Ideal weight and BMI?
Replies
-
I'm willing to shoulder the inevitable avalanche of Disagrees for saying this, but personally I think the BMI is a very useful measure of weight status. Yes, there are bodybuilders to whom it doesn't apply well, but for the run of the mill person, here's what that simple BMI number tells you:
- > 30: Obese. Time to lose weight, period.
- 25-29.9: Overweight: Might be an acceptable maintenance level on a case by case basis, especially if coming down from an obese weight, but unless you're a muscle-bound athlete, it's still, well, "overweight".
- 18.5 - 24.9: Perfect! Time for maintenance.
- < 18.5: Go eat some food! And not carrot sticks, either. "Food" food.
I started with a BMI of 47 and now it's 36; my quest is to get to that coveted 29.9 and then I'll think about whether I have the mojo for a push to 24.9. It may turn out that 25-29.9 is a good range for me, we'll see. Either way, I do like having that one number as a focal point, and when I go in for a doctor appointment, he's looking at the same number and forming all sorts of judgments based on that, before he even opens the door and greets me, so ... BMI gets everyone on the same page.
If you're familiar with BMI levels, when you read the above paragraph and saw that I started with a BMI of 47, that probably gave you a pretty good sense of my fitness status when I started the journey - no more need be said, and that's the whole point! BMI conveys a lot of information in two little digits. That's why it's so widely used.14 -
The only purpose of a goal weight is to motivate you by giving you a final destination. Some people (myself included) find that unhelpful and don't have a specific goal weight in mind. You are not required to have one. You can simply get going with the weight loss and see where you want to take things after you've lost 15 pounds. If a goal weight is already stressing you out, you're probably better off not worrying about it right now.
^^This. I probably set a goal weight when I signed up six years ago, but I have no idea whether I used my immediate, initial, minimal-recommended-for-health-gains number or a more aspirational number, and I don't know whether I ever went back to change it after I passed the initial, minimum goal I had in my head. These days, not gaining is my main goal, and occasionally I return to a deficit to try to drop a few pounds.
4 -
melissacreary1 wrote: »Hey girl, I could have wrote this exact post myself 6 months ago! I’m 5’9 and weighed 170-180 my entire adult life.. I didn’t love my appearance but settled for where I was at.. just recently I started calorie counting & meal prepping and I managed to get down to 148, whenever I google or try to figure out the typical weight it says I should be at 130-140.. I don’t think I would personally look good at that low of a weight.. I agree with above posters, just lose until you feel happy & comfortable! 💞 good luck on your journey!Hey all! Just looking for some advice.
Currently feeling super intimidated about picking a goal weight. I'm a 5.8ft woman, stuck around 175lbs, which is just in the bottom of the overweight range. I originally set my goal for 160lbs, but after looking at some BMI calculators it seems like the healthiest range is 130-140ish. I'm a very sturdy, heavy set Dutch girl and honestly don't think I've weighed that little since I was 12 (and I was an absolute twig).
I also carry most weight in my lower body, so aside from a little stomach chub and my oversized thighs I have no idea where that extra 40ish lbs is supposed to come from. Won't that be way too thin?
Mostly wondering if body structure changes things or if these numbers are the same for everyone. Is this weight just maybe not obtainable for me? Or am I underestimating myself?
The healthy BMI range is 18.5 to 24.9.
At 5'9, 18.5 is about 125 and 24.9 is 168.5. So the healthy range for your weight is 125 to 168.5, a pretty huge range. 148 is about the mid-point of the range (21.9), and 130-140 is close to the bottom end (19.2 to 20.7).
Thus, I would not trust anything that says that you have to be 130-140, and I don't know where you are getting that, it's not the BMI scale itself.
FWIW, when I run the (IMO totally bogus) "ideal weight" calculators, they usually give numbers in the BMI 20-21 area.
ETA: Saying that's maybe where it comes from. Not advocating it as correct.
