Quote:
Originally Posted by carter
I will use myself as an example. The BMI guideline puts the top of the "healthy" weight range for a 5'5" woman at 150 pounds. For the longest time, I thought, that doesn't apply to me; I could never, ever be healthy at 150 pounds. After all, I am built like an ox, with strong muscles and a very powerful core, and I have very large breasts. So I must be one of those people who falls outside the average range that the BMI charts cover.
Well, guess what? I now weigh 164 pounds, less than I've weighed in 23 years. And I have to tell you that looking at my body now, 150 pounds seems totally reasonable and doable to me. Looking at my body fat percentage (still around 28%), looking at my saddlebags and my belly, I can readily stand to lose another 15 or 20 pounds, putting me well within the "healthy" range for those BMI standards, despite all my muscle and boobs.
The more I lose, the more I realize this is going to be true for me too. I've spent a few decades convincing myself of that. Well, I don't believe it any more! I do agree that BMI isn't the be all and end all. But I also think a healthy BMI is a far more achievable number than a lot of people give themselves credit for. I mean, sure, I understand that not everyone wants to get there and that's fine. But I think that more people are CAPABLE of getting there if they wanted to. And I'm not even sure that I will end up losing all the way down to officially put me at a healthy BMI - I may feel that I am good at a slightly higher number and want to put more of that energy into long term maintenance instead.
Now, whether not getting to a healthy BMI has an adverse impact on health is another story. Personally, I can't believe the changes I've felt in my body in the past 60 lbs, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the next 30, 40, or ?? (not sure where I'll stop) will bring. But I am not necessarily convinced that 166 is going to be THAT much different than 156, you know? But I am absolutely sure that 166 is a far cry from 261!!