Am I delusional to think my measurements are smaller than my weight might suggest? Like maybe I can finally give up on the BMI scale of what it thinks is normal? You know how our eyes play such tricks on us. My measurements I think look small, but my eyes say otherwise. This is the kind of question you know you can only ask here.
I still hold a lot of weight in my legs, though just this past week I've noticed considerable shrinkage there!
Oooh I'd LOVE those measurements right about now! I'm just shy of 5'4" and I weighed in @ 167.5 this morning. My measurements were:
Chest: 42
Waist: 39
Hips: 42
So yeah hourglass at least, but my waist, UGH! I've had 4 kids + the last 3 in 2 1/2 years so I know I can't compare myself exact.
Keep up the good work though!
Oh and I'd love to see a pic although I'm a hypocrite as I'm too scared to post one myself!
Am I delusional to think my measurements are smaller than my weight might suggest? Like maybe I can finally give up on the BMI scale of what it thinks is normal? You know how our eyes play such tricks on us. My measurements I think look small, but my eyes say otherwise. This is the kind of question you know you can only ask here.
I still hold a lot of weight in my legs, though just this past week I've noticed considerable shrinkage there!
Alana, you're back! I have been thinking about you for the past few months, I hope things are going well in your life
Eliana, I think those measurements are tiny! Genuinely so! And a waist circumference of 30 or less is considered healthy and ideal for women, putting them at a much lower risk of many health issues like diabetes and cancer. Your proportions may be skewing your interpretation of how you look, because I can't imagine seeing someone with those measurements and thinking they were anything but normal, healthy, and trim.
I think it's more that I WEIGH 170 pounds! I think I'm thinner than my taller SIL, but she weighs 155 pounds. The weight has me mistrusting the tape measurer. Well, the weight and my eyes. I'm not convinced my pictures show me any smaller than others of my height.
All right, all right, here's the pic from Fourth of July. I think my legs are smaller now. Actually, I've lost 5 pounds since and actually think it has made a difference. I still think you're all going to say my tape measurer is wrong!
Eliana, are you asking if it's okay for you to stop losing weight because you are happy the way you are? If so, yes. It's okay to stop losing weight whenever YOU are satisfied.
Are you asking if somehow BMI doesn't apply to you?
I would say, no, it applies the same way to everyone. It's less accurate with professional athletes, but the difference between a professional athlete and most of us, even those of us who work out, is very significant. Unless you have an elevated BMI with a very low body fat percent, like 15%, then BMI probably applies to you just like it applies to everyone else. It's not a very accurate tool, and that's why it presents a range. For my height, people can weigh anywhere between 125 and 164 and still be considered "normal"... probably most women my height do not need to weigh 164-- probably very few women my height are at an optimal weight above 164.
I think most of us use BMI as a guideline because we need something to use as a guideline-- after all, looking at the people around us might not be that reliable since often many of the people around us are also overweight or obese.
So, are your measurements smaller than your weight would indicate? I dunno. People of the same weight have lots of different body shapes.
Would you look "better" at a lower BMI? That's a subjective judgment. I think you look great now!
Would you be healthier? Your doctor would say yes, in the long run.
I mean, that's the bottom line. BMI is a guideline, but I think it's a useful one, especially for us fatties who otherwise would have no way of knowing when to stop.... but I do think it's a pretty good guideline...
And in case you're interested, I weigh 191, my BMI is 29, and at 5'8" my measurements are
Uber, you hit it!! That's exactly what I needed to hear.
No, I don't feel like I'm finished at all. Especially in the leg department! I'd love to have your slender legs! But I'm quite happy with my new measurements that I gave above. My legs gathered fat very early on and then pretty much stayed even keeled while the fat deposited itself in my rear, waist and bust. So it truly is coming off in reverse order leaving me hope that my legs will eventually slim down. In the meantime, my thighs are keeping me in higher dress sizes.
I think measurements are perhaps a poor tool for me to measure myself by because we really do carry weight quite differently across the board.
Your measurements sound great to me. Waist measurements may be a better indicator of overall health than BMI. I am a little confused about it though. First I have heard repeatedly that women should not have a waist bigger than 35 inches - article at WebMD so I have been striving for that. I am getting close at a 36 inch waist.
It makes my head spin! Under 35 inches seems doable to me. I am need to measure my hips to see how I do with the waist to hip. Waist to height means I need to get my waist down to 31 inches. I think that I will get down to 34 inches and then shoot for 31 inches.
You fall within all those guidelines plus you look fantastic! What more can you ask for?
Cheryl, Dr. Oz brought it up on Good Morning America once and said women's waists should equal half their height in inches, so I guess that's height to waist ratio. I think every inch off your waist counts for something! But I was thrilled when mine got to 32.
I'm definitely happy. I hope no one reads that wrong. I'm just doing the typical woman thing...being overly critical. It's not like I dwell on any of this except when I'm hopping around 3FC comparing myself to others.
Interesting article Cheryl-- I did mine, and it came out in the healthy range-- but honestly, I'm still a little skeptical.
I mean, if you have a normal BMI and you do the waist hip or waist height calculator and you are still at risk, I think that's useful information.
But I still don't think anyone should ignore BMI as a guideline by assuming that they are athletic unless they know that their body fat percentage puts them in the athletic range, which for women seems to be less than about 22%.
My personal trainer said that BMI is not the "end all, be all." Depending on how much muscle, your body shape, etc. etc. you BMI can say that you are obese. There are female athletes who have a BMI that says they are obese, but they are super healthy. It all depends on body composition. If you are happy where you are, I would say stay where you are!
Measurements...am I delusional?
I feel like if you all see the picture you'll think I'm lieing! 
But I'm quite happy with my new measurements that I gave above. My legs gathered fat very early on and then pretty much stayed even keeled while the fat deposited itself in my rear, waist and bust. So it truly is coming off in reverse order leaving me hope that my legs will eventually slim down. In the meantime, my thighs are keeping me in higher dress sizes. 
