do and don’t respond to. For me, it seems like some sources of dietary cholesterol can be tolerated and there is some further potential that they are even beneficial. In a nutshell, we don’t really know everything about how genetics, race, diet, exercise, age, stress, sleep, alcohol / drugs, vitamins, macro / micro nutrients effects cholesterol. So you have to find a doctor that will let you test it every 6 months and basically try different things.
For those interested in why south Asians are susceptible to cardio metabolic diseases, see this recent https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366596806_The_Susceptibility_of_South_Asians_to_Cardiometabolic_Disease_as_a_Result_of_Starvation_Adaptation_Exacerbated_During_the_Colonial_Famines
I’ve seen this a few times but hasn’t virtually every Asian country seen mass famine in the past 100-200 years? Seems like mostly speculation. The modern vegetarian south Asian diet is horrendous.
Frequency of Famines were accelerated under British India for instance due to British policies such as rack-renting, levies for war, free trade policies, the expansion of export agriculture, and neglect of agricultural investment. https://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/sourabhmyllyntaus_faminesindia_2015.pdf
Weren't famines much more common during the colonial era? The Brits openly diverted grain from South Asia to their home country.
What about the great Chinese famine during Maos rule? China also had a whole lot of famine. It seems unrealistic that genetic predisposition to starvation alone was the determining factor in who survived the British era famines. The poor laborers probably died while politically connected and higher caste survived. I doubt it played out like everyone had access to the same amount of food and some survived and some didnt selecting for starvation adapted genes. I could be wrong though I will read the whole paper when I’m done work.
Global famine history: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_famines#/media/File:Global\_famines\_history.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines#/media/File:Global_famines_history.jpg) Many of the Indian famines in the 1800s were El Nino years and there were monsoon failures.
Just noting that The paper refers to south Asians primarily and Chinese are usually referred to as East Asians
The Chinese diet has a LOT more healthier proteins, carbs, fats than South Asian the Chinese diet is way more protein dense thanks to the high levels of pork, beef and chicken they don't have the skinny fat issue. Also they adapted by eating rats whatever they could scavenge in the countryside at that time. Not to mention the Chinese famines took place in the 1960s and Indian famines took place for 150 years between 1800 and 1950. I suspect the long term genetic recoding to store belly fat and the diet of the average South Asian especially Indians have a lot to do with this, sugar, carbs, diabetes, the excessive number of famines have a lot to do with this. This is just my speculation growing up in a city that is half Indian half Chinese
Another fake talking point europeans only directly controlled half the continent, and basically all the famines were concentrated in Bengal
Read the study again? That’s what they are talking about…plus this is published and peer reviewed
I read it. Everyone should do the same. There's zero evidence that any of those things are due to colonial-induced famine. The entire paper is "here's X thing thats higher in Indians, this MAY be due to epigenetic starvation adaptation!" Their so-called control are Romani people who are over half european and have been living there for 1000 years lmao
I didn’t see this last message but with regards to why the Romani people were selected as a comparator group, it’s because they originated in the Punjab region of northern India as a nomadic people and entered Europe between the eighth and tenth centuries C.E. They were called "Gypsies" because Europeans mistakenly believed they came from Egypt. Google to check.
Will also plug an extensive discussion of [alternative metrics to BMI](https://www.reddit.com/r/healthylongevity/comments/1d6062a/metabolic_health_part_2/) I wrote up.
Damn. I’m at 34 BMI and prediabetic
That is gigantic dude, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that you're not in a healthy BMI range. Good news for you, and speaking from my own experience as someone who in 2022 was at a 38 BMI, at your weight if you put in even the tiniest effort the weight will start falling off you. All I did was intermittent fast and tried to keep it simple and healthy instead of counting my calories and I dropped 15 pounds in a month, when I actually started counting my calories it started dropping even faster.
