Healthy weight ranges and overall health.

[Night Elf]

I'm not sure how to title this, but I have a question I'd like to discuss. The medical field likes to talk about healthy weight ranges and suggesting how people within that normal weight range are less likely to develop problems like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But who came up with the definition of the healthy weight range? How do you really know what's healthiest for you? For example, my range is 128 - 160. That's a huge range! Should I aim to stay on the lower end of that or is it really okay to be in the upper part? I supposedly have a small frame based on my height and wrist circumference. So should a small frame aim to weigh closer to the bottom part of the healthy weight range?

 

I realize exercise plays a part in defining someone as healthy. Still, I feel that if a person exercises and eats healthy, they will likely maintain a certain weight. That's what I've heard. So even if a person exercises, they are still, or somewhat, trying to stay within a certain weight range, right? Again, how does one choose what is the best weight for them?

 

For my own personal story, I lost 51 lbs. with diet only, no exercise. I know I'm not as healthy as I should be because I do not exercise. However, I maintain my low weight by continuing to eat the way I did while losing.

 

Choosing to begin an exercise regime is another thread. I'm more curious about whether or not people choose a healthy weight and use either diet, exercise, or a combination of both to maintain that weight. And how does one choose what weight is healthiest for them?

Edited April 9, 2016 by Night Elf

[Arcadia]

I have lighter bone density based on being urban chinese and have a small body frame. I would be on the lower end of below of the healthy range. My own country had a chart with three range based on shoulder width (bone to bone) for each height range.

[kiana]

Healthy weight range really is based off statistical averages, and there's not going to be an answer to 'what is MY ideal weight' -- and honestly there's probably going to be a range where you'd be perfectly healthy anywhere within that range. If you're within the normal range, you're probably not at seriously increased risk for obesity-related or underweight-related illnesses unless there's something else odd going on (massive muscle loss due to illness, for example). 

 

If you want some double-checks, consider checking your waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ratio, or getting your bodyfat percentage checked to see whether you're in recommended ranges on those. 

 

I go more by what I want my bodyfat percentage to be than what I want my weight to be. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by kiana

[MEmama]

I've determined my happy weight as the place where the scale stops when I am eating my best and exercising every day, and I feel balanced in my efforts. I can make the scale go down farther, but at a certain point I don't feel it's necessary, if that makes sense. Idk what the charts say is ideal, but I know when I FEEL ideal.

[Ottakee]

I know I am way overweight but honestly I am much healthier than I was 70 pounds lighter. I get more daily exercise and am very rarely sick. I have perfect blood sugars and blood pressure.

 

One thing is that heavier people tend to live longer with chronic health issues. An overweight guy with a heart attack survives but many thin, younger guys die instantly.

[MEmama]

I have a friend who is Japanese (as is her husband) and her paediatrician had her so freaked out by insisting her son wasn't progressing enough in his weight gain. It was so dumb and needless because even though with some prodding the pediatrician admitted their charts are based on the average growth of northern European children, she still insisted the numbers should apply across the board. Grr.

 

I know that's different, just an illustration that charts and averages have only a limited amount of accuracy.

[wendy not in HI]

I find the healthy weight range to be interesting and confusing, too. I am short (5'2") with broad strong shoulders. (Intersting that the comment above mentioned a weight chart based on shoulder measurements) At 125 pounds I wear small or size 2-4. I recently lost some weight (without much exercise) and am now in the healthy bmi range,though at the upper end. I am comfortable here and don't plan to lose any more weight. I do want to stay under 130.

 

I thought the discussion here earlier this week about taller ladies wanting to weight so much less than me was really interesting. I wonder if they are lovely, willowy shaped? I would never be called willowy! I'd say I have a more curvy, athletic shape, or maybe a traditional pioneer/farm girl shape... and I think that's okay! I'm stuck today watching hours of volleyball, and it is striking to see all the variety of healthy body shapes! My daughter, who weighs about 105 is shaped a lot like me - being lighter didn't magically change her shape to willowy.

 

As I have been losing weight, I have worried about regaining. I think keeping the weight off can actually be harder than losing! I bought the book "Refuse to Regain" and I really think the author knows what she is talking about. She is a doctor with years of experience working with obese people. She gives some basic guidelines for a healthy maintenance. She suggests that it is easier to lose weight without exercise, but that exercise is really importance for your general health and to help keep the weight off.

 

I also really love her blog: http://www.refusetoregain.com/ She talks a lot about healthy weight ranges, losing weight, maintaining, diet fads, exercise, etc. I particularly like the "best of" section from the sidebar.

[Bluegoat]

I really think the focus on weight with regards to health is excessive.  And the way statistics are used is IMO often inappropriate. 

 

I guess I am a fairly normal weight for my height.  I eat alright - my worst practice is probably a tendency to snack on salty things in the evening. I don't exersize nearly enough though.  When I am stressed, I tend to lose weight rather than gain it.

 

But, I actually don't often weigh myself.  I think how I feel, what I am eating, and my physical activity are really better ways to think about my health.

 

 

Just calculated my BMI - so it tells me I am overweight - I will be ok if I lose 1.73 to 41 lbs.  So, I just over-top the ideal by about 2 lbs.  I pretty much thing that is BS though.  I would certainly be underweight if I lost 41 lbs.

[kiana]

As I have been losing weight, I have worried about regaining. I think keeping the weight off can actually be harder than losing! I bought the book "Refuse to Regain" and I really think the author knows what she is talking about. She is a doctor with years of experience working with obese people. She gives some basic guidelines for a healthy maintenance. She suggests that it is easier to lose weight without exercise, but that exercise is really importance for your general health and to help keep the weight off.

 

Yes indeed. One reason (personally, for me) is when you are losing, you have a goal. You get to see progress towards your goal every time a pound comes off. 

 

When you are just trying to not gain, 'yay, another day of not going back over x weight' just doesn't have the same ring to it. 

[Penelope]

Some studies have shown that people with a BMI of about 19-21 (<22) are the least likely to develop chronic health conditions. There is a bigger increase at the top of the "normal" cutoff, but the trend towards more disease begins lower than that.

 

But it's also important to focus on daily exercise, eating >5 servings of vegetables and fruits per day, and other healthy habits. I think in the upper normal BMI range, we should focus on those things and not just in getting weight down lower.

[Kassia]

Some studies have shown that people with a BMI of about 19-21 (<22) are the least likely to develop chronic health conditions. There is a bigger increase at the top of the "normal" cutoff, but the trend towards more disease begins lower than that.

 

But it's also important to focus on daily exercise, eating >5 servings of vegetables and fruits per day, and other healthy habits. I think in the upper normal BMI range, we should focus on those things and not just in getting weight down lower.

 

Yes, I am at a healthy weight, but my diet is truly horrible.  I exercise a lot, but am a picky eater who hates vegetables.  I do like fruit, but don't eat much of it.  So far, I've been extremely healthy, but I do worry about the consequences of my lousy diet.  

 

Erica

[Laura Corin]

Vanity definitely comes into it with me - I like how I look at about 60kg.   However, there are also other things: I practise yoga, and extra fat gets in the way of my being able to do some positions to my own satisfaction.  I'm carrying an extra couple of kilos at present, and I'm hoping to get down to my normal yoga weight.  I am just making sure only to eat when I'm hungry.

 

I exercise almost daily and eat a lot of fruit and veg.  I'm a 10/9 on the sit and stand test, depending on whether I have to do it cross-legged or not.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sitting-rising-test-can-determine-longevity-says-expert-1.3039154

Edited April 9, 2016 by Laura Corin

[Carrie12345]

I think a good analogy would be intelligence.

We acknowledge a large number of intelligence factors.  Memory, logic, creativity, communication, emotional intelligence, etc. etc.  Few people are brilliant in every single area, but a combination of strong suits can make for a pretty intelligent person.  Meanwhile, a complete lack of a few areas can leave a person unable to function "normally" in society, even if they have the absolute best memory in human existence.

 

Weight can't tell a person if they're healthy, but healthy people *tend to fall within a weight range.  People who eat well and move well *tend to fall within a weight range.  

 

You (general) can be a "perfect" weight with clogged arteries.  You can be overweight and able to run marathons.  You can be underweight and have diabetes.  The scale doesn't care one way or the other, but your body does.

