So, I just did some calculations and for a healthy BMI (at the top end even) I need to be 163 lbs. I was 160 before, and I was SKINNY, and it was when I was working out 2 + hrs a day with Tae Kwon Do (not to mention is was over 10 years ago) -- I know that I am not being realistic to aim for that low of a weight.
We're the same height, and a "normal" BMI wasn't in reach for me either...too much muscle, too much frame, and when I did get to 162, I looked physically ill.
BMI is a good general guideline for the population, but it isn't the end-all-be-all of health. If you're eating well, active, and maintaining a weight that's healthy for *you*, that is all that matters.
As far as accuracy I think it's too hard to define what would be 'accurate'. I know that I'm 6ft 7in and there is no way in hades I would ever be able to weigh between 175 and 220 pounds. Nor would I WANT to!
My goal is to get down to 300 pounds and go from there. This was the weight I felt I looked my best at. I'll probably always be 'obese' which is depressing - but Id rather look HEALTHY than gaunt.
Another 5'8" girl here. I'm fluctuating around 162 lbs these days. I have never seen 160 lbs (close, oh so close). I'm really starting to wonder if my body wouldn't be happy at 160. So yeah, it's possible my happy weight will toe the line between healthy and overweight (163 lbs/164 lbs).
Just to tag on... BMI is just about height and weight. Not health. Not fat. Not muscle tone. Not anything else. While it might be good for looking at populations and how they change, it doesn't necessarily do a good job for individual people. Some yes. Others, no. Very fit athletes with a lot of muscle mass may be "obese" based on BMI only. But in reality, these are people without a lot of fat who don't need to lose weight.
BMI doesn't really tell you much about anything. Heather put it really nicely, it only takes into account height and weight nothing else, this alone will show some of the fittest people on the earth as obese. It goes back to being healthy as opposed to just being thin.
I agree, BMI is not accurate for a lot of people. I wish they would do away with it. It really burns me up because the schools use it with the kids. They call them into the nurse's office and weigh and measure them, calculate their BMI and pronounce them fat! Its riduclous and harmful. My kids, like me, have large frames and are musclar. They are not fat. You should see the size of my son's calf muscles, pure muscle that would make any body builder jealous. I really worry what it will do to my daughters body image and self esteem. I try to explain to the kids the truth about BMI but they take what teachers and nurses tell them as a voice of authority.
BMI has been discounted as a sound method of measuring health because individuals vary so much. I put my goal weight as 160, but honestly, once I reach onederland, I'm going by ten-pound weight losses until I reach a weight I feel and look good at. The "healthy" BMI weight range for somebody at my height is like 135-155 or something like that and that's far too low for my body build. I would have to not only lose every ounce of fat on my body, but lose some of the muscles I've built up from 12 years of gymnastics as well and I don't want to.
How real is BMI?
