So, what is a healthy size?

[Soror]

In the French women thread MSNative wrote:

 

However, they also have a different idea of fat and thin (or did when I was there) and a different idea of fitness. Being a normal size, good, being supermodel stick thin - not good. I think this has changed a bit. However, back then I remember walking around and seeing people who "could lose 10 pounds" by American standards. I think because they had a more natural view, they didn't focus on dieting and food so much and therefore stayed at a healthy weight, not our American ideal. I work in the fitness industry and think a lot of people mess with their heads and bodies too much trying to look like celebrities. The French also thought I was bizarre for jogging. Especially people in Paris thought that jogging was strange and almost unnatural. Walking good - working out strange.

 

It is so coincidental because I've pondered the same thing in the last 6 months. In moving towards a healthier and (IMO) more natural lifestyle I've really been thinking on and examining what does healthy mean, what does healthy look like. What does fit mean?

 

I was very much into working out for a decade maybe and always felt guilty if I didn't have an official workout. I've tried to move towards just a more active lifestyle in general and my preference is to do lots of walking, some playing with the kids, and working around the house doing whatever I can. It just feels right to me but I have to work to knock back those ideas that it isn't good enough.

 

I've also been thinking about the issue of size. Thinking of traditional cultures which still had/have a lifestyle eating real foods and lots of activity the women don't look like our models, or anywhere close to it. They don't look like super buff women. The women generally speaking often look like about 10 lbs overweight by our standards with a bit of fat all over and often fairly curvy(of course there is always variation due to natural body types). It makes me wonder if this ideal that I try to keep is even ideal. Is it even healthy? From what I've read people with a bit of weight tend to live longer. Are our goals even ones of health?

 

Anyway- what is your perspective and opinion? What do you think is the healthiest lifestyle? The ideal size?

[Tigger]

If look at strictly the data - it's smack dab in the middle of overweight by BMI - a 27-28 BMI statistically has the better overall health and longevity.

[Kathryn]

I think it depends on the person, but Americans are WAY too obsessed with weight and BMI. As long as you're eating a "normal" balanced diet and moderately active, I don't think it matters. I can eat an entire box of Oreos in addition to my daily meals, and I still can't break three digits on the scale. That's just my body type. I have a friend who weighs twice what I do, but I think she looks pretty healthy honestly. Her body type is completely different from mine.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

In the French women thread MSNative wrote:

 

 

 

It is so coincidental because I've pondered the same thing in the last 6 months. In moving towards a healthier and (IMO) more natural lifestyle I've really been thinking on and examining what does healthy mean, what does healthy look like. What does fit mean?

 

I was very much into working out for a decade maybe and always felt guilty if I didn't have an official workout. I've tried to move towards just a more active lifestyle in general and my preference is to do lots of walking, some playing with the kids, and working around the house doing whatever I can. It just feels right to me but I have to work to knock back those ideas that it isn't good enough.

 

I've also been thinking about the issue of size. Thinking of traditional cultures which still had/have a lifestyle eating real foods and lots of activity the women don't look like our models, or anywhere close to it. They don't look like super buff women. The women generally speaking often look like about 10 lbs overweight by our standards with a bit of fat all over and often fairly curvy(of course there is always variation due to natural body types). It makes me wonder if this ideal that I try to keep is even ideal. Is it even healthy? From what I've read people with a bit of weight tend to live longer. Are our goals even ones of health?

 

Anyway- what is your perspective and opinion? What do you think is the healthiest lifestyle? The ideal size?

 

 

I personally think that you are right. Our bodies were made to endure physical labor, doing it without overdoing it. I think women with curves and a little fleshiness are much healthier and sexier looking (in my womanly opinion :tongue_smilie:) than stick thin or ultra-lean women. I want to see muscles popping on a man's arms, not a woman's. (Once again, this is just my personal opinion, not a judgement of anyone's body or fitness choices.)

 

That said, some women feel much better about themselves when they work out regularly and keep a trim and muscular body. I'm okay with that if it makes them feel good.

 

I think we need to have a much wider acceptance of people's bodies in general. Take a look around anywhere except the cover of a magazine, and you will see tall, short, fat, skinny, wide spaced eyes, narrow spaced eyes, no chin, prominent chin, etc., etc. There is no "standard" body in the world. Why we try to work toward the image of one is beyond me.

[Mom-ninja.]

I think it depends on the person, but Americans are WAY too obsessed with weight and BMI. As long as you're eating a "normal" balanced diet and moderately active, I don't think it matters. I can eat an entire box of Oreos in addition to my daily meals, and I still can't break three digits on the scale. That's just my body type. I have a friend who weighs twice what I do, but I think she looks pretty healthy honestly. Her body type is completely different from mine.

 

Same here.

 

I do work out though. I love it. It's my stress relief and relaxer. I don't work out to lose weight. I work out for strength, cardio health, and mental health. My top priority is mental health! :D

[FriedClams]

I read recently that Americans have a hard time recognizing what a healthy weight should look like. Apparently there is so much obesity and the nation is so overweight that what used to be "normal" is now seen as overly thin. What is considered normal now is really overweight.

 

I have been working hard to get to a normal BMI (25 or under) and as I get close people are starting in with the "skinny" comments and the "you don't have anything more to lose". Well, yes, I do. So, in my experience, I agree that the view of "normal" is becoming skewed and heavier is seen as normal.