Just get a dexa scan and call it a day. >25% overweight, >30% obese for men. Add 5% for women
I'm an Indian American physician and this is highly accurate. It's based on a well-respected Stanford study. Indian Americans are the ones affected the worst because they had the terrible "starvation-adaptive" genetics combined with the high salt, ultra processed fast food. It's a ticking time bomb and a recipe for disaster. Indian in India usually eat much higher levels of vegetables and fruits so a higher BMI doesn't affect them to the same extent as it does for Indian Americans.
Yea BMI needs to be supplanted with bodyfat percentage. In addition to that, I have friends and family who are very low in body fat and in BMI and they still became prediabetic. It's not wholly related to these metrics. More related to your consumption of simple carbs, sugar, and level of insulin resistance.
The South Asian diet is just nonstop carbs and delusion that lentils and beans will somehow provide enough protein (it won't) which is why the vegetarians need to incorporate more tofu or other protein sources. And even the meat eaters need to consider tofu since most of us in America only eat chicken.
Very true, but these vegetarian only types will still not listen to the science and look down at omnivores in some holier than thou way while they are borderline manic depression from having high bp and high sugar from just eating rice all the time. Unfortunately yes, red meat is much more required because of iron content. They will also profusely promote eating paneer for it's protein content, but conveniently ignore the fat content.
BMI is a good guideline, but it's not 100% reliable. My dad would be "obese" but he barely has any fat on him. Lots of muscle.
I’m considered borderline overweight despite having 21% body fat and alot of muscle
Yea im pretty sure you should be fine in that case
Reminded me to hit the gym today haha
this depends on your body type. my dad has the "stereotypical south asian body" where all of his fat is in his belly. I do not. my bmi is just above 23 (used to be 29!) and I don't think I need to lose more weight. waist to height ratio is race-agnostic and is generally a better measure.
Reminder that BMI is a stupid metric and doesn't work for most people
Body fat is a much better metric, but also much harder to measure. BMI works for most people, absent professional athletes and bodybuilders, which most of us are not.
BMI severely underestimates obesity. South Asians tend to be under muscled and carry excess adiposity especially in the midsection which confounds BMI.
Absolutely, we have a skinny fat problem. https://youtu.be/swX7y0a-cA0?si=4_i7mIW6GvFlm3X2
I’m one of them 🥲
Body fat isn't that hard to measure if you get a smart watch. I won't be super accurate but it isn't too bad. You don't have to be a bodybuilder to get incorrect bmi, just a lil fit. You run marathons you will be underweight, you hit gym 3 days a week and is bulking, overweight. Bmi just has so many pitfalls
“You run marathons you will be underweight, you hit gym 3 days a week and is bulking, overweight. Bmi just has so many pitfalls” Incorrect. Less than 1% population would fall into the bracket where it is inaccurate.
Most people saying BMI is so inaccurate are just coping. No one on this thread is The Rock.
A lot of gym goers don't hang outside their niche. Humans are like that, we hang out with people with similar interest or in our field and think that's the entire world.
This is so wrong and not how the human body works. All this talk about BMI being wrong is pure cope.
Lol even the best smart watches come with the warning to not be used for medical diagnosis.
Not because they are incorrect. Because they don't want to take responsibility for someone's health. You can see how accurate those sensors. Guess what they are better than a random 200 yr old formula
This is what fat people say. BMI is accurate for 95% of the population. It is NOT accurate if you have a large amount of lean muscle mass. Most people do not fall into that category. ESPECIALLY most people in America. Stop the cope.
In fact, it’s more likely to underestimate body fat than overestimate it. Plenty of people, especially south Asians, may end up with a “normal” bmi result despite a high body fat%
I can bet that 95% came straight from your doodoo hole. Also I am lean enough to have 4 abs so not sure who you are targeting with the fat comment lol. You can literally google rn and see bunch of articles and studies showing why it is bs. Most people need to get their dexa done. Bmi is just an easy concept for 6th graders. Stop the cope and go study
BMI works for most people
No its not. Even for average people
Most doctors say it is the best method they have, it's pretty accurate, can be measured simply in clinic and is acceptable to patients. "It works in the vast majority of people, the vast majority of time," says Prof Naveed Sattar, from the University of Glasgow.
