Why do so many bandsters set their goal weights so high? I mean, many of the ones that I've seen aren't anywhere near a healthy weight. Yes, it might be healthier than their starting weight, but it still isn't a normal weight. Is it a fear of failure? Is it because the doctors set their patients' goal weights high in order to fudge their weight-loss statistics? Why not aim for a healthy weight? Why aim for a weight that is still considered to be "obese," in many cases?

I can understand someone deciding that the weight they are currently at is one that they feel good at, but I just don't understand making the logic of "well, I just wouldn't look right if I weighed less than X pounds."

Maybe I should have been more specific- for most women 190 lbs would not be healthy weight-I can say most are not in your situation-here is an example of height/weight chart- I do not by any means go strictly off this because I do not think it applies to everyone-but it can be used as a guideline- I am about 5'3 1/2- so I used 5'3 range and it says 147- but I know 150 is fine for me - I have always had a larger build even when I was thinner-

Height

Small Frame

Medium Frame

Large Frame

4'10"

102-111

109-121

118-131

4'11"

103-113

111-123

120-134

5'0"

104-115

113-126

122-137

5'1"

106-118

115-129

125-140

5'2"

108-121

118-132

128-143

5'3"

111-124

121-135

131-147

5'4"

114-127

124-138

134-151

5'5"

117-130

127-141

137-155

5'6"

120-133

130-144

140-159

5'7"

123-136

133-147

143-163

5'8"

126-139

136-150

146-167

5'9"

129-142

139-153

149-170

5'10"

132-145

142-156

152-173

5'11"

135-148

145-159

155-176

6'0"

138-151

148-162

158-179

I guess the point is... other people (not you) set their sights too low-the point of weight loss surgery is to get one to a healthy weight-My dr wanted me to set a lower weight but I know what is best so I set a healthy goal that is right for me-maybe some people just set too high of a goal weight because they afraid of failure-like all of us are. Anyways, there are always exceptions to the rule:) that's life...

I had no idea what weight I thought would be my goal---I knew how I would like to look again, but not what weight would get me there.

So I ask my DD how much she weighed!!! She and I are the same height, and she is VERY fit (competitively so), I figured with the age difference, I may be pushing it. Like others, I would prefer to meet a goal then lower it than to set myself up---or go into it---expecting to struggle or fail. So I took her weight and added 5 or 10 pounds and consider it to be my goal.

Now I could get very serious and likely meet the weight goal, and still be very unhappy with my body. I need a TT! I have an abdominal muscle that has been separated since the 1980's!!! I never was a candidate for repair, with my weight. I can now have it repaired, and plan to---then I might adjust the goal, but for now it seems feasable, and healthy.

My DD at her weight is wearing a size 7 in Juniors. I will be happy in a 9 or an 11----it all beats the 22/24!!!!

My best friend is large boned---also of normal weight. But when buying bracelets, rings, anklets, etc. you have to get a larger than average size. She is 5'6" and weighs under 150 pounds, but needs a size 9 ring, and has to special order bracelets etc. She has to have clothing specially tailored to fit her linebacker shoulders!!! But her weight is really not affected by the large build. She is of similar weight to another friend of smaller build. You would expect the bones to be heavy--make a big difference, but they don't seem to.

I have normal bones, just have the upgraded heavy duty insulation!!! But it continues to dwindle!!

Kat

When I first started my band journey I had a hard time setting a goal weight (OK I STILL have a hard time setting one) at the time I was trying to weigh what the BMI chart was saying was right for my height with doctor saying that the current research was showing most successful band patients were only losing around 50% of their excess weight. I NEVER wanted to consider a weight loss of only 50% of my excess to be a success but it made me give pause in setting a goal of the full 100% for Fear (yes fear) that it was just setting me up for more failure and depression leading to sabatoge and weight gain.

While trying to figure it out I found the following website very insightful.

Better Ideal Weight Body Calculations

It shows a variety of methods for determining your ideal weight from the frequently used MetLife Charts, to BMI and others, including one that takes into account what other current peers, in age, current weight and sex, think (emphasize THINK) would be their ideal weight. At least in my case I found it surprisingly accurate. My only hope is that the accuracy doesn't hold as I found that at my height and age my "peers" won't think I'm at an ideal weight until I hit 115 which is a BMI of 20 barely a point above the LOWEST BMI considered in the healthy range! I really want to believe I will be satisfied at the higher end of the healthy BMI, like maybe a 23-24.

Another even more interesting point perhaps is that it claims that many of the charts for women are misleading. Such as the Met Life Chart which is the leading industry standard chart that Stacy is quoting from. It says this chart was developed for use on women ages ages 25-59 and based on lowest mortality rates. In addition it was assumed that the women were wearing 3 pounds of clothes and wearing 1" heels. Not all of us fall into this age category and I would dare say most if not all of us didn't know we were suppose to add 1" to our height when reading the table.

A minor side note to this table would be that according to the website Met Life introduced this chart in 1943. and it was only revised slightly in 1983. They were called "desirable" weights, which would indicate those persons with the lowest mortality rates. However, the phrase "ideal weight" gradually became associated with these tables in common usage, even though the word "ideal" was not specifically published with the tables.

PS - Stacy - Please understand I am NOT flaming your post in any way. I just was shocked when I found that I was suppose to add an inch to my height when looking at that chart I still refer to it myself but thought others might find it usefull to know.

