Ideal weight and BMI?
nessyv18
Posts: 6 Member
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?
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?
3
Replies
-
I'm 5'3, 130, and that puts me comfortably within normal BMI standards. Why do you think 130-140 is healthiest/any healthier for you than 160 (a BMI of 24.3)?3
-
There's really no need to set a goal weight. Follow the "lose until you are happy with your body" approach. Your goal weight has no bearing on what MFP gives you in the form of calories.
I wouldn't go at a rate more than 1lb/week (slow and steady will help when you get to maintenance). When you get to a point where you think "I look and feel good, but I think I can go 5 - 10lbs", switch to 0.5lbs per week.
Some of us tend to underestimate how much fat we are carrying. I'm 5'10, started at 193 and when was there I thought I just needed to get 20lbs off. Come to find out, I'm really happy in the 145 - 150 range.7 -
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.5
-
I think a goal on the higher end of the healthy range (or maybe even a bit higher) is plenty healthy for some people. BMI is scale that has been around for a very long time and is an okay general guideline for normal non-athlete people, but it's not going to be the best guide for every single person.
I'm 5'8" with a goal of 155 lbs (started at 184 in September). I've been in the high 130s before and it was not "healthy" for my build. I was eating super low calories and doing crazy amounts of cardio to try to maintain that, and obviously failed at that since I'm back here now. I set my current goal based on what I feel I will be able to maintain in a healthy way since I've yoyo-ed before. Since puberty up through college I was always in the 140s-150s.
At 160 lbs right now I'm at 28% body fat which I'm pretty happy with (hope to get to 24-25% eventually). Most of my weight is in my hips/thighs too. I did a DEXA (x-ray) body composition scan last week and it was interesting to see that my lower abdomen body fat is only 23%, but my hips/upper thighs area is 37% body fat!1 -
I'm 5'4 with a goal weight of 145. This is the absolute max ( by bmi chart standards) for my height. I do alot of lifting and my goal is super strong and fit. I am trying to take my goals away from just the scale and instead focus of athleticism and overall fitness. I'm currently sitting at 158lbs with a body fat of about 26%. Also i find 145- 150 maintainable long term0
-
The answer is that there is no answer. Not too high and not too low is all the advice you will ever get.1
-
You should target a weight range at which you and your doctor agree that you’re happy and healthy.2
-
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?
Will you be too thin? That's a bit subjective, but there are women who are 5'8" and in the underweight category. From a health-risk standpoint, they are too thin.
I'm not sure what you mean by body structure? Things like apple-shape, and fat distribution? They won't change your BMI - your BMI is your BMI. There, however, ratios that are better or worse in terms of likely health outcomes. Certain waist to hip ratios or waist to height ratios are said to better predict health than just BMI.
Rather than structure as in shape or places fat is carried, there is a tendency for lean tissue to be much healthier than body fat. A person could be overweight and healthier than a normal BMI person for a lot of parameters if the overweight person carries a lot of muscle mass or other lean tissue such as denser bones. Statistically, it isn't likely to be the case for people that don't engage in a fair amount of resistance training or other athletics. Statistically, women are more likely to have a higher adiposity / issue of normal weight, metabolically obese.2 -
For me it’s about body fat percentage. I’m overweight (BMI) but have a low BF% - by design. I’ve worked hard for it. My doctor is totally happy with my weight.2
-
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?
I think you are referring to "ideal weight", which is something I've seen in various TDEE calculators. That's not the same thing as healthiest weight. It is an estimate at what might be the best weight for people at their height, but it's mostly an aesthetic thing. It's not about health. BMI is a fairly large range for a reason, which is that there is a fair bit of variability for what is considered a healthy weight. You don't need to target anyone else's definition of "ideal" weight if you are happy at your goal.
Ultimately when you get to 160, you may decide to stop there or go down further. Either are okay.4 -
Currently I’m 6’5 333, im fat and out of shape. My perfect weight would be around 235, so about 100lbs to go!0
-
BF% is probably the better measurement to watch.
