BMI for Weight Loss Goal?
neiltillbrook
Posts: 26 Member
For as long as I can remember I've always been a big guy. The last time I can remember being the same weight as I am now I was 16 years old. In fact, I probably weight a little less now than I did when I was 16.
Now, it doesn't end there. At 14st I feel as though I have more energy, my clothes fit better and, really, I just feel better about myself in general. However, the question is now "How much more am I planning on losing?" The fact is I don't know.
According to my BMI I should be 11st 6lb to be slap-bang in the middle of a healthy weight for a guy who's 30 years old and 6ft tall. But that seems a bit low to me. It means I still have 36lb to lose this year.
I'm not complaining at the amount of weight still to lose, but I'm curious as to how everyone else judges their goal?
Now, it doesn't end there. At 14st I feel as though I have more energy, my clothes fit better and, really, I just feel better about myself in general. However, the question is now "How much more am I planning on losing?" The fact is I don't know.
According to my BMI I should be 11st 6lb to be slap-bang in the middle of a healthy weight for a guy who's 30 years old and 6ft tall. But that seems a bit low to me. It means I still have 36lb to lose this year.
I'm not complaining at the amount of weight still to lose, but I'm curious as to how everyone else judges their goal?
2
Replies
-
I’ll just go until I like what I see. If you’re happy and healthy then I wouldn’t let arbitrary numbers affect your decision.1
-
The people in your life will have a skewed perspective of how you look as it is relative to their experience of you until this point. Just like ourselves, it can be hard to be objective about others and then there's always the possibility of a jealousy factor thrown in.
BMI is a pretty good general aim for range ut it does ultimately come down to a combination of do you like what you see, is your weight impacting you negatively either physically or mentally from a being able to maintain it perspective.
I think most of us head into weight loss thinking we have less to lose than reality and at some point through that journey being surprised at how much your body fat means you can still lose.8 -
My goal is 10 lbs below the top of the BMI range for my height. However, I do intend to sit down with an RD and make sure that this is a good spot for me. (I want to know that normal day-to-day fluctuations will still leave me in the 'normal' range and if I get frustrated with the last couple of pounds and say, "Kitten it; this is good enough," it actually will be.)3
-
There are many considerations that go into a good weight for someone, especially if you've lost a lot to get there.
And the BMI is a range and not because any one individual of a particular height can choose any arbitrary point in that range as their perfect weight; but because the statistical majority of people of a certain height have less health problems if they fall within that range.
For any one individual you could even be overweight or underweight in terms of body fat percentage and individual risk and still fall within the healthy overall range for your height.
All this to say that a midpoint of BMI is no more relevant than the lower end or higher end... and as long as you're within the range you've probably cut down on your risks of health issues and are probably at a fairly normal weight level.
I am much older than you are, of course.
For me, my biggest concern is maintaining my weight loss. And not losing lean mass.
As I got to BMI just below 25 (24.5) it was quite obvious from the dexa scans I was doing at the time that my fat to lean mass ratio had changed and instead of overwhelmingly losing fat (9:1 or more initially) I was losing fat to lean mass at a 2:1 or even worse ratio.
So I've set myself at a very small deficit and most certainly quite often eat above it... and during the past year I've hovered around a BMI of 23.8. while giving myself time to adjust activity and eating from what I thought might be permanent levels while I was losing to what may be more realistic levels moving forward.
Basically I'm saying that you should start expanding your horizon beyond just getting to a healthy BMI and start thinking about more long-term goals.
Hey maybe your goal will be to continue to getting visible abs (due to excess skin issues probably unlikely in my particular case). But remember that the lower you are be more challenging it might be to maintain.
Maybe during your weight loss you've discovered some love for sport or activities that you didn't indulge in in the past.
So your goals maybe to improve those, and then the focus would be removed from pure weight loss.
I also happened to be a believer in setting up multiple defenses against re gain.
In my particular case the move from 25 to sub 24 BMI also moved me from large into medium.
I have a hard time, at times, and a year later, when I look at the mediums believing that I will fit into them when I put them on in the morning! But I can and do. If I ever can't, I think it will serve as a reminder that things are not going according to plan.
In any case tl;dr. Add not weight related goals. Build a framework for long-term success at maintenance. Push forward to where you find yourself comfortable and where your body seems to be willing to go without making it too hard for you to maintain! And if a beach body and abs are a part of that well there you go but if they're not that's fine too!9 -
BMI is a tool used by medical professionals to assess your risk for certain health problems associated with obesity.
