I went online to check out BMI stuff and what is considered healthy for my height, etc., and CDC (Centers for Disease Control - aka reliable source!) says that 164 is the top of the "healthy weight" range for my height. So that's about 40 lbs down from where I am now....

I feel like if I lose 40 lbs I'll be SUPER thin!! I know my goal is below that -- it's VERY subject to change based on how I look -- but I feel like I might really only have 25 or 30 lbs to lose before I LOOK the way I need to look (sadly, this is partially a look thing because of being in the entertainment industry...). I mean, I'm all for being thin, I'd love to be very very thin, but I don't really know what to think about the whole thing.

Any thoughts? Anyone feel the same way? Or am I just an over-analytical weirdo?

The BMI is bunk.

It does not factor in body composition.

Body fat percentage, bone density, lean muscle mass, ethnicity or any other factors that may determine what is healthy for YOU aren't taken into consideration with the BMI.

You just don't know until you get there what you'll look like.

For me, the "normal" weight range isn't realistic. At the very top of the weight range, I literally look ill. Gaunt. Not pretty. I'm fairly muscular, and even though my BMI says I'm overweight, my body fat percentage says I'm doing OK. In any case, I didn't make the decision to stay at a technically overweight level until I'd reached that weight and knew that it looked pretty good to me.

My advice is to just keep trucking, and see what your goal weight, or 10 lbs above it, looks like before you start thinking too hard about it.

I feel like that makes more sense...because I think I'm a pretty muscular person. I mean, I was a champion butterfly/backstroke swimmer for about 5 years, and I'm a dancer (well..."dancer" might be a little generous...but I dance frequently and competently!) so I feel like I have a LOT of muscle going on.

AND you ladies are around my height, so I feel like you might know what I'm talking about!

Thanks for the quick responses....any other thoughts are welcome, as well!

BMI is total BS.

McGill just did a study on high school aged kids that showed that: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-pah043008.php

"According to Sabiston, who is also director of McGill’s Health Behaviour and Emotion Lab, the results showed only a very weak correlation between physical activity and healthy eating, and virtually no correlation between an individual’s BMI and his or her level of physical activity. The study was undertaken to test a comprehensive model of physical activity and healthy eating behaviour in teens aged 15 to 18, partially in response to two perceived problems with existing research in the field."

I was once told (and never tried it) if you enter in Michale Jordon's high and weight (while he was a professional athlete) he'd be considered overweight by the little BMI deal. After that, I decided this whole BMI stuff was just silly.

My DH is considered "overweight" by the BMI too.

He has very low (healthy for him) body fat percentage, is muscular, 7 feet tall and incredibly fit. He's just a BIG person. A BIG, FIT, LEAN person whose BMI category is "overweight", almost "obese".

Stupid index, stupid, inaccurate, faulty index!

Ahhhhh you're all making me feel so much better!!

And Soulbliss -- 7 feet tall??? Does he have a brother he can send my way??? lol! My bf is only 5'7" MAYBE....it makes me sad!! (But of course I love him anyway!) Actually, he is CRAZY muscular, too, and has a really low bf%, but his doctor still told him he was "obese" based on the charts. I think the doc should've just taken a look at him, instead! I mean, the guy runs marathons!

BMI is a glorified height/weight chart. And that's it!

Oh good, I feel better now. When I entered my current and goal weight into a BMI counter, I could almost hear it laughing at me. I realize that 190 is still overweight, but for now, it's a goal. And I have no interest in being an 18 BMI anyway.

hi artsnsmarts!

we have very similar height and weight goals! my goal is below the 164 "high" weight for my height. I have been down to about 164 and still wasnt comfortable and my body frame was never big till i ate and made it this way so thats why i made my decision. im about 4 years older now so i might be okay with 164. you'll know when you get there dont worry about the chart. thats how i am going to gage it.

See, I feel like I DO have a big frame. I can feel my hipbones (and sometimes see them, too!!) and they're REALLY wide set, and I have ridiculously long legs that carry a good deal of weight/muscle, so I feel like my frame is definitely on the bigger side.

Let's hope I'll look better at a higher weight, that would be AWESOME!! I'd be at goal sooner, haha!!

it is true, we are all different. for me, I find the BMI to be right on! I'm at the highest weight for "normal" right now, and that's pretty much exactly how I feel, and I think it's just how I look, too. My goal is to be right in the middle of "normal," at 125, which I haven't been for years now, but back when I was 125 in the past, I felt pretty fit (though of course back then I desperately wanted to get down to 115!).

Well, all this talk makes me feel somewhat better. Every time I look at that chart and the overweight/ severely overweight its a little depressing. Maybe I should just try not to look at it! ha

i worked in obesity/diabetes research for 2 years, and i can tell you that BMI is only useful in defining large populations...it breaks down at the individual level, particularly if you are taller or shorter than the average. just like the scale can be unreliable when you're packing on muscle, while still losing fat.