In my case back when I was first starting out the entire first month I worked my *kitten* off, lifted heavy and very strict on diet. Only lost 4 pounds, but BF% went down about 2%. Turns out I lost 6.6lbs of fat, gained 2.6 in lean mass. So overall body composition change was a positive 9.2lbs which was more encouraging. I kept tracking composition rather than weight and watched it improve pretty much every month.1 -
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?
160 is a perfectly reasonable goal weight for now. What you put in MFP for your goal is actually insignificant, as we were just discussing on another thread:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/general-diet-and-weight-loss-helpOn a skim-through I didn't see it mentioned (apologies if I missed it!), so I want to add this, although you may already be aware of it:
Whatever you tell MFP your goal weight is, that has zip-zero-no effect on how it calculates your weight loss calorie goal. None.
MFP asks you to put a goal weight in your profile, but it only uses that for some motivational type messages, like the "ticker" you can put on your page that says you've lost X out of Y pounds, or you have Z pounds to goal, or whatever.
You can set your goal weight at anything less than your current weight, set up the other profile data according to instructions, and your calorie goal will be the same regardless. It's not worth agonizing over. You can change it later, no penalty or even difference.
Not worth worrying over, truly. Set it to whatever seems adequate now, and re-evaluate as you get closer, when you have more information/experience/insight.3 -
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?
I'm 5'8" and have a medium to large frame, with most of my fat stored in my lower body as well. I've spent a lot of time around 150-160lbs, with my highest being 180 and lowest being 128. When I was 170, I honestly had no idea where more than 10lbs of fat would come from. Then I just naturally started eating less and walking more and the next time I weighed myself I was 150-something. I think it's really hard to see yourself much bigger/smaller than you are/have been; you can surprise yourself with where you end up!
In my opinion, it's most important to remember that you can always readjust your goal. If you would feel better making a multi-step goal, getting to 160 and celebrating that achievement, then going for 150, and then 140 if you're still feeling the need/feasibility, do that! If you'd be more motivated by a larger goal, there's nothing wrong with going right for 140 and then adjusting higher if it didn't seem right for you!
I'm probably 150-something now after the holidays, but I personally felt my best athletically when I was in the 130s. However, I only got down there when I had more time to do distance running, and I looked obviously lean and was under 20% bf. If that's not your goal, then the 140s-150s would probably be just as healthy for you as the 130-140s. Your body will let you know where it's comfortable though
3 -
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?
There is no "ideal"...BMI is a range for which statistically when you fall into that range you are at less risk for various health problems. It is a range to accommodate various frames, muscle mass, etc. BMI is also in and of itself indicative of health or being healthy, no matter where you fall in that range. I know plenty of people who fall well within a normal range and they aren't healthy individuals in the least.1 -
Hi, just thought it would be helpful to weigh in on (pun intended) the BMI is b.s. discussion with a few articles. I think it's worth knowing that BMI was created by a mathematician, not a doctor, and literally only looks at height and weight, which doesn't consider muscle mass or any other of a huge range of other factors:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bmi-is-bogus-best-way-to-tell-if-youre-a-healthy-weight-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
Also worth noting that risk of death is higher in the underweight category (just below normal) than in overweight (not actually covered in the article...), obese or even severely obese (the three categories above normal) categories, which I think is pretty telling about how the 'normal' category was come up with:
https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20140328/underweight-even-deadlier-than-overweight-study-says
I'm really disappointed that myfitnesspal seems to still be using this measure at some level in helping you work out how many calories you need. As a short, but muscular woman, it's trying to recommend barely above starvation diet to be able to lose weight even at a very slow pace, which frankly is just not going to work. And the few times I've used the site before, I have lost weight at a much faster pace than it's suggesting, even without sticking to its recommendations, so I definitely think someone needs to rethink this, or at the very least put some heavy caveats around the advice they are giving... I'm sure it's already in some small print somewhere. Side note, the slimmest I've been in my adult life, I was still in the overweight category, and people were starting to tell me I looked unhealthily thin!
