Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks, folks. Charles, "optimal" means the weight that gives me the best shot at longevity. For a variety of reasons, this will reduce my stress, not increase it. My bride has come up with a chronic condition that weight loss will help, so we've been dieting seriously and successfully since March--she's quite motivated, and so am I, and she plans most meals. As for how long the weight will stay off, I'm optimistic (like every dieter, I suppose.) Fifteen years ago, we started on low-carb. I dropped from a range of 220-230 pounds to about 170, then spent many years back up at 180-195. In this stint it's down to 162.
Because I did carve out a lower range before, and because of the motivation to stay healthy since one of us really ought to be, I think the weight stays off. We're eating a lot better, very little junk, a lot more health conscious now.
Suzie, I swim for health more than 5 days per week, on average, a vigourous whole body workout. It's the right exercise for me. I do some stretches every day to maintain flexibility. My doctor is kind of a large person, with a BMI chart prominently displayed in his shop--wouldn't trust him with this aspect of my health. I think BMI is a very crude tool.
Weatherfan, you are hitting the whole point with the visceral fat/subcutaneous fat distinction. My reading says tummy and spare tire fat is way worse for cardiac health and healthy metabolism than fat in other areas. So "apple shape" is worse than "pear shape." Unfortunately, I'm an apple. The weight melted off below the waist first, and even now after dropping 30 pounds, the last 4-6-8 pounds (or whatever) that I need to get rid of is around my waist. And it is gumming up that "waist to hip" ratio.
The fitness thing I'm confident about (I feel better than I have in decades), blood sugar has never been an issue, blood pressure I need to check but suspect it is around 110/75.
Still would like to hear something from somebody with professional expertise in these ratios, waist-height and waist-hip.
I do new patient screenings for risk at my hospital and worked at a couple of others (and the health dept, WIC, and nursing homes for my clinicals) Although BMI is used it is not the indicator we refer to for our assessments. We use IBW and % of IBW (ideal body weight). This is for a female 105 lbs for the first 5 ft and 5lbs every inch after that. For a male it's 106 lbs for the first 5ft and 6lbs every inch after that. If you are under five feet you subtract five pounds for every inch. In metric it would be IBW= 50kg + 2.3 for each inch thereafter and females would be 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg for each inch after. 20% above and below your IBW is still a healthy range. So if you are a 5'10" male your IBW should be 106 + 60= 166 lbs.
Problem with ideal body weight is it still doesn't take into account your build. I may be tall but have a very thin narrow skeletal frame and am very light. I weighed 22kg when I was 10 years old and 5ft tall for example. Always had that body type but always been in good condition and doctors are amazed when they see how healthy I am yet so thin.
I do new patient screenings for risk at my hospital and worked at a couple of others (and the health dept, WIC, and nursing homes for my clinicals) Although BMI is used it is not the indicator we refer to for our assessments. We use IBW and % of IBW (ideal body weight). This is for a female 105 lbs for the first 5 ft and 5lbs every inch after that. For a male it's 106 lbs for the first 5ft and 6lbs every inch after that. If you are under five feet you subtract five pounds for every inch. In metric it would be IBW= 50kg + 2.3 for each inch thereafter and females would be 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg for each inch after. 20% above and below your IBW is still a healthy range. So if you are a 5'10" male your IBW should be 106 + 60= 166 lbs.
I'd never want to weigh 117.5 (which is your measurement of what my "ideal body weight" is supposed to be). I'd probably feel very weak all the time, due to lack of muscletone. I'd definitely be dehydrated and lacking severely in body fat. I have a medium frame, I'm not petite-boned by any stretch of the imagination. My adult weight, up until I quit smoking, averaged around 145. I'm 5'3", but I grew half an inch since I was in my 30's, up until around 36 I was 5'2.5".
At one point I hit 160 in my 30's, and then something happened, I'm not sure what and neither were the doctors. I lost a significant amount of weight without doing anything new or special. I got down to 122 in around 6 months, and the doctor said if I lost any more, he'd send me to a specialist. Thankfully, my weight levelled out at 122 and slowly climbed back up to the 140's.
I feel more healthy and robust when I'm between 130 and 145. Your idea of "ideal" doesn't even make my list of "ideals."
There is no "ideal" body weight. The best we can do is shoot for a weight that is within a range.
The BMI is not meant to be a reference for optimal weight. It is a screening tool that may identify people who may be overweight. That is all it is. Unless you are especially athletic, an elevated BMI probably means you are fatter than you should be. Its advantage is that it is easy to calculate.
If you wish to fine tune your weight, measuring body fat percentage can help you find the healthiest weight for yourself. There are devices similar to scales that can determine your total body fat and it can be estimated with measurements. If you belong to a gym, someone there may be able to do it for you.
This is a simplified chart. There are others which factor age in the equation:
For an individual, the best approach is to focus on a balanced diet and fitness, with activities that increase aerobic capacity, muscle strength and endurance, and flexibility. If your total body fat is in a good range, your weight will be, too.
I do new patient screenings for risk at my hospital and worked at a couple of others (and the health dept, WIC, and nursing homes for my clinicals) Although BMI is used it is not the indicator we refer to for our assessments. We use IBW and % of IBW (ideal body weight). This is for a female 105 lbs for the first 5 ft and 5lbs every inch after that. For a male it's 106 lbs for the first 5ft and 6lbs every inch after that. If you are under five feet you subtract five pounds for every inch. In metric it would be IBW= 50kg + 2.3 for each inch thereafter and females would be 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg for each inch after. 20% above and below your IBW is still a healthy range. So if you are a 5'10" male your IBW should be 106 + 60= 166 lbs.
Interesting information, thanks. In my case, IBW points to 154 pounds. That, coincidentally, is about where the waist-hip ratio of 90% will be for me. Waist-height and the top end of the BMI both point to higher weights. And for what it is worth, IBW is about the midpoint of the Met Life chart for my height and build.
I agree with those who say that these methods indicate a range, or need to be adjusted for individual factors. I disagree with those who say they are all ridiculous. Using a "weight of the evidence" approach, balancing all these factors, three of these indicators come together around the same weight. I'd be foolish not to aim for that.
I do new patient screenings for risk at my hospital and worked at a couple of others (and the health dept, WIC, and nursing homes for my clinicals) Although BMI is used it is not the indicator we refer to for our assessments. We use IBW and % of IBW (ideal body weight). This is for a female 105 lbs for the first 5 ft and 5lbs every inch after that. For a male it's 106 lbs for the first 5ft and 6lbs every inch after that. If you are under five feet you subtract five pounds for every inch. In metric it would be IBW= 50kg + 2.3 for each inch thereafter and females would be 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg for each inch after. 20% above and below your IBW is still a healthy range. So if you are a 5'10" male your IBW should be 106 + 60= 166 lbs.
This is a good method ^^^. My target weight is exactly what this chart indicates. Right now I am at the top weight of the BMI, probably need to lose about 15 more. Like Marcopolo, I have lost a lot of weight, but am still overweight around my middle. I am Type 2 diabetic, so this is a problem for me. My husband has the same issue, when he loses it it hard to leave the middle, and he has some issues - metabolic syndrome (elevated BP, pre-diabetic and high cholesterol).
As others have pointed out, while there is no "ideal" weight, since we are all individual, with larger or smaller bones, and more or less muscle, at least these charts give a good indication of where most of us should be.
There is no "ideal" body weight. The best we can do is shoot for a weight that is within a range.
The BMI is not meant to be a reference for optimal weight. It is a screening tool that may identify people who may be overweight. That is all it is. Unless you are especially athletic, an elevated BMI probably means you are fatter than you should be. Its advantage is that it is easy to calculate.
If you wish to fine tune your weight, measuring body fat percentage can help you find the healthiest weight for yourself. There are devices similar to scales that can determine your total body fat and it can be estimated with measurements. If you belong to a gym, someone there may be able to do it for you.
This is a simplified chart. There are others which factor age in the equation:
For an individual, the best approach is to focus on a balanced diet and fitness, with activities that increase aerobic capacity, muscle strength and endurance, and flexibility. If your total body fat is in a good range, your weight will be, too.
While skin calipers are used for determining overall body fat (and a few other methods) these are the clinical guidelines and standards which we use in our country and most of the world. How you compare to your IBW is what is recorded in your medical chart and part of the evaluation/screenings/risk assessments they use to see if you need nutritional counseling. Your bone size would be taken into consideration and place you in the upper (or lower if small boned part of your IBW). You may not like it, but this is the best tool we have to date. We do use BMI too, but it's not the "gold standard" such as the IBW and % of IBW.
I'd never want to weigh 117.5 (which is your measurement of what my "ideal body weight" is supposed to be). I'd probably feel very weak all the time, due to lack of muscletone. I'd definitely be dehydrated and lacking severely in body fat. I have a medium frame, I'm not petite-boned by any stretch of the imagination. My adult weight, up until I quit smoking, averaged around 145. I'm 5'3", but I grew half an inch since I was in my 30's, up until around 36 I was 5'2.5".
At one point I hit 160 in my 30's, and then something happened, I'm not sure what and neither were the doctors. I lost a significant amount of weight without doing anything new or special. I got down to 122 in around 6 months, and the doctor said if I lost any more, he'd send me to a specialist. Thankfully, my weight levelled out at 122 and slowly climbed back up to the 140's.
I feel more healthy and robust when I'm between 130 and 145. Your idea of "ideal" doesn't even make my list of "ideals."
Nice try,but people stop growing in their late teens to early 20's in height.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
