Lemmens formula

[mikyman]

i have recently changed GP and was called in for a review. When I got the results they mentioned the Lemmens Formula,which I had never heard of.
I weigh just under 15 st .around 14 st 12 0n a good day. This super new formula has my ideal weight as 67kgs ,or 10 st 9lbs.
Its been a long while since i was that weight and a 'suggestion' that I loose a third of my body weight seems frankly ludicrous.
Thoughts please.

[number2]

How tall are you? Do you carry a lot of muscle?

If 10st 9lb is an 'ideal' weight I'd guess you were perhaps in the region of 5' 8"?

In my layman's view, unless you're carrying decent muscle or are naturally very broad, 15st is a reasonable weight at about 6' 3"+.

Lots of variables to consider.

I've not googled Lemmens formula.

[Fast and Spurious]

mikyman said:

i have recently changed GP and was called in for a review. When I got the results they mentioned the Lemmens Formula,which I had never heard of.
I weigh just under 15 st .around 14 st 12 0n a good day. This super new formula has my ideal weight as 67kgs ,or 10 st 9lbs.
Its been a long while since i was that weight and a 'suggestion' that I loose a third of my body weight seems frankly ludicrous.
Thoughts please.

Lose.

[silentbrown]

Ideal Body Weight (kg) = 22 x height^2 (meter)

That's an IDEAL weight for your height. The "Healthy" BMI range is pretty wide, so he may quoted this scarily low figure to frighten you into some lifestyle changes. 15st and 5'8 is firmly in the 'obese' range.

Edited by silentbrown on Monday 11th November 22:54

[EmailAddress]

mikyman said:

I weigh just under 15 st .around 14 st 12 0n a good day.

The fact you've worded it like this suggests you're a chunky bd.

So unless your a prop, can out-wrestle a bear, or out-cardio a cyclist...

Then you need to jog on.

[Fast and Spurious]

EmailAddress said:

mikyman said:

I weigh just under 15 st .around 14 st 12 0n a good day.

The fact you've worded it like this suggests you're a chunky bd.

So unless your a prop, can out-wrestle a bear, or out-cardio a cyclist...

Then you need to jog on.

Indeed, a good day measured by having had a 4lb st?

[Badda]

mikyman said:

i have recently changed GP and was called in for a review. When I got the results they mentioned the Lemmens Formula,which I had never heard of.
I weigh just under 15 st .around 14 st 12 0n a good day. This super new formula has my ideal weight as 67kgs ,or 10 st 9lbs.
Its been a long while since i was that weight and a 'suggestion' that I loose a third of my body weight seems frankly ludicrous.
Thoughts please.

I work you out to be 5’9.

Using the normal bmi calculator, you have a BMI of 31 and are therefore technically obese. Maybe the gp has a point?

[mikyman]

Yes,i'm slightly larger than I would like,around a stone off would be fine. I have a heavy build,but the rest of his tests show i'm reasonably fit for 77 years old.
If it was meant to scare me then it's had the opposite effect,just a good laugh.
There seem to be quite a few blokes on here who are just as heavy or more.
What I can't understand is that if it is such a good measure of weight and he is American why isn't it more successful in the USA?

[mikyman]

Fast and Spurious said:

Indeed, a good day measured by having had a 4lb st?

Thanks for your crude reply to what I thought was a serious question. The standard of discussion on here has truly reached rock bottom. You are obviously wafer thin!

[Badda]

mikyman said:

Yes,i'm slightly larger than I would like,around a stone off would be fine. I have a heavy build,but the rest of his tests show i'm reasonably fit for 77 years old.
If it was meant to scare me then it's had the opposite effect,just a good laugh.
There seem to be quite a few blokes on here who are just as heavy or more.
What I can't understand is that if it is such a good measure of weight and he is American why isn't it more successful in the USA?

How can it be successful? It’s a measurement not a weight loss technique.
Weird that you find it funny, I guess that’s the problem nowadays, people just don’t care about their weight because everyone else is so overweight.

[LeftmostAardvark]

Formula seems to have the same mathematical problem as BMI. How can a measure with a squared function accurately measure a volume with three dimensions (which is what the human body is)?

BMI (and I guess this formula, which I hadn’t heard about) is probably pretty good at measuring those with an average height. As soon as you get towards outliers though, it seems way off. Probably why all the international rugby teams are considered obese, whereas if they were average height, they probably wouldn’t.

I’m in a similar boat, I’m 5’11 (and currently losing weight hard due to a need to reset my lifestyle before it kills me), but my 32inch waist weight is still 14st, at which I look almost too thin, yet that is still considered overweight.

[Brainpox]

Badda said:

How can it be successful? It’s a measurement not a weight loss technique.
Weird that you find it funny, I guess that’s the problem nowadays, people just don’t care about their weight because everyone else is so overweight.

There’s always someone bigger, which makes it easier to brush off being obese.

