Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Support Focus Groups > Emotional Issues & Body Image
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Oct-15-15, 00:34
Weezer160's Avatar
Weezer160 Weezer160 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 216
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 261.4/160/155 Male 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 95%
Location: Wisconsin
Default Ideal weight according to my doctor

Hi everyone. I'm sure this has been discussed, but don't have time to comb through the threads at the moment.

I recently visited my primary care physician, and asked what my idea weight should be. I reminded him that I am 5'6", and since he knew I had just lost close to 80 lbs, he immediately referred to the BMI chart on the wall. His response after considering my height alone was that I only need to lose a few more pounds to get into the "overweight" zone (~185 lbs). He deemed any further weight loss might not be healthy. I am kind of amazed about his thinking there. Shouldn't I have been encourage to achieve a BMI of, say, 27.5 (171 lbs). I'm aware there are problems with the BMI scale, and that I shouldn't live and die by it.

Arguments to go for 170-175 lb range: (1) have extra long arms (2" each arm = 4" more than my height from finger tip to finger tip), (2) I might have gained some muscle since I've done resistance training and started soccer. (I'm not trying to bulk up, though)

Arguments for why I need to go to the 155-160 range (not "overweight"): I still have a gut, love handles, and a reasonable amount of fat on top of my muscles (legs, especially). Mind you, this clearly isn't just skin. I was also 155 lbs during high school after losing weight where I *still* had a little gut + love handles.

My question is: should I stick with my doctors advice and that I only need to lose 5-7 lbs (180-ish), or should I disregard this and get down to my original goal (155 lbs)? I had thought I was in this for the long haul, i.e. -116 lbs total.

Sorry for the long lost, but I thought I'd ask for some advice. Thanks guys+girls!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Oct-15-15, 05:38
Mandra's Avatar
Mandra Mandra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,153
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 240/233.6/140 Female 5'2"
BF:Really/effing/high
Progress: 6%
Location: Eastford, CT
Default

Weight is less important than condition. Go by how you look and feel rather than an arbitrary number.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Oct-15-15, 05:42
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 3,220
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

There was recently a long discussion about the topic of "ideal" weight.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=470177

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Oct-15-15, 07:12
MPrufrock MPrufrock is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 100
 
Plan: Low carb, low gi
Stats: 210/152/154 Female 68.5 inches
BF:35%/22%/22%
Progress: 104%
Location: FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weezer160

My question is: should I stick with my doctors advice and that I only need to lose 5-7 lbs (180-ish), or should I disregard this and get down to my original goal (155 lbs)? I had thought I was in this for the long haul, i.e. -116 lbs total.

Sorry for the long lost, but I thought I'd ask for some advice. Thanks guys+girls!


So I'm going to go ahead and say you should just wait and watch what happens. You never know what weight your body will want to settle at, especially if you are strength training. You might end up heavier than 155 but smaller and fitter. Or lower than 155 and feeling too thin in which case you might like to adjust your carbs a bit (adding lentils etc). Don't be obsessed with the numbers, think about how you feel.

The good news is, I think you will definitely make the goal your doctor has set for you. I am pretty suspicious of BMI charts as an indicator of health, but its not a bad broad metric to keep in mind.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Oct-15-15, 14:19
MickiSue MickiSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,006
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 189/148.6/145 Female 5' 5"
BF:36%/28%/25%
Progress: 92%
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Default

There is no ideal weight for groups, there is only the place where you feel and look your best. And that is highly individual.

