How to gain weight successfully?

[PrincessLucy]

Bacon.

 

'Nuff said.

[Alegra]

Some people are just naturally skinny like you As long as you eat healthily there is nothing wrong with your weight. If you are concerned about some underlying issue don't be afraid to go see a doctor

[Kestra15]

BMI is an incredibly flawed system, though, and it really needs to die a fiery death. We shouldn't be using it at all to judge "normal" (since there is no one normal - people naturally range from stick figure to fat).

I got a round of applause in my lectures when I went on a rant about BMI; it is such a bugbear of mine it is unbelievable. I will condense the rant into this though:

 

BMI tries to quantify a four-dimensional being in a two-dimensional density. It's rubbish.

[georgexu94]

Er, I don't understand what you mean by "BMI tries to quantify a four-dimensional being in a two-dimensional density." Could you explain it a bit?

 

But I thank about what SockPuppet Strangler said that we shouldn't use the BMI to judge whether we're healthy or not.

[blah]

I have found that snacks work very well. Not chocolate, things like nuts and fruits. Walking also tends to help, movement and fresh air tend to make people hungry.

 

I can understand when someone wants to gain a little weight, even if they're not underweight. While I think the OPs weight is fine, it won't hurt her to weigh a little more. If she'd feel more comfortable with 3 or 4 kgs more, I think that's okay.

 

I find the badgering from the boyfriend and the mother unneccessary though. So OP, if you only want to gain weight because of them - then do not do it.

[Moonlightelf]

Note about BMI: When using BMI, it first should be noted what sort of person it is used on. The number would actually be misleading on certain people, like bodybuilders. So it really pays off to not look at the BMI number as if it were set to stone, but also what the good old measuring tape says.

However, on good news, last year around January, a professor named Nick Trefethen from University of Oxford has made a new formula for the BMI (here's link), and it is little more accurate.

But I still have to say that it really depends on the person, and BMI result is only a guidance.

 

With that out of the way... moving on to subject.

 

Hisa, I know how that feels (and hi fellow Finlander! =D). I myself am also 159cm and have struggled with gaining weight. And fortunately, I have succeeded with it. I also do a lot of computer-related stuff, as well as play games and draw. And nearly zero exercise here as well.

I was actually under-weight during my last school years, and I didn't really realize it before my mother made me sit beside the table and counted my BMI (on this case, it was good guidance number). It was more or less shocking.

 

My problems with weight got fixed by eating little more and going to my school nurse. It turned out that I ate less due to some personal problems.

 

It was a long journey to get all that mass back, though nowadays I get to hear from my bottom being too "fat" from my mom. Way to go... <.<

 

Either way Hisa, if you'd like to, you can PM me in Finnish and we can discuss about things to further detail to get things started :3

[DarkEternity]

I can't remember a time when I wasn't 49 kg and I haven't checked my weight in years. After seeing this thread, I pulled out the scales and suprise, suprise, I'm still the same weight. I really should do more exercise, though (I do next to none.)

 

Probably not a good idea to try putting on weight, though, because it might put strain on your heart. I think that that's just your natural weight. Best to stay at it, even if that stupid weight index marks you as underweight... despite eating plenty.

In my opinion, all that weight loss/weight gain crap is just an attempt to extort things out of your wallet.

Edited January 20, 2014 by DarkEternity

[Moonlightelf]

Probably not a good idea to try putting on weight, though, because it might put strain on your heart. I think that that's just your natural weight. Best to stay at it, even if that stupid weight index marks you as underweight... despite eating plenty.

Since when just couple kilos of putting on weight to look little more normal and not worry the people close to you with skeleton appearance has put strain on heart?

I put about 10 kilos of weight on me due to being underweight and looking unhealthy (my mom's boss actually asked my mom if I was okay due to my face being pale and showing more bone, after I visited!) I haven't noticed even a bit of difference in my heart, and blood test results actually improved to idealistic results.

 

Besides... skinny people are also more prone to heart diseases just like the over-weight people.

5 health problems caused by being thin

 

And it's important from job perspective as well. Who would actually hire pale and unhealthy-looking skeleton in the first place? I mean, if my mom's boss took a notice of it, surely will some other employers who are smart.

[7Deadly$ins]

A lot of people don't know how to recognize a healthy weight on sight. Lately I've been seeing things that say that most people's idea of what a normal, healthy weight is getting larger all the time. This is part of why parents are often surprised if a doctor brings up their kid being overweight. So I don't think I would personally trust random people to ascertain if I am at a healthy weight or not.

[whitebaron]

Probably not a good idea to try putting on weight, though, because it might put strain on your heart. I think that that's just your natural weight. Best to stay at it, even if that stupid weight index marks you as underweight... despite eating plenty.

there's skinny and there's skeleton. just as some people have trouble losing weight at all, others have trouble gaining weight at all.

 

I would not trust any index, but still, there#s plenty to be said about e.g. men having below 60 kg with over 190cm. I had a schoolmate like that, and he did daily training and still would not gain a single pound.

 

The main factor should be: how do you feel with that weight? How do you feel if you gain or lose weight?

