So, what is a healthy size?

[Lisbeth]

I agree with the CRON research. Calorie Restriction Optimum Nutrition. The only thing to increase lifespan thus far and very good for avoiding diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc. Those practictioners are quite thin, but their numbers are amazing. It is a very difficult diet and many would not find it worth it.

Another caution about stats...cancer patients, smokers and other ill people tend to be on the thin side...so they should not be considered in what-is-normal-healthy-weight stats

[Murphy101]

I completely agree that fitness is more important than weight.

The ONLY purpose of these calculations is to get a span of what is reasonable.

If one is significantly below or above that span, they should take a hard reality check of why and if that why is healthy/fit. For some, it will be. For most, it usually isn't.

 

The goal is to give MOST something to reasonably gauge.

[LizzyBee]

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 was curious to see how much I'd have to weigh to get my BMI up to 27-28. When I was overweight, my BMI was 26.4, and I felt horrible. Even if I exercised more regularly to build more muscle, I'd have to bulk up considerably to reach 27-28.

Edited January 6, 2012 by LizzyBee

[farouk]

I guess somewhere midway between Kate Moss and an Olympic weightlifter.

 

Seriously, in North America there is so much emphasis on image; but to me it's more a matter of what's healthy.

[Catwoman]

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.

 

Neither of those formulas works for me. I would look chunky at their recommended weights. I have a feeling that most of the formulas are designed for a person who is larger-boned than I am, and that's what messes things up for me. My scrawny little bones probably don't weigh that much, so to reach the recommended weights, I have to have some extra fat on me, or else be a lot more muscular. (And let's just say that whenever I weigh a few extra pounds, it's probably not muscle...)

[Tigger]

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.

 

Really?

 

Then how did researchers find:

 

 

 

While studying the volunteers, scientists looked at the past physiques of the participants and how long they lived past the age of 40, and grouped them according to their body mass index (BMI), an indicator of how fat a person is.

 

Men of regular weight (with a BMI of between 18.5 and 25) at age 40 lived for an average of 39.94 more years, while those who were overweight (BMI of between 25 and 30) at age 40 lived a further 41.64 years, the study found. Ladies of regular weight lived on average a further 47.97 years, compared with overweight women, who lived another 48.05 years. Obese men and women (BMI of 30 or more) lived a further 39.41 and 46.02 years, respectively. But thin men (BMI of less than 18.5) were on average expected to live 34.54 more years, and thin women another 41.79 years.

 

[Tigger]

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.

 

 

 

Not sure how old you are, but WHO moved the goalposts, arbitrarily I might add, back in 1999 - prior to changing the overweight line to >25 it had stood, for decades at >28; a large number of studies published in the last decade tends toward that former number being a better one for Western populations, while the lower is better for Asians.

[farouk]

Not sure how old you are, but WHO moved the goalposts, arbitrarily I might add, back in 1999 - prior to changing the overweight line to >25 it had stood, for decades at >28; a large number of studies published in the last decade tends toward that former number being a better one for Western populations, while the lower is better for Asians.

 

Tigger:

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not sure I want to attain to some arbitrary United Nations-driven average.

[Tigger]

Tigger:

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not sure I want to attain to some arbitrary United Nations-driven average.

 

And....that's what it is.

 

Personally, I think overall health is better defined by body fatness (which BMI cannot capture) and insulin sensitivity.

[farouk]

And....that's what it is.

 

Personally, I think overall health is better defined by body fatness (which BMI cannot capture) and insulin sensitivity.

 

Tigger:

 

Sounds good.

 

Fact is, everyone is different.

[Ester Maria]

Not sure how old you are, but WHO moved the goalposts, arbitrarily I might add, back in 1999 - prior to changing the overweight line to >25 it had stood, for decades at >28; a large number of studies published in the last decade tends toward that former number being a better one for Western populations, while the lower is better for Asians.

To be honest, I am not sure at which point I encountered the concept of BMI for the first time; the "rule of the thumb" I had grown up with did not operate with BMI figures. I was told, however, by the medical doctors, that the current span of BMI is a generally (notice a disclaimer) useful one that allows for enough variety in personal composition, except (notice another disclaimer) when it comes to sportsmen. So, for your average Jane, it is typically a good orientir to consider that she might have a problem if as a person of an average constitution she is about the extreme low or the extreme high edge - or off.