[Jen500]

I read recently that Americans have a hard time recognizing what a healthy weight should look like. Apparently there is so much obesity and the nation is so overweight that what used to be "normal" is now seen as overly thin. What is considered normal now is really overweight.

 

 

That is interesting...a while back I was looking at a bunch of photos of different people (not models) taken in the 1970's, and everyone seemed so thin compared to today.

[jplain]

I have been working hard to get to a normal BMI (25 or under)...

How do you reconcile this with what Tigger posted?

If look at strictly the data - it's smack dab in the middle of overweight by BMI - a 27-28 BMI statistically has the better overall health and longevity.

How can anyone claim that under 25 is normal for women if longevity and health are maximized at around 27 or 28? (The story is different for men.)

 

I haven't yet read it, but this newly published book seems to address the topic: Why Women Need Fat. The Look Inside feature on Amazon suggests that Chapter 6 is most relevant, if you want to skim a few pages.

 

Here's a quote from an interview with the author:

Many M.D.s have bought this fallacious line that the optimal weight for women in terms of their health is what M.D.s call normal weight, a BMI between 18.5 and 25. And they have thought this to be true because women with higher BMIs exhibit a series of physiological measures that are indeed risk factors for disease in men. But they are not systematically risk factors for disease in women. If you actually look at the data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and data from studies done in other countries, the optimal weight for women who have had a kid is what doctors currently call “overweight.” I’m not saying that obesity is optimal, but all the findings show that overweight women survive better than normal weight women. We walk a fine line in the book because we argue that being overweight is not nearly as bad as your doctor has been telling you, but on the other hand, Americans are heavier than they need to be. There are diseases that still correlate with heavier weights, like diabetes. But if we ate a more natural diet, by that I simply mean the diet that we evolved to eat, we would all weigh less.

(bolding mine)

source

 

For the record, I'm not arguing this position out of denial [regarding a need to lose weight]. Actually, I could probably stand to gain some weight. ;) I consider my current BMI aesthetically pleasing, but I'm not convinced that it is good for my long-term health.

[Karen in CO]

Okay, so I'm going to say something controversial. It is time to click away if you don't want to read about smaller is healthier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are talking healthy, right? There have been numerous studies in the last few years concerned with aging better. One of the key findings has been that reducing caloric intake, increases a key enzyme that protects your body against many of the problems of aging and increases lifespan. There I said it. Reducing calories without reducing nutrition is healthier.

[regentrude]

I've really been thinking on and examining what does healthy mean, what does healthy look like. What does fit mean?

 

I do not consider weight and size a sensible measurement. I aim for fitness.

 

Fitness, to me, is something I can use in an actual real life setting - not in an artificial gym environment.

If I can go hiking in the mountains, several miles, 3000+ft vertical gain, while carrying a backpack, I consider myself fit.

Whether I can lift weights or run on a machine is completely irrelevant to me - because it does not pertain to my real life.

 

So, if my slightly overweight friend manages to backpack for two weeks in the mountains with a 60lb pack and climbs Aconcagua, I'd say he does not need to lose any weight - he's just fine. If, OTOH, a person huffs and puffs after walking two miles, she is not fit, no matter what she weighs.

Edited January 6, 2012 by regentrude

[jplain]

We are talking healthy, right? There have been numerous studies in the last few years concerned with aging better. One of the key findings has been that reducing caloric intake, increases a key enzyme that protects your body against many of the problems of aging and increases lifespan. There I said it. Reducing calories without reducing nutrition is healthier.

I agree, to an extent. But I think reduced calorie diets only correlate with longevity/health. I believe they may be sufficient, but I also believe they're not absolutely necessary.

 

Personally, I think the key is getting insulin down as low as reasonably achievable, along with modifying diet and lifestyle to minimize chronic inflammation. Both of these things can be accomplished by deliberately reducing calories. However, I believe there are other strategies that work just as well or better, and have fewer side effects.

 

(Unfortunately, reduced calorie diets make rats and people grumpy, and they also lower libido.)

[Paige]

There are many healthy sizes. A size 00 can be perfectly healthy and ideal for one woman's body and a size 20 can be the healthy for another body. It is all so individual. IMO, health should be evaluated more by how you function than how much you weigh or don't weigh. Is your mind fuzzy and unfocused? Can you lift and move around things of moderate weight? Can you walk and run for at least a block or so without feeling sick? Are your hair, nails, and skin healthy? Do you have unusual joint or muscle pains? I believe a woman at a weight unhealthy for her would see problems in these areas.

[Danestress]

a quick google found a number of studies with contrary findings - that women in the lower end of the BMI (20 - 24) have superior health and longevity. I think the BMI can be confusing because it doesn't distinguish between muscle and fat weight. But if you want to know what the ideal weight is for longevity, I think you can choose your study.

[jplain]

a quick google found a number of studies with contrary findings - that women in the lower end of the BMI (20 - 24) have superior health and longevity.

I disagree. There's plenty of current research, as well as re-analysis of older data, that has found that a "normal" BMI is not correlated with the best health and longevity. Again, for men, the story may be different.

 

Would you mind referencing the specific studies you're referring to here, so I can take a look at them?

[LizzyBee]

How do you reconcile this with what Tigger posted?

 

How can anyone claim that under 25 is normal for women if longevity and health are maximized at around 27 or 28? (The story is different for men.)

 

I haven't yet read it, but this newly published book seems to address the topic: Why Women Need Fat. The Look Inside feature on Amazon suggests that Chapter 6 is most relevant, if you want to skim a few pages.