 

Example: I was very perfectly within normal grounds at 185cm/87kg, but I did not feel so well. Now I am at 185/72 and I almost look the same. But I feel a lot better. And I even exercise less (sadly enough, part of training was stuffing to much into me after). SO all I'd ever trust is your personal wellbeing "feeling".

[Kestra15]

Er, I don't understand what you mean by "BMI tries to quantify a four-dimensional being in a two-dimensional density." Could you explain it a bit?

Humans are four-dimensional creatures - as well as the usual 'height/width/depth' we are also subject to time, meaning that to quantify us in any meaningful manner has to take all of those into account.

 

BMI is two-dimensional, expressing your weight as a ratio to your height squared and thus getting a two-dimensional density. It basically assumes the human body is a flat square with all weight evenly distributed throughout.

 

It is a rather pointless approximation.

In my opinion, all that weight loss/weight gain crap is just an attempt to extort things out of your wallet.

There is a very, very valid reason to make sure people are of a healthy weight (and by 'healthy' I mean in the broad terms, i.e. not chronically underweight or massively obese). I'm spending a *lot* of time at the moment nursing patients who are dangerously underweight and it is killing them. I don't mean that figuratively either. They are wasting away, they are more prone to injury, and a mild infection will kill them - and so far this last month, it's happened to several of my patients.

 

Equally obesity is a big problem both short and long term. Chronically obese patients have that additional heart strain, which leads to MIs and deaths. They can obstruct their own airways oh-so-much easier. When they do get ill it is a bugger to look after even their basic personal care because you need six or seven nurses at a time. They remain static and have pressure ulcers across their body, leading to pain, infection and sometimes death. Let alone the damage to their CVS which leads to strokes, heart attacks, leg ulcers, organ failures.

 

'Healthy' to me is where they are out of those risk zones, and it is individual to each person. I'm ~100kg/220lb, at 5'10. I am also rather broad-shouldered, broad hips, with legs that have spent their life being used to ski, cycle and climb mountains. I managed to spend three weeks on Everest and lost only 1kg/2lb, and was considered the strongest walker in the Western group by the Sherpa team (aside from our mountain lead). But there are others my height on whom 100kg looks very bad indeed, because it is almost purely fat. By the BMI scale I need to lose about a third of my weight - but if I did that I can assure you I would be rather unhealthy-thin.

 

I don't mind if someone is a little on the larger side, or if they could do with eating an extra portion of chips at dinner. It's when I can see bones, or when I can't, that I start to worry about their health. And given that I'm a nurse in a country with free national healthcare you can't argue my wish for people to gain/lose weight is motivated by greed, coz I don't get a penny more out of my job if they do or don't diet.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Kestra15

[Moonlightelf]

BMI is two-dimensional, expressing your weight as a ratio to your height squared and thus getting a two-dimensional density. It basically assumes the human body is a flat square with all weight evenly distributed throughout.

Just pointing what I said before.

However, on good news, last year around January, a professor named Nick Trefethen from University of Oxford has made a new formula for the BMI (here's link), and it is little more accurate.

Current formula: BMI = weight(kg)/height(m)^2 = 703*weight(lb)/height(in)^2.

 

The oddity is the appearance of that exponent 2, though our world is three-dimensional. You might think that the exponent should simply be 3, but that doesn't match the data at all. It has been known for a long time that people don't scale in a perfectly linear fashion as they grow. I propose that a better approximation to the actual sizes and shapes of healthy bodies might be given by an exponent of 2.5. So here is the formula I think is worth considering as an alternative to the standard BMI:

 

New formula: BMI = 1.3*weight(kg)/height(m)^2.5 = 5734*weight(lb)/height(in)^2.5

 

The numbers 1.3 and 5734 are designed make the BMI reading unchanged for an adult of average height, which I take to be about 66.5 inches, i.e., 1.69 meters. (The square root of 1.69 is 1.3.)

Like said, it is only little more accurate, though it doesn't still issue the muscle vs fat that effectively. Though reading the whole thing is useful to understand this one further.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Moonlightelf

[georgexu94]

Thank you, Kestra15. Now, I understand it (BMI) way much more, now that you said about that 4-dimension thing.

[Kestra15]

Just pointing what I said before.

Current formula: BMI = weight(kg)/height(m)^2 = 703*weight(lb)/height(in)^2.

 

The oddity is the appearance of that exponent 2, though our world is three-dimensional. You might think that the exponent should simply be 3, but that doesn't match the data at all. It has been known for a long time that people don't scale in a perfectly linear fashion as they grow. I propose that a better approximation to the actual sizes and shapes of healthy bodies might be given by an exponent of 2.5. So here is the formula I think is worth considering as an alternative to the standard BMI:

 

New formula: BMI = 1.3*weight(kg)/height(m)^2.5 = 5734*weight(lb)/height(in)^2.5

 

The numbers 1.3 and 5734 are designed make the BMI reading unchanged for an adult of average height, which I take to be about 66.5 inches, i.e., 1.69 meters. (The square root of 1.69 is 1.3.)

Like said, it is only little more accurate, though it doesn't still issue the muscle vs fat that effectively. Though reading the whole thing is useful to understand this one further.

In some ways it is worse, because instead of a clean two-dimensional change we know have some awkward state between two- and three-dimensional, and therefore still holds the inherent flaws of the old system. Compounded by the fact that they are still using the old system as a focal point for creating the new system.

 

While the Prof. is correct about the issue of fat/muscle density, there is more than just fat and muscle to consider - bones, organs and vessels are also part of the body and make up a certain percentage of our weight, and you can have a change in bone density that is both (un)healthy and of significance. And as pointed out the 1.3 multiple is simply in line with an 'average' height (and bad, bad mathematician for not pointing out *which* average!), while the 2.5 is more a guesstimate than backed up by hard data.

 

However it is, as openly state, a hypothesis that the Prof. accepts needs to be backed up by data in order to demonstrate whether or not it is a more accurate measurement - which is why he's a professor to begin with But ultimately the BMI always has been, and should always be, a guide - certainly when I use it I back up decisions based on BMI with clinical judgement as well. It has to be more than someone coming up as apparently being under/over-weight, they have to *appear* to be over or under, with lifestyle backing up that decision.

 

Thisnew scale would also make it more of a headache for the poor NAs having to do MUST scores every week/admission/transfer with a patient

Edited January 26, 2014 by Kestra15

[Fuzzbucket]

I got a round of applause in my lectures when I went on a rant about BMI; it is such a bugbear of mine it is unbelievable. I will condense the rant into this though:

 

BMI tries to quantify a four-dimensional being in a two-dimensional density. It's rubbish.

I am TOLD (by a doctor, just last week) that BMI has been debunked and now you need to be sure your waist is not more than half your height; if it isn't bigger than that, you are OK. I'm not sure what that one has to say about being too skinny - but I don't think you ARE !

 

And yes, my waist IS more than half my height. Sad, that

Edited January 26, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[Kestra15]

BMI was never bunked, didn't need to be debunked

 

But it is still used across medical work, just we don't put a massive store in it.

[Ytak]

Putting my limited 2 cents in. If your body is staying at that weight, it might be the natural (and possibly) healthy weight you should be at. It's something that you should look into or talk to a doctor about before trying to figure out if you really are underweight. And the truth is, most of the height/weight charts were made well over 30 years ago and might not be accurate anymore. It might be a case of medicine marches on and no one/group has taken the time to conduct an updated study.

[whitebaron]

I got one rather silly advice... Get pregnant. After pregnancy, at least it seems like it, even the women who could eat tons of stuff without gaining an ounce, will struggle to contain their weight.

[Hisa]

I got one rather silly advice... Get pregnant. After pregnancy, at least it seems like it, even the women who could eat tons of stuff without gaining an ounce, will struggle to contain their weight.

hmh, rather not yet and it would be hard to do stuff at school when pregnant :'D

[DustyBelle]

as far as the get pregnant and gain after it is no more accurate than anything else. We are all individuals with differing fames, metabolism and needs.

 

For years my sister was thin. Bones visible but not skeletal. She seemed to be able to eat and drink quite a bit. Around 50 plus she put on weight around her trunk. A few years later and she was down to "normal" where she has stayed since. She is 5'7" but has a small frame. Check your wrist sizeand discover what your bone/body frame is. I have a wrist of 7 1/4 inches. As a child I did ballet bar exercises by the hour determined to become a prima ballerina. after 5 years, I hit 5'8" which was too tall for a prima ballerina. I have immense calves, yuck and very densemuscle tissue. My younger sister has a small to petite frome and her bones were quite evident for years. Anyhow one sister put on weight after having a child, the other lost a bit. I lost weight.

 

Getting pregnant to gain weight would be not a good move although I doubt if the advice giver actually meant for you to do that andit sure wouldn't work for any of our male board members. lol

 

Good luck! Look at yourself and say I look great! I am happy with my weight. I look good in my clothes and am able to physically do the things I want and need to do. If you can do this truthfully, don't worry.

[Melomancer]

By gain weight, if you mean muscle mass or such, can't help you. But If you just want to get fat, I could reccomend the McDonalds Weight gain program that I made up.

[whitebaron]

By gain weight, if you mean muscle mass or such, can't help you. But If you just want to get fat, I could reccomend the McDonalds Weight gain program that I made up.

You'd be astonished how some people could base their diet on cheeseburgers only and never gain as much as an ounce. They-d get sick sooner or later(lack of pretty much everything healthy) but not fat.

[Melomancer]

Seriously? Dayum... That must be hard. But anyway, here's my advice: Eat food high In fat. NOT Sugar. You want to gain weight, not gain diabetes.'

 

[Psyduсk]

Step 1: Steal Acquire a good gaming console and respectively, some games for it.

Step 2: STEAL BUY ALL THE SNACKS!!!

Step 3: Sit on thine rump all day and do nothing but munch highly caloric junk while tapping buttons on a controller.

Step 4: Think disgusting fattening thoughts.

Step 5: ???

Step 6: Fat!

 

 

 

 

...worked for an old friend, it did.

Psyayay... did he ever let himself go...

Edited February 8, 2014 by Psyduсk

[Melomancer]

^ this....