Bottom end of ideal weight looks a load of rubbish to me
woodhouse_j2
Posts: 20 Member
I am 6ft 6" and only recently started dieting and monitoring what i eat. Looking on charts and graphs and the little print out I get off the scales in boots every week my ideal weight should by between 11.5-15.5 stone. When i started i was 20st 3lbs and now down to a straight 18st which just brings me out of the obese range. If someone said to me now would you like to be 11.5 stone not having to do any work, operations or risks i would say no would i hell. 11.5 stone at my height i would look like a twig. I would be more than happy to lose a couple more stone and try hold my weight around 16st. Does anyone else think these charts are a load of tosh? I know they are correct but i would prefer to be just over my ideal weight than look like a rake.
0
Replies
-
Those charts have a huge range (especially when you're tall) to take into account variation in lean muscle mass and frame size. My sister is at the bottom end our our range (we're 5'8") and looks fine as she has a delicate build. The more weight I loose I'm finding that I'm far more muscular and thicker (wider shoulders and hips) so it's unlikely I'd hit her weight.
It's there as a guide, not gospel.0 -
lol I have the opposite problem. As a 6'1" guy some have freaked out about my 170 lb goal, saying I already look a healthy weight (most of this was when i was 190, right at the healthy/overweight line). I am like no sorry, you don't have to look at my paunch and man-breasts in the mirror which continue to persist at this weight. When I get down to the 140's (healty/underweight line at my height) we can talk.0
-
Andy Murray is a couple of inches shorter and 13st5 or so. Get below 14 and see how you look and feel.0
-
I'm 6'6.5" tall...Started at 278 pounds now 218 which if my calculations are right is 15 stone 8lbs. I'm in the upper end of the healthy range. I agree at the lower end of the BMI chart I would be a stick. I still need to lose 2 inches around my hips so I can buy off the rack at regular stores losing more weight I would look to gaunt.0
-
might be why many places advise 20-25 as the healthy weight range .. but there are reasons some people (height / frame / musculature) would be happier at the lower end of healthy bmi range
also it takes a while to adjust to how you look so when you hit your goal weight you may not actually feel ready
I doubt just being able to get into regular sizes at regular stores would mean that losing more would make you gaunt to be honest .. because regular sizes go up to fairly obese proportions .. unless of course you're professional bodybuilder type0 -
Remember, this is just a chart, guide, reference. It doesn't take into account bone structure or muscle mass. You have to get to where you're happy with yourself.0
-
Wow it's almost like everyones body is a bit different and those charts are a guide range or something wow doesn't that just blow your mind man wow deep so deep man0
-
At 230 lb and 6'4 my partner laughed at the thought of being within the " normal" BMI range. He said he would be too skinny.
3 years later and maintaining at 198-205, just within the upper range of the "normal" range, and he can't believe that he thought 230 lb was a reasonable weight for him.
It takes a while to adjust, so work your way down and pause when you are at a weight that you think is comfortable, then re assess after a few weeks.
I agree, being tall, or short, can make one a little wary of the BMI recommendations.
( I am very petite and at the bottom of my BMI range, but look fine)
Cheers, h.0 -
As a ppl said, it's going to depend on frame size. I am 5'8" and have a small frame (ring size 3.75) so the bottom of the scale is where I look normal. Closer to the top? I'd look overweight. That's why it's a range.0
-
As a ppl said, it's going to depend on frame size. I am 5'8" and have a small frame (ring size 3.75) so the bottom of the scale is where I look normal. Closer to the top? I'd look overweight. That's why it's a range.
also 5'8 and I look best around 24
absolutely an individual thing0 -
BMI is garbage.
Go look up the method by which it was devised, and you'll see why the ranges are so low. It doesn't apply to any normal population of people. Additionally, most studies that have addressed the topic have found that individuals in the 'overweight' category enjoy higher levels of overall health and better morality rates.
Obviously people will fall along the spectrum, but not everyone will be their healthiest in the 'healthy' category.
About a year ago, at my lowest, I was 198 (just under the top of my range at 6'3") and around 13% bf. That's a sustainable bf for me, but I was too lean at that weight. I'm shooting for 12% at 210 for long term maintenance.0 -
Thanks for all the comments some really appreciate it, not been using the forums long but they are fantastic for throwing your thoughts out and getting feedback.0
-
accidentalpancake wrote: »BMI is garbage.
Go look up the method by which it was devised, and you'll see why the ranges are so low. It doesn't apply to any normal population of people. Additionally, most studies that have addressed the topic have found that individuals in the 'overweight' category enjoy higher levels of overall health and better morality rates.
Obviously people will fall along the spectrum, but not everyone will be their healthiest in the 'healthy' category.
About a year ago, at my lowest, I was 198 (just under the top of my range at 6'3") and around 13% bf. That's a sustainable bf for me, but I was too lean at that weight. I'm shooting for 12% at 210 for long term maintenance.
err.. did you mistype
because it does apply to Populations of people .. that's the point
it doesn't apply to individuals as well0 -
BMI isn't reasonable, imo, for outliers.
I'm 6'9" and if I were at the lower end of normal, Ichabod Crane would point and laugh at me.0 -
My healthy range goes from 57 kg or something like that. I'm 180 cm and once lost weight to 68 kg and I looked sick.
I just use BMI for fun, to celebrate that I'm out of the overweight range (yes, taking every chance to celebrate, lol), but I don't take it seriously. I go by how I feel and look.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »BMI is garbage.
Go look up the method by which it was devised, and you'll see why the ranges are so low. It doesn't apply to any normal population of people. Additionally, most studies that have addressed the topic have found that individuals in the 'overweight' category enjoy higher levels of overall health and better morality rates.
Obviously people will fall along the spectrum, but not everyone will be their healthiest in the 'healthy' category.
About a year ago, at my lowest, I was 198 (just under the top of my range at 6'3") and around 13% bf. That's a sustainable bf for me, but I was too lean at that weight. I'm shooting for 12% at 210 for long term maintenance.
err.. did you mistype
because it does apply to Populations of people .. that's the point
it doesn't apply to individuals as well
It's a poor measure at any unit of analysis. As I said, go look up the history and you'll see how flawed it is.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »BMI is garbage.
Go look up the method by which it was devised, and you'll see why the ranges are so low. It doesn't apply to any normal population of people. Additionally, most studies that have addressed the topic have found that individuals in the 'overweight' category enjoy higher levels of overall health and better morality rates.
Obviously people will fall along the spectrum, but not everyone will be their healthiest in the 'healthy' category.
About a year ago, at my lowest, I was 198 (just under the top of my range at 6'3") and around 13% bf. That's a sustainable bf for me, but I was too lean at that weight. I'm shooting for 12% at 210 for long term maintenance.
Hrm... perhaps I should gain a bit...
I feel that my morals have slipped somewhat in the past few years...0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »BMI isn't reasonable, imo, for outliers.
I'm 6'9" and if I were at the lower end of normal, Ichabod Crane would point and laugh at me.
The problem is that everyone - especially on weight loss boards - believes that they are an outlier.0 -
Well, OP is 6'6" and I'm 6'9". I'm gonna go out on a limb and say three standard deviations from the mean qualifies as being an outlier.DeguelloTex wrote: »BMI isn't reasonable, imo, for outliers.
I'm 6'9" and if I were at the lower end of normal, Ichabod Crane would point and laugh at me.
The problem is that everyone - especially on weight loss boards - believes that they are an outlier.
If "everyone" wants to believe they're abnormally tall or muscular, that's on them more than the metric.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions