If, according to the Newcastle Diet, I'm supposed to bring my BMI down by ten points in two months—taking me from a high of 34 to a more reasonable 24 (which is the uppermost end of normal; 25 is overweight)—then for my frame, according to the charts, I have to get down to 80 kg. Part of me believes this is unfair and unreasonable because I think stopping at 90 kg ought to be enough. That's what I weighed by the time I left Switzerland, and I looked quite trim at the time, if not exactly ripped. But part of me thinks I've become so flabby since college that, if I really want to tighten things up, I need to lose as much fat as possible. That means setting 80 kg (176.4 lbs.) as my ultimate goal. I imagine I'd be skinny as a rail at that weight, perhaps reminiscent of Alton Brown when he lost all of his weight and reappeared on the Food Network as a terrifying, deeply wrinkled, hollow-cheeked, animated skeleton—a mere echo of the Alton Brown he used to be. I can't even remember when I might have weighed 80 kg; perhaps back in high school, given how much weight I gained in college.
Despite having lost 50 pounds in two months, I'm still hamster-cheeked, double-chinned, man-boobed, and fat-assed, so I probably do have another 20 kg to go. A further 20-kg loss would put me at 85.5 kg—close to 80 kg, but not enough to bump me down into the "normal BMI" category. I'd still have to go another 5.5 kg. Well, if I need to lose another 25.5 kg, then I guess, so be it. But I'll celebrate when I hit 90 kg all the same. Switzerland weight!
Do you think BMI is an accurate measure of health and fitness? That low-end range of "normal" seems almost anorexic to me.
ReplyDelete