I hope you manage to get to a size/weight that you're happy with - please don't focus on BMI!3 -
Hi, just thought it would be helpful to weigh in on (pun intended) the BMI is b.s. discussion with a few articles. I think it's worth knowing that BMI was created by a mathematician, not a doctor, and literally only looks at height and weight, which doesn't consider muscle mass or any other of a huge range of other factors:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bmi-is-bogus-best-way-to-tell-if-youre-a-healthy-weight-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
Also worth noting that risk of death is higher in the underweight category (just below normal) than in overweight (not actually covered in the article...), obese or even severely obese (the three categories above normal) categories, which I think is pretty telling about how the 'normal' category was come up with:
https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20140328/underweight-even-deadlier-than-overweight-study-says
I'm really disappointed that myfitnesspal seems to still be using this measure at some level in helping you work out how many calories you need. As a short, but muscular woman, it's trying to recommend barely above starvation diet to be able to lose weight even at a very slow pace, which frankly is just not going to work. And the few times I've used the site before, I have lost weight at a much faster pace than it's suggesting, even without sticking to its recommendations, so I definitely think someone needs to rethink this, or at the very least put some heavy caveats around the advice they are giving... I'm sure it's already in some small print somewhere. Side note, the slimmest I've been in my adult life, I was still in the overweight category, and people were starting to tell me I looked unhealthily thin!
I hope you manage to get to a size/weight that you're happy with - please don't focus on BMI!
From the first article you posted:
There are four major problems with BMI, according to obesity experts:- It doesn’t give you a good estimate of how much body fat you're carrying around.
- It can differ drastically based solely on your gender. For example, a man and a woman with an identical body-fat percentage could have widely different BMIs.
- Just because you have a high BMI doesn't necessarily mean you're overweight. You can have a high BMI even if you have very little body fat, especially if you're male and very muscular.
- It doesn't take into account your waist circumference, which can be a good measure of your risk for certain diseases, including heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
First, I agree with all the points (even though 1 and 3 are the same thing).
BMI is not a good indicator for people with high muscle mass. Next time you are at the beach, look around and ask yourself honestly how many people have high muscle mass.
Waist size is a good indicator of overfat and risk for disease. I think if you compare you will find very few men with a waist size over 40 (or women over 34.5) who are not overweight/obese on the BMI scale and/or a measure of bodyfat % .
Is BMI a perfect measure, of course not. Is it a simple way to initially look to see if a person has an issue with over/under weight, yes it is. A medical professional can and should do additional analysis from that point, but the number of people whose level of fat that don't correlate with the BMI scale is going to be pretty minimal.
14 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Hi, just thought it would be helpful to weigh in on (pun intended) the BMI is b.s. discussion with a few articles. I think it's worth knowing that BMI was created by a mathematician, not a doctor, and literally only looks at height and weight, which doesn't consider muscle mass or any other of a huge range of other factors:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bmi-is-bogus-best-way-to-tell-if-youre-a-healthy-weight-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
Also worth noting that risk of death is higher in the underweight category (just below normal) than in overweight (not actually covered in the article...), obese or even severely obese (the three categories above normal) categories, which I think is pretty telling about how the 'normal' category was come up with:
https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20140328/underweight-even-deadlier-than-overweight-study-says
I'm really disappointed that myfitnesspal seems to still be using this measure at some level in helping you work out how many calories you need. As a short, but muscular woman, it's trying to recommend barely above starvation diet to be able to lose weight even at a very slow pace, which frankly is just not going to work. And the few times I've used the site before, I have lost weight at a much faster pace than it's suggesting, even without sticking to its recommendations, so I definitely think someone needs to rethink this, or at the very least put some heavy caveats around the advice they are giving... I'm sure it's already in some small print somewhere. Side note, the slimmest I've been in my adult life, I was still in the overweight category, and people were starting to tell me I looked unhealthily thin!
I hope you manage to get to a size/weight that you're happy with - please don't focus on BMI!
From the first article you posted:
There are four major problems with BMI, according to obesity experts:- It doesn’t give you a good estimate of how much body fat you're carrying around.
- It can differ drastically based solely on your gender. For example, a man and a woman with an identical body-fat percentage could have widely different BMIs.
- Just because you have a high BMI doesn't necessarily mean you're overweight. You can have a high BMI even if you have very little body fat, especially if you're male and very muscular.
- It doesn't take into account your waist circumference, which can be a good measure of your risk for certain diseases, including heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
First, I agree with all the points (even though 1 and 3 are the same thing).
BMI is not a good indicator for people with high muscle mass. Next time you are at the beach, look around and ask yourself honestly how many people have high muscle mass.
Waist size is a good indicator of overfat and risk for disease. I think if you compare you will find very few men with a waist size over 40 (or women over 34.5) who are not overweight/obese on the BMI scale and/or a measure of bodyfat % .
Is BMI a perfect measure, of course not. Is it a simple way to initially look to see if a person has an issue with over/under weight, yes it is. A medical professional can and should do additional analysis from that point, but the number of people whose level of fat that don't correlate with the BMI scale is going to be pretty minimal.
agree with all this - but especially the bolded. it is funny how many people consider themself "big boned" or "highly muscled" - when that is not actually the case!14 -
I'm really disappointed that myfitnesspal seems to still be using this measure at some level in helping you work out how many calories you need. As a short, but muscular woman, it's trying to recommend barely above starvation diet to be able to lose weight even at a very slow pace, which frankly is just not going to work. And the few times I've used the site before, I have lost weight at a much faster pace than it's suggesting, even without sticking to its recommendations, so I definitely think someone needs to rethink this, or at the very least put some heavy caveats around the advice they are giving... I'm sure it's already in some small print somewhere. Side note, the slimmest I've been in my adult life, I was still in the overweight category, and people were starting to tell me I looked unhealthily thin!
I think BMI is more useful for the average person than you suggest. (Very few women have sufficient muscle mass such that they aren't going to fit within the BMI range, although I would agree that it's better to be a little overweight (not obese!) and otherwise healthy and be able to easily sustain vs. constantly going up and down because it's too hard to stay at goal weight. Also, the study about overweight vs undeweight are distorted because it didn't take into account people who are underweight due to illness -- there was a lot of talk about this when it came out.)
That aside, my real point is that MFP does not take BMI into account at all in giving weight loss goals. It does use the version of the BMR calculator that does not include fat percentage since of course most do not know their fat percentage (and for extremely obese people this means that the goal likely a bit high, although other aspects of MFP counteract that so it's usually fine). If one knows body fat percentage and it's lower than one would expect given muscle mass, then I think using a different TDEE calculator makes sense, but that's not the case for most relying on MFP for a weight loss goal.
The main reasons MFP goals may be too low are: (1) too aggressive a weight loss goal; or (2) not properly stating your activity level. Also, some don't realize you are supposed to log back and eat exercise cals.
When I first started MFP told me I'd lose 1.8 lb on 1200. I thought that was crazy, but it was consistent with other TDEE calculators I ran pre exercise (since MFP was pre-exercise). As it happened, I lost more like 2.5 lb or more on 1200 net, and I subsequently realized this was because I put sedentary but in reality I walk a lot in my daily life.
Anyway, whatever the various issues with MFP calorie goals, they are not based on BMI. I'm not even sure how that would work. Also, MFP expects you to set your own weight goal, so it's certainly not pushing BMI there.12 -
I'm really disappointed that myfitnesspal seems to still be using this measure at some level in helping you work out how many calories you need. As a short, but muscular woman, it's trying to recommend barely above starvation diet to be able to lose weight even at a very slow pace, which frankly is just not going to work. And the few times I've used the site before, I have lost weight at a much faster pace than it's suggesting, even without sticking to its recommendations, so I definitely think someone needs to rethink this, or at the very least put some heavy caveats around the advice they are giving... I'm sure it's already in some small print somewhere. Side note, the slimmest I've been in my adult life, I was still in the overweight category, and people were starting to tell me I looked unhealthily thin!
I think BMI is more useful for the average person than you suggest. (Very few women have sufficient muscle mass such that they aren't going to fit within the BMI range, although I would agree that it's better to be a little overweight (not obese!) and otherwise healthy and be able to easily sustain vs. constantly going up and down because it's too hard to stay at goal weight. Also, the study about overweight vs undeweight are distorted because it didn't take into account people who are underweight due to illness -- there was a lot of talk about this when it came out.)
That aside, my real point is that MFP does not take BMI into account at all in giving weight loss goals. It does use the version of the BMR calculator that does not include fat percentage since of course most do not know their fat percentage (and for extremely obese people this means that the goal likely a bit high, although other aspects of MFP counteract that so it's usually fine). If one knows body fat percentage and it's lower than one would expect given muscle mass, then I think using a different TDEE calculator makes sense, but that's not the case for most relying on MFP for a weight loss goal.
The main reasons MFP goals may be too low are: (1) too aggressive a weight loss goal; or (2) not properly stating your activity level. Also, some don't realize you are supposed to log back and eat exercise cals.
When I first started MFP told me I'd lose 1.8 lb on 1200. I thought that was crazy, but it was consistent with other TDEE calculators I ran pre exercise (since MFP was pre-exercise). As it happened, I lost more like 2.5 lb or more on 1200 net, and I subsequently realized this was because I put sedentary but in reality I walk a lot in my daily life.
Anyway, whatever the various issues with MFP calorie goals, they are not based on BMI. I'm not even sure how that would work. Also, MFP expects you to set your own weight goal, so it's certainly not pushing BMI there.
yes to all this! the 'healthy' BMI category is a pretty large range - something like 40 lbs - hard to believe the poster above could be outside that range on the high end and looking sickly/unhealthily skinny as she said. As said above, BMI is a good range for the vast majority of people, but again as said above not something MFP really depends on.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
Hi, just thought it would be helpful to weigh in on (pun intended) the BMI is b.s. discussion with a few articles. I think it's worth knowing that BMI was created by a mathematician, not a doctor, and literally only looks at height and weight, which doesn't consider muscle mass or any other of a huge range of other factors:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bmi-is-bogus-best-way-to-tell-if-youre-a-healthy-weight-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
Also worth noting that risk of death is higher in the underweight category (just below normal) than in overweight (not actually covered in the article...), obese or even severely obese (the three categories above normal) categories, which I think is pretty telling about how the 'normal' category was come up with:
https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20140328/underweight-even-deadlier-than-overweight-study-says
I'm really disappointed that myfitnesspal seems to still be using this measure at some level in helping you work out how many calories you need. As a short, but muscular woman, it's trying to recommend barely above starvation diet to be able to lose weight even at a very slow pace, which frankly is just not going to work. And the few times I've used the site before, I have lost weight at a much faster pace than it's suggesting, even without sticking to its recommendations, so I definitely think someone needs to rethink this, or at the very least put some heavy caveats around the advice they are giving... I'm sure it's already in some small print somewhere. Side note, the slimmest I've been in my adult life, I was still in the overweight category, and people were starting to tell me I looked unhealthily thin!
I hope you manage to get to a size/weight that you're happy with - please don't focus on BMI!
To the bolded:
Honestly, that's just how people react when they're used to seeing us pretty fat, and suddenly we're not. It's doubly true if in a social context where most people are overweight (so that looks "normal"), which isn't an unusual context in a lot of places these days.