[oddman]

The journey to accepting one is overweight is illustrated on these pages time and time again by the cycle of

Denial
Anger
Bargaining and (rarely)
Acceptance

leading to the relentless arguments that surround BMI.

It's a model (maybe useful but not true) and there are clearly outliers. Professional rugby players would be healthy at 25+. Smoking could help you stay in the 'healthy' range - that's not sensible. However for all its faults, it has been used for population studies into weight and health outcomes and applies to the general population rather than individuals. Whether you choose to act on the information is a personal choice but anyone saying the science doesn't apply to them suggests a lack of acceptance and readiness for change.

If the OP is 77 then it's likely that he has considerably less lean mass than he had in his 30s and although he may not notice that his silhouette has changed much, his body composition will have. Approaching 9th decade with excess weight and reduced muscle bulk is inviting premature invalidity.

[Badda]

LeftmostAardvark said:

Formula seems to have the same mathematical problem as BMI. How can a measure with a squared function accurately measure a volume with three dimensions (which is what the human body is)?

BMI (and I guess this formula, which I hadn’t heard about) is probably pretty good at measuring those with an average height. As soon as you get towards outliers though, it seems way off. Probably why all the international rugby teams are considered obese, whereas if they were average height, they probably wouldn’t.

I’m in a similar boat, I’m 5’11 (and currently losing weight hard due to a need to reset my lifestyle before it kills me), but my 32inch waist weight is still 14st, at which I look almost too thin, yet that is still considered overweight.

BMI is flawed, mainly because it doesn't take muscle mass into consideration - this is why professional rugby players are considered obese. However, the public have jumped onto this and think it also excuses their obesity because they used to play rugby at school 20 years ago and are still a large build. Incorrect, their large build is predominantly fat and therefore the BMI is probably correct.

Your last statement is contradictory - on the one hand you accept your lifestyle has been poor and you need to lose weight, on the other you sound as though you saying you disagree that your current weight is too high. Without knowing your level of exercise and lean body mass it's impossible to say of course but I doubt you fit into the professional rugby player BMI area if your weight has caused severe weight issues prior to now.

As myself and others have observed, we are currently in an obesity epidemic where it's understandably easy to be stone or two overweight and feel slim compared to the people around you.

[mikyman]

I seem to have opened the proverbial 'can of worms' on here with such self righteous comments. Perhaps some of you should apply for the soon to be vacant position of Arch of Canterbury!
Yes i'm aware that i carry a modicome of excess fat ,but to be given a formula that indicates i should loose a third of my total body weight is frankly ludicrous and puts into question all these BMI calculations. i will work in my own way to loose approx half a stone and leave the American calculations to the USA,where it's an obvoius success.

[EmailAddress]

Less typing, more walking chubby

[oddman]

Badda said:

BMI is flawed, mainly because it doesn't take muscle mass into consideration - this is why professional rugby players are considered obese. However, the public have jumped onto this and think it also excuses their obesity because they used to play rugby at school 20 years ago and are still a large build. Incorrect, their large build is predominantly fat and therefore the BMI is probably correct.

I think a fair amount of weight and BMI denialism is men hanging on to a fixed idea of what their body composition was at the peak of their sporting careers. Fact is they were probably never comparable to a pro. This fantasy is maintained long after people give up sport. If you continue sport you are forced to face the inevitable loss of performance despite training into old age you are under no illusions that excess weight is a hindrance.

Badda said:

As myself and others have observed, we are currently in an obesity epidemic where it's understandably easy to be stone or two overweight and feel slim compared to the people around you.

I'm from the generation that when we were changing for swimming at school all of us had visible ribs and most of our belly buttons were flat or 'outies'. Except for the 'fat kid' in the class. Now a kid whose ribs are visible would probably be the exception and considered to be underfed.

Also clothes manufacturers are stealthily increasing their sizes to flatter buyers into thinking they are still a 34" or size 10.

[Fast and Spurious]

LeftmostAardvark said:

Formula seems to have the same mathematical problem as BMI. How can a measure with a squared function accurately measure a volume with three dimensions (which is what the human body is)?
.

Because that's how humans are!. The taller we are, the (comparatively) slimmer we should be.
It's really not difficult to grasp.

[Terminator X]

mikyman said:

Fast and Spurious said:

Indeed, a good day measured by having had a 4lb st?

Thanks for your crude reply to what I thought was a serious question. The standard of discussion on here has truly reached rock bottom. You are obviously wafer thin!

This is PH, everyone is a well built company Director at peak fitness and bang on their BMI

TX.

[LeftmostAardvark]

Badda said:

Your last statement is contradictory - on the one hand you accept your lifestyle has been poor and you need to lose weight, on the other you sound as though you saying you disagree that your current weight is too high.

No, I was saying that when I was last at what I considered a healthy weight (before the weight gain that I’m working on now), that weight (14st) came with a 32” waist (and the trousers were loose on me at that), yet it still worked out at a BMI of 27.5.