Defining "normal" weight and BMI

[lauraellen80 854]

As I get closer to goal, I find myself thinking a lot about what it means to be a "normal" weight and how it's defined--by ourselves, by our doctors, by our peers, etc.

For some background, I was a ballet dancer as a child and teen, and my high school years were the only time in my life after hitting puberty that my BMI was in the "normal" range. I was dancing about 20 hours a week, but I still was pretty solidly in the middle of the "normal" BMI at about 120-125 lbs. I was always the "big" girl in ballet class. I felt ashamed that I was only 5'1.5" and yet weighed over 100 pounds. Most of my dance teachers were always trying to get me to lose weight. We had weekly weigh-ins, and roles were often given or denied based on whether or not you had lost the 10 pounds they wanted you to before auditions. I came home so many nights in tears, telling my mom that I'd been told to live on carrot sticks and Water until a performance, that she took me to my pediatrician and asked him straight out if I actually needed to lose weight or if I even had weight to lose. I remember him saying that I had a very muscular build, and to lose weight would mean losing muscle mass. Which at the time, seemed like what I was supposed to do--I didn't want to be muscular and strong, I wanted to be waifish and have collar bones and hip bones that jutted out. I did have a few great teachers who didn't hold with the BS ballet body ideals and really tried to counteract the others, but I still took a lot of the bad stuff to heart.

As you can imagine, I had some pretty effed-up ideas about ideal weight and body image, and I still struggle with it (and yes, I do see a therapist). In looking at the BMI charts and what is "normal" and "healthy" for someone of my height to weigh, I get very stressed out. I'm now 5'2", so by the standard chart, I should weigh between 104 and 135 pounds. I've set my goal at 135, but then the thoughts start creeping in... "but that's the fattest normal weight you can be," "gain 1 pound, and you'll be back into overweight status," "if you were really successful, wouldn't you be a the low end of normal instead of the high end?"

So what does the weight/BMI range signify? My gut reaction is that 104 lbs/BMI 19 is inherently "better" than 135 lbs/BMI 24.9. I suppose it's meant to encompass different body types... but what does that mean for me? what is my body type, and where should I fall on the scale? I've seen a number of people on these forums that set their goal in the middle of the normal range so that they have some wiggle room. But I just can't quite imagine that now--as a 34-year-old who has a primarily sedentary job, walks and does water aerobics a few times a week--I could possibly weigh the same that I did as a 16-year-old pre-professional ballet dancer.

Then, to throw more confusion into the mix, I've started reading about how frame size affects your weight. I measured my wrist according to the standard guidelines, and I apparently have a "large" frame (yep, that screwed with my head, too... but I guess I can't help my bone structure). So factoring that in along with my height and gender, other body weight calculators I've found (on hospital/official-type sites) give a range of 128-143 as "ideal" for me. Is this just a way to make people feel better about themselves, or is this a scientifically valid calculation?

Pretty much any doctor I've ever been to uses the BMI chart as the end-all, be-all for assessing healthy weight. If I reach my goal of 135 but no less, will every doctor's visit for the rest of my life still come with an admonition to watch my weight, because I'm right on the tipping point into fat & unhealthy territory? Because if after losing nearly 100 pounds, I still have to feel like I'm a cow who's one meal away from disaster, I'm going to be devastated!

It's so confusing and, at least for me, fraught with opportunities to fall back into my "all-or-nothing" thought patterns that contributed to my weight problems in the first place.

I was going to post this in the general WLS forum, but it turned into more of a rant than I intended... apologies for the long post.

[2goldengirl 2,076]

The BMI is, to put it mildly, flawed. It ignores gender, bone structure, and lean/fat ratios.

For you, I'd dump the BMI entirely and go with lean/fat ratio. And don't let ANYONE else mess with your head. If, for example, you have 100 lbs of lean mass, then add on a reasonable fat ratio, which for women is somewhere between 20 and 25%.