People started saying that to me when I hit the 150s at 5'5", having started obese. I and my doctor disagreed with them.
Now that I've been in the 130s for a few years, no one says anything like that anymore, even if the subject of my weight comes up in conversation. They're used to me at this weight now.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the higher weight was wrong for you. I don't even know you! :flowerforyou:
I'm saying people's comments are a terrible guide to weight goal . . . unless "people" are your doctor. 15 -
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?
2 -
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 thing is, there is no "typical"...BMI is a 40 Lb range. Someone on the low end of the BMI chart would generally be of a very slight build with a very low BF% and very little muscle mass. I would basically look like an emaciated stick figure at the low end of BMI...most people do unless they are very petite.3 -
I'm really disappointed that myfitnesspal seems to still be using this measure at some level in helping you work out how many calories you need. As a short, but muscular woman, it's trying to recommend barely above starvation diet to be able to lose weight even at a very slow pace, which frankly is just not going to work. And the few times I've used the site before, I have lost weight at a much faster pace than it's suggesting, even without sticking to its recommendations, so I definitely think someone needs to rethink this, or at the very least put some heavy caveats around the advice they are giving... I'm sure it's already in some small print somewhere. Side note, the slimmest I've been in my adult life, I was still in the overweight category, and people were starting to tell me I looked unhealthily thin!
I hope you manage to get to a size/weight that you're happy with - please don't focus on BMI!
AFAIK, MFP does not take BMI into account in any way in the Goal section. Best I can tell, all it does is calculate your NEAT based on your age/gender/height/weight and, depending on the goal YOU give it for the rate of weight loss (e.g. 1 lb / week) it does very simple arithmetic to come up with a daily caloric level. This simple: for every 1/2 lb per week you tell it you want to lose, it subtracts 250 from your NEAT.
MFP leaves it to the user to determine things like how much total weight they want to lose, and how fast they intend to get there. This is all embedded in one variable - the # of pounds per week which the user tells MFP he/she wants to lose. From there, it's abacus-level math to give you a calorie target.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.11 -
BMI is not law. It is just the most recent widely-used generally accepted yardstick of healthy weight. Years ago, other measures were used— insurance charts, for one. They were not made up by Doctors or medical experts, but were generally accepted by them. Years from now, we probably will use some other measure. YOU are an individual, not an average. Look for your best weight, using a conglomeration of measures—what weight is healthiest, most sustainable, more aesthetically pleasing,etc.
Be the best YOU!
Good luck!
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »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 thing is, there is no "typical"...BMI is a 40 Lb range. Someone on the low end of the BMI chart would generally be of a very slight build with a very low BF% and very little muscle mass. I would basically look like an emaciated stick figure at the low end of BMI...most people do unless they are very petite.
To the bolded, maybe/possibly for men.
At BMI 19-20, which is toward the low end, with a mixed build (narrow hips but skeletally big head/shoulders/arms/hands), and not completely devoid of muscle (but not bodybuilder ripped by any means), I'd realistically estimate my BF% to have been somewhere in the low/mid 20s.
That's what BIA devices - which admittedly are not terribly accurate - thought, too, across multiple readings.
(Profile photo is close to that point, FWIW. BF% would only be a little higher with breasts - I'm post mastectomies - since they're only partly fat, and in my case would add no more than 4 pounds and about 0.7 points of BMI.)
I'm above that now, 133-point-something this AM, probably someplace upper half of 20s BF%, BMI 22.2. Upper body looks close to the same, primarily my lower body is FILO for fat changes.
FWIW.
ETA: Oh, and: Not petite. Average, 5'5".3 -
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.
ETA more: Man, I'm really racking up the "disagrees" in this thread. Cool! (If someone thinks I'll be deterred from posting what I believe to be true because of anonymous disagrees with no sensible explanation . . . they'd be wrong.
) 15
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