 

I cannot imagine a person with a BMI of 28 that is not overweight in my eyes (a picture of somebody who is 170 cm and 80 kg... nope, it would have to be a truly atypical constition of a kind?). However, I reacted to the notion that 28 is "optimal", which I find quite absurd. I am not in the medical profession, however, so this is a layperson's opinion.

[MSNative]

I've never been a s/o post before and the one day it happens I happen to be out all day enjoying the gorgeous weather. ;)

 

I agree with so many of the posts. I think that if more people focused on feeling good rather than looking perfect, we would have a healthier population. Perfect size varies from person to person. Perfect lifestyle also varies. When I think of how much time and mental energy I've wasted on thinking about my size, I cringe. How much more could I have accomplished if I hadn't been so focused on being a size 4 (which at 5'11 is a tall order, pun intended)

 

In sum, I don't know what size is right, how many calories is optimal, etc. I do know that I don't want to reach the end of my life and realize I spent x hours a day thinking about calories and fat grams I consumed or didn't consume. I want to retrain myself to live each day fully.

[MSNative]

To be honest, I am not sure at which point I encountered the concept of BMI for the first time; the "rule of the thumb" I had grown up with did not operate with BMI figures. I was told, however, by the medical doctors, that the current span of BMI is a generally (notice a disclaimer) useful one that allows for enough variety in personal composition, except (notice another disclaimer) when it comes to sportsmen. So, for your average Jane, it is typically a good orientir to consider that she might have a problem if as a person of an average constitution she is about the extreme low or the extreme high edge - or off.

 

I cannot imagine a person with a BMI of 28 that is not overweight in my eyes (a picture of somebody who is 170 cm and 80 kg... nope, it would have to be a truly atypical constition of a kind?). However, I reacted to the notion that 28 is "optimal", which I find quite absurd. I am not in the medical profession, however, so this is a layperson's opinion.

 

I remember a story my dad tells about the Army. The Army implemented a new rule that anyone over some BMI had one year to reduce or be kicked out. He sent a pic of a colleague of his who looked like He-Man. A short He-man (not that short, but about 5'8) His BMI was off the BMI chart but clearly the guy was fit. However, I agree with you that he was an outlier. Actually, he may not even be applicable, since I don't remember the actual BMI #. Not trying to argue with you, just trying to bring up an example.

[Ester Maria]

I remember a story my dad tells about the Army. The Army implemented a new rule that anyone over some BMI had one year to reduce or be kicked out. He sent a pic of a colleague of his who looked like He-Man. A short He-man (not that short, but about 5'8) His BMI was off the BMI chart but clearly the guy was fit. However, I agree with you that he was an outlier. Actually, he may not even be applicable, since I don't remember the actual BMI #. Not trying to argue with you, just trying to bring up an example.

Would not the army typically "qualify" for active sportsmen too? :confused:

 

I do not know the details, but BMI is problematic for sportsmen due to more muscle mass which "skews" it so BMI considers them not fit when they are in reality very fit, or something like that? I think they apply BMI only to people of average physical activity, so I am a kind surprised this was an army rule - in my mind army would be a bit like professional sport? Anyhow, not sure about any of this, I just know somebody told me it was more problematic in those cases.

[kiana]

Would not the army typically "qualify" for active sportsmen too? :confused:

 

I do not know the details, but BMI is problematic for sportsmen due to more muscle mass which "skews" it so BMI considers them not fit when they are in reality very fit, or something like that? I think they apply BMI only to people of average physical activity, so I am a kind surprised this was an army rule - in my mind army would be a bit like professional sport? Anyhow, not sure about any of this, I just know somebody told me it was more problematic in those cases.

 

It's also problematic because some people have much higher amounts of body fat than BMI shows.

 

Really, you have to take your frame into account. If you're the type of person who has a very slim frame, even 24 may be high. If you're the type of person who has a very sturdy frame, even 20 may be low.

[MSNative]

Would not the army typically "qualify" for active sportsmen too? :confused:

 

I do not know the details, but BMI is problematic for sportsmen due to more muscle mass which "skews" it so BMI considers them not fit when they are in reality very fit, or something like that? I think they apply BMI only to people of average physical activity, so I am a kind surprised this was an army rule - in my mind army would be a bit like professional sport? Anyhow, not sure about any of this, I just know somebody told me it was more problematic in those cases.

 

I agree it does. Sorry if you mentioned the active sportsman issue earlier. I thought I read all the responses carefully, but I may have missed that. I think you are right that BMI is a tool for the average person and outliers cause problems. I think the army did change its rules (I hope. I know this one gentleman at least retired years later). I was not trying to argue with you. Your post just reminded me of that story.

[Ester Maria]

It's also problematic because some people have much higher amounts of body fat than BMI shows.

 

Really, you have to take your frame into account. If you're the type of person who has a very slim frame, even 24 may be high. If you're the type of person who has a very sturdy frame, even 20 may be low.

But that is what I am saying (among other things). :D Doctors who use BMI as a general frame of reference always take into account one's individual body composition. It is an approximation, a "normal" range.

 

I do think that, to have a real insight into how healthy a person is, you would also need fat - muscle ratio, visceral fat % estimate, clothes measures and wrist measures, and a complete bloodwork, of course. :) The BMI box would be only one to check off and consider along with these other factors, if one were to do it seriously. But as a general estimate for average people... it can be useful.

[MSNative]

But that is what I am saying (among other things). :D Doctors who use BMI as a general frame of reference always take into account one's individual body composition. It is an approximation, a "normal" range.

 

I do think that, to have a real insight into how healthy a person is, you would also need fat - muscle ratio, visceral fat % estimate, clothes measures and wrist measures, and a complete bloodwork, of course. :) The BMI box would be only one to check off and consider along with these other factors.

 

Agree!

[Ester Maria]

I agree it does. Sorry if you mentioned the active sportsman issue earlier. I thought I read all the responses carefully, but I may have missed that. I think you are right that BMI is a tool for the average person and outliers cause problems. I think the army did change its rules (I hope. I know this one gentleman at least retired years later). I was not trying to argue with you. Your post just reminded me of that story.

We agree then. :) No problem, I am a 'skimmer' so I lose out on some details, I thought I was perhaps not clear enough or misunderstood you.

[kiana]

But that is what I am saying (among other things). :D Doctors who use BMI as a general frame of reference always take into account one's individual body composition. It is an approximation, a "normal" range.

 

I do think that, to have a real insight into how healthy a person is, you would also need fat - muscle ratio, visceral fat % estimate, clothes measures and wrist measures, and a complete bloodwork, of course. :) The BMI box would be only one to check off and consider along with these other factors, if one were to do it seriously. But as a general estimate for average people... it can be useful.

 

Yes, absolutely. I agree with your statements here.

 

But it's essential to be wary because sometimes, people really DO just look at the numbers. One of the insurance companies a friend got required you to maintain a BMI under 23 -- if I had my insurance through them, I'd be out of luck. I've had my fat percent measured professionally, and in order to drop under a 23 BMI without losing muscle as well, I'd need to have an 8% body fat. As a woman, that ain't gonna happen.

 

I also remember a thread here, possibly from last summer, where a woman had just been lectured by the pediatrician about her 'fat' child -- and she posted a picture of a very cute and in no way fat child, who was just lean and tall. Again, the doc only looked at the numbers.

[Ester Maria]

I also remember a thread here, possibly from last summer, where a woman had just been lectured by the pediatrician about her 'fat' child -- and she posted a picture of a very cute and in no way fat child, who was just lean and tall. Again, the doc only looked at the numbers.

I think I remember that thread and that picture - the boy was normal! :glare: Yes, it can be very problematic when a professional looks at numbers in isolation. For a developing child, a young one (another not-target-BMI-group!). Sigh.

[Tigger]

Would not the army typically "qualify" for active sportsmen too? :confused:

 

I do not know the details, but BMI is problematic for sportsmen due to more muscle mass which "skews" it so BMI considers them not fit when they are in reality very fit, or something like that? I think they apply BMI only to people of average physical activity, so I am a kind surprised this was an army rule - in my mind army would be a bit like professional sport? Anyhow, not sure about any of this, I just know somebody told me it was more problematic in those cases.

 

Those who are muscular aren't the only ones skewed - there is also the person who is within normal weight who carries too much body fat, but does not appear fat, they're dubbed "skinny fat" or "skinny obese" because they typically carry the excess fat within their abdominal area, inside, so they remain thin looking, but can be worse off than an obese person who has fat distributed on their hips or evenly. It's one of the reasons WHR (waist-hip ratio) is also a good measure, better than BMI, to assess someone's health risks.

[DawnM]

I will TRY to still like you! :glare:

 

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.

[DawnM]

HUH.

 

Let's see. I am 59 inches, so, 150 cm.

 

So, 40x1 kilo= 88.14 pounds.

 

Am I doing that right? There is NO WAY I could weight that!

 

Then MAXIMUM 110? I guess I could get to 110, although I looked smashing at 115. I am nowhere near that now......sigh.

 

Dawn

 

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.

 

[KungFuPanda]

I've never known my bmi, but I know that my lowest weight isn't my healthiest or best looking weight. My appetite adjusts easily to my activity level, so if I'm doing nothing but basic mom chores, I don't get that hungry, lose muscle, drop a few sizes and lose my shape. If I do my regular exercise (multiple dance classes for me) my weight creeps up, my appetite increases, I have more energy and stamina, more muscle definition, and I definitely look nicer with a few more pounds and some curves.

 

My dance schedule has an off-season. I NEVER stay in shape during this vacation time. I go through this cycle every year because apparently I never learn. I'm always pretty pathetic and sucking wind when rehearsals kick back into gear. The girl who makes our costumes scowls at me because I'm short enough for this fluctuation to make a real difference with how the costumes fit.

[LizzyBee]

HUH.

 

Let's see. I am 59 inches, so, 150 cm.

 

So, 40x1 kilo= 88.14 pounds.

 

Am I doing that right? There is NO WAY I could weight that!

 

Then MAXIMUM 110? I guess I could get to 110, although I looked smashing at 115. I am nowhere near that now......sigh.

 

Dawn

 

I tried this after I saw your post. I am 5" tall, so according to the formula, I should weigh about 95 - 115. At 95 lbs, I looked anorexic, and that was when I was young and had no kids, so I was "supposed" to be thin. But I could see that working for someone who is more fine-boned than I. At 115 lbs, I have more fat than I would like, but that is mainly because I don't exercise as regularly as I should. For a middle-aged woman, I think I look pretty healthy and trim at 115. I am creeping up closer to 120 now, and I am not happy about it because I have too much belly and back flab. But 120 would probably be fine if I would exercise enough to get toned. Pre kids, I was happiest at 103, and at middle age with 3 kids, I was happiest at 112. But 112 is hard to maintain.

 

Somewhere, I read that a middle aged woman should be about 10 lbs more than when she was young, assuming she was at a healthy weight when she was young. Much more than 10 lbs = probably overweight. Based on that theory, I should be 112 - 115. Since that weight is where I feel the best (both physically and when looking in the mirror), I think it's a good guideline for me.

Edited January 7, 2012 by LizzyBee

[Jenny in Florida]

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.

 

Wow.

 

I did that calculation, and it says I should weigh 101 pounds.

 

The only time I've ever approached that number was when I was eating fewer than 500 calories per day and exercising like a crazy woman. Even then, I could not get below 105. We look at pictures of me during that time now, and people say I look scary.

 

Literally. My daughter won't look at the pictures. She says they are creepy.

 

I had to buy my clothing in children's stores.

 

And I could not maintain that weight, no matter what I did.

 

On me, I found I looked best and felt healthiest at about 125 pounds, which would be significantly overweight by your approach. Anything less than that, though, and I can't function like a normal person.

[jplain]

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.

I spent some time with this paper over the weekend.

 

You can find the fulltext and data here.

 

For starters, it may help to define the BMI ranges. A BMI of 18.5-24.9 is defined as normal, a BMI of 25-29.9 is overweight, and that a BMI over 30.0 is obese. (Some will quibble with the lower end of normal. I agree; a BMI under 19 is probably a red flag for an underlying health issue.)

 

I'm still mulling over the numbers, but one key point is that the article is drawing conclusions about white (non-Hispanic) adults who have never been smokers. I suppose that's good news for me, a lifelong non-smoker, but it means that the results can't be generalized to white adults who are current or former smokers. Smoking was extremely common in our parents' and grandparents' generation, so non-smokers are not a good representation of the age-matched general population.

 

Confirming this, if you look at Figure 1 of the paper, you can see that if they include all subjects, not just the lifelong non-smokers, the results are quite different.

 

More importantly, even for non-smokers the statistics aren't impressive when you compare "normal" vs overweight. The authors report hazard ratios with a confidence interval of 95%. The HR of the control group is defined as 1.0, while the confidence interval tells you in what range you can expect experimental results to fall due to chance. HRs higher than 1.0 indicate increased risk, while HRs lower than 1.0 indicate decreased risk. However, it is important to note that statisticians are uncomfortable assigning significance to HRs between 0.8 and 1.2 when the confidence interval is only 95%. Hazard ratios are much more meaningful when you get up to 1.5 or 2.0 or more.

 

So if the authors suggest that a BMI of 20-24.9 (or 22.5-25.0, depending on which portion of the results) is best, they're being a bit evasive. Why? Because they haven't answered the question "Best compared to what?" In their results they report the following:

 

BMI 30.0-34.9 - HR 1.44

BMI 35.0-39.9 - HR 1.88

BMI 40.0-49.9 - HR 2.51

 

What can we conclude from these numbers? A BMI 20-24.9 (mean age 58 years) is correlated with reduced mortality when compared with than a BMI > 29.9 at the same age.

 

However, compared to the range from BMI 25.0-29.9, the Hazard Ratio was only 1.13. With a 95% confidence interval of 1.09-1.17, that's not far from "normal", and certainly is not strongly significant.

 

Digging deeper into the numbers, in Table 3 of the appendix, you'll find this:

 

BMI 20.0-22.4 - HR 1.06

BMI 25.0-27.4 - HR 1.03

 

If you decide these HRs are significantly different (which would be silly, they're not), a BMI of 25-27.4 is actually slightly better than a BMI of 20-22.4.

 

In my opinion, this study does NOT show that being overweight increases all-cause mortality in lifelong non-smokers.

This study only demonstrates that being obese increases all-cause mortality in lifelong non-smokers.

 

 

.

Edited January 9, 2012 by jplain
fixing typos, adding links to data, and trying to make myself clearer!

[LostSurprise]

I don't think there is any end-all-be-all calculator.

 

Even the waist-to-hip calculation doesn't work very well on someone with a very short waist.

[jenangelcat]

The weight that you are when you are healthy. Could be 100lbs, 150lbs, 200 lbs...

[WIS0320]

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.

 

My BMI is 21 and I am just naturally at the lower end of my recommended weight range for my height. You cannot believe the people who go on and on about how thin I am and how I should be "healthier".

 

I don't meet many people who actually think "model-thin" is attractive. Then again most people who (rudely) mention my weight/frame are women and frankly, sometimes I think it is sour grapes.

[tricia]

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!).

 

I personally love Jillian. And Bob. I've been working out for a year and all their videos. I love the "pain" they bring everyday!:lol: However, not too early in the morning though. I simply cannot bear the thought of hearing her voice at 5 a.m.:lol:

[Cera]

I know that I personally feel best when I weigh between 145 and 150 (with muscle, I'm 5' 9"). When I weigh more (I have been as high as 160) I feel terrible and it is very hard for me to maintain a weight less than 145.

[herkey6]

Several years ago I joined Weight Watchers. I had to rethink my ideas about what was healthy - My first day I looked at the leader and thought, "She is a healthy weight? She could loose a few!" I had been so convinced by society/media that healthy was stick thin.

 

I also think that people have such different shapes that how can we say one size is the perfect size??