[KungFuPanda]

I'm not sure how to title this, but I have a question I'd like to discuss. The medical field likes to talk about healthy weight ranges and suggesting how people within that normal weight range are less likely to develop problems like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But who came up with the definition of the healthy weight range? How do you really know what's healthiest for you? For example, my range is 128 - 160. That's a huge range! Should I aim to stay on the lower end of that or is it really okay to be in the upper part? I supposedly have a small frame based on my height and wrist circumference. So should a small frame aim to weigh closer to the bottom part of the healthy weight range?

 

I realize exercise plays a part in defining someone as healthy. Still, I feel that if a person exercises and eats healthy, they will likely maintain a certain weight. That's what I've heard. So even if a person exercises, they are still, or somewhat, trying to stay within a certain weight range, right? Again, how does one choose what is the best weight for them?

 

For my own personal story, I lost 51 lbs. with diet only, no exercise. I know I'm not as healthy as I should be because I do not exercise. However, I maintain my low weight by continuing to eat the way I did while losing.

 

Choosing to begin an exercise regime is another thread. I'm more curious about whether or not people choose a healthy weight and use either diet, exercise, or a combination of both to maintain that weight. And how does one choose what weight is healthiest for them?

I have no idea what I weigh right now. I know I'm in good shape because I have the physical stamina to move all day and do everything I need to do without feeling weak or winded. I think if you eat more veggies than meat, and stand more than you sit, and find a hobby you enjoy that involves moving you're probably OK.

[Annie G]

I'm at the upper end of the healthy weight range for my height and I'd probably feel better losing 10-15 pounds. However, I exercise an hour or more most days and eat a fairly healthy diet. And those two seem to really impact how I feel. When I'm on a trip and don't work out for a week and eat foods I don't cook myself, I feel awful.   I know my weight is a factor but being 20 pounds thinner is just part of it- if I stopped working out or ate crummy food, I wouldn't feel as great as I do. 

[SKL]

Right now I am above my personal ideal weight, but I won't get on the scale until I fit back into my clothes.  :P

 

I did go check what the websites are saying is a healthy weight for me, and interestingly my personal ideal weight, which I established based on when I felt my best, is near the middle of the "healthy" range the web mentions.  So I guess they aren't ridiculous (at least at the site I looked at).

 

I believe what's healthy for individuals varies significantly, and the only way to really know what is best for an individual is for that person to experience the different possibilities and see which one feels best.

 

I'm not sure I believe in setting a goal weight for the long term.  I think if a person feels too heavy, the goal would be to lose "some" weight and then reassess.

[hornblower]

I think you can be in a good BMI range and still be unhealthy.


That's why it's just one part of assessing a healthy lifestyle.

Eating lots of vegetables and high fibre foods, not smoking, drinking little or no alcohol, exercising regularly are all things that would also be used in the assessment. You could be doing all these wrong and be in the good BMI range and you'd obviously not be healthy. But if you do all these right and are still out of BMI range, then you're not as healthy as you could be.

You're right that the ranges are large. It's to take into account body type and size of bones and build. It's the difference between being lean and willowy and being stocky and I think they actually give a healthy margin which encompasses most people. Where you decide to be in that range is partly how you feel, how you look, how much muscle v fat you carry.

Most weight loss happens through diet. It's very hard to exercise off 250 cal but it's extremely easy to consume them; it can be hard to choose to NOT consume them though!

Sure exercise helps a bit but for most of us, exercise is for health, proper nutrition is for weight loss.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited April 10, 2016 by hornblower

[heartlikealion]

how does one choose what weight is healthiest for them?

 

I suppose a number of factors, one of which is when my clothes fit comfortably/look like they fit right. Like no muffin top, not struggling to zip pants, shirt not making me self-conscious if it hugs my body.

 

I'm small framed and feel better at the lower end of the scale. Depending on the chart maybe even lower than the lowest. Not that I'm anywhere near there right now. Also, if the dr doesn't have any concerns about me.

 

I was just reading something online the other day about how BMI is not a great way to measure ideal weight. I think that's how those charts are made.

[DawnM]

I find the healthy weight range to be interesting and confusing, too. I am short (5'2") with broad strong shoulders. (Intersting that the comment above mentioned a weight chart based on shoulder measurements) At 125 pounds I wear small or size 2-4. I recently lost some weight (without much exercise) and am now in the healthy bmi range,though at the upper end. I am comfortable here and don't plan to lose any more weight. I do want to stay under 130.