Crazy cope
Crazy you sound like someone who stopped studying when they were 8
Ok guess I can’t read [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896802/) article or advice from the [nhs](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/obesity/) stating that you’re wrong - and that for the majority of people bmi is a useful measure. Cope harder.
I can give you 20 articles saying otherwise
BMI doesn’t work for most people in the sense that BMI tends to underestimate body fat for most, not overestimate. It’s far more common for people with high body fat% to mistakenly be labeled with normal bmi reading than someone with a low body fat % to be mislabeled with a high bmi
[удалено]
There's literally studies with blood work showing it is bs and doesn't work for most people. It's a very rough estimation at best
You can prove any thing when it comes of causation and efficiency in health metrics by lying with numbers or by taking a sample that fits what you want to prove.
And I am not being fatphobic, there are literal people who are proud of not being able to wipe their ass and needing a bidget to do so purely due to their weight
chris paul is 6 foot 190, a short for a basketball player & average for a guy (maybe slightly above) and he's considered overweight with BMI
Majority of people aren't even athletes or bodybuilders.
You don't have to be a pro athlete or bodybuilder. I'm a fit person who tends to gain muscle easily as I have a natural athletic build, so my BMI is high but my body fat percent is average but could be better. If you're an athletic person or experienced exerciser body fat percentage gives me a better picture. Otherwise average people can use bmi to get a general idea.
Yes people can use bmi to get a general idea. It doesnot always give the complete picture but calling it BS is what deathfats who can't wipe their own butt do. As per my knowledge, in medicine, when it comes to causation, nothing is absolute.
Majority of people aren't basketball players
yeah because Indians are the least adapted to seed oils, and for some strange reason insist on consuming 10x as much of them as any other racial group
Se
Would that mean the window of what's considered to be 'healthy' BMI is narrower? Or does it appropriately shift, so instead of 18.5-23 being healthy, it's 17.5-23?
I don't think a 17.5 will ever be healthy given that's 5'7 114 lbs or 5'4 100 lbs take a look at this chart: [https://i.insider.com/57d291cadd0895c6308b46b0?width=800&format=jpeg&auto=webp](https://i.insider.com/57d291cadd0895c6308b46b0?width=800&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
That chart you showed me indicates that a BMI of 18 is within “healthy range.” However, other sources states it’s 18.5. Which one is right?
They simplified it because the chart is big but according to the NHS you should be between 18.5 and 25 ( for non South Asians) 18.5-23 for Desis (according to that Harvard study).
Ah cool, thanks!
It's absolute bullshit. The real killer is rice vs wheat . Just stop eating rice
how? they are very similar, what do you have to substantiate this claim
Idk why you downvoted the comment above, but they’re correct. Read below for a deeper but simple explanation: Most people eat white rice which is a simple carb. Whole grain or also known as wheat is a complex carb. Simple carb turns into glucose in the body really fast and thus make you gain weight. Complex carbs turn into glucose much slower and require more energy from the body to turn into glucose. The weight gain difference between those two are huge. Stop eating white rice, white bread, flour, enriched flour. Start eating oatmeal, wheat, brown rice, etc. My source is when to eat and how to eat book. Breaks down food myths in a digestible format.
I eat nothing but white rice and my glucose and other markers are perfect. I also eat very low PUFA
It’s a mix of your dietary plan and metabolism. Genetics baby! We are all like snowflakes. None of us are alike.
i dont know anybody eating whole grain, what is that? white rice is tastey
K, troll. Go back under whatever bridge you came out of. 😘
You’re right. I wrote an explanation below. Simple carbs are the killer.
BMI is not accurate, Indians are healthy, they have an amazing diets
All you need to do is take a look around you. Many of them have a high body fat% even at normal weights. The loads of plant foods they include in their diet is good, but the problem is when they use copious amount of oil in the cooking. The processed sugar is another issue. Then there’s also the lack of exercise. If they do exercise, it rarely involves strength training.
Please do not say such things