The doctor told me that I would likely lose 60% of my excess weight. Therefore, I'm being realistic to set it high as that's what statistics show. Also, I hate setting a lofty goal and failing to achieve it.

Its not unrealistic to lose 100% of one's excess weight.

I know you're speaking from experience Chickie but so are lapband surgeons. They aren't wrong that most people lost X% of their excess weight.

Then again, I'm reminded of a quote/proverb that says something like, "Argue your limitations and sure enough, they're yours."

I don't want to state that I will never be a normal weight and then have a self-fufilling prophecy but the other part of my mind says that not every athlete makes it to the Olympic Games no matter how hard they work at it.

I've never been at a normal weight, so I don't know what it will look like when I get there. So I've got mine set at 185 for now, which is about 2 pounds into the NIH's definition of "Overweight." My original goal was 205, set at that because when they measured my body fat ratio at the gym they said I had 177 pounds of lean mass, so 205 would have given me a Body Fat Ratio of around 15%. Something wasn't quite right with that calculation though, because I'm at 218 right now I can tell you that dropping only 13 more pounds is NOT going to get me to a healthy weight. So I readjusted my goal to 185. If I feel like I need to drop a couple more after I get there I will readjust it again.

I originally had my goal set to 250 lbs. I figured I was 389 and that would be tough to get to. Well its been less that six months and I am only 5 lbs from that and have lost 134 lbs. I reevaluated myself and set my goal to 200 lbs now. I see 55 more lbs as completely achievable. If I make it then so be it. If not I will be just as happy at 220.

I see nothing wrong with people setting long term large goals. IMO it just forces them to motivate even harder.

I have my goal set at 180 an while that may still be a high weight that is the lowest weight that I can remember being and in my mind that is the weight that I want to get back down to. I am sure once I hit the 180 mark - and I will make sure I hit that goal - that I will change my goal to something lower but I wanted a number that would allow me to know what I would look and feel like. I am not sure what my doctor will give me as a goal but maybe I will pick something in the middle once he does

The goal for most doctors is to get you to a place where weight is not risking your life anymore. Out of the Morbidly Obese and Obese categories. If you do that, this is considered a success. They also want patients to be realistic. Not everyone (hardly anyone) is going to achieve the weight they were in high school, no matter how much you want to.

However, it seems that you can take this wherever you want to go. There is no limit, and no reason to stop when you get to your doctors goal weight.

For me, I'm tall and would be just fine at 165-170. I would be a size 10/12 and quite happy there. Would I love to weigh 145? Hell yes! Will I? I doubt it, unless I give up the foods I love and my wine....

Not everyone (hardly anyone) is going to achieve the weight they were in high school, no matter how much you want to.

I'm finally in an elite club! :clap2: I actually now weigh less than I did in high school.

180 WAS my weight in high school and if that is not a realistic weight for me then I am screwed

Ghost

that's a great site.

i have no idea what i want my ultimate goal to be. for now i am working in 'mini (obtainable) goals' ... my next goal is 235 pounds. then my next will be 199 (start looking into plastics) then ???? i have my goal listed as 180 but dont think that is low enough. i am 5'9" and think i could drop as low as 160-165 and look pretty good.

i'd LOVE to weigh less than DH but i dont think that's going to happen... but that's OK

Ok - I will bite - but I am one of those that you are ranting about

My goal is 170 and at that weight I will look 140 - I am 52 and I feel that this will be a managable weight for me. I may try 160 or 150 - I just didn't want to set a goal that was so high that I might not attain it - so set it for 170. The 170 is not set in stone and my bmi will still be considered overweight.

But so be it -- I have lost 40 so far and feel so much better - got 40 more to go - and then will re-adjust then if I choose too.

I don't want to be 130 - might be healthy but i would look like SH*T - and I don't want to look any worse than I already am.

The doctor told me that I would likely lose 60% of my excess weight. Therefore, I'm being realistic to set it high as that's what statistics show. Also, I hate setting a lofty goal and failing to achieve it.

Its not unrealistic to lose 100% of one's excess weight.

Am I a true Libra or what? I completely agree with both of the above statements. I originally set my "realistic" goals based more on insobordination's views even though my "dream" goal was always the 100% figure like Chickie. Now that I've surpased what I had originally considered a realistic goal I am more comfortable with the idea that my dreams really aren't impossible anymore.

I'm also a number freak/geek... so skip this next part if you wish.

Statistics can be decieving and bent to serve nearly any purpose. Yes the stats don't "lie" when they say 60% is the average. Below is an example of what I mean. These numbers are completely ficticious but show how an average of 60% EWL over all patients can mislead you into thinking the "average" patient will lose this when it also shows that nearly half of patients (47%) fell into the 60-85% EWL range compared to only 30% falling into the corresponding 30-55% EWL.

Also remember to get the average number you have to add up all the people who make it to their goal as well as all those that fail, and yes there are those of us that do fail with the band wether it be through band mis-management or something completely out of their hands. I don't know how you could come up with revised stat that didn't take into account some of those people and focused just on those that don't have underlying uncontrollable medical issues that are holding them back more than the normal patient, or even those with the more extreme non-medical issues that have held them back from using the band the way it could be. But it does make me wonder if you could would it show that if I'm a relatively healthy, and relatively consistent in following the "rules" of the band the statistics might be closer to an in the 85-95% range?

ficticious results.bmp