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.

The problem with this is that I am built like a football player. I have very wide large shoulders, very big legs, and am just a big guy. Even in the Army I was allowed to weight I think 200 lbs, when for my height I should have been at 170 I think.

My NUT and I discussed this today, and she said the best indicator for someone like me is the scale you step on barefoot that calculates excess body fat, there is percentage of body fat that is okay 6%? 8%? I don't remember but at my 3 month appointment I get that measurement done again and I'll make sure to get my idea body fat %.

What Winklie said.

IMHO, there's no single ideal weight for everyone of the same height.

One of my favorite representations of how different human beings' bodies are is the images on this page -- of the variation among Olympic athletes' bodies:

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/howard-schatz-beverly-ornstein-athlete

Medically speaking, the ideal weight formula we learned in school was as follows:

Women: 45.5kg + 2.3kg per inch over 5'

Men: 50kg + 2.3kg per inch over 5'

Well, that just sucks. I'm supposed to be 110 pounds by that formula. I haven't been 110 pounds since 5th grade. I was between 115 and 125 when I was dancing.

Medically speaking, the ideal weight formula we learned in school was as follows:

Women: 45.5kg + 2.3kg per inch over 5'

Men: 50kg + 2.3kg per inch over 5'

Well, that just sucks. I'm supposed to be 110 pounds by that formula. I haven't been 110 pounds since 5th grade. I was between 115 and 125 when I was dancing.

For me it would be about 115, which I feel is too skinny for me.

Medically speaking, the ideal weight formula we learned in school was as follows:

Women: 45.5kg + 2.3kg per inch over 5'

Men: 50kg + 2.3kg per inch over 5'

Well, that just sucks. I'm supposed to be 110 pounds by that formula. I haven't been 110 pounds since 5th grade. I was between 115 and 125 when I was dancing.

For me it would be about 115, which I feel is too skinny for me.

Interesting formula! For me that makes it 130. I've been maintaining at 135 so that's pretty close.

As for the frame size thing-- I can't wrap my head around how you evaluate that. I know the thing about wrapping your thumb and index finger around your wrist (gap=large, meet=medium, overlap=small) BUT when I was obese they I had a gap and now they meet. So if frame size is independent of height how does that happen?

Interesting formula! For me that makes it 130. I've been maintaining at 135 so that's pretty close.

As for the frame size thing-- I can't wrap my head around how you evaluate that. I know the thing about wrapping your thumb and index finger around your wrist (gap=large, meet=medium, overlap=small) BUT when I was obese they I had a gap and now they meet. So if frame size is independent of height how does that happen?

Yeah, I'm not sure. But even now at below 135, my fingers don't touch when I do that.

Interesting formula! For me that makes it 130. I've been maintaining at 135 so that's pretty close.

As for the frame size thing-- I can't wrap my head around how you evaluate that. I know the thing about wrapping your thumb and index finger around your wrist (gap=large, meet=medium, overlap=small) BUT when I was obese they I had a gap and now they meet. So if frame size is independent of height how does that happen?

Yeah, I'm not sure. But even now at below 135, my fingers don't touch when I do that.

I think I'm a lot taller than you though--5'6".

I looked it up on the internet today and t was all either wrist measurement vs height or elbow width versus height. I still maintain that "padding" can affect that, LOL!

Oh well, I'm gonna go with medium frame, but when I was still obese my wrist measurement would have put me at large and that shouldn't change based on weight!

I'm new to these boards and only 3 days out of surgery but I have noticed that a lot of people's goal weights are much, much, much lower than what the surgeon told me to expect. I am 5'2" and he'll be happy if I get to 180. However, the nurse said there is no reason I shouldn't get to 115 if I am totally compliant. When I heard such wildly diverse numbers I decided that I am going to try to not pay attention to the numbers so much as to how I feel. I want to have an active lifestyle. Before surgery I exercised almost every day, paddle boarded, swam, curled, hiked but as I got heavier it became a little bit more more work and sometimes aches and pains would set in. I have had the surgery so that I can maintain my lifestyle and be outdoors as much as possible. I am going (for the first time in my life) to not worry about the numbers and focus instead on how I feel and the healthy and wonderful foods I can eat - avoiding junk and eating whole, nutritious foods. I will be 50 next year and see this whole thing as a "reset" a second chance to do the things I need to do. I may be too idealistic (and am still on pain meds) but at this moment that is how I am feeling about it all.

Great attitude @pink22. I am trying to do the same. My surgeon told me at first visit she would like to see me under 200 but I would have to work hard for that. 6 1/2 months post-op, I am only 13 pounds from that goal. Luckily at 5' 10", I carry my weight well. I like the idea of getting to a "normal" BMI, but I am not focused on it just yet. Now when I get closer, I wonder if my mind will change but for now, I just want to become healthy and lose enough to get plastic surgery on various body parts! Oh ok, and small enough to stay off my meds...

My surgeon told me that the surgery alone will do about 65% weight loss. He said once you get there it is all up to you and how hard you work whether you get below that 65%. I think that's why the surgeon and the nurse said two things.

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.

This is like you read my life story!! Im also struggling with what is a normal weight/BMI and all or nothing thoughts that are hard to fight. Thanks for the post.