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.
I've dieted down to what I weighed decades ago, when I was 16 and in the best shape of my life. That took my Body Mass Index from 30 to 24.5. According to the BMI, that's in the healthy range. But I'm not 16 anymore, and the same weight then is not as good-looking now.
I googled to try to find a better measure of ideal weight, and came across interesting research about "waist to hip ratio." The tape measure says I need to lose more weight to get to a 0.90 ratio on waist to hip. The research says if I don't, I'm on the wrong side of the line--at risk for bad stuff, healthwise.
Then I read about "waist to height ratio." Seems like if your waist is half your height or less (0.50 ratio) then you're on the right side of the line. One meta-study reviewed other research, 300,000 participants in all the studies, and put the line at 0.50. And it is supposed to be more correlated to good health outcomes than any other common measure.
So the BMI said get to one weight to be in the healthy range, "waist to height" wanted another 4 pounds off, and "waist to hip" seems to want an additional 6 pounds off of that. I got the BMI target (high end), I got the "waist to height" target, and I am going to lose the 6 more pounds to get the "waist to hip" target (estimated poundage based on past changes).
I know the mortality rate is 100% and we're all going to die sooner or later, but I would certainly prefer later. Does anybody have any perspective on determining the weight one should be for optimal health and longevity? I got the exercise thing covered, I know how to lose weight, but I want to be smart about my goals. There has got to be some knowledgeable people posting here...what do you have on this?
Does anybody have any perspective on determining the weight one should be for optimal health...?
What do you mean by "optimum health"? For example, if attaining peak physical condition affects you psychologically by driving you into a stressful situation, is that optimum health? Or, hypothetically (and most likely, realistically) would a trade off of being 10 pounds over that weight (as a simple example) but 69% less stressed out be optimal health?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
I've dieted down to what I weighed decades ago, when I was 16
I know how to lose weight,
Also, how long will you keep that weight off? Anybody can lose weight but the overwhelming majority of people put most of it back on.
You raise some good questions, Charles. Stress is so much more detrimental to our health than a lot of us give it credit for. I think the first thing I would do would be to pay a visit to my doctor. Your doctor can provide a better answer for where your optimal weight is, based on your individual body type, shape and lifestyle. Once you've set the appropriate weight loss goal, find an exercise you love and start tracking calories in as well as calories expended in exercise. There are a lot of free fitness apps that make the process of tracking calories easy and even kind of fun.
Body fat percentage (and proportion of visceral to subcutaneous) would be better than BMI but it's not easy to measure accurately.
Also, fitness. How people compare to a certain standard of expected fitness level, like time to run a mile, how soon an elevated pulse rate normalizes.
Also blood cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure numbers.
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.
If you only have 5-10 pounds to lose, in order to be at "optimal health" for longevity, I'll offer you this little bit of wisdom:
Stressing over that last 10 pounds, will shave off a few years of that longevity you want. So if that's all it is, stop stressing, and call it a wash.
Quality of life, will always trump quantity of life. If your insides are as healthy as a 20-year-old when you're 90, but you've spent the last 20 years of that 90 suffering from Alzheimer's disease, you might not be so enthusiastic about living to 100.
If you only have 5-10 pounds to lose, in order to be at "optimal health" for longevity, I'll offer you this little bit of wisdom:
Stressing over that last 10 pounds, will shave off a few years of that longevity you want. So if that's all it is, stop stressing, and call it a wash.
Quality of life, will always trump quantity of life. If your insides are as healthy as a 20-year-old when you're 90, but you've spent the last 20 years of that 90 suffering from Alzheimer's disease, you might not be so enthusiastic about living to 100.
Thanks for that, nice post, but I'm not stressing. Many lines of research are pointing to links between healthy insides and a lower risk of Alzheimers. There is some indication that midsection fat in midllife is correlated to higher chances of Alzheimers later.
I don't have any metabolic disorders or hormone complications or diseases that interrupt weight loss--losing one pound (for me) is a simple matter of consuming 3,500 calories less than I burn over a period of time. When I started earlier this year, I knew I would have to NOT eat 100,000 calories that would otherwise be required to maintain my unhealthy weight. Do I fall off the wagon every so often, or plan intentional breaks from the routine? Of course. But for me, this is about arithmetic, not stress levels. I lead a charmed life and I'd like to do what I can to extend it. I know it is not that simple for many, my sympathies to them.
I would use one of the electrode scales that require bare feet and a second point of contact instead of the proportions/ratios. This will give you weight, water weight, muscle & fat mass, and your resting metabolism. If you are in a healthy range for both water (ie enough) and fat (per your age) you should be in good shape as long as your blood pressure & blood are also fine. The other good thing about these is that they will identify where you are carrying your weight. The first time I used one I really realized how much weight I was carrying through my torso (worst place to carry) and how much of my weight was fat vs muscle vs water. Its a pretty great tool since you focus on more than just pounds but body composition. And it also makes you 'come to Jesus' in terms of how many calories you actually need.
Some of the ratios will be harder on someone who is not a standard shape or has previously lost/gained weight who will not have as low of a waist measurement.
I would use one of the electrode scales that require bare feet and a second point of contact instead of the proportions/ratios. This will give you weight, water weight, muscle & fat mass, and your resting metabolism. If you are in a healthy range for both water (ie enough) and fat (per your age) you should be in good shape as long as your blood pressure & blood are also fine. The other good thing about these is that they will identify where you are carrying your weight. The first time I used one I really realized how much weight I was carrying through my torso (worst place to carry) and how much of my weight was fat vs muscle vs water. Its a pretty great tool since you focus on more than just pounds but body composition. And it also makes you 'come to Jesus' in terms of how many calories you actually need.
Some of the ratios will be harder on someone who is not a standard shape or has previously lost/gained weight who will not have as low of a waist measurement.
Hadn't heard about those scales, thanks for the information. You delivered what I was looking for.
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.