Ballet, gymnastics, and figure skating are loaded with women with eating disorders, as I'm sure you're aware. It can be enormously hard to turn off those messages you got from childhood. Keep working on it. I really believe you and your body will know when you're done losing and ready to make the transition to maintenance.

[Tssiemer1 549]

Yeah understanding more about what my weight number means I'm focusing more on losing excess weight and building lean muscle rather than "oh I have a BMI of 19 I'm perfect. See my ribs and hip bones? Look how pale and scaly my skin is. Wooo."

[thisfathasgot2go 235]

I don't know the answer. I am months behind you, and I have to say that your accomplishment is exceptional in the four months of your surgery.

It is hard for me to love myself, my body, but I have to try. I have set a goal of 125 for myself. It might not be realistic, but it works while I am attempting to do this. When I get to the weight, or get to a weight where I can say I feel good, look good, and I am able to maintain (hopefully) then I hope that the emotional side of me will agree and be happy with it! You are not a number, a weight or a BMI and I know it is not easy to look beyond this.

You are amazing regardless.

[Tssiemer1 549]

Not criticizing people with a low BMI. *I* just know I would look awful weighing that little.

[Mom26 313]

My daughter is a competitive dancer - 20+ hours/week. I know all to well what you're talking about and the industry puts forth so much pressure on image. I was also a gymnast until I turned 20. My daughter's pediatrician actually hid the BMI charts in their exam rooms because the only patients who were a slave to it were the athletes -- and it really doesn't pertain to them. I cannot imagine at 135 with an athletic build and muscle mass that you'd be anywhere near "heavy". I know you've been told all your life that muscle weighs more than fat. Take heed to that. My NUT asked my goal weight. I said 150. I'm 5'4". She ran some tests and said I should think more towards 175 because of my high muscle mass. I was stunned. But my 175 could very well be comparable to someone without as much muscle mass being 150. I've decided to rely more on inches than lbs. At least that's my plan of attack.

[James Marusek 5,244]

I think your goal weight (135 pounds) looks fine. That would give you a BMI of 24.7 which is on the high end of the normal weight - right where it should be. Studies show that individuals that are underweight or overweight have higher mortality rates than those that fall into the normal weight category. It is important to have a little extra fat on the body. Fat provides an energy buffer. When you encounter a serious injury or sickness, this fat provides the energy to sustain your body until you recover.

[winklie 518]

I'll toss my hat in this ring. At 5'10" my max "Healthy Weight" is 170lbs. Let me put that in perspective, I weighed 228 when I was 20 and went into the Army in 1991. After basic training I weighed 206 I think, which was more than the 180 the Army said I could weigh. Then they sent me to the Hospital, where they did all these measurements and said my body fat was very low (I mean I had a 6 pack, and 58" chest") they said my ideal weight was 200-218.

So, I set my goal for 200 pounds initially, but dropped it to 190 as I am not as muscular as I was in the Army (we'll see about that once I start resistance training). So, yes, for me BMI is utter rubbish, I have too large a frame (I spent 10 years as a part time bouncer, bigger = better) and will never weigh 170 lbs.

I go to the support meetings at the Hospital every month and I'll tell you what I keep hearing. by 18 months out, you will have attained your weight loss. At some point it just stops. Take advantage of that first 6 months, and the next 6, because months 12-18 weight loss slows down a great deal. Anyway, the point was, when you stop losing weight if you are happy and comfortable, then maintain that. If not, increase daily activity and cut back on calories until you do get to where you feel "right".

Edited October 25, 2015 by winklie

[The Candidate 3,215]

I'm only three months out, so I still have a ways to go. I'm also 5'2", like you. I'm currently 173 and I've put my ultimate goal down as 130. I'm basing this number on my most successful weight loss attempt over ten years ago. I got down to 130 then and I felt fantastic. All along, these intervening years, I've just wanted to feel that way again.

