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!