I went to see the surgeon last week and in our discussion he told me he calculated my ideal weight to be 129lbs. I can't even remember the last time I was 129, I was probably 10. I'm 5' 7" and definately do not have a small frame. Has anyone else's surgeon told you that you should be much lighter than you wanted to be. I was thinking 160/170 would be great!

Stats:

5'3"

Age: 56

Starting weight: 218 (225 high)

Doctor's goal for me: 160 (!!!!)

My goal for me: 150

Where I am now: 152

Where I THINK I can get to: 145

I wouldn't want to be any less than that. Too much sagging going on. The younger you are the less you can weigh. Us older folks start to look pretty nasty when we get to what we weighed when in our 20's.

That being said, I think a 5'7" person in the 120's is not very realistic unless you are about 24 years old or so.

If your BMI says you are overweight, but your cholesterol is low, your resting pulse is low, your blood pressure is low, you have good levels on your sugars, minerals and hormones and your body fat % is under 20, then you are a healthy person and you are not at greater risk of bad health than someone whose BMI says they are normal weight, but their body fat % is over 25 and they have one or more of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, low Calcium values, etc.

Like macmadame said, the BMI index is just that, and index. It is a tool that drs can use to quickly judge how overweight a person is instead of conducting tedious tests to measure your body fat %. For most people, it is a true index, and they can stick to it. However, some people do most definitely fall outside of the norm, and the BMI doesn't work for them. If your BMI says you are overweight, but your body fat % falls in the normal range, then you are absolutely not overweight, you are normal. So don't look at the BMI as the end all be all. It's a ballpark, but your true body fat % (not an estimate of it) will tell you if you are still overweight.

I didn't get into this to do a half job.

Perhaps it's a flaw in my personality, but I would rather not do a half job of something I know I can do properly.

Unless I was a bodybuilder, 7'10, and built like a brick shithouse, I am unlikely to fall outside of the BMI charts.

The reason the range is so broad is to allow for the differing frames. Speaking of frames... I would have sworn black and blue that not only did I have a large frame, I have a very large frame. It turns out the methods for working out one's frame size is really only accurate if you are at a healthy weight. It turns out I have a very small frame.

My doctors office didn't really give me a weight to shoot for, I set my own goal for myself. When I get my fills and they weigh me, they give me a printout of height, weight, BMI, etc. On that printout, is states that they estimate I'll get to 180 lbs. Not sure if they go by average percentage weight loss or what, but that number is still too high for me. I set my goal at 150, once I get there, I'll decide whether or not to lose more. The reason I chose that number is because I remember being 150 lbs and I was happy and healthy then. I'm in agreement with Chickie, I don't want to only go 3/4 of the way, I want to go all the way!

I just checked a BMI chart out online and at 180 lbs, I would still be slightly overweight and have a BMI of 30, at 150 lbs, I'm considered healthy and a BMI of 25.

Thanks for the replies. I wasn't really thinking about not "going all the way" or going "3/4 of the way". My concern was based solely in setting unrealistic goals and the feeling that would come from never reaching a goal that was unrealistic to begin with. The Dr did nothing to see what my frame type was other than just look at me and really how can he tell that when i'm so overweight anyway. I recall being 150 in my very early 20's and being happy there. I think I was a size 10/12. So I thought 160/170 at 40 would be a good place to start. If I can get to 150 or 140 all the better. I just don't want to start being set up to fail or get discouraged.

BMI charts have their place.... as do, doctors' opinions. But we can make a good, sound decision about our final weight, just by using common sense.

As an example, I think 150 is a nice start for me at 5'1 1/2. My great-grandmother was about 4'11 and 130 lbs, and passed away after her hundredth birthday, my grandmother and her three sisters are short and about 130, 150, and 170 lbs...and all three over 95 years of age... they've all some medical issues, but they eat well, get in some fresh air through gardening, monitor their medical conditions, and keep active. I could only hope to wear the high heeled shoes my grandmother struts around in....

A doctor's opinion is just that, and while they are entitled to it, we can't forget that we've got to have "healthy" role models in our lives, on lapbandtalk or in our own families that we can model our own lifestyles after, and not everyone's going to be a model or a long distance runner, but we can take steps to becoming a more healthier version of ourselves... and there's nothing 1/2 assed about that.

Thanks for the replies. I wasn't really thinking about not "going all the way" or going "3/4 of the way". My concern was based solely in setting unrealistic goals and the feeling that would come from never reaching a goal that was unrealistic to begin with. The Dr did nothing to see what my frame type was other than just look at me and really how can he tell that when i'm so overweight anyway. I recall being 150 in my very early 20's and being happy there. I think I was a size 10/12. So I thought 160/170 at 40 would be a good place to start. If I can get to 150 or 140 all the better. I just don't want to start being set up to fail or get discouraged.