 

I thought the discussion here earlier this week about taller ladies wanting to weight so much less than me was really interesting. I wonder if they are lovely, willowy shaped? I would never be called willowy! I'd say I have a more curvy, athletic shape, or maybe a traditional pioneer/farm girl shape... and I think that's okay! I'm stuck today watching hours of volleyball, and it is striking to see all the variety of healthy body shapes! My daughter, who weighs about 105 is shaped a lot like me - being lighter didn't magically change her shape to willowy.

 

As I have been losing weight, I have worried about regaining. I think keeping the weight off can actually be harder than losing! I bought the book "Refuse to Regain" and I really think the author knows what she is talking about. She is a doctor with years of experience working with obese people. She gives some basic guidelines for a healthy maintenance. She suggests that it is easier to lose weight without exercise, but that exercise is really importance for your general health and to help keep the weight off.

 

I also really love her blog: http://www.refusetoregain.com/ She talks a lot about healthy weight ranges, losing weight, maintaining, diet fads, exercise, etc. I particularly like the "best of" section from the sidebar.

 

Sizes are interesting aren't they?  I am shorter than you are and at 125 I wore a size 6-8.  I didn't fit in a size 4 until I got down to 108-112.  I never got into a 2.

 

As far as weights, I am very overweight right now and need to figure out what will work.  I have tried it all.  What I am finding is that I used to actually LIKE that feeling of hunger.  That empty stomach let me know I wouldn't be gaining.  But now, I can't take it.  If I go to bed hungry I actually wake up at around 2am and cannot get back to sleep unless I eat something.

[Laura Corin]

 But now, I can't take it.  If I go to bed hungry I actually wake up at around 2am and cannot get back to sleep unless I eat something.

 

I find that umami flavours are very satisfying, even if they aren't substantial.  Miso soup works for me.

[kiana]

Sizes are interesting aren't they?  I am shorter than you are and at 125 I wore a size 6-8.  I didn't fit in a size 4 until I got down to 108-112.  I never got into a 2.

 

As far as weights, I am very overweight right now and need to figure out what will work.  I have tried it all.  What I am finding is that I used to actually LIKE that feeling of hunger.  That empty stomach let me know I wouldn't be gaining.  But now, I can't take it.  If I go to bed hungry I actually wake up at around 2am and cannot get back to sleep unless I eat something.

 

I think sizes are one of the weirdest things. Like stuff that fits one part is too small elsewhere unless you actually pay to have it tailored.

 

re: hungry, if you get hungry at night would intermittent fasting work for you? For years I would wake up in the night and be unable to sleep if I hadn't eaten enough, so I started postponing breakfast and having a light/moderate lunch and a hearty dinner so I could go to bed happy and full and sleep well. It worked quite well for losing weight. I usually wasn't hungry for breakfast because I'd had so much the night before.

[SemiSweet]

Sizes are interesting aren't they? I am shorter than you are and at 125 I wore a size 6-8. I didn't fit in a size 4 until I got down to 108-112. I never got into a 2.

 

As far as weights, I am very overweight right now and need to figure out what will work. I have tried it all. What I am finding is that I used to actually LIKE that feeling of hunger. That empty stomach let me know I wouldn't be gaining. But now, I can't take it. If I go to bed hungry I actually wake up at around 2am and cannot get back to sleep unless I eat something.

Sizes are weird. I'm 5'4" and a size 2 at 130, I also look like I'm wasting away at that weight, which is right in the middle of the "healthy" zone on the BMI chart.

 

I have found my ideal weight by trial and error. I tend toward overweight, so I've lost and gained a bit several times in my adulthood. At my height I feel and look best at a technically overweight weight of 155. However, my frame is a bit on the large size and I'm very muscular. At 155 I'm a size 6-8 and it looks best on me.

[hornblower]

I think another thing happening is that our eyes have become used to overweight and obese. We simply don't see it very well anymore & I believe sometimes we tend to dismiss as "too lean and skinny" what is actually a healthy build because what we think is normal is at a much higher bmi. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by hornblower

[Soror]

I was just looking at that chart again when someone posted it. I'm currently around the middle of the normal range for my height. I eat lots of vegetables, am active whenever I can be and exercise a lot in various ways. A few years ago I got to the top of the normal range and I definitely had a lot more fat on my body than I was comfortable with(as Laura said with yoga you can sure feel that extra fat when you are trying to get in various poses!!!). The lowest I've been as an adult is 3 lbs from the bottom of normal range before baby #3- when I was 30- that is too thin for me. I had period issues getting that low, which to me indicates that is obviously not healthy size for me to maintain.

 

I think, as pp said, that one needs to take into account muscle mass and body fat when talking about being healthy. You can weigh a lot more and still be a smaller size if you have a higher muscle mass. Being at the lowest end but not having much muscle mass isn't really that great.

 

I really agree with the pp said that maintenance should be a size maintained when eating well(real/unprocessed foods for the most part- not starving oneself or binging but to satiety) and being active. Exercise is great- I love it- but I think it is just as important to live an active life. Movement should be a part of our whole day(not just 30 min or an hr), as we are learning just sitting around is related to mortality rates. 

[Laurie4b]

From what I read, the most important issue is waist circumference (measured at your belly button.) It should be half your height. For the weight ranges, yes, generally smaller frames should be at the lower end. One way to tell whether you are at a healthy weight is measurement of good cholesterol, blood pressure, triglycerides and glucose. If you are not at a healthy weight, these measures will be on the wrong side of the normal range. (HDL will be low, BP, triglycerides, and glucose will be high)

[Penelope]

I think another thing happening is that our eyes have become used to overweight and obese. We simply don't see it very well anymore & I believe sometimes we tend to dismiss as "too lean and skinny" what is actually a healthy build because what we think is normal is at a much higher bmi.

Yes.

 

And focus on clothing size isn't the best way to figure out how we are doing, either. Vanity sizing is rampant in the U.S.

 

A size 2 used to be tiny. Even twenty years ago, the only people who could wear size 2 were super petite. You had to be fairly thin to wear a 6. Maybe in designer brands that is still true, I don't know. But I find that I wear smaller sizes, by at least one size, sometimes two-- in the same brands!-- than I did pre-kids, and I weigh more (and I know it's not all muscle!).

Edited April 10, 2016 by Penelope

[ajfries]

Sizes are weird. I'm 5'4" and a size 2 at 130, I also look like I'm wasting away at that weight, which is right in the middle of the "healthy" zone on the BMI chart.

 

I have found my ideal weight by trial and error. I tend toward overweight, so I've lost and gained a bit several times in my adulthood. At my height I feel and look best at a technically overweight weight of 155. However, my frame is a bit on the large size and I'm very muscular. At 155 I'm a size 6-8 and it looks best on me.

 

I'm so glad you posted this. I'm a 5'3 pear shaped Puerto Rican. Right now I weigh 155 and am I size 8. It's the biggest I've ever been outside of pregnancy, and am in the 'overweight' category. I'd be perfectly fine weighing this much if I knew I was healthier; drinking more water, being more active, eating less sugar. After I had my son oldest, I got down to 128 lbs and looked terrible.

 

Anyway, I've been thinking about this topic a lot and have decided that in the past I've been most comfortable at 135-140 lbs. I've got my curves but I don't feel like my round face looks chubby.

 

But really, I want to feel like I'm doing right by my body. That I can play some soccer with my nephews & kids, and that I'm well hydrated, eating enough fruits and veggies.

[ErinE]

Years ago, I was active in a fitness sport. While I was in excellent physical shape, I weighed 5-7 pounds more than women with similar height but I had a much lower body fat percentage. Other women were in the 20s while I was in the low teens. Externally, we looked the same size. I actually looked more emaciated because you could see the bones in my upper chest. Even though I was heavier, the coaches considered me healthier because I ate better, lifted weights, and engaged in moderate exercise (i was cautioned about letting my body fat percentage get too low). So weight doesn't tell the whole story.

 

When I was heavier, I was jogging 6 miles, 4-5 times a week. I thought if I just ran enough, I could lose weight. It turns out, too much exercise makes me so hungry that I eat more. It took several years to recondition my mindset. Because of my experience, I don't think exercise is a good way to lose weight although it is important for maintaining health. For me, diet, moderate walks, and more daily movement (less sitting, parking at the back of the lot, walking around while on the phone) help me maintain my weight.

 

My healthy weight is one where I don't feel I'm starving myself to maintain it, but I can enjoy an occasional treat. I have been much smaller and it's an uncomfortable, gnawing feeling to keep my weight so low. My set point weight may be higher than what I thought it should be when I was a young adult, but I've learned to listen to my body, something that was ignored when I focused on numbers and scales.

Edited April 10, 2016 by ErinE

[Soror]

One book I really enjoyed which talked about size and health for women was: Why Women Need Fat. I don't agree with all of their conclusions but I really enjoyed the historical info on size/weight. They go over used to be normal size for women, not just in the US but all other the world. They talk about how women gain weight as they age across cultures and times (we are just starting heavier and gaining more now). Another big change they noticed is that for even women who are a healthy weight these days a good chunk of them have a waist that is in the unhealthy category(35 in+). So while your weight may be ok your waist circumference may still be putting you at a health risk. A small waist with larger hips and thighs is better for you- as to how big that varies but there should be fair sized difference(waist-hip ratio calculator). The book has a chart for figuring out a good weight goal based on the historical info. 

 

We are too focused on aesthetics and not actual health. As has been said the survival rates are better when you are not overly thin. 

The big questions are- how are your numbers (cholesterol, BP, blood sugar) etc. What is your level of fitness? You don't have to be an athlete but adults w/out other issues should be able to walk at least 3 miles easily for starters. How do you feel(aches/pains/fatigue/energy/mood)? So many more important numbers then weight, it is just a starting point.

[heartlikealion]

Yeah, the clothing sizes are a joke. I have a pair of jeans (not stretchy material) that are size 10 and are hard to get on. I have stretch size 8 and they are too big. I wear tops in different sizes. I'm 5'5" and 128 lbs. right now and that weight is too big on my frame although it's in the normal range, at least on the charts that don't take into account frame. I'd like to lose around 10 lbs. Basically just get down to no muffin top/lose some love handles and maybe if I'm lucky some of the weight in the thighs. But I had some of that even when I was "skinny" and under weight.

 

This calculator says I should be about 121 lbs for my frame. http://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/height_weight_foradults.aspSo my goal is pretty on par.

Edited April 10, 2016 by heartlikealion

[hornblower]

 

 As has been said the survival rates are better when you are not overly thin. 

 

I read an analysis of this & they said when they crunched the numbers more deeply, it had to do with thin people having lower fat reserves & thus not doing as well during sudden very severe illness, such as a cancer. 

 

The take home from their analysis was not that being slender was dangerous in & of itself - esp since there's a lower risk of developing these serious diseases if you maintain a healthy bmi, but of course there's always an element of chance & genetics & environmental exposures which you cannot control. I think if you're extremely slender and are diagnosed with a serious disease which will affect appetite & tax your body reserves, a prudent thing would be to consult a nutritionist & try to pack on some healthy weight if possible. But this would not be applying to your average person, kwim? 

 

My understanding is that being far below your healthy BMI would be a problem. Being in the lower end, depending on a person's build of course, isn't. 

 

[regentrude]

I read an analysis of this & they said when they crunched the numbers more deeply, it had to do with thin people having lower fat reserves & thus not doing as well during sudden very severe illness, such as a cancer. 

 

The take home from their analysis was not that being slender was dangerous in & of itself - esp since there's a lower risk of developing these serious diseases if you maintain a healthy bmi, but of course there's always an element of chance & genetics & environmental exposures which you cannot control. I think if you're extremely slender and are diagnosed with a serious disease which will affect appetite & tax your body reserves, a prudent thing would be to consult a nutritionist & try to pack on some healthy weight if possible. But this would not be applying to your average person, kwim? 

 

My understanding is that being far below your healthy BMI would be a problem. Being in the lower end, depending on a person's build of course, isn't. 

 

 

I hope they have also been careful in their analysis and excluded all people who were thin because of an underlying medical condition - otherwise there is a component of "sick people have a harder time getting well"... duh

 

[Soror]

Yeah, the clothing sizes are a joke. I have a pair of jeans (not stretchy material) that are size 10 and are hard to get on. I have stretch size 8 and they are too big. I wear tops in different sizes. I'm 5'5" and 128 lbs. right now and that weight is too big on my frame although it's in the normal range, at least on the charts that don't take into account frame. I'd like to lose around 10 lbs. Basically just get down to no muffin top/lose some love handles and maybe if I'm lucky some of the weight in the thighs. But I had some of that even when I was "skinny" and under weight.

 

This calculator says I should be about 121 lbs for my frame. http://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/height_weight_foradults.aspSo my goal is pretty on par.

Interesting I'd always said I'm between a small and a medium frame and evidently that is exactly right. I keep getting slightly different measurements the 1/4 in difference bouncing me between small and med frame. I'd say those #s are pretty close to what works for me BUT I think they are on the smaller end and wouldn't necessarily work for everyone, especially if you have a good amount of muscle mass.

[Paige]

I have lighter bone density based on being urban chinese and have a small body frame. I would be on the lower end of below of the healthy range. My own country had a chart with three range based on shoulder width (bone to bone) for each height range.

 

Do you have a link to the chart based on shoulder width in English? I'd like to see it.

[Pam in CT]

re our eyes and sizing have gotten accustomed to larger sizes:

 

Yes.

And focus on clothing size isn't the best way to figure out how we are doing, either. Vanity sizing is rampant in the U.S.

A size 2 used to be tiny. Even twenty years ago, the only people who could wear size 2 were super petite. You had to be fairly thin to wear a 6. Maybe in designer brands that is still true, I don't know. But I find that I wear smaller sizes, by at least one size, sometimes two-- in the same brands!-- than I did pre-kids, and I weigh more (and I know it's not all muscle!).

 

So true.  When I was in college I wore a size 4 at Ann Taylor and Talbots.  Three kids and three decades later, I still do.  I assure you I am NOT the same size.

 

My eldest daughter is now in college, same height and weight and basic frame size as I was when I was her age.  She wears a 2 or a 0 at Ann Taylor and Talbots.  What does size 0 even mean?  

[Penelope]

I hope they have also been careful in their analysis and excluded all people who were thin because of an underlying medical condition - otherwise there is a component of "sick people have a harder time getting well"... duh

 

No, they didn't. But of course the press mostly reports the sensational result.

 

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12064386/3806201.pdf?sequence=1

[kiana]

So true.  When I was in college I wore a size 4 at Ann Taylor and Talbots.  Three kids and three decades later, I still do.  I assure you I am NOT the same size.

 

My eldest daughter is now in college, same height and weight and basic frame size as I was when I was her age.  She wears a 2 or a 0 at Ann Taylor and Talbots.  What does size 0 even mean?  

 

It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

In some brands (like those) I'm at 4/6 and ... yeah my mother's size 12s from 40 years ago fit just fine as well. 

[Penelope]

re our eyes and sizing have gotten accustomed to larger sizes:

 

 

So true. When I was in college I wore a size 4 at Ann Taylor and Talbots. Three kids and three decades later, I still do. I assure you I am NOT the same size.

 

My eldest daughter is now in college, same height and weight and basic frame size as I was when I was her age. She wears a 2 or a 0 at Ann Taylor and Talbots. What does size 0 even mean?

I have wondered where thin normal (usually young) women even find clothes these days.

[regentrude]

No, they didn't. But of course the press mostly reports the sensational result.

 

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12064386/3806201.pdf?sequence=1

 

Good article in the link, thanks.

If the methodology is this flawed, how does what they are doing pass as science?

[38carrots]

Sizes are interesting aren't they?  I am shorter than you are and at 125 I wore a size 6-8.  I didn't fit in a size 4 until I got down to 108-112.  I never got into a 2.

 

As far as weights, I am very overweight right now and need to figure out what will work.  I have tried it all.  What I am finding is that I used to actually LIKE that feeling of hunger.  That empty stomach let me know I wouldn't be gaining.  But now, I can't take it.  If I go to bed hungry I actually wake up at around 2am and cannot get back to sleep unless I eat something.

 

Sizes *are* interesting. I'm 6 feet tall and at my lowest was at 142lb and was very skinny. I wore size 10-12 ha-ha.

[DawnM]

I think sizes are one of the weirdest things. Like stuff that fits one part is too small elsewhere unless you actually pay to have it tailored.

 

re: hungry, if you get hungry at night would intermittent fasting work for you? For years I would wake up in the night and be unable to sleep if I hadn't eaten enough, so I started postponing breakfast and having a light/moderate lunch and a hearty dinner so I could go to bed happy and full and sleep well. It worked quite well for losing weight. I usually wasn't hungry for breakfast because I'd had so much the night before.

 

That is considered intermittent fasting?  I had no idea.

[Soror]

I read an analysis of this & they said when they crunched the numbers more deeply, it had to do with thin people having lower fat reserves & thus not doing as well during sudden very severe illness, such as a cancer. 

 

The take home from their analysis was not that being slender was dangerous in & of itself - esp since there's a lower risk of developing these serious diseases if you maintain a healthy bmi, but of course there's always an element of chance & genetics & environmental exposures which you cannot control. I think if you're extremely slender and are diagnosed with a serious disease which will affect appetite & tax your body reserves, a prudent thing would be to consult a nutritionist & try to pack on some healthy weight if possible. But this would not be applying to your average person, kwim? 

 

My understanding is that being far below your healthy BMI would be a problem. Being in the lower end, depending on a person's build of course, isn't. 

 

I think you extrapolated a bit much from my statement. All I said is being overly thin is not the best for mortality. Even the Harvard study just linked says

lowest mortality was frequently observed among those with BMI 22.5–25

 

 

 

The case is not closed on the Obesity Paradox just yet, from this article from Nov 2015. The top nutritionist at Harvard was also rebuked for how he came out against Flegal (the original publisher of the study). As to how it will play out I don't know, I just read another article that said the confounding factors for the research from the Obesity Paradox was people who had formerly been overweight and then lost weight skewed the results for the leaner people to more unhealthy.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm firmly in the healthy weight category and wear a size 4/small(and was only once officially overweight( 5lbs ) when I went on Depo) and I don't plan to gain weight regardless of what any research says. But I also see that we have a bias about size that is not always strictly about health but more about aesthetics and what we've agreed is attractive. I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg in understanding obesity/weight etc.

 What’s more, at least one team has examined and dismissed the better-treatment explanation. The researchers, led by a French endocrinologist named Boris Hansel, analyzed data on 54,000 patients who were at risk of stroke and heart attack. The optimal treatment for these patients is well known: protective drugs like statins and beta-blockers. But mild obesity seemed to protect at-risk patients whether or not they were taking the drugs.

 

 

 

Another potential explanation is that the data on people of normal weight are skewed. Researchers know that people tend to lose weight toward the end of life, but don’t always realize that they are sick. Smoking also makes people thinner and sicker. So, goes the theory, maybe researchers have inadvertently lumped mortally ill people and smokers in with healthy folk of normal weight, thus making the normal weight group look less healthy than it really is.

There’s some evidence to back up this argument, but the studies on the issue are far from clear. The argument certainly does not seem to make the obesity paradox go away, at least according to Mercedes Carnethon, an epidemiologist at Northwestern University who has analyzed data on diabetes patients. Carnethon began by excluding patients who died within two years of diagnosis, to account for people who were already sick but didn’t know it; she still found higher mortality rates among thin people. Then she ran the data separately for smokers and non-smokers; still no difference. No matter how many ways she sliced and diced the data, the obesity paradox persisted. (Flegal also ran her data with and without smokers, and found no difference.)

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2016 by soror

[kiana]

That is considered intermittent fasting?  I had no idea.

 

There are two things generally called IF -- one would be something like the 5:2 style diet (doesn't work for me) and the other just involves confining all eating to a certain window of time. I've seen 4-8 hours frequently and windows outside of that more rarely. I'm not doing it anymore because I'm done losing weight but it worked great, I'd be done eating by 8pm and not eat again until noon the next day. I just didn't feel hungry in the morning but I was full at bedtime.

 

[KungFuPanda]

Yes.

 

And focus on clothing size isn't the best way to figure out how we are doing, either. Vanity sizing is rampant in the U.S.

 

A size 2 used to be tiny. Even twenty years ago, the only people who could wear size 2 were super petite. You had to be fairly thin to wear a 6. Maybe in designer brands that is still true, I don't know. But I find that I wear smaller sizes, by at least one size, sometimes two-- in the same brands!-- than I did pre-kids, and I weigh more (and I know it's not all muscle!).

This is true. I wear the same 'size' I did in high school. I do NOT weigh anywhere near the same, but the sizes have crept up enough in one generation that I can claim the number. My daughter, who is tiny, has a terrible time finding clothes that fit because her size seems to have fallen off the charts in lots of stores. I know that I didn't struggle to find clothes like she does and she lives near much better shopping than I ever did.