It is also used by some medical insurers and employers to determine your eligibilty for medical coverage and/or the rate you should be charged for such coverage.
BMI is NOT designed to determine what weight is a "good" weight for you.
There are some well known deficiencies in BMI (which is simply a standardized measure of the relationship between height and weight) when applied to seniors, body builders and weight lifters and people of certain ethnic groups.
So, BMI may or may not be a useful index to use in determining an individual's weight loss goals.
FWIW, I'm 5'8" and, when I weighed 196, my BMI was 29.8 (just 2/10ths from being categorized as obese). However, even w/o the BMI #, I already knew that I was FAT!
My initial weight loss goal was 165, which at 25.1 was still 2/10ths from being considered "normal" weight.
When I hit 162 at 16% BF, as measured by hydro, my BMI was 24.6 (only 3/10ths w/in the normal range) I was considered normal and healthy by all measures but I still wanted to lose more BF.
Now, I'm at 158 and 10% BF, as measured by hydro, my BMI is still 24 (only 1 pt from overweight) but I'm classified as athletic and among the top 99% of men my age based on BF and LBM.
I'd have to drop my weight to below 125 w/a BMI of 19 to be considered underweight by that measure but at 158 my GF already thinks I look too skinny.
I'd look emaciated at just 145 w/a BMI of 22 which is in the middle of the normal range for someone my height.
So, no, BMI is NOT necessarily a good measure to use to set your weightloss goal.
It is just an indicator of relative weight (and risk for associated health problems) as compared w/others used to standardize the index but, unless forced by your medical insurer or employer to reduce your BMI to w/in the normal range to get affordable medical coverage, you'll have to decide for yourself what the right weight and BMI is for you.4 -
I struggled with this last year. I'd lost the same ~10lbs several times, still not getting below a BMI of 25. So, last year I lostcan extra 10, finally getting just to a BMI of 25. Woo hoo. I've gained a couple of lbs in December, but I should get back there in Jan.
So here's my wisdom: it's not how much you lose, it's how much you keep off. You can get to a particular weight and go on maintenance for a while (keep logging). See how you feel. If you want to lose more, go for it.
PS BMI is an extremely simple formula (weight/height^2 in kg/meter). You really shouldn't make too much of it.1 -
BMI doesn’t correlate well to my frame. It says if I gain 4 more pounds I’ll be overweight- and I’m currently at the weight as my profile pic which isn’t nearing overweight (or I guess not nearing ‘looking’ overweight). I’m healthy and when I’m in the middle of my BMI range my waist doesn’t get smaller or anything- I lose my boobs and my booty (which isn’t there to begin with lol) so it’s definitely not my personal goal weight. Even when I’m a couple pounds heavier, and I’m overweight by BMI standards I still look and feel slim and healthy.
So, use BMI as you will. It’s a great general guideline for many but there are outliers- more than one would think.
Edit: I don’t have any scientific backing or anything about the BMI outlier thing- it’s just my personal experience/perception of BMI and how it applies in real life.3 -
I gradually slowed my weight loss rate as I got lighter, setting provisional goals but not treating them as gospel. As I got closer to a provisional goal (say, 5-10 pounds above it), I found I could feel and see whether I needed to adjust the goal up or down.
As I got really close to what I felt would be my final provisional goal weight, I thought hard about how I'd know I was "there": Feelings or physical appearance characteristics that would be benchmarks telling me I'd reached goal.
These needed to be realistic things, of course, not supermodel perfections! But it was easier to see what was realistic when I knew it was close. By that point, my weight loss was really slow, around half a pound a week, so plenty of time to assess, too.
Finally, I literally woke up one morning, felt/looked in line with those benchmarks, said "I'm there" and started gradually stepping up my calorie consumption to dial in maintenance calorie level.
As long as you don't have a seriously distorted body image, you'll know your goal weight when you get there, and you'll make increasingly good predictions of it as you get close. Trust yourself!2 -
@neiltillbrook Are you sure you used a calculator that differentiated between genders? If I put your stats, 6 foot tall 30 yr old male at 196 lbs, into the calculator on Livestrong.com, I get your BMI to be 21, which is in the middle of the range.
6 -
@neiltillbrook Are you sure you used a calculator that differentiated between genders? If I put your stats, 6 foot tall 30 yr old male at 196 lbs, into the calculator on Livestrong.com, I get your BMI to be 21, which is in the middle of the range.
@Cbean08 - Gender and age are irrelevant to BMI. Using the same calculator you referred to above, I put in stats as a 5'7", 20 year old male at 137 pounds. Shows a BMI of 21.45. Re-entered the stats as a 5'7", 63 year old female at 137 pounds and it showed a BMI of 21.45.
The only factors taken into consideration in standard BMI calculation are height and weight.
@PAV8888 explained the usefulness/application of BMI very well above. It's a metric which is being misused relative to its original intent, but nonetheless can be a reasonable loose ballpark estimate for most people. But it's not a number or range which should be immutably written in stone as the definitive word for everybody under all circumstances at all times.5 -
I second @PAV8888's point about fitness goals.neiltillbrook wrote: »For as long as I can remember I've always been a big guy. The last time I can remember being the same weight as I am now I was 16 years old. In fact, I probably weight a little less now than I did when I was 16.
Now, it doesn't end there. At 14st I feel as though I have more energy, my clothes fit better and, really, I just feel better about myself in general. However, the question is now "How much more am I planning on losing?" The fact is I don't know.
According to my BMI I should be 11st 6lb to be slap-bang in the middle of a healthy weight for a guy who's 30 years old and 6ft tall. But that seems a bit low to me. It means I still have 36lb to lose this year.
I'm not complaining at the amount of weight still to lose, but I'm curious as to how everyone else judges their goal?
Bravo on your great achievement!! I'm very happy for you that you're feeling better about yourself and more energetic. That's so great.
How long did it take you to lose the weight?
What are your plans for maintenance?
A lot of people lose weight too quickly by starving themselves on a fad diet, then can't handle going off their diet, and gain their weight back.
It might be time you focused on losing a little or maintaining your weight while eating the normal food pyramid. The sooner most people learn this, the better in the long term for preventing regaining weight.2 -
The BMI range applies to the majority of the population, if you don’t feel comfortable using it you may also try to use the height to waist ratio approach.4
-
Again: BMI is just weight (in kg) divided by height squared (in square meters). Thus, a person who is 70kg and 1.77 meters in height has a BMI of 22.3.
It is a ridiculously simple formula that doesn't depend on sex, age, % body fat, etc. People have used it for a long time because of its simplicity. But: don't read too much into it, it's more often used for statistical purposes than for advice to any individual. Many athletes would be considered obese based on their BMI.4 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Again: BMI is just weight (in kg) divided by height squared (in square meters). Thus, a person who is 70kg and 1.77 meters in height has a BMI of 22.3.
It is a ridiculously simple formula that doesn't depend on sex, age, % body fat, etc. People have used it for a long time because of its simplicity. But: don't read too much into it, it's more often used for statistical purposes than for advice to any individual. Many athletes would be considered obese based on their BMI.
The majority of the population aren't athletes.
Furthermore, I'm an athlete, and my BMI is 21, low healthy range.
Was that a humble brag, bro?8 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Again: BMI is just weight (in kg) divided by height squared (in square meters). Thus, a person who is 70kg and 1.77 meters in height has a BMI of 22.3.
It is a ridiculously simple formula that doesn't depend on sex, age, % body fat, etc. People have used it for a long time because of its simplicity. But: don't read too much into it, it's more often used for statistical purposes than for advice to any individual. Many athletes would be considered obese based on their BMI.
Uh, not really *many* athletes. Almost no female athletes, and only some male athletes in select sports like rugby would be in the obese range. For vast majority of athletes, and vast majority of non athletes, healthy BMI is an excellent guide, providing a usefully wide range of normal BMI.
6 -
As you have "been a big guy" it's harder for you so maybe do what I did a set an initial goal and then adjust by a few pounds in a series of steps of weight maintenance and weight loss over an extended period of time?
I based my decision on feel, energy levels, performance and looks until I got to the point I was happy.
Since then I've actually gone down and up again deliberately as I've changed (more muscle) and my fitness goals change.
Ignore the twaddle about some athletes being outliers - that's only applicable to those people it doesn't negate that BMI as a population measure with a very wide range is a good guideline for most. Note guideline - not a rule! You also don't have to aim for the middle of the range, BMI isn't kind to me due to my build and a few decades of training so near top of the range suits me.
Yes people (mostly male) who train hard and build muscle may well be genuine outliers but again that only applies to them. That there are true outliers is far too often used by fat people to justify why they stay fat.
1 -
BMI is a height to weight ratio, nothing more. It's useful for statistical averaging in large population studies, but it's use in individual health assessment is, to be blunt, a wide-spread major misapplication.
The truly relevant number with regard to body mass related health risk/status is body fat percentage. If your body fat percentage is in the healthy range, then the question of "ideal" total weight comes down to your lifestyle. What look do you prefer? What activities do you engage in and how does body size affect them?
You can take two guys of the same height, frame size and body fat percentage... let's say 12%. One is a construction worker that frequently needs to lift and carry heavy materials. The other is an avid distance runner who competes in marathons on a regular basis. At the same healthy 12% body fat, the 'ideal' weight for the construction worker will be appreciably higher than for the endurance runner. The construction worker requires a high lean body mass (muscle) to do his job effectively. The distance runner wants to minimize the amount of work (mass x distance) required to get him over the finish line, because a lighter body is easier to move in terms of both speed and stamina.
If the healthy weight range suggested by BMI seems low to you, then for your goals and purposes it may well be. One good way to achieve a general target is to find your current body fat percentage, multiply your weight by that to determine your fat weight, then subtract your fat weight from your total current weight to arrive at lean body mass. From there, choose a body fat percentage within the healthy range that corresponds to how you want to look (lower if you want your musculature more defined, higher if you want to look more 'average'.) Multiply your lean body mass by 1+ your chosen body fat (for 12% you would multiply LBM x 1.12) and this will give you a solid starting goal.
That goal may yet change as you get closer to it. Most people lose some lean mass along with the fat when they lose weight, so it's possible that reaching your starting goal in weight may leave you still a bit high on your body fat goal. You would then have to assess whether to lower your weight further or to pursue body building to raise your lean mass. There's nothing wrong with either approach to achieving that final body fat percentage target.3 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »BMI is a height to weight ratio, nothing more. It's useful for statistical averaging in large population studies, but it's use in individual health assessment is, to be blunt, a wide-spread major misapplication.
So close! It is your weight to height-squared ratio (in MKS units). See above.
Anyway, I agree with your conclusion.
As forUh, not really *many* athletes.
Check this out:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/04/465569465/if-bmi-is-the-test-of-health-many-pro-athletes-would-flunk
4 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »BMI is a height to weight ratio, nothing more. It's useful for statistical averaging in large population studies, but it's use in individual health assessment is, to be blunt, a wide-spread major misapplication.
So close! It is your weight to height-squared ratio (in MKS units). See above.
Anyway, I agree with your conclusion.
As forUh, not really *many* athletes.
Check this out:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/04/465569465/if-bmi-is-the-test-of-health-many-pro-athletes-would-flunk
You might be unaware of the fact that most athletes aren't professional handegg players. I misspelled football to appease our international friends
3 -
I will second everything @PAV8888 said.
With that being said, it's okay to think of goals not so much as endpoints, but as stepping stones. The first goal you set can just be one goal of many you set out to achieve.
So, sure, why not set that "get to a healthy BMI goal", it's fine enough, and meeting some arbitrary goal is self-affirming and feels like an accomplishment, especially for someone who has struggled with weight problems for many years (BTDT myself).
Saying that, a "healthy BMI" is not necessarily a stopping place, as PAV8888 pointed out. It can just be a stepping stone on a life long path on which you now find yourself. Keep going after that. What will your body composition look like at that point? Where will your fitness levels be?
Only a frank self-assessment at every step of the way will keep you focused, and looking forward to progressing to the next stepping stone. None of us ever really arrive at the destination, we just take further steps along the path.4 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »BMI is a height to weight ratio, nothing more. It's useful for statistical averaging in large population studies, but it's use in individual health assessment is, to be blunt, a wide-spread major misapplication.
So close! It is your weight to height-squared ratio (in MKS units). See above.
Anyway, I agree with your conclusion.
As forUh, not really *many* athletes.
Check this out:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/04/465569465/if-bmi-is-the-test-of-health-many-pro-athletes-would-flunk
Any article that uses NFL players as an example for why BMI is inaccurate is an immediate, irrevocable fail. For a few reasons:
1) With the notable exception of the "skill positions", many of them have very high bodyfat levels. Take a good look at the offensive linemen next time a game is on TV and tell me how many of them you think are at/below 20% bodyfat. Defensive linemen and linebackers aren't far behind either.
2) Steroid/PED use is much more prevalent in football than many people (naively) believe, and steroid use allows one to accrue muscle mass well beyond their natural genetic potential.
3) NFL players are the extreme of extreme outliers. Statistically, they represent such a small percentage of the population at large that the percentage is insignificant. They even represent a tiny percentage of college football players, who still represent an infinitesimal percentage of the population at large.
As has been repeated over and over, BMI was originally intended as a tool to compare general populations. Not elite/extreme outliers such as professional bodybuilders or NFL football players.6 -
I'm continually astonished at how few people understand BMI. If you think your heart can tell the difference between carrying 50lbs extra muscle or 50lbs extra fat, then enjoy your heart attack!7
-
purpleannex wrote: »I'm continually astonished at how few people understand BMI. If you think your heart can tell the difference between carrying 50lbs extra muscle or 50lbs extra fat, then enjoy your heart attack!
Do very tall people have shorter lifespans, or better hearts?
I don't have data, but I'm very skeptical that very muscular people (who've not abused dangerous supplements) who have good CV fitness are more likely to have heart attacks than less muscular people with similar CV fitness. Do you have data to support your contention, since you're making the claim?
3 -
-
purpleannex wrote: »
The pounds involved aren't so dramatically different. Fifty pounds of extra muscle? Crazy rare. Fifty pounds of extra fat? Dead common. What characteristics (or lifestyles) typically accompany either one? I even granted equal CV fitness, which is unlikely in reality.
Regardless of that: You made the claim. Support it with something more than a metaphor.
ETA: I'm entirely willing to accept your thesis, even though it's counter to my expectations. I like to learn new things, sincerely.4 -
I am struggling with this myself. My BMI is 26.22 (overweight by ~9 pounds). My waist to height ratio is 43.8 (close to the slender end of healthy. Body fat percentage (caliper method) 24%. Clothes size small except pants size 8 or medium.
I think I look Ok, even good if I dress carefully. I cringe every time I check my newly calculated calorie allotment plunge downward as I lose more weight.
I decided I’ll get my body (ever so slowly) down to the top of my recommended BMI just in case to qualify for an insurance discount or employee health initiative if I ever need to. Further body changes will have to be recomp or bust. I want every piddling calorie I can have. Someone else can enjoy the bikini body a lower BMI may bring. I’ll have a baked potato thank you.4 -
What is the waist to height ratio? And how do you calculate your body fat. I have a scale that supposedly calculates it, but I think it just uses some formula of my weight and height.1
-
I find BMI to be an antiquated method of measuring body fat. It is only based on someone's height and weight and does not take anything else into perspective.
You could be obese according to BMI, yet have a great physique, be under 10% BF and look great.
You can use it as a tool but keep this in mind - If BMI Is The Test Of Health, Many Pro Athletes Would Flunk. Yes, some are overweight but many are muscular and fit and are still considered obese.1 -
jasondwightpowell wrote: »You could be obese according to BMI, yet have a great physique, be under 10% BF and look great.
The flip side to this is that one can also be "healthy" according to BMI but have an unhealthy body fat percentage due to a low Lean Body Mass. This is actually even more common than the "obese" athlete, especially among older people.
Aside from the fact that BMI is proxy data and doesn't actually measure anything with a direct impact on health, there's also a flaw in the formula that causes it to scale incorrectly with height. Tall people are more prone to flag as "overweight" when at a healthy body composition, and lean short people are more likely to show as underweight, in comparison to those in the average height range.
When BMI is used in large population studies, as intended, the height scaling flaw tends to balance out and doesn't drastically skew the overall results, because those types of studies deal with averages, and the average person is... average. (The math flaw does become apparent in certain populations, such as Tongans and Samoans, because aside from tending toward heavier builds in general, the average height for those peoples is greater than the global average.)
0 -
neiltillbrook wrote: »For as long as I can remember I've always been a big guy. The last time I can remember being the same weight as I am now I was 16 years old. In fact, I probably weight a little less now than I did when I was 16.
Now, it doesn't end there. At 14st I feel as though I have more energy, my clothes fit better and, really, I just feel better about myself in general. However, the question is now "How much more am I planning on losing?" The fact is I don't know.
According to my BMI I should be 11st 6lb to be slap-bang in the middle of a healthy weight for a guy who's 30 years old and 6ft tall. But that seems a bit low to me. It means I still have 36lb to lose this year.
I'm not complaining at the amount of weight still to lose, but I'm curious as to how everyone else judges their goal?
The high end of BMI is a decent enough starting point. For myself, my typical maintenance weight is about 180 Lbs at 5'10" which is about 6 Lbs over weight as per BMI, but it's pretty irrelevant because at that weight I'm at a perfectly healthy 12-15% BF.
Really though, this is something you access and re-access along the way...I personally take a lot more stock in my body composition and the way I look in the mirror and BF% than I do a particular number on the scale.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions