I've always had a great metabolism and never have had any weight problems. I'm 6' 165lbs and very healthy having actively played multiple sports in high school. My sister is 5'6" 135lbs. She's 16, and has gained 10-15lbs since the start of 2013. I know its not too bad yet, but its a dangerous road and I don't want to look up and see her gain another 15lbs in half a year. My mother and her go round and round about eating healthy, but to no avail. I'd like to somehow motivate her without offending her. She's a girl so she is already somewhat lacking in self confidence, and I'm scared to death that she will succumb to an eating disorder if my mother or I push her to lose weight..

 

Any thoughts?

There's probably nothing you can do to motivate her. She has to be the one driven to change and she has to come to that conclusion on her own... Which means things will probably have to get worse if they're ever going to get better.

 

It sucks helplessly watching your loved ones make stupid decisions but you've just gotta hope that someday they'll learn.

 

At least she's not your wife :lol:

You've already lectured her on healthy eating so you can rule out ignorance. How much exercise does she do, and does she enjoy exercise generally?

 

EDIT: Just to be clear, I wasn't going to follow this on with "Tell her to do exercise"

Edited June 6, 201313 yr by Ginger_Warrior

Don't try to motivate her.

Don't call her fat.

Don't tell her to eat better.

Don't tell her to exercise more.

 

As a family, try to eat healthier and exercise more. Don't do anything to single her out, just try to eat fewer fats and carbs with dinner, stop buying junk food, and eat more fruits and vegetables.

I suppose a couple thoughts occur to me.

 

I'm just going to go with Hedgehog on this. don't single someone out, or you'll cause them to instinctively become defensive, which is counter productive. From my own experience (though my issue is the opposite. If I eat badly, I lose the ability to absorb any nutrients at all), the best thing you can probably do to help is clear the house of food that doesn't fall into whatever you are aiming for. That is, make it harder to eat poorly by reducing the availability of the unhealthy food, to give her own self control a helping hand without insulting her.

put mousetraps in kitchen, all around fridges, cabinets w/food inside, food preparation areas. lots of mousetraps, a ridiculous amount.

 

buy a park, fence it off with really high walls. lure her there every morning under false pretenses. lock her in. tell her that in this park there are stray cats with meals tied to their backs with twine and duct tape.

 

she catches the cats she can eat the food. after 1.5 hours have passed, let her out. the food she brings out w/her is all she is allowed to eat for the rest of the day. she is not to be allowed in until the same time the next day. repeat.

 

you're welcome

I'd agree with don't single her out or try to push anything on her.

Clear the house of unhealthy and snack food in general would help nudge her in the right direction. Maybe try some fun days out hiking or biking or w/e.

 

But overall I'd say other than that just leave her be, if she's fine and happy as she is it isn't your place to make her change, lecturing her and forcing it on her would just make her unhappy and give her body confidence issues because YOU are making her feel like she is ugly or there is something wrong. Ultimately, afterall, it doesn't matter as long as she is happy with herself.

I'd agree with don't single her out or try to push anything on her.

Clear the house of unhealthy and snack food in general would help nudge her in the right direction. Maybe try some fun days out hiking or biking or w/e.

 

But overall I'd say other than that just leave her be, if she's fine and happy as she is it isn't your place to make her change, lecturing her and forcing it on her would just make her unhappy and give her body confidence issues because YOU are making her feel like she is ugly or there is something wrong. Ultimately, afterall, it doesn't matter as long as she is happy with herself.

Well... it does matter in terms of body image if she's uncomfortable about being overweight, which is why I was trying to ask about her perceptions on exercise and her body in my last post. Also, being overweight is linked to a whole load of chronic illnesses; the causal relationship is very well established by now.

 

I agree that lecturing is not the way to do it because that would harm her self-esteem, although part of any intervention is to inform about the consequences of being overweight and allow people to make their own minds and to explore their own perceptions around food, weight and exercise.

So pretty much just do what I can to help her out without letting her know I'm trying to help her out?

5'6 135 is totally healthy, at least weight to height. Like someone said, if everyone around her starts eating healthier, she will too.

It's a BMI of 21.7. As said, it's not black and white, but BMI > 20 wouldn't be defined as healthy.

BMI is an awful measure for these things. The guy who invented it even said it is only useful for mass studies and not individual users.

It ignores too many factors such as fat:muscle ratio and general frame size variations.

Unless you are perfectly average it will give you false results; it will accuse small framed people of being underweight when they are fine and larger frames or muscular people of being overweight or even obese when they are perfectly fine.

 

Sure use it as a loose measure, but taking it to literally is just a bad bad idea. If I followed BMI I'd have to be dangerously underweight to even get into the middle of the 'healthy' range.

BMI is an awful measure for these things. The guy who invented it even said it is only useful for mass studies and not individual users.

It ignores too many factors such as fat:muscle ratio and general frame size variations.

Unless you are perfectly average it will give you false results; it will accuse small framed people of being underweight when they are fine and larger frames or muscular people of being overweight or even obese when they are perfectly fine.

 

Sure use it as a lose measure, but taking it to literally is just a bad bad idea. If I followed BMI I'd have to be dangerously underweight to even get into the middle of the 'healthy' range.

 

Yeah like for being 6' 2" it has me as almost overweight, which I know in reality I am not even close (my guess would be I'm ~13% body fat), so BMI, isn't really the best thing.

 

 

Personally, I'd say if you have a good relationship with her try to include her in activities you do whether that be hiking, playing soccer, going on runs, etc etc you'll build companionship (which is always nice to have later on and stuff) as well as give her a taste and development of the enjoying exercise.

Again, for 5'6", 135lbs is fine. I wish I weighed that much (same height). However, healthy habits go far. Get rid of all the junk food in the house as noted above, and take the time to look at what a serving size of something actually is. A lot of foods are alright in moderation, and you only need one serving of said food item to enjoy it. Although this is less of an issue, check to see if you have low-fat or skim milk in the fridge and switch to it if you don't. Same thing with cheese and yogurt, they still taste the same and have the same good stuff in them, just less of the bad. Cut out sugared drinks, regular pop, that kind of stuff. Try to get more chicken/white meat (although chicken's generally better than pork) into your diet rather than red meats and processed meats.

 

Something I kind of thought of was to take her to a professional sporting event of something she admires/enjoys. Perhaps you can get her back into or into it to begin with by taking a look at their awesomeness and striving to be like them. Even if it's something uncommon like ice hockey, do it, and encourage her to play and support her in it. Really, weight isn't the issue here, and likely won't be, if you get her into something she enjoys doing and provide an example and support at home for healthy eating.

18.5-24.9 is healthy.

 

Outside of that not only should you step in I would say you are obligated to

No you're right, my brain's frazzled after a long and stressful day writing assignments. I know the BMI limits off-by-heart usually but for whatever reason at that moment I recalled 20 as overweight and 25 as obese.

 

Yeah 21.7 is perfectly fine. It's 18 to 25.

BMI is an awful measure for these things. The guy who invented it even said it is only useful for mass studies and not individual users.

It ignores too many factors such as fat:muscle ratio and general frame size variations.

Unless you are perfectly average it will give you false results; it will accuse small framed people of being underweight when they are fine and larger frames or muscular people of being overweight or even obese when they are perfectly fine.

 

Sure use it as a loose measure, but taking it to literally is just a bad bad idea. If I followed BMI I'd have to be dangerously underweight to even get into the middle of the 'healthy' range.

It's not really meant to be used in a strict or diagnostic way, and it allows for professional discretion so factors like fat:muscle ratios and bone mass can be taken into account. The tool is still very much useful, though; for the vast majority of people is still remains the most accurate way to predict someone's chances of developing weight-related illnesses and diseases.

 

If you have a measure which is better at predicting the risks of morbidity in overweight patients, please feel free to post one with evidence of its improved accuracy over the BMI model.

The simplest and best measure is simply a body fat measurement which can be done to a decent degree of accuracy with a basic pair of callipers that you can get for pennies. BMI is by no means the most accurate, fat % beats it by miles, BMIs one use for more accuracy on an individual level is only to then plug into a BMR calculation to work out calorie intake.

 

It's better than BMI as rather than assuming you are perfectly average it measures your actual body fat % and from that you can accurately say if there is too much or too little fat. It's the method most gyms use if you have a personal trainer doing intensive planned schemes, its a method body builders etc use too. I'm fairly sure it's even the measurement of choice in medicine too when doing a proper evaluation of such things.

The simplest and best measure is simply a body fat measurement which can be done to a decent degree of accuracy with a basic pair of callipers that you can get for pennies. BMI is by no means the most accurate, fat % beats it by miles, BMIs one use for more accuracy on an individual level is only to then plug into a BMR calculation to work out calorie intake.

Says who? Accurate at measuring what? Fat % or morbidity?

Well to best predict the risk of illness associated with excess body fat measuring the actual percentage of body fat is the best method because it shares a direct correlation in being the thing you need to know about.

 

BMI as a measurement is just estimating body fat on the presumption you have an average build and an average muscle mass therefore meaning any excess weight = fat.

Measuring actual body fat bypasses this and flat out gives the body fat % which can just as easily be compared to what is healthy or not.

 

There's even nice handy tables comparing fat% to age to show the ranges, much the same as you get for BMI (when you go beyond a plain calculator to at least factor in age)

http://files.builtlean.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Ideal-Body-Fat-Percentage-Chart2.jpg

 

Risk of chronic illness due to being overweight is directly related to excess body fat (opposed to simply being heavier, as muscle mass doesn't do you no harm), body fat % measures this exact factor.

Invite her to do things with you that involve exercise. Even a 30 minute walk somewhere is good.

Here's a revelation. Tell her the truth. Sure, she may not appreciate it at first but it beats sugar coating what you really want to say.

Here's a revelation. Tell her the truth. Sure, she may not appreciate it at first but it beats sugar coating what you really want to say.

 

...because telling someone you think they are fat and may get chronic illnesses because of it won't at all risk causing potential depression, body dysmorphia, self-hatred, confidence reductions or any other number of mental issues that could lead to eating disorders, withdrawal from the family or even suicide.

Well to best predict the risk of illness associated with excess body fat measuring the actual percentage of body fat is the best method because it shares a direct correlation in being the thing you need to know about.

BMI fails to distinguish between lean/muscle mass and fat mass, I agree, but it does still correlate with body fat percentage (BF%), albeit unreliably. Some half of BF%-defined obesity cases are missed by BMI. However, what isn't clear from any quick literature search I perform is any evidence that body composition measurements are any better at diagnosing overweight or obesity, which is what I was actually asking you for. Although what you say about body composition measurement is intuitive and sounds logical, the scientific evidence for it is not strong enough to say it's definitely better than BMI as a measurement towards diagnosing obesity, and more studies need to be performed before claiming it's a better measurement.

International Journal of Obesity[/i]. 32 (2008) 959–966']Despite the good correlation between BMI and BF%, BMI failed to discriminate between BF% and lean mass. The diagnostic accuracy of BMI in detecting obesity is limited, particularly for individuals in the intermediate BMI ranges, in men and in the elderly. Direct but simple measures of body fatness and measures of body fat distribution may be helpful in such individuals to further stratify them according to their level of body fatness. Future studies to determine if body composition measurements predict obesity-related risk better than does BMI, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio or other measures of body fat distribution are necessary.

 

In any case, what we seem to be dealing with here is someone who has a perfectly healthy weight by all conventional measures, and the influence of puberty should be considered for any fluctuations in BMI or BF% before jumping to conclusions in the first place. It's a wise idea to eat healthier foods anyway, but that should be within the scope of eating healthily, which carries its own benefits in addition to weight loss.

If you want a lower BMI - grow taller. :XD:

5'6" 135lbs?

 

That's gorgeous provided she's rocking at least a 34B cup.

 

Just tell her to get into yoga.

Well to best predict the risk of illness associated with excess body fat measuring the actual percentage of body fat is the best method because it shares a direct correlation in being the thing you need to know about.

BMI fails to distinguish between lean/muscle mass and fat mass, I agree, but it does still correlate with body fat percentage (BF%), albeit unreliably. Some half of BF%-defined obesity cases are missed by BMI. However, what isn't clear from any quick literature search I perform is any evidence that body composition measurements are any better at diagnosing overweight or obesity, which is what I was actually asking you for. Although what you say about body composition measurement is intuitive and sounds logical, the scientific evidence for it is not strong enough to say it's definitely better than BMI as a measurement towards diagnosing obesity, and more studies need to be performed before claiming it's a better measurement.

International Journal of Obesity[/i]. 32 (2008) 959–966']Despite the good correlation between BMI and BF%, BMI failed to discriminate between BF% and lean mass. The diagnostic accuracy of BMI in detecting obesity is limited, particularly for individuals in the intermediate BMI ranges, in men and in the elderly. Direct but simple measures of body fatness and measures of body fat distribution may be helpful in such individuals to further stratify them according to their level of body fatness. Future studies to determine if body composition measurements predict obesity-related risk better than does BMI, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio or other measures of body fat distribution are necessary.

 

In any case, what we seem to be dealing with here is someone who has a perfectly healthy weight by all conventional measures, and the influence of puberty should be considered for any fluctuations in BMI or BF% before jumping to conclusions in the first place. It's a wise idea to eat healthier foods anyway, but that should be within the scope of eating healthily, which carries its own benefits in addition to weight loss.

 

I don't see how you can question body fat % as a measure of obesity.

Sure if may not of been heavily studied, but that's because it'd probably be a waste of resources to do so; studying whether body fat % correlates to illness caused by excess body fat would be about as productive as studying if people get dehydrated when denied liquids.

Obsesity = high body fat.

BMI = measurement of body fat by comparing height to weight assuming all other factors are average.

Body fat % = measurement of the actual fat that is there regardless of variations in muscle and frame.

 

It is testing the exact same thing BMI is, but is focused on what actually exists in your body than how your height:weight ratio compares to that of a perfectly 'average' person.

 

You only have to look at real numbers to see it as blindly obvious, personally my body fat % is in the mid-low 20s (perfectly average) yet BMI insists I am skirting the border of overweight and obese.

 

By all means if someone is perfectly average use BMI on them, but for most of us it gives anything but accurate results; the one linked earlier in this thread isn't even a good example of a BMI calc (like most online) because it fails to account for age, a factor that greatly shifts expected body fat levels and, perhaps even worse, it has no womens' mode. Women are expected to have a good ~10% or so more body fat than men because of their breasts being perfectly healthy, but primarily composed of fat.