My comment about "not going all the way" or "3/4 of the way" was about me only, in reference to what my doctor estimated that my weight would be. I hope you didn't think I was saying YOU were not going to go all the way, because it was not intended that way.

My point in posting that was to express that you don't have to have the same goal your doctor has for you. Do what's best for you. No one knows you better than you.

Edited March 19, 200818 yr by georgia girl

Thanks for the replies. I wasn't really thinking about not "going all the way" or going "3/4 of the way". My concern was based solely in setting unrealistic goals and the feeling that would come from never reaching a goal that was unrealistic to begin with. The Dr did nothing to see what my frame type was other than just look at me and really how can he tell that when i'm so overweight anyway. I recall being 150 in my very early 20's and being happy there. I think I was a size 10/12. So I thought 160/170 at 40 would be a good place to start. If I can get to 150 or 140 all the better. I just don't want to start being set up to fail or get discouraged.

I am sorry I have offended you. I was talking about myself. Whatever weight you are comfortable with is your business, and yours only.

Speaking of frames... I would have sworn black and blue that not only did I have a large frame, I have a very large frame. It turns out the methods for working out one's frame size is really only accurate if you are at a healthy weight. It turns out I have a very small frame.

I know I have a small frame. It's very obvious when you look at how narrow my shoulders are compared to everything else and how small my wrists and head are. Also the two c-sections for having narrow hips and big babies were a bit of a clue.

Based on that, the weight charts say I ought to be at the bottom of a 100-130 lb range to be healthy and that goes against my own experience.

I have been wonderfully healthy at 145, which is my current goal. I had low blood pressure, Iron of 14.7, cholesterol of 155 and my sugars and liver function and everything else a doctor can test all looked good. I could do any exercise I wanted to with no limitations (and did).

I have been 100 lb. (in HS) and I had to worry about getting blown around in a strong wind (really happened to me, not an exaggeration) and about having a blood pressure so low that I couldn't give blood and also had fainting spells. I don't think there is anything healthy about fainting.

Now I may get to 145 (my current goal) and find that the band lets me go a bit lower. I couldn't maintain 145 before because I was always hungry. But I assume that won't be an issue with the band. But even if it does, if I get close to a weight where my blood pressure drops below 90/55-ish, I'm going to run screaming to my doctor for an unfill. Chart or no chart.

McMadame, If you feel wonderful and healthy at 145lbs, that's great.

No offense taken, I takes much more than that, lol. I knew what you meant all along. I was just thinking he was a little crazy and was totally shocked he threw that number at me. Who knows, it could've been some crazy motivational tactic he uses. Gives you a low number, tells you most people lose 65% of the excess weight and you end up where you wanted all along. Or maybe he's just really hard core. Either way, I'm ready to get this show on the road.

I know the feeling funny because my doc never gave me a weight expectation however when I got to the nutritionist and she looked at my muscle mass measurements she seemed surprised and puzzled looking at the doctors faxed documentation. When I asked what the problem was she said he had me at 117.5 at 5 ft 4. However my lean muscle mass according to her calculations was 122.5. With this being said she told me that although my lean muscle is high she does not think it needs to be reduced, she advised me my lean muscle at 122.5 + 30 lbs of fat should put me at 152.5lbs, big difference don't you think?

I don't think the nutritionist is taking into account the fact that you will lose some of that lean muscle along with fat as you lose weight.

That could be why your surgeons and the nutritionist's numbers are so different.

My doc told me with my height I should get to around 180. Of course, I told him I was 5'9" but I am really just over 5'10". I am shooting for 190. At my thinnest I was 140 to 150 and i was still a size 10 and looked very ver thin. Of course, I thought I was fat. Hindsight is always 20/20. I figure at 190 I will be a size 14 or so, depending on where I shop. As long as I feel good and look good I will be fine at that weight. It I have it in me to shoot for 20-30 more then I will. I have to find a place, or a weight, that I dont mind maintaining for the rest of my life. I have to be realistic in my expectations.

I’m 5’2” around 204lbs

Not Banded Yet.

Healthy weight/BMI range: 101-136 lbs/18.5-24.9

Weight loss goal: 68 – 103 lbs

True Goal: 104 lbs / BMI 19%

I have a small frame so I want to be on the lower end of my range. I was 104 lbs when I was 15 and a size 6 (I'm hippy), I'd be happy at an 10 and estatic at size 8. I've had 2 kids so I figure that I won't get much smaller then 120 but my gol is going to be 104 so I keep pushing myself. I think if you are small frame go for the lower end, medium frame in the middle and large frame at the top of your scale. But in the end you should be happy with the junk in your trunk.