Healthy weight: My definition or theirs

kamarismom

Hello everyone,

At my highest weight I was 374 pounds. I am current 298. My personal weight loss goal has always been 220 or 180 (I can't decide which) however according to the outdated BMI system I should be 141. My question is the weight loss goal that you have chosen is it based on your personal preferences or your BMI?

sophie7591

The BMI calculators usually give you a range. Mine is 135-170. I don't ever plan to be 135 lbs at 5 feet 10 inches. Thats just going too far down for me. I'm 247 right now and my last goal is about 180 ish

estherdragonbat

It's BMI for now, but as I get closer to goal, I'm going to discuss it with my doctor. I can't remember a time when I was at an ideal weight. Granted, in high school, we were talking about 30 extra pounds instead of the 124 I'm trying to shed now, but bottom line: I don't know where in the 'healthy BMI range' my ideal weight falls or if it should fall there. Right now, I've still got about 61 and a half pounds to go until I hit 130 (140 is the top of the healthy BMI for a 5'3" woman) and until I get to about 145, there's nothing to discuss; I'm going to keep going. But at 145, I'll talk to my doctor/ask if he'd recommend a specialist if he's unsure and go with what's recommended.

kamarismom

sophie7591 wrote: »

The BMI calculators usually give you a range. Mine is 135-170. I don't ever plan to be 135 lbs at 5 feet 10 inches. Thats just going too far down for me. I'm 247 right now and my last goal is about 180 ish

I know I dont plan to get down to 141. I think I will judge based on how I look and feel since everyone carries weight differently. Good luck getting to your goal.

Ready2Rock206

Mine. The BMI charts suggestions for me are ridiculous and just not going to happen. It would be a full time endeavor with 100% of my time spent on focusing on my weight to even get there let alone maintain such a low body weight. I'd rather enjoy my life and still be at a healthy weight but not so low that it has to be all I can do in life.

cwolfman13

kamarismom wrote: »

Hello everyone,

At my highest weight I was 374 pounds. I am current 298. My personal weight loss goal has always been 220 or 180 (I can't decide which) however according to the outdated BMI system I should be 141. My question is the weight loss goal that you have chosen is it based on your personal preferences or your BMI?

BMI is a range, not a specific number. It's also not really outdated, most people are going to fall somewhere in that range unless they have above average muscle mass if they're at a healthy BF%...it's always good to look at it in conjunction with BF%.

ETA: Even with a decent amount of muscle mass, most people will still be pretty close to the top end unless they are a body builder or something. My typical maintenance has been around 180 as a 5'10" male which is about 6 Lbs over my top end BMI but I'm around 15% BF at that weight which isn't super lean, but it's a healthy BF%...but very slightly over weight by BMI.

Someone who is obese by BMI standards but at a healthy BF% would be fairly rare.

TavistockToad

How tall are you OP?

BusyRaeNOTBusty

Really no reason to decide that now. Use 220. When you get there you can decide what you want to do.

court_alacarte

i'm 5'5" and 155 (just a couple of hairs into the overweight category), and honestly when i see that i'm 139.9, i'll be happy, haha.

i've worked with a personal trainer once who wanted me down to 118. i don't think i could have sustained that, even in high school!

jemhh

My initial goal was to get to the top of the healthy BMI range for my height. After that, I go by how I look in the mirror.

That being said, BMI was created based on populations. If your BMI is above or below the healthy range, you have a higher risk for certain diseases/medical conditions. A little bit of variance either way isn't likely a big deal, especially if you are a bit over due to something like being more muscular than average. However, if the top of your healthy range is 141, you're probably around 5'3". A goal of 180 would still have you in the obese range, which is unhealthy no matter how you try to frame it.

kathleennf

So- mine has been a moving target. Initially my goal was to get down to about 155 (the "top" of my normal range for height) but when I got there I was not satisfied. I bumped my goal down progressively, but then realized my problem was not weight but lost muscle mass. So, I started strength training with a goal of getting my % body fat down to 25%. I am there now, and working on strength training but basically happy with where I am. I think you should set a reasonable goal, and then when you get there make another decision.

everher

I wouldn't worry about goal weight right now if I were you.

I started out needing to lose 61 pounds to get to the top of the BMI range for a woman of my height. The idea of losing 61 pounds was overwhelming. I cannot imagine how overwhelming it must be for people who have more to lose.

I took it a pound at a time and I'm still taking it a pound at a time 40 pounds later. I'm 21 pounds away from my original goal weight - the top of the BMI range, but now I would like to get about mid-range. Some days, I think I would like to get lower, but I'm taking it a pound at a time a day at a time. I'll know I've lost enough weight when I've lost enough weight.

kamarismom

Ready2Rock206 wrote: »

Mine. The BMI charts suggestions for me are ridiculous and just not going to happen. It would be a full time endeavor with 100% of my time spent on focusing on my weight to even get there let alone maintain such a low body weight. I'd rather enjoy my life and still be at a healthy weight but not so low that it has to be all I can do in life.

I agree with you completely

stephanieturner0122

BMI calculators actually give you a lot of leeway for extra weight. The only time someone would possibly be higher than the recommendation BMI and still be in a healthy range would be if they were an extreme muscle builder. That describes a tiny fraction of people.

kamarismom

cwolfman13 wrote: »

kamarismom wrote: »

Hello everyone,

At my highest weight I was 374 pounds. I am current 298. My personal weight loss goal has always been 220 or 180 (I can't decide which) however according to the outdated BMI system I should be 141. My question is the weight loss goal that you have chosen is it based on your personal preferences or your BMI?

BMI is a range, not a specific number. It's also not really outdated, most people are going to fall somewhere in that range unless they have above average muscle mass if they're at a healthy BF%...it's always good to look at it in conjunction with BF%.

ETA: Even with a decent amount of muscle mass, most people will still be pretty close to the top end unless they are a body builder or something. My typical maintenance has been around 180 as a 5'10" male which is about 6 Lbs over my top end BMI but I'm around 15% BF at that weight which isn't super lean, but it's a healthy BF%...but very slightly over weight by BMI.

Someone who is obese by BMI standards but at a healthy BF% would be fairly rare.

My range is 114-141 as I am 5'5. I was using an app that gave me the specific 141 number as my target.

kamarismom

TavistockToad wrote: »

How tall are you OP?

I'm 5'5

LotusCass

court_alacarte wrote: »

i'm 5'5" and 155 (just a couple of hairs into the overweight category), and honestly when i see that i'm 139.9, i'll be happy, haha.

i've worked with a personal trainer once who wanted me down to 118. i don't think i could have sustained that, even in high school!

You're the same height & weight as me with the same aim. I'll be so thrilled when I get below 140.

Paschen81

I agree... I don't think BMI takes unto consideration for chest size. According to BMI I should be between 150 and 170 but when I didn't eat but maybe 400 calories a day and you could see my ribs and hip bones quite clearly I weighed 180... So how could I get down to anything lower without looking like a walking corpse?

SuzySunshine99

Maybe it just seems like being in a healthy BMI range is undoable at the moment. It might be good to stick with your current goal for now, and when you reach that, you can re-evaluate if you want to keep going.

I changed my goal weight numerous times. I am now maintaining my weight right smack in the middle of the healthy BMI range for my height. I still enjoy life, and maintaining my weight does not consume my life.

collectingblues

OP, I suspect that you've simply been obese for so long that you can't picture yourself at a "healthy" weight. So yes, of course that 140 is going to look small to you -- it's quite literally half your size. But don't discount it as not being a reasonable end goal when you're currently at the other end of the spectrum.

I'm only an inch shorter than you, and your "goal" is more than 20 pounds than I was at my heaviest. Just because you don't like the idea of the work involved getting to 140 (or even 149 -- the highest "normal" weight for 5'5") doesn't mean that it's not reasonable. For me, being "super obese" wouldn't be reasonable.

BMI has its issues, but are you seriously that muscular that you could justify being another 30 pounds overweight? Have you had body fat percentages done to know that you're that highly muscular?

Which "unreasonable" would you rather have?

amtyrell

You are at least 78 lbs from goal. Why not work on that and worry about final number after.
My current weight is 189 my goal 174 for top of bmi but ideal should be 140 ish but I intend to worry about that once I hit 174.

kamarismom

Paschen81 wrote: »

I agree... I don't think BMI takes unto consideration for chest size. According to BMI I should be between 150 and 170 but when I didn't eat but maybe 400 calories a day and you could see my ribs and hip bones quite clearly I weighed 180... So how could I get down to anything lower without looking like a walking corpse?

That's what I worry about, not everyone carries 140lb the same way. I never desired to be that weight but I'm being told I need to be, to be considered "healthy"

VintageFeline

I'm 5'5, the upper end of the BMI is 149lbs. I'm currently aiming for about 140.

I started at 220lbs. My goal then was to comfortably get into my old clothes. As I got close to that I decided I was selling myself short and so now I have an aesthetic goal that will largely be dictated by what's in the mirror.

BMI is a perfectly good range for most people and especially women who would really struggle for the most part, to have enough muscle mass to be a huge outlier and well into the overweight range never mind obese.

allyphoe

Neither, really. I'm still a couple pounds above BMI 25, which was my initial arbitrary goal. I'm happy with my appearance at this weight, but have a medical issue that might improve with additional fat loss, so I'm going to slowly lose additional fat to see if it does. My personal preference goals at this point are all fitness related. I'd like to be able to run and swim farther and faster, to lift heavier weights, and to maintain flexibility. I'm not yet to the point where those three goals start to become mutually exclusive, and all of them are compatible with gradual fat loss. My body fat percentage is high enough that I'll lose weight along the way, but weight loss is not my primary goal, if that makes sense.

Paschen81

TeacupsAndToning wrote: »

At some point the fat loss would have evened out. I doubt that it would've gone so far as the bolded, but I do understand that during the weight loss process it can be difficult when the fat isn't coming off where you want it to.

This was when I was in high school and not fat by any means... No... I wish I could that small again... Ok maybe not quite that small maybe 4 years later from that when I could afford to eat regularly and had a job where I was heavily active pushing and pulling 500 pound carts for 8 hrs per day and running stairs for another 3 hrs per day. I was 220 and looked amazing and strong... Yeah that's my goal to get to... Even if I stay a I/J chest

jenilla1

collectingblues wrote: »

OP, I suspect that you've simply been obese for so long that you can't picture yourself at a "healthy" weight. So yes, of course that 140 is going to look small to you -- it's quite literally half your size. But don't discount it as not being a reasonable end goal when you're currently at the other end of the spectrum...

I agree with the above statement, and I think it's true for a lot of people who aren't used to being at a healthy weight.

OP, shoot for closer to 180, rather than 220. At 5'5", 180 is still overweight, but it's healthier than 220, and it's totally reasonable for you to achieve. If you get to 180 and feel like you can keep on going, then that's cool. If not, you'll still be fairly close. I think you can do this! Don't sell yourself short!

SusanMFindlay

stephanieturner0122 wrote: »

BMI calculators actually give you a lot of leeway for extra weight. The only time someone would possibly be higher than the recommendation BMI and still be in a healthy range would be if they were an extreme muscle builder. That describes a tiny fraction of people.

If you're not tall and have neither broad shoulders nor long torso, this is the case. People who "belong" in the lower half of the BMI range have a lot of leeway for extra weight. Unfortunately, they tend to assume that's true for everyone else and it isn't.

Height matters because of a flaw in how BMI is calculated. It divides mass (which is a function of volume which is a function of height cubed) by height squared. Well, when you divide height cubed by height squared, the number gets bigger as height gets bigger. There is *nothing* that can be done to change that; it's just plain math.

The numbers chosen as categories for "healthy" were the numbers for men of average height - mostly in the 5'6 to 5'10 range. People shorter than that can expect lower BMIs just because of their height. They even extended the bottom of the healthy range downward from 20 to 18.5 to accommodate short women. People significantly taller than that can expect higher BMIs just because of their height. If they're fine boned and don't have much muscle mass, they'll still be in the "healthy range". But many tall men who are reasonably active find themselves at healthy bodyfat percentages several "points" into the "overweight" range and would be underweight in the lower half of the "healthy" range. So, no, those men don't have any leeway for extra weight.

The range is a range for a reason. There's not one "best weight" for everyone with leeway built in to allow everyone to be a bit heavier and still fit into the normal category. Instead, there's a range within which most people's "best weight" falls. But if your "best weight" falls near the top, you have ZERO leeway. Which wouldn't matter if insurance companies weren't so hung up on relatively meaningless numbers. (Bodyfat percentage would be a more meaningful number for them to use, but would cost more for them to obtain. The only reason they prefer BMI is because it's cheap and easy.)

kamarismom

collectingblues wrote: »

OP, I suspect that you've simply been obese for so long that you can't picture yourself at a "healthy" weight. So yes, of course that 140 is going to look small to you -- it's quite literally half your size. But don't discount it as not being a reasonable end goal when you're currently at the other end of the spectrum.

I'm only an inch shorter than you, and your "goal" is more than 20 pounds than I was at my heaviest. Just because you don't like the idea of the work involved getting to 140 (or even 149 -- the highest "normal" weight for 5'5") doesn't mean that it's not reasonable. For me, being "super obese" wouldn't be reasonable.

BMI has its issues, but are you seriously that muscular that you could justify being another 30 pounds overweight? Have you had body fat percentages done to know that you're that highly muscular?

Which "unreasonable" would you rather have?

I never said I didn't want to do the work or that is was unreasonable. I have lost 75lbs already on my own with no problems. The thing is why goes that have to be my goal. My desire is not to be 140lb. If that's what I wanted i would go for it an achieve however there are people who want to lose weight who don t necessarily want to get down to the low or high end of their target healthy BMI spectrum. My question simply ask who did you choose your personal goal

cwolfman13

kamarismom wrote: »

Paschen81 wrote: »

I agree... I don't think BMI takes unto consideration for chest size. According to BMI I should be between 150 and 170 but when I didn't eat but maybe 400 calories a day and you could see my ribs and hip bones quite clearly I weighed 180... So how could I get down to anything lower without looking like a walking corpse?

That's what I worry about, not everyone carries 140lb the same way. I never desired to be that weight but I'm being told I need to be, to be considered "healthy"

Being outside of the range doesn't necessarily mean you aren't healthy...it means that you're statistically at greater risk for a number of health problems. At your height, at 180 Lbs you would still be considered obese on the BMI scale.

My $.02 is that at the moment, you're putting the cart before the horse. Target smaller goals and it will help make things a bit less daunting.

JeromeBarry1

I chose my goal weight of 160 lb because it was in the middle of the "healthy" BMI for a man of my height. I most recently had that weight 44 years ago. At the time of that choosing, I weighed 272.4, and had held near that weight for 15 years after losing from somewhere above 300 in Y2K. Today, nearly 17 months later, I weigh 170.2. I'm wearing 'Medium' garments, 34" pants and 14.5" shirts. I'm still trying to get to 160. My torso/belly is still saggy and seems to have remaining subcutaneous fat. My body fat ratio was measured hydrostatically a few days ago at 14.3%. I figure that if I lose another 10 lb I'll be close to 10% body fat and that'll be ok with me. My goal range is probably going to be 150-170 lb just because it's so darned easy for me to gain 8 pounds in a day and almost as easy to drop them in 4 days. We're all a work in progress and our opinions of our satisfaction with ourselves are perpetually subject to change.

OP, would you mind telling us what your definition of 'Healthy weight' is?

kamarismom

cwolfman13 wrote: »

kamarismom wrote: »

Paschen81 wrote: »

I agree... I don't think BMI takes unto consideration for chest size. According to BMI I should be between 150 and 170 but when I didn't eat but maybe 400 calories a day and you could see my ribs and hip bones quite clearly I weighed 180... So how could I get down to anything lower without looking like a walking corpse?

That's what I worry about, not everyone carries 140lb the same way. I never desired to be that weight but I'm being told I need to be, to be considered "healthy"

Being outside of the range doesn't necessarily mean you aren't healthy...it means that you're statistically at greater risk for a number of health problems. At your height, at 180 Lbs you would still be considered obese on the BMI scale.

My $.02 is that at the moment, you're putting the cart before the horse. Target smaller goals and it will help make things a bit less daunting.

I do have smaller goals, I actually just conquered one which was getting out of the 300s. I typically have small goals of 10 to 20 pounds but I want to have an idea of what I am working towards