I'd say, go for what your doctor says as an upper limit, and then see how you feel from there.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Oct-15-15, 19:33
Weezer160's Avatar
Weezer160 Weezer160 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 216
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 261.4/160/155 Male 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 95%
Location: Wisconsin
Default

Thanks, everyone. I am definitely in better shape and feel better about everything. I know I often feel like I am still that overweight person I was before, and my shyness still reflects this (wasted energy, otherwise, so I thought, trying to communicate) as well as my questionable sense of balance - I have a different center of balance now. I have an upcoming vacation to Germany where it'll be hard to resist certain indulgences (beer), but might be able to stave off any gains through rye breads (my favorite), and lots of walking. I'd be happy if I just didn't gain anything while there. I'll be shooting for 170 as a short range goal and then maybe focus on gaining some muscle from there. I definitely could use some meat on my spaghetti arms.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Oct-21-15, 10:52
synger synger is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 146
 
Plan: IR Diet framework, LC
Stats: 310/288/150 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 14%
Default

BMI is a VERY general measurement. It's only height/weight, and that weight is not just fat, but muscle and bone as well. BMI was developed not for individuals, but to show population trends overall. A lean but well-muscled individual might show up as "overweight" or even "obese" according to BMI, while a less well-muscled and more fat-laden person can be "normal weight" according to BMI.

Much better measurements are either waist/height ratio or waist/hip ratio. That is much more likely to show overweight, AND it's showing the intra-abdominal fat that is most likely to bring health issues.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Oct-21-15, 13:25
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,106
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by synger
BMI is a VERY general measurement. It's only height/weight, and that weight is not just fat, but muscle and bone as well. BMI was developed not for individuals, but to show population trends overall. A lean but well-muscled individual might show up as "overweight" or even "obese" according to BMI, while a less well-muscled and more fat-laden person can be "normal weight" according to BMI.
An example is my son - pictured here on his wedding day, when his BMI put him in the "overweight, borderline obese" category:
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sat, Nov-04-17, 14:24
kathleen24 kathleen24 is offline
Monday came.
Posts: 4,104
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 275/146.6/155 Female 5'4"
BF:ummm . . . ?
Progress: 107%
Default Waist-to-Height Ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by synger
BMI is a VERY general measurement. It's only height/weight, and that weight is not just fat, but muscle and bone as well. BMI was developed not for individuals, but to show population trends overall. A lean but well-muscled individual might show up as "overweight" or even "obese" according to BMI, while a less well-muscled and more fat-laden person can be "normal weight" according to BMI.

Much better measurements are either waist/height ratio or waist/hip ratio. That is much more likely to show overweight, AND it's showing the intra-abdominal fat that is most likely to bring health issues.


Older post, but new information for me, perhaps others? Never heard of this way of evaluating a healthy weight. It resonated for me. I've read that any waist size under 31" is healthful for a woman my age, but I have been feeling that I still want to take some more fat off this area.

Inverting the formula for waist->height, I can multiply my height by those standards; in my case 64"x.42-.48, so a waist size of around 27"-31" puts me in the lowest-risk category. (I'm ignoring the age-adjustment, as I assume this compensates for increasing illness in the older population, which doesn't apply to me at this time, and I hope never will.) This is a measurement I'm keeping an eye on, and it seems to be decreasing less quickly than other spots on my body, at about a ratio of an inch off my waist for every ten pounds I lose.

And another twenty pounds sounds about right to me, 132, and another few inches off my waist would probably be about right in terms of the amount of fat I would want to see there.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Nov-09-17, 06:43
FatBGone17 FatBGone17 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 31
 
Plan: Atkins / South Beach
Stats: 265/250/185 Male 71 inhes
BF:
Progress:
Default

Most people don't realize that the BMI was designed at the University of Minnesota as a tool for predicting mobidity and mortality within a population for use in developing insurance statistics and tables. Its developers repeatedly came out against its use as a medical tool to assess individual health but the health care industry has glommed onto it so tightly that it may never go away.

My problem with the BMI is that it is meaningless in many situations. For example: Consider two 30 year old, six foot tall males who weigh 200 pounds. The first is an avid recreational athlete who regularly does aerobic and resistance exercise, eats well and abstains from junk food. His body fat is at 13%. The second is and always has been a couch spud who rarely walks further than to the fridge or to the car to go for fast food (if delivery isn't an option). His greatest exercise is playing Grand Theft Auto on his X-Box. He considers Cheetos a food group. He has no decernable muscle definition and his body fat is at 32%. Yet both of these individuals get the exact same BMI.

Example two: A middle age patient has a disappointing annual physical and vows to get back in shape. By his next physical, the patient has lost 10 pounds of fat, gained 10 pounds of muscle (a 20# shift in body composition), looks and feels much better with improved strength and stamina. This patient made a substantial improvement, correct? Not according to his BMI.

It blows my mind that much of the medical community refuses to utilize body composition analysis such as caliper measurement or bioimpedence because they are "inaccurate" but then venerate an even less accurate, but faster and easier, tool as if it was carried down from the mount by Moses.

Last edited by FatBGone17 : Thu, Nov-09-17 at 06:51.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Nov-09-17, 10:11
kathleen24 kathleen24 is offline
Monday came.
Posts: 4,104
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 275/146.6/155 Female 5'4"
BF:ummm . . . ?
Progress: 107%
Default

The further I go down this road the less faith I have in answers that come from outside of myself. So perhaps the incredulity aroused by exactly the kind of examples you cite is actually working in our favor. We are left to sift through the evidence and nonsense, and come to our own conclusions.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Nov-09-17, 10:32
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is offline
Posts: 7,761
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/183/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Location: Texas
Default

My GrandDaughter had the same problem at the doctors. She was muscle from head toe due to swim team and several years of gymnastics. They classified her in the Obese category.
I couldn't believe it. This is what would give kids an eating disorder...
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Nov-09-17, 11:12
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,991
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 235/227/160 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 11%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

I have no faith in the BMI system. The wide variety of body-types are synthesized into ONE. I have huge hands and very large bones....my husband has very fine long bones.....The BMI is totally incorrect for our extremes.


A friend still obsesses about the school sending a letter that her son is too fat. Well honestly she is not seeing the whole picture, and this letter is pushing her into denial.

Her son is built like his dad. Almost as broad as he is tall. Dad is NOT round. Just a very heavy build---can still run faster than any of his teen soccer players. His son is relatively pudgy.

His son was talking to me, more upset than his mom about this letter sent a couple years ago originally, and probably every year since, because geez this kid is dad all over. BUT he does carry a gut, a gut that grows with him as he has become older.

I offer him what I tell my boys, whom he knows well, and one standing next to him. Pinch an inch. An inch of fat, in the side. That is goal.

THe two boys look at each other.....my son cannot pinch an inch and has a 4 pack belly.....could gain a little fat... and his friend at the same weight doesn't reach his shoulder....they laugh....

IMHO pinch an inch always is valid and ditches the useless, IMO, BMI system.

Last thought, the newest medical info indicates that how much fat we carry is not as important as other issues like HDL and HDL with total cholesterol, trigylcerides, and blood pressure. Body fat is not the best indicator of risk of heart attack as it used to be. ANd us on low carb WOL are likely to beat a heart attack.


Would like to see a study for us LC eaters and stroke/ heart attack rates.

Just my 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Nov-09-17, 17:16
IGonaBSlim's Avatar
IGonaBSlim IGonaBSlim is offline
New Member
Posts: 15
 
Plan: Atkins 1972
Stats: 246/246/150 Female 70"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: USA
Default

Isn't part of the reason for the "obesity epidemic" the fact that they changed the definition for obesity back in 1998? The bar for qualifying as "obese" used to be higher. See article.

Might be interesting to find out whether or not you qualify as obese under the old rules.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Thu, Nov-09-17, 22:25
kathleen24 kathleen24 is offline
Monday came.
Posts: 4,104
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 275/146.6/155 Female 5'4"
BF:ummm . . . ?
Progress: 107%
Default

Hi IGona,

I read that article with interest, and had to laugh at the "average woman is overweight" comment.

I am three pounds away from being of a normal weight, according to the BMI site I saw recently; until I lose them, I am overweight. Not two--still fat. Not one--still fat. Three is my ticket into the Holy Land. It helpfully added that I am in the 27th percentile for my height and age and weight. And when I am normal, I will be in the 24th percentile. So normal is what a quarter of that slice of the demographics weighs. Either their math or their semantics needs drastic fixing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:29.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.