There's no way BMI calculators are anywhere near accurate...

[MarkKol]

I've been 55Kg for a long ass time, I'm quite positive this is how I'm standing with my calorie intake
 1. I probably eat around 1000 calories everyday 
 2. I rarely ever ever 1500 
 3. I never eat 2000
 4. I don't think I've ever eaten 3000 In my entire life

A BMI calculator is literally telling me to eat 2500 (mild weight gain) to 3260 (fast weight gain), that's totally insane... My theory is that if I've been able to maintain this weight eating between 1000 to 1500 a day, I should be able to eat only 2000 to enter a calorie surplus. 

Your thoughts?

Edited June 2, 2022 by MarkKol

[Michael569]

What was your BMI?

[MarkKol]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

What was your BMI?

18.4

[Razard86]

BMI is influenced by muscle mass. If you are very muscular a BMI calculator can be inaccurate. But there are ways around it. They have machines that can do more accurate readings where the current most accurate reading is a full body scan (but that machine is expensive). Most people can use a electro bmi calculator that estimates fluid levels in the body and gives a pretty decent accurate reading. 

But at the end of the day....BMI is a pretty decent tool that can be used to measure how much fat is in the body. Its not perfect but its decent.

[Michael569]

I think the Initial assumption was correct. At 55kg, BMI of 18 indicates borderline underweight and with 1000 calories a day your body may just about keep at this levels (without loosing further). I would say 1000kcal is eating quite under where you should be especially for a young guy in his primal growth years where your body has high energy demands

I'd try to raise it to 1500 at least possibly more especially if you aim to be physically and mentally active or even make a muscle gain. 

Best discuss this with a dietitian.

 

[MarkKol]

@Michael569 Yeah

1800-2200 should do the job I'd say

[The0Self]

If you have a decent amount of muscle mass (if you don't lift, you probably don't, but since you're a male you might), then your calorie needs fluctuate wildly with your level of general light movement throughout the day. And the more muscle you have, the more this fluctuation effect is prominent. You can think of daily life with high-performance muscle on your frame, like driving a supercar as your daily driver around town -- you're gonna have terrible gas mileage...

Which is why strength training (if complete; pushing such as overhead barbell press, pulling such as chins, and leg movements such as deadlifts; not wasting time with single joint movements) and muscle gain (maximized with 3-4x/wk multiple sets of 5-15 reps per set barbell/strength training and 120g protein per day) is utterly by far the most effective fat-loss engine, assuming one isn't at total rest all day long.

For instance, even if your day consists of 1. just leisurely walking in a circle while reading a book, vs 2. sitting still at a desk without fidgeting, that could be a calorie expenditure differential of 1500 if you're strong and trained -- if not trained at all, then it might be more like a 400 calorie differential. The effect of extra muscle is enormous. You can't separate caloric needs from daily activity level -- and again, this is extremely more prominent the more strength-trained you are.

Edited June 3, 2022 by The0Self

[BlueOak]

As has been said. Throw out the chart if you do bodybuilding, it's only going to make you depressed. I used to torment myself with it.

Now I would just go for a run and make sure I can do the miles.

[BipolarGrowth]

Most coaches these days are recommending a 200-500 calorie surplus for optimal muscle gain without gaining an unnecessary amount of fat. I would question if you’ve really been eating 1,000 calories per day though. It is very easy to underestimate calories, even if you are trying to track everything. Foods often have more calories than they say. Make sure to track all condiments, oils, butter, etc if you want accurate numbers.

[thisintegrated]

BMI means little.  Every pro bodybuilder is morbidly obese according to BMI.

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

BMI means little.  Every pro bodybuilder is morbidly obese according to BMI.

BMI > MBTI 

[StarStruck]

BMI never claimed to be a standard for all people.  It is a standard for the average of humanity with normal height and weight. In any case 1000 cal per day is not healthy for your weight with or without taking BMI in consideration. Sooner than later it will take its toll. 

[Michael569]

9 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

BMI means little.  Every pro bodybuilder is morbidly obese according to BMI.

actually once you exclude the people for whom BMI is not a reliable marker (extreme athletes & pregnant women), BMI is actually a pretty robust marker of disease risk (especially CVD, diabetes & cancer as well as malnutrition driven conditions). It is nearly as reliable as waist:hip ratio and then taken together BMI & Waist:Hip ratio are pretty darn accurate predictors of disease mortality. 

And bear in mind that most people are NOT extreme athletes or super muscular so BMI is actually pretty reliable. Both extremes (underweight & overweight) come with their own risks and knowing where one is, does actually help to predict a particular disease pattern. 

I've seen obese people say hat BMI does not mean anything where in reality in their case those number mean a lot 

[undeather]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

actually once you exclude the people for whom BMI is not a reliable marker (extreme athletes & pregnant women), BMI is actually a pretty robust marker of disease risk (especially CVD, diabetes & cancer as well as malnutrition driven conditions). It is nearly as reliable as waist:hip ratio and then taken together BMI & Waist:Hip ratio are pretty darn accurate predictors of disease mortality. 

And bear in mind that most people are NOT extreme athletes or super muscular so BMI is actually pretty reliable. Both extremes (underweight & overweight) come with their own risks and knowing where one is, does actually help to predict a particular disease pattern. 

I've seen obese people say hat BMI does not mean anything where in reality in their case those number mean a lot 

[The0Self]

3 hours ago, Michael569 said:

I've seen obese people say hat BMI does not mean anything where in reality in their case those number mean a lot

Yeah BMI is good for correlating with and predicting all cause mortality and whatnot... so basically just estimating damages. But for daily caloric needs it doesn't tell you much -- that has a lot to do with muscle mass, daily activity level, and variables that pretty much collectively overshadow BMI.

[thisintegrated]

14 hours ago, Michael569 said:

actually once you exclude the people for whom BMI is not a reliable marker (extreme athletes & pregnant women), BMI is actually a pretty robust marker of disease risk (especially CVD, diabetes & cancer as well as malnutrition driven conditions). It is nearly as reliable as waist:hip ratio and then taken together BMI & Waist:Hip ratio are pretty darn accurate predictors of disease mortality. 

And bear in mind that most people are NOT extreme athletes or super muscular so BMI is actually pretty reliable. Both extremes (underweight & overweight) come with their own risks and knowing where one is, does actually help to predict a particular disease pattern. 

I've seen obese people say hat BMI does not mean anything where in reality in their case those number mean a lot 

Everyone has naturally different testosterone levels, different genetics, and different lifestyles.  BMI is absolutely unable to account for any these differences.  But yes, if you don't care about accuracy, it's fine for the average person at pointing out any obvious health risks.

[MarkKol]

On 6/4/2022 at 1:14 AM, BipolarGrowth said:

Foods often have more calories than they say

Well that's good news

[Michael569]

@thisintegrated we are generally more similar than we are different and in disease modality and lifestyle outcomes, genetics play very very little role unless we are talking about extremes like ApoE4. 

Genetic tendencies can get silenced or mitigated by lifestyle, diet and body composition (e.g. obesity) and one of factors that can exacerbate genetic predisposition is having BMI over a recommended limit.

All in all when you look at large population epidemiological data, BMI is a very significant factor where most doctors do not even consider genetic testing unless everything else has been excluded because of how little significance it carries.

In terms of testosterone and disease outcome levels, most guys are somewhere in range of "normal" and at those levels there is probably very little contribution to anything negative. Chronically low testosterone levels are caused by inborn condition such as hypogonadism which needs to be permanently medicated unfortunately. 

Some natural practitioners tend to focus on things like generics and environmental exposure as MAJOR disease risk factors where those are really 2% at best compared to other major factors for which BMI is relevant. 

Many concepts in allopathy are frowned upon but most of the disease risk estimation methods are pretty darn accurate for 95% of the population compared to certain test protocols in natural medicine that are notoriously inaccurate and hard to interpret such as irridology or some of the TMS methods