Bmi healthy range.

katerinabowler
katerinabowler Posts: 32 Member
edited November 20 in Goal: Maintaining Weight
Im nearly at my goal weight, and I would like to drop 5 more lbs. I am 5'7 and have a tiny frame, but 5 more would put me under 20bmi. Is the bottom of the range 20 or 18.5?

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    It's 18.5

    But as someone who is happiest at 24-25 that seems really weird to me
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    katerinabowler wrote: »
    Im nearly at my goal weight, and I would like to drop 5 more lbs. I am 5'7 and have a tiny frame, but 5 more would put me under 20bmi. Is the bottom of the range 20 or 18.5?

    Sounds like you need to focus on bodyfat not scale weight
  • SugarPlumPixie
    SugarPlumPixie Posts: 7 Member
    My psychiatrist at an Eating Disorders clinic said 18.5 is too low and the bottom is 20. She said 18.5 is only acceptable if you're a teenager.
  • AsISmile
    AsISmile Posts: 1,004 Member
    edited June 2015
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    katerinabowler wrote: »
    Im nearly at my goal weight, and I would like to drop 5 more lbs. I am 5'7 and have a tiny frame, but 5 more would put me under 20bmi. Is the bottom of the range 20 or 18.5?

    Sounds like you need to focus on bodyfat not scale weight

    This. You can totally have a bmi of 20+ but look more toned than someone with an bmi of 18. It is all in the body fat percentage.
    Check out this thread http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat/p1

  • katerinabowler
    katerinabowler Posts: 32 Member
    Thank you. I think the answer is body fat lowering rather than losing more weight. I'm still rather squidgy! I am struggling to find the time (I know, I know... If I want it enough I'll find the time!), it takes a lot less time out of the day to lose weight than build muscle!! Maybe I'll just pick up both the kiddies and do some squats! Thanks for your thoughts
  • SarahHowells1
    SarahHowells1 Posts: 132 Member
    I think 18.5 is fine if you naturally fall to that point (e.g. you are naturally very slender and do not need to diet in order to reach a bmi of 18.5.. for example, many asians are naturally very petite and quite slim), but for *most* people it is probably unhealthy low. I agree with others focus on body fat or fitness performance as opposed to weight/bmi.
  • ExRelaySprinter
    ExRelaySprinter Posts: 874 Member
    katerinabowler wrote: »
    Im nearly at my goal weight, and I would like to drop 5 more lbs. I am 5'7 and have a tiny frame, but 5 more would put me under 20bmi. Is the bottom of the range 20 or 18.5?

    It can depend on your frame size and how muscular you are.
    I'd look very "iffy" at a BMI of 20, let alone 18.5.
    I think i'm OK at 22 or slightly higher.
    Dropping 5 pounds may not make much of a difference in how you look, so you could just be losing more weight for nothing!
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    With the way BMI is calculated, your height makes a significant difference in whether a low BMI is too low or not. Short people can handle a BMI of 18.5 while tall people are more likely to need a BMI nearer the top of the range. Everyone else falls somewhere in between.
  • nxd10
    nxd10 Posts: 4,570 Member
    SugarPlumPixie wrote: »
    My psychiatrist at an Eating Disorders clinic said 18.5 is too low and the bottom is 20. She said 18.5 is only acceptable if you're a teenager.

    My eldest son was always 18 or 18.5 when he was a teenager and looked fine. But it's true, when he got home from the Peace Corps he was 18.5 and I could see every bone in his face and he was obviously too thin. 10 more pounds and he looked much healthier. Especially for women, who have higher fat naturally.

    It's not the 5 POUNDS you want, it's the inches. Exercise. I lost 4" on my waist and 3" on my hips after I stopped losing just by sitting on a pilates ball at work to strengthen my core and walking every day. The same weight can look very different depending on your muscle mass.

  • MamaBirdBoss
    MamaBirdBoss Posts: 1,516 Member
    20 isn't the bottom at all. Since we typically LOSE muscle mass as we age, that would be nonsensical.