 

Here's a quote from an interview with the author:

(bolding mine)

source

 

For the record, I'm not arguing this position out of denial [regarding a need to lose weight]. Actually, I could probably stand to gain some weight. ;) I consider my current BMI aesthetically pleasing, but I'm not convinced that it is good for my long-term health.

 

Speaking only for myself, as soon as my BMI increased over 25, my blood pressure and cholesterol increased. My bp was borderline, but my dr wanted to put me on lipitor for cholesterol. She never even mentioned losing weight. Yet, as soon as I got my BMI back down in the "normal" range, my bp and cholesterol both dropped to healthy levels.

[Danestress]

Here is one link: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2010/nci-01.htm

 

There are tons of others if you just google "women, longevity, BMI" though I suspect that the same studies are referenced over and over.

 

I think this one has under 20 and over 24 showing losses in longevity.

[jplain]

Speaking only for myself, as soon as my BMI increased over 25, my blood pressure and cholesterol increased. My bp was borderline, but my dr wanted to put me on lipitor for cholesterol. She never even mentioned losing weight. Yet, as soon as I got my BMI back down in the "normal" range, my bp and cholesterol both dropped to healthy levels.

Good for you for turning down the Lipitor! Though it does reduce cholesterol, statins have never been shown to improve long-term outcomes for women. (Think about that. The implications are disturbing. All the risks of side effects, but no measurable benefit? The fact that statins are still marketed to women is unethical, plain and simple.)

 

There's a large assumption in what you wrote above, regarding what healthy cholesterol levels are. It appears that "healthy" cholesterol levels aren't the same for men and women. Who do you think the earlier research focused on? Yeah, men.

 

Also, the measurements a typical physician does are not as informative as you might think. HDL and triglycerides appear to be the most important numbers, and yet physicians still freak out about LDL. Only LDL subtype analysis tells us whether our LDL levels are okay or not, but very few patients get that kind of testing unless they demand it.

 

I don't doubt that you changed your lipid profile and BP when you lost weight. Keep in mind, though, that what you observed was a correlation. Your experience does not prove causation. I'll bet that the weight loss itself had little to do with it. Rather, your BP and lipid profile improved because of the lifestyle changes you made while attempting to lose weight.

 

An example: sugar and simple carbs send your trigs sky-high, they depress your HDL, and fructose (the molecule that makes caloric sweeteners sweet) is notorious for raising BP. So cutting out soda (or other simple carbs) will bring your blood lipids closer to "normal," and it will improve your BP, but those improvements had little or nothing to do with weight loss.

 

A second example: exercise will improve lipid profiles and lower BP, even if no weight is lost in the process.

Edited January 6, 2012 by jplain

[AuntieM]

Years ago I would have said I'd like to be a size 6. But at my age (nearing 50), after giving birth to four kids, I think size 12 (weight properly distributed) is healthy. That coincides with my doc's goal weight/bmi numbers for me.

 

Personally, I'm aiming for size 10, mostly because that's the size at which I feel more agile. I got down to an 8 between kids 3 and 4, and I think I would be fine there, too, but nowadays if I were a size 6 I think I'd start looking rather like a bony old lady!

[jplain]

Here is one link: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2010/nci-01.htm

Thanks! I'll spend some time reading it tonight, and I'll get back this thread with thoughts tomorrow.

[Soror]

I agree w/ pp a size 0 or 20 could be healthy. I think the weight and bmi numbers both are really rather irrelevant, I think we focus on the things that are easy to quanitify. Between 2 different women and the same bmi the health isn't going to be the same, there are so many more factors, foods they eat, stress level, sleep level, activity level(not just "official exercise). I just think we worship on the alter of appearances too much and pay little attention to actual health.

 

FWIW I'm a size 4/5 I had been down to 2/3. If I wanted I could get down that small again but I've been thinking hard, if it is health I am after then what does a bit of curves mean? Why am I focusing on that? Why am I so worried that others will think I've let myself go? What does that even mean? Like regentrude my real personal fitness goals are more about practicality, can I do anything I need to do around here? How do I feel on long distance hikes? Can I lift things I need to- feed bags- stones- logs etc? Do I have endurance can I dig, rake, etc? Do I have plenty of energy during the day? How is my day spent? Do I want to sit around or am I staying busy? How is my mood?

 

It is hard to break it is easy to take a cursory glance at someone and awesome higher health= smaller size. I see the local Mennonites producing and cooking their homemade foods. Insanely happy and content but certainly plumper than is typically considered healthy. So, the person who dines on processed low fat food etc and works out for an hr a day is considered healthier.

[Guest Katia]

Interesting. I had no idea what my BMI was, so I found an online calculator and figured it out.

 

Mine is 25.9

 

It says I am overweight.

 

I do not feel overweight. I feel skinny. My doctor and nurses all tell me how good I look and how healthy I am. My blood levels are amazing (with the exception of my blood glucose, but that is because I have an issue with my pancreas....however, I am able to control it with my diet)

 

I have no blood pressure issues. I have no cholesterol issues. I have energy and feel great. So, even though the BMI says I am overweight, I'm not buying it. I'm very, very happy with where my body is at right now.

[zookeeper]

I've never known what my BMI is either. I checked it out. It says 18.9 so low normal. Now if I gain weight, it goes right to my stomach and thighs. I know stomach fat is not healthy. I'm not sure it takes into account an individual person's build. I have a very small frame and don't think my weight is too little for my frame. I've been working on building muscle mass by lifting weights and I really feel better now than I did a decade ago.