That probably explains it. People shouldn't rely on random internet ideal weight numbers, though, as builds vary (I know you agree).4 -
I'm willing to shoulder the inevitable avalanche of Disagrees for saying this, but personally I think the BMI is a very useful measure of weight status. Yes, there are bodybuilders to whom it doesn't apply well, but for the run of the mill person, here's what that simple BMI number tells you:
- > 30: Obese. Time to lose weight, period.
- 25-29.9: Overweight: Might be an acceptable maintenance level on a case by case basis, especially if coming down from an obese weight, but unless you're a muscle-bound athlete, it's still, well, "overweight".
- 18.5 - 24.9: Perfect! Time for maintenance.
- < 18.5: Go eat some food! And not carrot sticks, either. "Food" food.
I started with a BMI of 47 and now it's 36; my quest is to get to that coveted 29.9 and then I'll think about whether I have the mojo for a push to 24.9. It may turn out that 25-29.9 is a good range for me, we'll see. Either way, I do like having that one number as a focal point, and when I go in for a doctor appointment, he's looking at the same number and forming all sorts of judgments based on that, before he even opens the door and greets me, so ... BMI gets everyone on the same page.
^^This! It took me a long time to come to an understanding of exactly what BMI was telling me because there really is a lot of misinformation about it, even from the medical community. One thing I realize now is that it all comes down to risk. Losing weight reduces risk for certain health problems, and many different studies have shown where people with higher weights on average tend to have a great chance of developing health problems than people with normal weights within the BMI range. And BMI is about statistical averages over a large population; its not a hard and fast law by any means.
The real thing to consider is what are your risks of developing health problems (heart disease, diabetes, etc) at your current weight, then look at what the risk is for the normal BMI range and decide if the amount of decreased risk is worth the effort to lose that weight, especially since weight loss has diminishing returns, meaning the smaller you get, the less reduction in risk you get. If you start at 180 lbs and try to get to 160 lbs, the amount of benefit in terms of risk reduction are going to be a lot lower than if you start at 260 lbs and try to get to 160 lbs or even 180 lbs.
It's about quality of life and that's a very individualized thing. Health risks of course diminish quality of life so you want to bring that risk down when you can but lets face it, you can never completely and totally eliminate all risk whatsoever - its really a roll of the dice, and there is a minimum number of dice you can roll! Healthy weight, active people can still develop health problems and die from heart trouble, cancer, etc, its just that statistically, they are far less likely to do so than someone who is obese.
If you come from a family with a bad history of things like heart disease, diabetes, etc, then your genetics alone have increased your risk for these things; you'd want to do what you could to not add to that risk any more than necessary, so you try to keep your weight in a healthy range, but that being said, being a few pounds over the healthy range isn't going to really increase that risk very much.
It's all in what you consider to be acceptable; where is the sweet spot between your risk for health problems versus your quality of life, your desired lifestyle, your appearance, and that's a personal preference.
For what it worth, I'm 5'8" as well, and have no desire to even attempt to get within that 18.5-24.9 range. I started at 375 lbs and have lost 100 lbs so far, and that's already made a huge difference in my risk of developing the health problems that run in my family. I didn't have any of those problems before I lost weight, but I knew that my genetics were predisposing me toward them already, and my body weight was just adding to the chances I get them, so losing weight has already proven to have had a great benefit for me (my doctor is estatic!) I figure anything lower than what I was is definitely better than staying there. I also know myself and my willpower and know how much I've had to fight myself to get to where I am now. I have to ask myself how much do I value continued weight loss versus the battle with my willpower to obtain it, because the less I have to lose, the more difficult its going to get. For me, the pipe-dream goal is 180 lbs; if I can get to less than 220 lbs, I would consider myself a success. And I'm not all that interested in body sculpting, either - I despise intentional work-out programs, so I already know that I don't have the willpower to force myself to do that sort of thing just to get to peak performance; I'm just being honest here. I've got enough battles I have to fight and have learned to pick and choose which ones are really necessary and which ones I consider to have the best value of return for me, and trying to get peak athletic performance just isn't one of those things that are worth it for me. I can be content with being average because that's where I can be happiest; I don't see much value in fighting for the lowest %bf I can get to and muscle definition if I absolutely hate the lifestyle required to get there; life is too short and I already have too many things I have to do because I have to; I want to get some enjoyment out of this brief journey!4 -
I'm willing to shoulder the inevitable avalanche of Disagrees for saying this, but personally I think the BMI is a very useful measure of weight status. Yes, there are bodybuilders to whom it doesn't apply well, but for the run of the mill person, here's what that simple BMI number tells you:
- > 30: Obese. Time to lose weight, period.
- 25-29.9: Overweight: Might be an acceptable maintenance level on a case by case basis, especially if coming down from an obese weight, but unless you're a muscle-bound athlete, it's still, well, "overweight".
- 18.5 - 24.9: Perfect! Time for maintenance.
- < 18.5: Go eat some food! And not carrot sticks, either. "Food" food.
I started with a BMI of 47 and now it's 36; my quest is to get to that coveted 29.9 and then I'll think about whether I have the mojo for a push to 24.9. It may turn out that 25-29.9 is a good range for me, we'll see. Either way, I do like having that one number as a focal point, and when I go in for a doctor appointment, he's looking at the same number and forming all sorts of judgments based on that, before he even opens the door and greets me, so ... BMI gets everyone on the same page.
If you're familiar with BMI levels, when you read the above paragraph and saw that I started with a BMI of 47, that probably gave you a pretty good sense of my fitness status when I started the journey - no more need be said, and that's the whole point! BMI conveys a lot of information in two little digits. That's why it's so widely used.
@lgfrie : I really, really wish people could understand this. I found myself in an argument not too long ago with a co-worker on this very topic. He insisted that BMI was completely wrong and of no use whatsoever because he kept pointing to the outliers like football players, saying that according to the BMI chart, they'd be obese. I couldn't get him to understand that the BMI is useful for over all trends and that of course there are going to be folks who don't fit, but that for the majority of the population, the every day joes like myself and him, its a pretty good rule of thumb to go by; not a hard and fast law by any means, but still a useful, general tool in trying to improve ones health.10 -
I’ll throw my bits of experience in the air, as I’m the same height as OP (5’8). I’ve taken a few InBody body composition tests, which are supposed to be fairly accurate. I have done the test I think three times, and all the results have been consistent with each other. The test gives you an ”ideal” weight which is, instead of BMI, based on what the machine estimates to be your lean mass (muscles, bones, organs etc) and calculating a healthy body fat percentage on top of that. I can’t remember the number by heart and the result papers are in some pile on my desk, but the ideal weight resulted was 5-10lbs above the limit of ”normal” BMI. I like this approach precisely because it accounts for muscles. That’s one way to look at goal-setting and ideal weight.0
-
Why not take your lean mass and add 21 - 25%? A healthy woman aged 21 - 40 should have a fat mass of at least 21%, so...2
-
This content has been removed.
-
HufflepuffGrl9 wrote: »I wish I hadn’t read all the replies; my self esteem took a real hit 😅 now I feel like crap 😞
I've seen your picture!
Your self-esteem can soar!
:flowerforyou:5 -
FoodBodyChanges wrote: »Why not take your lean mass and add 21 - 25%? A healthy woman aged 21 - 40 should have a fat mass of at least 21%, so...
Considering most bodyfat measurement devices are terribly inaccurate how do you determine lean mass?
I'm a male and recently had a Dexa Scan. If I took my lean bodymass result and added 17% to it as a reasonable BF level for a male I would be right in the normal range based on BMI. At least in my case the idea you are putting out works, but I also had what was considered a high level of accuracy bodyfat test to base it on.