So I'm planning to base my stopping point on how I feel when I get there, both physically and mentally. There are so many variables that go into this process, that the BMI charts just don't address, including age and body type. But I'm not pinning my ultimate happiness on a specific number. In fact just yesterday, I was telling my brother that if the weight loss stopped now, I would still be satisfied, and would definitely do it all over again.

I'm already feeling better than I have in at least a decade. I'm no longer pre diabetic and my blood pressure and other vitals are perfect. I'm no longer the fattest person in the room, and I'm treated better. I don't fear fire drills and the four flights of stairs that go with it. My confidence and energy are at an all time high. If it gets better from here - great! If this is it - that's great too! Best decision ever!

Edited October 25, 2015 by The Post Op

[VSGAnn2014 12,992]

@@lauraellen80 ...

I think you know the correct answers to your questions, given all the excellent information you've laid out in your OP.

But I do think you need to do something to remove those childhood earwigs from your brain. It's time to grow up all the way, to see your childhood influences as the ignorant bullies they really were. They believed in their rigid ballerina ideology, ignorant as it was, that bore no relation to health, beauty, talents or happiness.

Please read this brief article. And please, please, please, watch the video at that page!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2713441/Who-said-ballerinas-delicate-Misty-Copeland-displays-phenomenal-muscle-power-dances-stage-new-Under-Armour-ad.html

[lauraellen80 854]

@@lauraellen80 ...

I think you know the correct answers to your questions, given all the excellent information you've laid out in your OP.

But I do think you need to do something to remove those childhood earwigs from your brain. It's time to grow up all the way, to see your childhood influences as the ignorant bullies they really were. They believed in their rigid ballerina ideology, ignorant as it was, that bore no relation to health, beauty, talents or happiness.

Please read this brief article. And please, please, please, watch the video at that page!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2713441/Who-said-ballerinas-delicate-Misty-Copeland-displays-phenomenal-muscle-power-dances-stage-new-Under-Armour-ad.html

Thanks. It's definitely something I'm working on in therapy.

And I LOVE Misty Copeland... I wish there had been ballerinas like her when I was young!

[VSGAnn2014 12,992]

I wish there'd been more Copelands around when you were young, too.

I've always loved this photo series of what great athletes look like. There's so much variation in what "in good physical shape" means that it just blows my mind.

Here are some of the pix:

http://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-howard-schatz/

[Daisee68 2,493]

@@lauraellen80 - I agree that BMI chart seems off. I don't know what the doctors will say if I don't get to the top of the "healthy" range, but I will worry about it when I get there. @@winklie gave SUCH a good example of that! I posted about this earlier this week because I had a conversation with my NUT about it. She said (and this is the first time I heard this) that if you have loose skin (and let's be honest - most of us do), then they say to aim for 27 BMI (instead of 24.9 which is high end of "normal") before plastics due to the excess skin. I thought this made a lot of sense and made me feel a bit better about goal. I am trying desperately not to focus on a number, but I do know that is hard. I like what @@winklie said about when your body gets to a point in 18 months and stops, then that is where you should be if you feel good at that number. (Of course, you have to worry about Body image issues and not overestimating what you actually look like.) Also a great post by @@VSGAnn2014!

[VSGAnn2014 12,992]

I had VSG surgery at age 68 (am now nearly 70). And yes, my skin (under clothes) doesn't look like it did at age 40 or 50 or even 60. But I was a lot fatter during most of those years.

The skin really doesn't bother me. And at 14+ months post-op, it actually seems to be tightening up a bit.

But the un-tight skin (again, under clothes) doesn't bother me at all. At my age I'm not going to have any body reconstruction done. The only event that would change that decision would be if I were to contract breast cancer I'd get two, not one, new boobs. Silver lining in that cloud, eh?

[Wendyfm 494]

here's my take. my BMI was over forty when I had my sleeve. i weighed 272, i now weigh between 170 and 172. a one hundred pound weight loss abd a size sixteen, down from a size 26/28 my BMI IS 31, still obese. even so I am completely happy with this and this is probably where i'll stay