[Penelope]

Having a BMI of 27-28 is optimal compared to what? There are all sorts of studies out there. It's helpful to look at the groups that are being compared, as perhaps neither one has the healthiest behaviors.

 

I don't think it's about weight. I think it's about what you eat and being fit.

 

80-90% of people in America eat a diet that is unhealthy and don't exercise at all. One person may be able to do that and still have a normal BMI; another person may do that, maybe just more so, and be overweight. So lower weight does not always equal healthier.

 

However, a person eating (without overeating) a plant-based whole foods diet is much less likely to be overweight. Someone eating optimally is going to be fairly thin; and then even having an extra 10 pounds would still keep them in the normal BMI range.

[AuntieM]

So, if the bmi formiula doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle weight, is it possible the guidelines calling bmi >25 "fat" are assuming a higher fat to muscle ratio?

 

Conversely, the case studies showing longevity increases with bmi 27-28 must be following people who have a higher muscle to fat ratio?

 

Seems like bmi is irrelevant if body composition is not measurable/comparable/even considered.

[Ester Maria]

I am having an extremely hard time imaging that a BMI in the 27-28 range would be "optimal" by ANY standards. :confused:

Granted, people's physical constitutions differ, but as a general rule of the thumb, I would NOT go with that.

 

I grew up in the metric system and the general rule of the thumb for older children and adults has been: your ideal average weight is most likely your height in centimeters minus 110 (+/- a few kilograms, but we here we enter nuances of personal constitution), your maximum recommended weight minus 100.

 

IOW, a lady whose height is 170 cm "should" be somewhere about 60 kg (BMI - 20), ideally, but should most certainly not be beyond 70 kg (BMI - 24). Once you cross the line of "weight in centimeters minus 100", you are to rethink your lifestyle and food choices, not panicking - because that is still not being medically overweight - but actively working on prevention of even becoming overweight.

 

If we were to go with the 27-28 BMI range, that would mean that a "recommended" weight should be about "weight in centimeters minus 90" (i.e. 80 kg on 170 cm) and I do not know ANY physician who would EVER recommend it, who would NOT consider "minus 90" to be an already dangerous point (not the point at which one "prevents", but a point at which one already is medically overweight). I cannot even imagine it - to me, it seems like a total "upping" of standards due to more and more people being overweight, so what was "thin" before is viewed as "starvingly thin" today, what was "normal" before is "in the thin range" today, etc., but that perception has nothing to do with the actual optimal functioning as regards health.

 

BMI or the "height minus 100 max. rule" are not ideal because they do not take into account many factors, but as a general rule of the thumb, any of them can be taken, IMO.

[Penelope]

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity/

 

Healthy women who had never smoked and who were overweight were 13 percent more likely to die during the study follow-up period than those with a BMI between 22.5 and 24.9. Women categorized as obese or severely obese had a dramatically higher risk of death. As compared with a BMI of 22.5 to 24.9, the researchers report a 44 percent increase in risk of death for participants with a BMI of 30.0 to 34.9; an 88 percent increase in risk for those with a BMI of 35.0 to 39.9; and a 2.5 times (250 percent) higher risk of death for participants whose BMI was 40.0 to 49.9. Results were broadly similar for men. Overall for men and women combined, for every five unit increase in BMI, the researchers observed a 31 percent increase in risk of death.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity/#ixzz1ihTJdm3g

 

Some googling suggests that the reason a few studies showed that BMI of 25-27 is better, is the differing length of the studies (it takes many years for the effects of obesity to be seen on mortality) and the age of the participants. Some researchers think that weight gained after a certain age is much less dangerous than being overweight earlier in life for many years. And some think the waist measurement is much more important than BMI.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Penelope

[Catwoman]

My BMI has never been over 18, but I am absolutely convinced that my "slightly plump" friend who eats nothing but healthy, organic foods and exercises regularly is probably a lot healthier than I am. (I'm sitting here right now drinking coffee and eating cookies, so obviously I'm not exactly a Testament to Healthy Living. :rolleyes:) My friend's BMI is probably in the mid-to-high 20's, but she is in great shape. Not completely "jiggle-free," but I don't think it matters in terms of her health, and her dh thinks she's gorgeous, so it's all good. :001_smile:

 

I'm sure her dh thinks I'm too skinny, and my dh thinks my friend is too chubby, so I guess we both married the right guys. :D

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

My BMI has never been over 18, but I am absolutely convinced that my "slightly plump" friend who eats nothing but healthy, organic foods and exercises regularly is probably a lot healthier than I am. (I'm sitting here right now drinking coffee and eating cookies, so obviously I'm not exactly a Testament to Healthy Living. :rolleyes:) My friend's BMI is probably in the mid-to-high 20's, but she is in great shape. Not completely "jiggle-free," but I don't think it matters in terms of her health, and her dh thinks she's gorgeous, so it's all good. :001_smile:

 

I'm sure her dh thinks I'm too skinny, and my dh thinks my friend is too chubby, so I guess we both married the right guys. :D

 

I think this has a lot to do with it. Health is about more than size. I'm certainly overweight, but I eat very healthily- have no bad risk factors. I'm 42. My blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, triglycerides, etc, are all in the low-normal range. I can walk at a fast past, which I do with a friend once a week. I attend an hour long dance class once a week. I sled and have snowball fights with my kids. I can run up and down the stairs. I run around in circles with my cub scout den playing duck, duck, goose, etc. I swim every day in the summer. I think that I'm much healthier than some of the thinner people I know. My doctor never even tells me to lose weight, even though I know I should.