I'd think shooting for the normal BMI range would provide a more tangible/realistic target for most people.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
FoodBodyChanges wrote: »Why not take your lean mass and add 21 - 25%? A healthy woman aged 21 - 40 should have a fat mass of at least 21%, so...
And if it's less?
6 -
FoodBodyChanges wrote: »Why not take your lean mass and add 21 - 25%? A healthy woman aged 21 - 40 should have a fat mass of at least 21%, so...
(geek warning!)
Even assuming you know your lean mass (most people don't, and common BIA devices are unreliable), that's not the math for it.
If you know your pounds of lean mass, and want to know what you'd weigh at a specific percent body fat, the formula would be;
(Pounds of lean mass) divided by (100 - desired BF%).
Where the percents are stated in decimal terms, i.e., 20% is 0.20. (The formula is not 1.21 x lean mass to calculate weight at 21% body fat, as the previous post seems to imply.)
For example, let's assume 95 pounds of lean mass, which wouldn't be a totally whacky number for a 5'5" woman like me**.
That means, if I want something between 21% BF to 25% BF, I'd want the lower weight to be 95/(1.0 - 0.21) = 120.3 (rounded), and the upper weight to be 95/(1.0-.25) = 126.7 (rounded).
Just for interest, that would translate to a BMI of 20.0 to 21.1. Or, looking at it another way, if that woman wanted to be at the top of the normal BMI range (with that specific number of pounds of lean mass still), she'd weigh 150 pounds, and have 36.7% body fat. In order to be at 25% body fat at 150lbs, she'd need 112.5 pounds of lean mass. (I suspect that's not terribly common, at 5'5", but I'm just guessing.****)
Normally, it's going to be relatively more feasible to gain body fat at the same lean mass than it is to lose body fat without affecting lean mass (although the latter is less true if the person losing is doing a good job with strength training and nutrition, plus losing slowly).
I'd add that there's plenty of opinion (even quite a range of it among different authorities) about what body fat percentages are "normal" or "healthy" or what-have-you. I'm not sure what the source for 21%-25% is. It's not really out of sync with some of the common recommendations, though.
** (I'm not saying that's how much lean mass a woman my height has or even typically has: That can vary lots by woman. It's just an example within the realm of possibility. You'd use the actual number).
**** Guessing partly based on this 2013 article about female Olympic medalists, across a wide range of sports, where most are of normal BMI:
https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20793992/bmis-of-champions-womens-edition/
I'm thinking they tend to have quite a bit more muscle mass than most of us, though they're probably also quite lean.
For completeness, this is a similar male version:
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20811275/bmis-of-champions-mens-edition/
Even the majority of men are normal BMI, though less so than women.3 -
I had a dexa scan 10/30/19. I am 5’10”, and according to the scan, 158.1 pounds lean mass. According to Ann’s formula, that would put my ideal weight between 200 and 211.
Something’s really wrong! I don’t know if the scan is wrong, I read it wrong, or my math or understanding is wrong. But something is really wrong!
My ideal weight according to how I have looked in the past would probably be less than 140, but figuring in happiness and sustainability, I’d probably be perfectly happy with 170.1 -
It's really going to depend on what type of physique you are looking for...
If you want the most muscle you can (in theory) genetically have @ roughly 10% bf...
You can use a calculator like this one, enter your height and 10% bf, then keep increasing your weight until your ffmi is about 23 to 24... Yeah it's possible to go above this but next to impossible without ped...
https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/ffmi0 -
Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »It's really going to depend on what type of physique you are looking for...
If you want the most muscle you can (in theory) genetically have @ roughly 10% bf...
You can use a calculator like this one, enter your height and 10% bf, then keep increasing your weight until your ffmi is about 23 to 24... Yeah it's possible to go above this but next to impossible without ped...
https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/ffmi
Actually for guys anyway... Here's a better calculator and article to go along with it that gives you your ideal (or rather max) measurements...
Gives you something to shoot for anyway...
https://legionathletics.com/ideal-male-body/0 -
corinasue1143 wrote: »I had a dexa scan 10/30/19. I am 5’10”, and according to the scan, 158.1 pounds lean mass. According to Ann’s formula, that would put my ideal weight between 200 and 211.
Something’s really wrong! I don’t know if the scan is wrong, I read it wrong, or my math or understanding is wrong. But something is really wrong!
My ideal weight according to how I have looked in the past would probably be less than 140, but figuring in happiness and sustainability, I’d probably be perfectly happy with 170.
I should've known I was ripping the top off a can of worms!
Don't worry about it, especially if you're still a ways from goal weight. I was intending to comment purely on the math implied in a previous post, not the practicalities.
(People applying percents weirdly is a pet peeve of mine, and commenting on it is a character fault. Apologies! :flowerforyu: ).
The practicalities boil down to "It's fine to set a weight goal, but don't worry too much about it. As long as you don't have s severely distorted body image, you'll realize it when you're close to a good goal weight, and when you reach that goal weight, you stop trying to lose."
Even then, it doesn't have to be a permanent commitment: You can decide for perfectly good reasons to lose a little more, or gain a little back, if you want to be a different weight. It's not a big deal. (I'm not talking about unplanned gain/loss here, I'm talking about it being OK to change your mind, even months or years down the road.)
In reality, "lean mass" includes a lot of stuff, like bones, muscles, blood, water, and organs. Some of those will necessarily and beneficially shrink as you lose weight. For example, you need less water and blood to supply a smaller body. Keeping it all wouldn't be good. We'd be like overfilled water balloons or something!
There's a likelihood of losing at least a tiny bit of stuff you might want to keep (like muscle) as you lose fat; partly that's because you need less of it to move your smaller body around, and partly it's just a thing that can happen. You can mitigate it to an extent by getting good nutrition, losing at a sensibly moderate rate, and getting strength-challenging exercise along wth a calorie deficit. Once you're doing all the good stuff, there's no reason to worry about that, either (because you've done all you can, right? ).
I mentioned the correct math because someone getting close to goal weight may want to do some estimating of body fat changes, and they should use correct math . . . but it'll still be just an estimate, because bodies don't really work in that tidy linear kind of way.
It's fine to have long-term body fat percent goals, but some reasonable form of testing (like your dexa), repeated periodically as you lose weight, would be the way to keep in touch with progress. Don't let it cause stress. Not worth it.
I also want to add, specifically to the bolded: I don't have a formula for ideal weight. I don't believe there is a simple formula for ideal weight, and maybe not even a complicated one. I don't actually even believe in "ideal weight" as an objective universal concept.
"Ideal" includes a bunch of personal objective variables (like current health conditions, skeletal structure, breast tissue volume for most women, muscularity, etc.) and some other personal subjective ones (appearance preferences, cultural context and expectations, maintainability of the specific weight, and more). In my world, ideal weight is about as real in the concrete, touchable world as is Santa Claus. I don't have a formula for ideal weight, or for Santa Claus.
Discuss your ideal weight with your doctor, not with me, your friends, your family, and especially not with an online calculator.
And apologies, again, for the can of worms.2 -
IMO BMI is simply another tool to use towards your goals. The scale, the mirror, your self-esteem and confidence, your doctor, your overall health....all of it counts towards how you want or need to proceed.
As long as you don't have any mental issues such as body dysmorphia(sp?), you need to find a place where you feel good with yourself.0 -
I wasn’t disagreeing with Ann, rather pointing out the whole premise of starting with lean and adding a percentage is probably too hard to figure, and likely won’t be very accurate, and may change in time, and may not be as easy or as practical as it sounds at first. Maybe that’s why ideal weight calculators don’t use it all the time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions