Anyone Else "Overweight" on the BMI Chart but Healthy, Active, Happy and not Really "Overweight"

My current goal weight is just inside a healthy BMI, but if I get within a dozen pounds and feel happy there, I won't think twice about it. I think of BMI as one of several helpful indications of health. Like any sort of broad guideline, it's going to be useful for most people, but that doesn't mean that it's the only indicator that matters, or that your only options are "healthy" and "unhealthy." In addition to BMI, I think it's worth considering waist-to-height ratio, daily exercise, lab results (ie. cholesterol, sodium, etc), balanced diet, and mental health. If you're doing pretty well or working on improving each of those, I think you're doing pretty good even if you don't hit all of your targets right on the nose.

BMI isn't perfect by any means, more of just a guideline. If you feel great, I wouldn't worry about trying to strike the middle of of the "Healthy" BMI for your height and sex.

On the other hand, don't sell yourself short if you think you cannot physically get to a "Healthy BMI". Everyone is capable of losing more weight if they have the determination and persistence to do it. It all comes down to calories in, calories out and accuracy is key. Being "super active" is not enough.

I'm personally 5'7" and my starting weight was 165lbs and I felt huge. I'm currently at 140lbs with an ultimate goal of 130lbs. I'm also a pear shape. Everybody (and every body) is different!

I'm barely almost 5' and my ultimate goal weight is 145, but that will only get me into the middle of the 'overweight' BMI category. I believe I will perfectly fine with that. I've been eating 1200 plus exercise since August. To maintain 145 at my height would give me 1400 calories, so to lose .5# a week, I'd have to eat 1150 calories. I've no desire to eat under 1200 calories for the rest of my life just to get in a BMI normal range chart. No Thank You. When I reach 145, I will go into maintenance and exercise. If I lose at that point I lose, if I don't, I don't. But I'm putting the cart before the horse. First I have to get to 145...

I know that when you get close to your goal, it's really tempting to stop. Weight loss happens REALLY slowly at that point and it's very easy to think that your body is just "happy" where it is. That isn't true. Your body does not have a particular point at which it's impossible to lose more weight, though there are many myths about a "set point" that your body "doesn't want" to go below. Your body is not "happy" at one weight and "unhappy" at another weight.

If YOU, however, are happy at your current weight, then that's an entirely different story. Do you like your body right now? Do you like what it's able to do? Do you like the way it looks? Would you like it more if you lost more weight? Do you have health concerns that might be helped if you lost more weight? If you can answer yes to the first three and no to the second two, then maybe that means you're happy now.

If YOU are happy now, then that's a great reason to stop. You can always go into maintenance now, see how you feel, and re-evaluate if needed.

Being pear shape, you're less likely to run into weight related health problems. I'd say go for it. My goal weight is in the overweight category too for several reasons, because I like the "plump" look (so I will basically be both overweight and a bit overfat), and because it would be easier to maintain than a lower weight. The only reason I would personally consider losing more weight is if my body decides my maintenance weight is no longer enough to control blood sugar (I had blood sugar problems at my highest weight).

Realistically, the healthiest weight for you is the lowest weight you can maintain reasonably comfortably provided it's not underweight. You'll need to understand and accept that statistically you may be at a slightly higher risk than someone who is pear shaped but weighs less, but there's statistics and there's real life. A statistical possibility doesn't always translate as expected, and in many cases a slight increase in statistical risk is acceptable and even desirable, this is one of them.

Technically 15 lbs over "healthy" BMI. So "Overweight" around 25% bf so a little high but I'm good here. I get 12-15k steps a day (walk my breaks during work because I have too much energy) walk my dogs after work, strength train 3-4 times a week, hikes on the weekends. I get to eat enough that I'm happy. As a person that loves food that's important to me.

I'm happy here. I like the things my body at this size can do. I'm strong and active and the chart means nothing to me. I've discussed it with my dr. and she agrees that I'm good where I am. Labs are good, except that I have inherited my mothers low blood pressure, I feel good. So I'ma stay here.

I'd also like to add that I've had people on here tell me that I'm too overweight to give advice, which was condescending and rude, but was eye opening to me in that I didn't care what they said. I don't care if someone wants to use an arbitrary chart from the 19th century that takes into account nothing except my height and weight. How tall I am and my weight don't define me. As long as a person is healthy and comfortable in their skin they can do what they want.

I like me and that's what matters.

Although I've been striving to hit that magic number of "normal" weight BMI, I'm pretty darn happy where I'm at (which is about 5 pounds above the high end). Healthy, happy, active and strong. Could I lose that 5 or even 10? Of course! If I decide I want to push myself a little harder, then I will and I'll still be healthy and happy just a few pounds lighter. We are all so driven by what we have been told is "normal" when that can be different for everyone.

I've looked at a lot of weight and charts over the years and previously thought I had to be within "whatever" range the chart dictated in order to be healthy. Not true at all. There are many health factors besides weight including blood pressure, body fat %, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc.

The origins of weight and BMI charts are quite interesting, but rarely do people even question them. The concept of BMI - a simple ratio of weight in relation to height, was the work of a Belgian statistician and sociologist, Adolphe Quetelet who published his "Quetelet Index" in 1832. Apparently, Quetelet had no real interest in studying obesity when he developed this index, he just wanted to publish his work. It's doubtful there were many obese people in 1832 anyway. So basically, BMI is derived from a simple math formula that has been used to give an idea about whether people are overweight or underweight for over 150 years. I ask myself - what was the concept of overweight in 1832? Likely far different than now due to many life factors, especially nutrition. BMI is a very simple equation - dividing weight in kilograms (kg) by height in meters squared. Seems a bit too simple to hang your hat on for definitive numbers that would apply to everyone.

As far as the weight charts that we have seen since childhood - the first standard one was developed by Metropolitan Life Insurance company in 1943 using calculations to determine life expectancy of various heights and weights of people (adding 3 pounds for clothing and in 1 inch heels ). Basically, the mortality rate was lower for people who weighed withing a "range" so it became the standard by which they provided insurance to people. It's been updated a bit since then but I don't believe it's possible to have a one-size-fits-all chart when it comes to weight.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm a real advocate for finding your own sweet spot and not relying on published guidelines.

Francl27 wrote: »

I don't think that 12 lbs will make any difference whatsoever in your health, so I wouldn't even worry about it.

I was only 15 pounds above normal when I started on MFP, active and happy but had hypertension at age 40. Losing 20 pounds reversed it...so getting into the normal range can greatly improve your health.