When I started this thing, I chose the highest weight in the "healthy" BMI range for my height as the goal. For someone 6'3, an ideal weight is between 160 and 200 pounds. Just the prospect of getting down to 200 pounds seemed hard enough, so that is what I settled on.

Now that I'm getting closer, it seems RIDICULOUS to me that there is a 40 pound range on the "normal" BMI.

I have close to 40 pounds to lose to get to the normal range, but I feel like I probably have more than 40 pounds worth of fat.

I'm thinking about lowering my goal. Maybe 190? 185?

Does someone in the top range of a "healthy" weight still have noticeable weight to lose?

I can't speak for myself because I am not sure that a 5'1" female is really relevant to you. At 125lbs I would be about a size 4 and at 140lbs, I would be a size 10, so yes, that would be very noticeable, but again not sure it's relevant.

My husband is 6'0" and weighs about 240. I have seen him at several different weights. Currently his pants are a 38. If he weighed 200 I bet he'd be a 34 and at 180 probably a 32. At 32, he's pretty slender and at 34 to 36 he has a little tummy. He noticed when he played softball though at the higher weight that he could hit farther because as he put it, he had a bit more "booty" in the swing. At his current weight, he's uncomfortable to play because of stress on his knees and previous knee injuries.

I know I'm rambling, but yes, I think there would be several noticeable things from the top to the bottom of the healthy weight range. But, it depends on what your non-scale goals are. Don't let the scale get in your way of figuring out how much mass you eventually want.

Its is interesting to me that your husband is shorter then me, weights the same as me, and I'm just barely wearing a 38 pants! Only in the past couple of weeks have I been able to wear them and they are still tight. It will be at least 5 - 10 more pounds before I'm wearing them comfortably.

Weird. Everyone is different in terms of body composition I guess.

I think I'll just have to re-evaluate my goal when I get to 200. Plus, at this point I think I have about 10 pounds of loose skin that will hopefully shrink over time (TMI I know).

I think the range accounts for many of the various body types possible at any height. If you have a larger frame and more muscle mass, then the higher end of the range is probably better. If your frame is thinner with less muscle mass, then somewhere lower in the range is maybe more appropriate.

Maybe you could get to the top end and reassess then? I randomly picked a weight in the middle, but I was also accounting for the fact that each range also encompasses both males with higher muscle mass percentages and larger frames and females. But mostly, I've given myself the leeway to change my goal along the way. If a higher weight seems right, I'll stop. If a lower weight would be better, I'll drop my goal a bit. I think that'll be part of the fun - figuring out where I should be since I've really never been there!

Well I don't have much personal experience with being a tall guy. My brother is 6' and 220lb. He could lose a little weight but he is definitely not heavy. I think he would be pretty unhealthy if he lost 60lb and was 160.

Yes, we do. He has always had an "outfielder baseball build." Really long arms and legs and compact muscularly - aka lanky. Most of his weight is in his stomach. He can get away with his pants coming up to his stomach rather than over it if that makes sense? The lower rise trend assists with that I think. What puzzles both of us is that when he weighed less way back when, he needed a longer length. I am sure the lower rise is part of it, but he used to buy 32/34 and now buys 38/32?? No worries on TMI! I would have to think that the extra skin would play a factor, but not sure exactly what.

I agree - re-evaluate at 200 and see what you want from there. Once you get closer and closer to goal, it takes fewer lbs to see and feel differences.

I can't wait to see you get there!

I was reading a thread about picking goal weights in the Maintainers forum and a couple of people mentioned how much their body had changed once they got to a healthy weight but then kept losing some after that - like the most stubborn areas took losing something below the highest healthy weight to really show the difference.

So I'd say to get to the top of the range (and what an amazing accomplishment that will be, on top of how far you've come already!) and then give yourself a chance to try it on, see how it feels. Are you able to maintain it comfortably and happily with a realistic eating and activity plan? Are you happy with the body you have at that point? Will you want to focus more on other goals, like specific physical accomplishments rather than weight loss - if you decided to train for something major, chances are your body and weight would change too, but that wouldn't be your primary focus.

You have to account for the fact that you will, generally, once you hit goal LOOK HEAVIER than you then are. When you pack on weight it goes on in nice tight packed layers. But when you lose weight, its like pulling stuffing out of a teddy bear. So say, if a man of your height and build never had a weight struggle and always was 200 pounds its likely he will visibily be smaller than you at 200 pounds because his fat on his body is much more tightly packed than yours. So you can either keep dropping your goal weight to accomidate the looseness of your fat distribution or just be happy that you're healthy and make peace

It really does depend on the person. My brother and my DH are about the same height, but my brother has to stick to the lower end of heathy or else he starts looking chubby and my DH is currently at the middle of overweight and with a shirt on he looks pretty thin, without a shirt he looks like he could stand to lose 5-10 pounds. You probably won't know until you get there. I set my goal at the middle of healthy and I figure I will fine tune it when I get down closer.

I would re-evaluate once you get closer to your original goal and decide if you want to try to go lower

FWIW, my SO is 6'3". When he was in trim for the Ironman (that was some years ago) he weighed in at 180. Now, 200 would be more his speed. He has a large frame - broad shoulders, balanced trunk and leg length, very large feet & hands, etc.

Hope this helps -

My dad is 6'3" and very small boned for a man-- small head, narrow shoulders and hips. I think he weighed 160 as a very young man, and he was noticeably a bean pole, very skinny, long skinny legs. At 175, he is a tall, thin man. At 200 is is a tall thin man with a small pooch over his belly (he's in his seventies...) His brother, who is not quite as tall but with a more normal sized frame always weighs about 20 pounds more than my dad.

So, I'd say 175 only if you are small boned with a narrow frame.

My first husband is 6'4" with large frame.
He is a very good looking man - very fit and athletic.
In fact he was approached for male modeling about 20 years ago.
I've known him for over 40 years and his weight has ranged from 170 - 250.
He looks fat between 250 -220. Perfect at 200 - and sickly at 175.
Hope this helps