[Murphy101]

To me MY healthy IDEAL (of which I am no where near) is:

 

130-140lbs pending muscle mass (I am 5'7")

 

eating double the fresh veg/fruits and meat than my carbs.

 

Carbs of sweets is roughly only 1 portion 2-3 times a week.

 

Walking anywhere that is within 2 miles.

 

Stairs instead of elevators.

 

Water instead of drinking calories.

 

Of these 6, I am currently managing 2. :(

 

But I am working on doing better. These are my goals. I'm hampered by a bum hip and ankle, but I'm trying to power through that as much as I can.

[butterflymommy]

 

We are talking healthy, right? There have been numerous studies in the last few years concerned with aging better. One of the key findings has been that reducing caloric intake, increases a key enzyme that protects your body against many of the problems of aging and increases lifespan. There I said it. Reducing calories without reducing nutrition is healthier.

 

Why is this controversial? It's long been known that the only proven dietary habit that increases longevity is calorie restriction.

 

http://www.crsociety.org/

[justamouse]

I have a teeny frame. I am bird boned (I get it from my Irish Nana). I need to loose 10. My wrists and ankles are teeny wirey things. Anything more than 117 ((of which I am NOT, at this time)I am curvy, I get that from my Brazilian side) and I look chunky .

 

I have a girlfriend who is large boned. I mean, her ankles are huge, the bones in her calves are huge, she is a big, Midwestern farm girl. We are the same height. If she dropped to my ideal weight, she would need to be in the hospital with a stomach tube.

 

Your ideal weight is what looks good on YOUR frame, not anyone elses.

Edited January 6, 2012 by justamouse

[Retired]

The hospital that I work at only uses the BMI for a general idea of healthy. The waist/hip ratio is more accurate in determining actually health.

 

I linked an article that explains the reasoning.

 

 

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Abdominal-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it.htm

[momto2Cs]

I grew up in the metric system and the general rule of the thumb for older children and adults has been: your ideal average weight is most likely your height in centimeters minus 110 (+/- a few kilograms, but we here we enter nuances of personal constitution), your maximum recommended weight minus 100.

 

IOW, a lady whose height is 170 cm "should" be somewhere about 60 kg (BMI - 20), ideally, but should most certainly not be beyond 70 kg (BMI - 24). Once you cross the line of "weight in centimeters minus 100", you are to rethink your lifestyle and food choices, not panicking - because that is still not being medically overweight - but actively working on prevention of even becoming overweight.

 

Interesting. I just did all the math on this, and indeed, subtracting 100-110 from my height in cm gives me the range I am aiming for with weight loss! And a BMI of 21-22. The rule of thumb I grew up with was 100 pounds at 5 feet tall, and then 5 pounds for every inch over that, which still works out to the same general weight as the metric method.

 

Having said that, I agree with a lot of people here that a better measure of health than weight/size is ability. If you can run a bit, go up several flights of stairs, carry the heavy loads we all need to (groceries, toddlers, etc.), hike up a hill, etc., without gasping for breath, you're definitely healthier than many people. Blood work will show a more complete picture of health than a bathroom scale. I have heard over and over that there are fat healthy people, and skinny unhealthy people, as well as the other way around.

Edited January 6, 2012 by momto2Cs

[LuvingLife]

It honestly all depends on you, my sister is skinny, she is thin boned, weighs 110 lbs, and is about 5'2" and doesn't gain a pound by eating junk, but she is not healthy. She has difficulty running far distance, cannot carry heavy things, and very fragile girl.

 

I am the opposite, I am slim but heavy boned, I carry more muscle, am 5'4", weigh 125lbs, and am more healthier than she is. I can run, walk, carry heavy things for long distances, and hardly ever gasp for breath.

 

So we are all different, we need to go by our body frames and how we look individually, God created us all to be unique, no two people are the same and that is something I have had to accept.:001_smile:

[kiana]

Yeah. When I was my healthiest and people commented on 'skinny' I had a bmi of about 25.

 

I look okay at about 27. I get heavy and feel grouchy at about 30.

 

I've always been extremely large-boned, broad-shouldered (I cannot wear many cute women's shirts because my shoulders are too far across) and muscular.

 

My sister, on the other hand, is the slim type and thinks she's fat at about 23.

[myfunnybunch]

I grew up in the metric system and the general rule of the thumb for older children and adults has been: your ideal average weight is most likely your height in centimeters minus 110 (+/- a few kilograms, but we here we enter nuances of personal constitution), your maximum recommended weight minus 100.

 

Interesting.

 

When I do this calculation, I get my natural weight: 142. Natural weight meaning if I exercise moderately and eat healthy foods (we focus on fresh, local, organic but do not watch calories or fats), I weigh 141-143 consistently.

 

Cat

[TravelingChris]

My specific most dangerous threat to survival is blood clots. For blood clots, survival is linked with weight. Skinny are more likely to die, middle less likely, overweight even less likely. I am trying to lose weight but just to go to the 27 BMI point. I won't try to go under that.

[Susan in TN]

Whatever size you must be to fit into your favorite jeans.

[beaners]

I get all the arguments about BMI being an inaccurate tool for measurement. As a college athlete, I had the pleasure of doing caliper tests and sitting in an egg to find more accurate measurements of my body fat. In real life, most of the people I see complain about BMI are too heavy to live the life they would like to.

 

My father likes to say that everyone doesn't need to be able to run a marathon, but you should be able to participate in activities you enjoy. I think he is a smart man. I see people who can't do things they want to because of weight and health. I see people who want to but can't play with their children, and there are no underlying issues except extra pounds. Honestly, I think a lot of people are kidding themselves about their own level of health. No one wants to hear it though, and I place enough value on my own safety that I'm not going to tell people when they're wrong. ;)

[justamouse]

 

I grew up in the metric system and the general rule of the thumb for older children and adults has been: your ideal average weight is most likely your height in centimeters minus 110 (+/- a few kilograms, but we here we enter nuances of personal constitution), your maximum recommended weight minus 100.

 

IOW, a lady whose height is 170 cm "should" be somewhere about 60 kg (BMI - 20), ideally, but should most certainly not be beyond 70 kg (BMI - 24). Once you cross the line of "weight in centimeters minus 100", you are to rethink your lifestyle and food choices, not panicking - because that is still not being medically overweight - but actively working on prevention of even becoming overweight.

 

at subtracting 100, I would end up at 142 pounds and that was way too heavy for me. 110 subtraction is 121 and almost perfect for me. Excellent formula.

[Hoggirl]

I have always been fairly trim. However I was NOT fit/healthy/in good shape...however you want to turn the phrase. I had, what I would call, skinny flab. I started exercising about two and a half years ago. I didn't really need to lose weight. And, I didn't really lose that much weight (< 5 lbs). But, after just one day of the 30-Day Shred, I could barely move or sit down on the potty! That's how not healthy I was. I am probably stronger and more fit than I have ever been in my life, except for maybe when I was dancing as a teen. But, using a bmi wouldn't reflect that at all. I just used a calculator and my bmi before I started exercising would have been 19.7 and my bmi now is 19.0.

[AuntieM]

My specific most dangerous threat to survival is blood clots. For blood clots, survival is linked with weight. Skinny are more likely to die, middle less likely, overweight even less likely. I am trying to lose weight but just to go to the 27 BMI point. I won't try to go under that.

 

Chris, I find this rather fascinating -- never would have guessed such a thing. Why does it work that way?

 

Never in a million years would I wish anyone the need to deal with the risk of blood clots (and associated blood thinning meds, etc), but it does make me grin to think...Oops! My bmi's getting too low, better eat another piece of pie!

 

...

 

My father likes to say that everyone doesn't need to be able to run a marathon, but you should be able to participate in activities you enjoy. I think he is a smart man. I see people who can't do things they want to because of weight and health. I see people who want to but can't play with their children, and there are no underlying issues except extra pounds. Honestly, I think a lot of people are kidding themselves about their own level of health. No one wants to hear it though, and I place enough value on my own safety that I'm not going to tell people when they're wrong. ;)

 

This is how I feel about one day being able to play with my grandkids, or being able to finally go off and travel and do fun activities with my husband once the kids are grown and gone. I don't want to be so out of shape that I have no energy, agility or stamina to do things when I finally have the free time and money to do them!

 

As to the italicized, I wonder if a lot of doctors are perhaps kind of giving up on some patients. (Not to exempt one from personal responsibility -- I fully believe in personal responsibility!!!!) I can think of at least one friend - technically in the morbidly obese range - who has shared that her doc has never advised her to lose weight. Makes me wonder how many people are not only kidding themselves, but even being enabled by the ones who should be the biggest exhorter to get in shape. How many doctors find it easier to just write an Rx for lipitor than to be persistent in helping a patient reach bmi/weight goals?

[Murphy101]

I was taught a similar system as ester.

 

For every inch over 5 feet, multiply those inches by 5 and add to 100.

 

5'7 would be 100(5x7)=135

 

For men, iirc it was multiply by 5 and add 10.

[Soror]

I am having an extremely hard time imaging that a BMI in the 27-28 range would be "optimal" by ANY standards. :confused:

Granted, people's physical constitutions differ, but as a general rule of the thumb, I would NOT go with that.

 

I grew up in the metric system and the general rule of the thumb for older children and adults has been: your ideal average weight is most likely your height in centimeters minus 110 (+/- a few kilograms, but we here we enter nuances of personal constitution), your maximum recommended weight minus 100.

 

IOW, a lady whose height is 170 cm "should" be somewhere about 60 kg (BMI - 20), ideally, but should most certainly not be beyond 70 kg (BMI - 24). Once you cross the line of "weight in centimeters minus 100", you are to rethink your lifestyle and food choices, not panicking - because that is still not being medically overweight - but actively working on prevention of even becoming overweight.

 

If we were to go with the 27-28 BMI range, that would mean that a "recommended" weight should be about "weight in centimeters minus 90" (i.e. 80 kg on 170 cm) and I do not know ANY physician who would EVER recommend it, who would NOT consider "minus 90" to be an already dangerous point (not the point at which one "prevents", but a point at which one already is medically overweight). I cannot even imagine it - to me, it seems like a total "upping" of standards due to more and more people being overweight, so what was "thin" before is viewed as "starvingly thin" today, what was "normal" before is "in the thin range" today, etc., but that perception has nothing to do with the actual optimal functioning as regards health.

 

BMI or the "height minus 100 max. rule" are not ideal because they do not take into account many factors, but as a general rule of the thumb, any of them can be taken, IMO.

I used your formulas for ideal weight and for me it is somewhere between- 114-136 lbs. I'm about 120 right now w/ a bmi of 20. I think I still feel pretty good up to 130 but 117 is the lowest I like to get and then I lose my butt(which my dh is fond of). I was taught the 100 lbs for 5 ft and 5 lbs for every inch and that works good for me. I am sm/med framed and I am an hourglass shape.

 

However, I wasn't saying that extra weight is ok without limit. I just think the current parameters and guidelines aren't terribly healthful. I think we need to look at much more than those numbers.

 

I'm thinking along the lines of what Catwomen stated being thin doesn't equal healthy.

Edited January 6, 2012 by soror

[PeacefulChaos]

I do not consider weight and size a sensible measurement. I aim for fitness.

 

Fitness, to me, is something I can use in an actual real life setting - not in an artificial gym environment.

If I can go hiking in the mountains, several miles, 3000+ft vertical gain, while carrying a backpack, I consider myself fit.

Whether I can lift weights or run on a machine is completely irrelevant to me - because it does not pertain to my real life.

 

So, if my slightly overweight friend manages to backpack for two weeks in the mountains with a 60lb pack and climbs Aconcagua, I'd say he does not need to lose any weight - he's just fine. If, OTOH, a person huffs and puffs after walking two miles, she is not fit, no matter what she weighs.

:iagree:

I am having an extremely hard time imaging that a BMI in the 27-28 range would be "optimal" by ANY standards. :confused:

Granted, people's physical constitutions differ, but as a general rule of the thumb, I would NOT go with that.

 

I grew up in the metric system and the general rule of the thumb for older children and adults has been: your ideal average weight is most likely your height in centimeters minus 110 (+/- a few kilograms, but we here we enter nuances of personal constitution), your maximum recommended weight minus 100.

 

IOW, a lady whose height is 170 cm "should" be somewhere about 60 kg (BMI - 20), ideally, but should most certainly not be beyond 70 kg (BMI - 24). Once you cross the line of "weight in centimeters minus 100", you are to rethink your lifestyle and food choices, not panicking - because that is still not being medically overweight - but actively working on prevention of even becoming overweight.

 

If we were to go with the 27-28 BMI range, that would mean that a "recommended" weight should be about "weight in centimeters minus 90" (i.e. 80 kg on 170 cm) and I do not know ANY physician who would EVER recommend it, who would NOT consider "minus 90" to be an already dangerous point (not the point at which one "prevents", but a point at which one already is medically overweight). I cannot even imagine it - to me, it seems like a total "upping" of standards due to more and more people being overweight, so what was "thin" before is viewed as "starvingly thin" today, what was "normal" before is "in the thin range" today, etc., but that perception has nothing to do with the actual optimal functioning as regards health.

 

BMI or the "height minus 100 max. rule" are not ideal because they do not take into account many factors, but as a general rule of the thumb, any of them can be taken, IMO.

 

Very interesting. I calculated mine up, and it came out to the minus 110 rule = 126 lbs. :001_huh: I haven't weighed that since early high school - personally, that is way to small for me. I looked thin at 133 (the weight I naturally dropped back to after my first 2 kids). I can't imagine going down any further than that.

I'm concentrating on not thinking about weight so much. I don't know how my bloodwork says I am, healthwise - I don't go to the doctor, except to the OBGYN for yearly exams. I do think I could do better at being healthy, regarding what I eat, though. I'm not horrendously out of shape - for some reason I never have really been, at any of the weights I have been over the past several years. I'm currently 170 - I think eating healthier will help me drop some pounds. I had originally thought I should get back to 135-140, but I'm beginning to think that is unrealistic. If I were meant to be that size, I wouldn't need to starve myself and workout constantly to get there. Even dieting on WW I only lost down to 155. I just think the 150-160 range is my body's healthy weight now. Maybe that sounds stupid and naive, but idk...

I agree that BMI doesn't really tell anything. I do, however, tend to gain weight in the stomach (unfortunately :glare: ) and I do think that is a major player in health. In high school I used to say that the number on the scale didn't matter to me - the person in the mirror did. That's why I honestly can't remember much about weight before I had DS7 - I remember going in for my first visit and weighing 144 lbs. I had no idea, up to that point, how much I weighed. After he was born I lost down to 133 in the first 2 weeks and was that size when I got pg with DS6, and went back to it in the first 2 weeks after I had him, too. I gained weight between DS6 and DD - was 155-160ish when I got pg with her. Lost down to 170 after her birth, then lost another 15 on WW that fall. Gained back 5 off and on over the next couple of years, and randomly gained 10 lbs in October/November. Really not sure what happened there! :lol:

[elegantlion]

I have a teeny frame. I am bird boned (I get it from my Irish Nana). I need to loose 10. My wrists and ankles are teeny wirey things. Anything more than 117 ((of which I am NOT, at this time)I am curvy, I get that from my Brazilian side) and I look chunky .

 

I have a girlfriend who is large boned. I mean, her ankles are huge, the bones in her calves are huge, she is a big, Midwestern farm girl. We are the same height. If she dropped to my ideal weight, she would need to be in the hospital with a stomach tube.

 

Your ideal weight is what looks good on YOUR frame, not anyone elses.

 

I have a big frame and carry more muscle. My ideal weight, according to Ester Maria's formula, is about 141. My ideal weight, from experience, is about 147 (not that I'm there now :tongue_smilie:)

[Ester Maria]

I'm thinking along the lines of what Catwomen stated being thin doesn't equal healthy.

True, it does not equal healthy. Many people who are very thin - especially who are very thin as a result of cutting on the balanced diet - have bad bloodwork, lack energy, lack crucial nutritients, etc.

 

However, being medically overweight almost certainly does imply unhealthy. It is one of those cases where the "reverse" is not always true - you can be "on the thin side" (BMI 18-19) and be healthy, but you practically cannot be "fatter than recommended" (BMI 25+, or even upper end of normal BMI - 24-25 - if you are not of a heavy constitution) and be healthy. There are people who are seriously overweight and cannot just lose weight, and whose weight is often caused by some medical issues - but that is the whole point, they are not healthy (though cause-effect is reversed in their case, their not being healthy causes their weight, not the other way round) - an average, naturally healthy person cannot be "optimal" at BMI 25+. In fact, if they are of average constitution, they should not even approach 25, because that extreme of good BMI is reserved for people of naturally heavier composition.

 

BMI is a HUGE range. HUGE. For a person who is 170 cm tall, BMI allows for 52 (BMI 18) to 72 (BMI 52) range. That is an enormously big span of 20 kg which allows for all the differences in personal constititution. Many people are kidding themselves - if you are "big-boned", you are NOT supposed to be off charts, you are "only" supposed to be on the higher end of the charts, because the charts were *made to include you*, i.e. *made to account for the personal constitution differences*. So, a petite person would never even be medically recommended to have a 20+ BMI and might have a "chat" with her doctor if her BMI is 22-23; likewise, a naturally big-boned, heavy in constitution person would never be medically encouraged to have an idea of a sick (for them) "perfect minus 110", but to remain safe and healthy in the upper BMI range, that was made to include them. So, BMI is an approximation - even medically you would not be suggested to shoot for "BMI range" (because that is a HUGE range), but in accordance with your personal constitution you would be "placed" into the target section that was made for you. (Things are more complex when it comes to people who are seriously into sports, BMI is often not a good predictor for them, but that is another topic and the doctor is also aware of that.)

 

So, all of those are approximations, but what I am saying is that they are not entirely without any logic behind them.

[Mom in High Heels]

But, after just one day of the 30-Day Shred, I could barely move or sit down on the potty! That's how not healthy I was.

 

LOL! Jillian Michaels is evil. Eeeeeevvvviiiiilllll. Before I got pregnant I did the 3DS and the first week nearly killed me. By week 2 I could tell a real difference in health. I said I'd go back on it after I had the baby and got over the feeling that my uterus was going to fall out every time I bounced or jumped. He's 9 months and I haven't yet. D'oh.

I was overweight before I got pregnant by about 25 pounds. I only gained 17 with him (including him) and since he's been born I'm down 28lbs. I have another 25 to go to be at my personal ideal weight, which is where I'm comfortable. I'm currently in a size 8 (I'm 5'4") but it's too heavy for me (personally). I'm happy with a size 6, but more comfortable in a 4. At a size 4 I'm not super skinny and still have curves (my hips will never go away). Hitting the weight though doesn't make me healthy. I have to...do stuff (ugh) to be healthy. We do a lot of walking though and live on a 3rd floor walk up with ridiculously steep stairs, so that helps. I'm always amazed at how slim European women are for all the wine they chug and the bread they consume (OMG, chocolate croissants are a gift to the world), but it's because they walk freaking everywhere. I know so many people who don't own cars and I always find that shocking, but it's how many of them live. I see men and women who must be at least in their 70's riding bikes to the grocery store or walking home with heavy bags. They're fit and active, which is why they can eat all those yummy breads and full fat cheeses (don't get me started on the cheeses!).

[Mom-ninja.]

I do not consider weight and size a sensible measurement. I aim for fitness.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Whatever size you must be to fit into your favorite jeans.

 

:lol::lol:

 

 

According to the formula I'm 4 lbs underweight. I agree with that.

[LisaKinVA]

I was taught a similar system as ester.

 

For every inch over 5 feet, multiply those inches by 5 and add to 100.

 

5'7 would be 100(5x7)=135

 

For men, iirc it was multiply by 5 and add 10.

 

And see, using that formula, people think I'm anorexic (actually, they thought I was anorexic at 140 pounds...I am not kidding. Good friends were seriously worried about me, course under my work clothes they couldn't see just how cut I was ;)) Oh, to afford a PT again!

 

In general, that's probably a fine rule... but I'm built like a tank. At 125# I've either lost at least 20# of muscle (not necessarily a good thing), or have zero fat (not a good thing). My mom, OTOH, at 5'7" looked incredible (and healthy) at 118.

 

I have three daughters and two sons... weight isn't what we discuss. We talk about FITNESS. I have one underweight, I have one obese (by medical standards... who no one would even categorize as overweight!), I have two "normal" who swim competitively, but both of which have a tummy... and a Toddler (who is just fine, by toddler standards :D) Weight is only one measuring tool, and one we get too hung up on.

 

Right now, my 5 children are doing the 30-day Shred (as I type). I am proud to say that even my 5yo can do a proper squat. :D I am not making them, they want to. And what crazy mom would I be if i said, "No, you can't exercise! Kinda like saying... STOP READING RIGHT NOW and....:lol:)