    18.5. I can't STAND being above 22. I want to crawl out of my own skin. I stop feeling gross as 21. 18.5 to 20.7 is my happy place.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    IMO ditch BMI as it is a garbage stat and does not account for muscle mass. Last time I checked my BMI it said I was "nearly obese" but I have a about 13-15% body fat, so how does that compute?
  • MamaBirdBoss
    MamaBirdBoss Posts: 1,516 Member
    4gwh29ofz2ua.jpg

    Me at 22.6. UGH. That's to much flab to tone--I've been toned before.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • rhtexasgal
    rhtexasgal Posts: 572 Member
    I am 5'5", 121 pounds and at 19% BMI. I still have some fat in my gut and butt that I am working on but I don't want to go any lower than 19 because my face and neck show this loss more than anywhere else and I would look not so good. I am where I want to be and as long as I can still fit into my size 4 pants, I am not too worried anymore about BMI or anything else.
  • triciab79
    triciab79 Posts: 1,713 Member
    I agree with what everyone is saying here. Working out does take more time but it also gives more energy which can allow you to achieve more in you day. Both of these are a BMI of 21 on me but there is difference in tone.
    5330a7d3-18e9-4a9f-99e4-1162767781c2_zpsyx1j5fqy.jpg
  • terar21
    terar21 Posts: 523 Member
    Yeah...bmi isn't the best way to judge really. I set my original goal based off BMI and quickly discovered that hitting that would just be way too small. I stopped losing before I hit it.

    I also don't see a time difference between my exercise habits for losing versus building muscle. Unless your dieting purely to lose weight and not incorporating any exercise.
  • MamaBirdBoss
    MamaBirdBoss Posts: 1,516 Member
    edited June 2015
    asflatasapancake wrote: »
    I'm overweight according to my BMI. It gives a nice general idea of a healthy body weight, but there are many other factors that tell me that I am more than perfectly healthy.

    You're also a guy. LOL. Girls tend not to bulk as much. When I was doing SERIOUS weightlifting for bulk--full 6 pack abs, etc., gained nearly an inch in my WRISTS, over an inch on my thighs of pure muscle--I had a BMI of ~20.

    You can also see the definition in my forearms and biceps, with everything loose. It's just WAY too much flab to turn into muscle.
  • nxd10
    nxd10 Posts: 4,570 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    IMO ditch BMI as it is a garbage stat and does not account for muscle mass. Last time I checked my BMI it said I was "nearly obese" but I have a about 13-15% body fat, so how does that compute?

    First, it was designed for populations, not individuals. It's not garbage for that.

    And it works fine for people with average muscle mass or less to identify people who are obese or morbidly obese or people who are dangerously thin. If you're at 13-15% body fat you don't need to worry about your weight and certainly not BMI because you obviously don't need it. It's a useful tool within a given range. It's not perfect. Nor is weight.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    nxd10 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    IMO ditch BMI as it is a garbage stat and does not account for muscle mass. Last time I checked my BMI it said I was "nearly obese" but I have a about 13-15% body fat, so how does that compute?

    First, it was designed for populations, not individuals. It's not garbage for that.

    And it works fine for people with average muscle mass or less to identify people who are obese or morbidly obese or people who are dangerously thin. If you're at 13-15% body fat you don't need to worry about your weight and certainly not BMI because you obviously don't need it. It's a useful tool within a given range. It's not perfect. Nor is weight.

    Agree absolutely. Theres no reason for people to get worked up about it.
  • JoeyFrappuccino
    JoeyFrappuccino Posts: 88 Member
    SugarPlumPixie wrote: »
    My psychiatrist at an Eating Disorders clinic said 18.5 is too low and the bottom is 20. She said 18.5 is only acceptable if you're a teenager.

    That seems like advice specifically given to people in recovery from eating disorders, which often differs from conventional knowledge. 18.5 may be too low for people in recovery but it's within the healthy range for populations for a reason. Saying 18.5 is only acceptable for teenagers just sounds like the "Just wait until you hit 30 and your metabolism stops!" cliche we always get from overweight relatives.
  • likehlikeo
    likehlikeo Posts: 185 Member
    I'm at 18 at the moment. I have a rather slender frame with really long limbs. I'm 6 foot 1 inch and I personally do not feel well over 20. I get rolls on my stomach when I bend over and stuff...I like my 18. I was a competitive kayaker when I was younger and always hat this little muscle mass (and I was far from being weak or sick)...I really think it depends on the type of frame.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories