Healthy weight: My definition or theirs
Options
Replies
-
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"0 -
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.11 -
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.2
-
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
0 -
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!
13 -
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.)
3 -
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 goal3 -
kamarismom 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.14 -
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?4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »kamarismom 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 towards9 -
I'm not kidding myself. BMI serves a very good purpose and that's to tell if someone is in a higher risk group of several diseases, with very few exceptions. Waist circumference also does this.
I had a higher than normal BMI so I made a change and got down to the middle of the range. We all understand it's a range, but let's not kid ourselves that it's unachievable and be happy with ourselves the way we are. That's called enabling.
On the flip side, it is a drastic, life-changing event losing half your weight and make no mistake it changes everything about you. It's a big deal.
Also, something not mentioned, there's such a thing as a "smart BMI", that accounts for age, since we lose muscle mass and gain fat over the years. It gives you a few more pounds.
I should add, if you've got small goals, go for it, you're far more likely to succeed with those than big goals that seem unachievable.5 -
Honestly, no-one says you have to do anything. it's just that the risks statistically associated with being overweight and obese rapidly increase. But it's still your body and your choice.12
-
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.
Me too, I'm also 5'5" and my first goal is to get below 140lb (I'm currently hovering around the 144-146 mark). After that l would love to get to 133, but I haven't seen that number since high school so it won't be easy!0 -
kamarismom wrote: »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
I chose my goal based on past experiences at certain weights. I was low 100's in college being a competitive athlete. As far as I can tell, I have no intention of reaching that level again. Now I'll be happy with 135-140 range. Being lower will be too much work to maintain. I'm muscular and 5'4", so 135-140 will be just about right. I'll still be able to go out to eat and drink alcohol. Without having to kill myself at the gym.
You are thinking the right way, in regards to what will be sustainable for you, but you might change your mind as you lose weight. You don't HAVE to do anything, at the end of the day, do what's best for you. Definitely, work with your doctor when you get closer to 180 and re-evaluate.
Congrats on the 75 pound loss! That's impressive!8 -
I see both sides of this. Losing a lot of weight can really challenge your self-image and not always in a positive way. There is nothing wrong with loving yourself as you are while still working toward your best health. You be you, beautiful! I'd suggest getting to a point where you think you are coming to the end of your journey and have a one on one with a doctor to see what they think about your physical health and risks. If there is one thing I've learned in nursing school, it's that humans exist on a spectrum with variations, but also the norms of measurement are there for a reason, as a guide. Weight loss and loving yourself does not have to be mutually exclusive.
My goal, personally, is to lose 10 to 15lbs, which would put me just outside the high part of my BMI, but when I've gotten lower in the past, I start to lose my breasts and some of my butt and you know what? Hold up. NO. I won't let them go. When I start getting around 160lbs to 170lbs, I do start to worry, however, because my waist size changes and carrying weight around my midsection indicates a higher risk of heart disease, among other things. So it's worth it to me to stay close to, if not perfectly inside of my BMI range.
Hope you're doing well and killing it in the mirror today!5 -
kamarismom wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »kamarismom 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
That's awesome...keep those in focus. My ultimate goal was to be at a healthy BF% which seemed extremely daunting when I was obese...I didn't know what weight I would be on the scale.
I think most people should work towards at least the high end of the BMI scale. BMI is flawed, but it's not outdated and with few exceptions, people who fall outside of their range are statistically at greater risk for a variety of health problems, and there's just no getting around that...though I did spend a bit of time trying to fool myself.7 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »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.)
This analysis is really good and should be read both by those dismissing and those giving supreme power to BMI.
It is just a quick indicative tool to be used with other tools, not at the exclusion of everything else.
That said.
Just pick a reasonable deficit and a reasonable amount to eat.
If you're looking at a couple of years of eating 1200 Calories, yeah, I can see where you might crack.
Figure out what a lightly active, active and very active person who weighted at the the top end of normal bmi for your height would eat in terms of calories.
Depending on how big of a deficit you can afford to create (I would suggest ~25% of you TDEE) just keep eating like that person (in terms of protein, fat, etc).... this will ensure a nice enough loss and you can always adjust things down the road ;-)
You're doing great... keep at it and don't get too hang up about final goals. While rapidly losing weight our brains take a considerable amount of time to catch up to what's happening anyway!5 -
My BMI is 23, but it's just a number. I go more by how i look in the mirror, if i'm still fat, have jiggly bits everywhere then it's obvious i still have more weight to lose.
One thing i would not do however, is settle at a bmi of Obese...
ETA: I'm 5"8 and 148lbs and still have fat to lose, my starting weight was around 180lbs and yes, i was fat at that weight, no amount of wishful thinking or denial will ever change that.6 -
If you're looking at a couple of years of eating 1200 Calories, yeah, I can see where you might crack
1200 to 1400 has been my average for 3 years now... Before that I was on the NS program but didn't do well... Blood sugar kept going into the low 50s. Great concepts I need to reapply some of them and get back on track again.... Depression can be a killer for weight loss with me
1 -
kamarismom wrote: »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
I chose my goal based on past experiences at certain weights. I was low 100's in college being a competitive athlete. As far as I can tell, I have no intention of reaching that level again. Now I'll be happy with 135-140 range. Being lower will be too much work to maintain. I'm muscular and 5'4", so 135-140 will be just about right. I'll still be able to go out to eat and drink alcohol. Without having to kill myself at the gym.
You are thinking the right way, in regards to what will be sustainable for you, but you might change your mind as you lose weight. You don't HAVE to do anything, at the end of the day, do what's best for you. Definitely, work with your doctor when you get closer to 180 and re-evaluate.
Congrats on the 75 pound loss! That's impressive!
Yes I agree, I will work with my doctor once I get closer to my goal. I also believe I will change my find. I believe when I love what I see and how I feel then I will know that I have reached my goal and thank you.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions