Individual goals--need education, please
 

My daughter and I just had a conversation. We don't understand something, and we would like to be educated.

We've noticed so many beautiful women, in their "during" photos, who look wonderful to us. They've lost all their flab, they're certainly healthy, they can buy clothes from any store in town....

But they still say they want to lose another 20 pounds, or drop another three sizes???

I know everyone has to choose their own goal. And I know everyone needs to set the goal *they* are happy with. But I also know that there are some who will never be happy, no matter what they accomplish.

Daughter (eratosthanes, who will most likely respond to this post) tells me they've recently lowered the ideal "non-overweight" BMI for women from 27 to 18. If this is true, I don't like it. Not because it gives me an even harder goal to attain, but because now women who have a BMI of 18.5 are going to start hating themselves and feeling "fat."

Please tell us why people who have worked so hard, who have accomplished so much, and who to us look so wonderful, are still not happy with themselves? Thank you.

I think something is fishy with that. I'm pretty sure the upper limit of "normal" BMI remains 24.9. The upper limit for "overweight, then, is 29.9. Under 18.5 is "underweight. I don't know where "27" comes from.

I was going to re-post something I mentioned in another thread but they removed it!?

Basically it is what my mother said, with the addition that I think some of the women in the goal pics forum need to GAIN some weight. Being 5'7 and 135 is not healthy. It is starving, and I think some attention needs to paid to it. 20 yrs. ago, the standard was for a woman to be 27% body fat. That has dropped rapidly since then, with the new recommendation at 18%. 20 yrs. ago that was considered starvation. Have women really changed so much, or our standards now unhealthy?

4. Sex-Specific Measurements

Evidence from epidemiological studies indicates that a high waist circumference is associated with an increased risk for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and CVD. Therefore, the panel judged that sex-specific cutoffs for waist circumference can be used to identify increased risk associated with abdominal fat in adults with a BMI in the range of 25 to 34.9. These cutpoints can be applied to all adult ethnic or racial groups. On the other hand, if a patient is very short, or has a BMI above the 25 to 34.9 range, waist cutpoints used for the general population may not be applicable. Based on the evidence from nonrandomized studies, the panel makes this recommendation:
For adult patients with a BMI of 25 to 34.9 kg/m2, sex-specific waist circumference cutoffs should be used in conjunction with BMI to identify increased disease risks. Evidence Category C.

This is the closest thing I could find, since the actual FDA site is not working for some reason. Of course, this refers to abdominal fat, not total fat, so I really don't know. The 18% was something I read in a medical journal, but as I have no proof, and can neither confirm or deny my posit, I temporarily say, we'll see. Needless to say, I could not find the supposed cut-off point anywhere. Also, this is from '98, so it may be different now.

(1) Wow. I'm starving and unhealthy. Who knew.

(2) Please provide a reference that the "new recommendation" is 18% body fat. I can't even begin to comment without knowing what you are referring to.

(3) Body fat percentage is NOT the same thing as BMI.

I am aware that that is not the same thing, but I do know this. Olympic (female) athletes have fat percentages in the low teens. They also usually stop menses, and have trouble having children later on. I am not saying 18% is impossible to attain, or even that you can be relatively healthy there for a time, I am saying that getting ANY lower than that increases your risk for reproductive issues and Alzheimer's later on. I have seen goals, including some met, on here where they are at 12-15% body fat. This is NOT healthy.

If you feel good, maybe you can function at a lower level, but for most women this is bad advice.

1. Yes, we need to do some research. I know government guidelines change frequently, and for that reason alone I don't trust them.

2. By the way, I've already forgotten some of the conversation. It could have been "body fat" not BMI.

3. God, please, let's not get a fight started.

4. It probably isn't a good idea to critique anyone's body size. When my daughter and I reach goals that we are happy with, some people are likely to say we're still overweight. We probably won't like that.

5. To lose a bunch of weight, and then be told you are too unhealthfully skinny and should gain some back, could sound offensive. It could smack of "I'm jealous, and I want you to undo some of the hard work you've done." Knowing my daughter, I know she doesn't mean it that way, but I can see where others would think so.

6. I just don't understand why some people *aren't* happy with their results. To me they look beautiful. That's where I sit.

That's a really tough question to go about answering. There could be so many different reasons... Maybe someone is trying to get down to a weight they used to be, maybe they have idols and strive to be like them...

But they may very well be happy with themselves :) Just because they haven't reached their goal doesn't mean they can't love their body. I know I'll love my body and feel very sexy when I drop 20lbs... but that's nowhere close to where my goal is.

Again, it's a tough question because it's going to change from person to person SO much.

Also, I made a typo. it was 5'9 and 135, not 5'7. I am sorry, I didn't mean to call you starving in specific.

If a woman is strong, energetic, and happy at a certain weight, then who's to say there is anything wrong with it? That seems like the definition of healthy to me. Unless it is causing an actual medical issue, I think it's completely uncalled for to say that an arbitrary height-weight combination is so low as to be "starving" for a given woman.

Also, where are you getting this information that 20 years ago, somehow the standard was 27% body fat for women? If you've looked at pictures of your family or other folks from that time, you'll see that most average people were thinner 20 years ago than average people now... and even thinner 20 years before that, and so on!

As far as saying that the "new recommendation" is 18% body fat for women, I haven't found any evidence of that. The World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health recommendation for the healthy body fat range for women ages 20-40 years old is 21-33% body fat (23-35% for women 41-60 years old).

I hope this helps!! :)

Here at 3FC we are not medical professionals. We are just a bunch of folks who come here to find support, camaraderie, and to gain and share knowledge.

It's impossible to gauge where on the health spectrum someone sits by merely taking a glance at their height and weight. You can't guess on body fat, cholesterol, fitness, etc...

Weight really doesn't paint that big of a picture. Throughout this journey we adjust. Sometimes goals change. And as long as those goals are carried out in the name of a healthy body and mind, we will support them.

I would also like to say that body fat and body weight are not one in the same and I think they are being spoken about interchangeably here.

I agree completely that we'd all be much happier if we could find more satisfaction and delight with ourselves, as we are! It really is important for us to accept our own beauty, as well as the beauty of others :carrot:

Junebug, you are absolutely right. I shouldn't have made the comment the way I did, it just bothers me to see women trying to get to a point where they MIGHT not be healthy.

I just forgot to consider that just because I was 29 percent body fat at 208 doesn't mean everyone is. I will look up the exact statistic from the FDA as soon as their site works again.

I can see OP's point.

I would say in my experience that many (if not most) women want to weigh 10-20 lbs less than a weight they are very healthy at and at their "hottest" to most men.

As a guy, I'm going to limit my comment to that and quickly exit this thread;)

HAH! Yes, my partner would agree with you!! (I lose my chest first :o)

This is so important to realize. My current weight is actually slightly into the overweight BMI, because the normal ranges were unattainable low for me. I'm an outlier in that respect. But there are also outliers in the other direction - people who are built trimmer and are more able to acheive and attain a lower weight relative to height. I'm sure some people look at my goal weight and think "Wow, she's still overweight, why doesn't she lower it?" just as I'm sure people look at the lower-BMI goals and think it might be a bit far. But it's not my place to judge their lower goals (so long as they are being obtained in a healthy way), and I'd hope they wouldn't judge my higher goal.

Humans come in a wide spectrum of sizes, shapes, and builds. And they have a wide variety of preferences on how they'd like to look, which may or may not be based on what men/other people find most attractive.

There's so much disagreement on where "healthy" lies, and also where "beauty" does. There's also alot of disagreement over how a person should feel about themselves if they lie outside health and/or beauty lines (Whether they should dislike their body, how much they should dislike their body, when they have a right to stop disliking their body)... it all gets sort of muddled and crazy.

I've gotten flak for liking myself and thinking I'm pretty attractive now (and 80 lbs ago). It's just not RIGHT for a very fat gal to actually like herself and consider herself and her very fat husband attractive and dare I even say it [GASP OF INTENSE HORROR] SEXY!

Yep, I (and my hubby) think I'm sexy. My husband (and I) think he's sexy - and if anyone else disagrees, well we're not having sex with them, so it's not our problem.

We're social deviants, I suppose. By societal standards I guess we're supposed to be grossed out by the site of each other nekkid (or clothed for that matter), and should be vomitting at the site of each other's and our own unclothed bodies. If we have sex at all, it should be with the lights off and it should only be possible by each of us fantasizing that we're with a more attractive (buff) partner.

Ok, I'm being sarcastic and exagerating, but unfortunately the reality isn't that far off.

I get to decide when I'm happy with myself (I'm pretty ok with me now) and whether or not that has anything to do with my weight at all (not so much for me).

I don't know when I'll stop trying to lose weight... whether that will be a clothing size or a weight reached, or a point at which I decide "this is as much as I'm willing to diet and exercise so whereever the scale is now will have to be good enough." I don't know whether I'll maintain that weight and then later decide I want to lose more - or for that matter decide that the weight I chose isn't realistic and alow myself a little more leeway (I'm thinking I'd like to reach 150, but maybe if I get there and think it's too difficult to maintain 150, but 160 works better, well that's ok too).

You can't tell by looking at any of our goal weights, whether we have healthy attitudes about our bodies, or generically our self-worth - what's "realistic," what's "attainable," and how bad (or not) we may feel if we never reach our stated goal - it's not written on our faces (and sometimes we may not be all that sure ourselves).

I think it's a great topic to discuss, but I think it's important to be a bit cautious in assigning any great "meaning" to goals that we might not pick for ourselves. Even the doctors and obesity and health "experts" disagree on the "optimal" weight and body composition. There is no number on the scale that will reflect optimal physical health, mental health, and beauty (especially beauty as one person's "too skinny" can be someone else's "too fat.")

kaplods, that's a beautiful attitude, and I can tell it's served you well! Thanks for (yet another!) great post... your posts are always so sincere, informative, and fun to read, to boot! :D

kaplods, your post is a great example of why you were the first one on my "buddy" list. :D

ETA, now that the nightly Olympic coverage is over and I can get back to this post:

And thank you, mandalinn, for your insight about outliers. I'm one too, and so is my daughter. In fact, even before she joined this site with a goal weight 20 pounds higher than mine, I had been considering raising mine. And both of us would still be considered "overweight" at our stated goals. :) That's the family bone structure. I remember when my grandfather began his decline and lost quite a bit of weight. When he was skin and bones, those bones were still quite big, so he never looked as gaunt and frail as other elderly men. And an aunt--one of the very rare never-battled-an-obesity-problem-in-her-entire-life members of our family--also has heavy bone structure. Even she, downright *thin* as she is, might weigh more, or wear a larger size, than someone else of the same height, with a daintier musculoskeletal structure.

So we'll never be ballerinas, figure skaters, gymnasts, or other professions that depend on tiny, limber bodies for optimum performance. We're not built that way. We're built like milkmaids. That's OK.

I feel the original post was actually asking many different things that are/ are not necessarily related:

1. The before and after photos of many women on the forum are impressive, the women appear to be thin enough, yet they want to lose another 20 lbs. Why is this?

2. Why is it that some people will never be happy when they reach goal and they will continue trying to lose weight? Why will some never be happy with themselves?

3. Why have the 'official' body fat standards been dropped? And is this a problem particular to our culture?

Anyway, to the first question - in my opinion, losing a large deal of weight becomes somewhat of an addiction, it is part of your identity. You are constantly congratulated for looking better. You have positive reinforcement to keep going. You also feel VERY powerful and in control of your body for the first time in your life. It is nice to exert that control and lose more, push yourself a little bit harder - because you can. You had obviously at one time in your life lost all control, and now you have it again. I suppose the power is exhilarating. I would like to again repeat "just a personal opinion".

As far as 2. and 3. - why will people never feel happy at their ideal weight and why have our cultural body fat standards changed......

I think to 2. we are always striving to be better - in all aspects of our life. That seems to be a human characteristic, why should it be any different with weight loss?

Or, Psychologists suggest that people with eating disorders (yes, dieting is considered an eating disorder in the scientific world) have uniquely internalized a particularly strong mental image of an ideal body that is quite powerful in influencing decisions. Possibly, we are continually trying to achieve this image - and its a hard fight that is not easily achieved (if it can be achieved at all).

And 3., why do we seem to have stricter cultural standards now? I don't know, but I did read an interesting article in a journal on evolutionary psychology on why women lose weight -

According to this theory (based on evol. biology), if the competition for males were high, women would lose weight and become very thin. They were 'unconsciously' stopping their ability to reproduce UNTIL the appropriate healthy male with a high social status came along. The female would then resume eating after she "has him" in order to start her monthly cycle again.

Okay, maybe that little theory has nothing to do with our cultural body fat standards, but its interesting nonetheless!

And I hope that there are no arguments in this thread - there are important issues raised here.

At my high weight, 198 at 5'3", my body fat percentage was 44% as measured by one of those electrical-resistance scales. So no, not everyone at the same weight and height has the same body fat percent.

However, everyone at the same weight and height does have the same BMI, because it is merely a calculated ratio. It is just a ballpark idea someone had for definitional purposes.

I think that many people, or maybe it's many women, get into the idea of 10 pounds more to lose (or whatever the number is) because they don't like what is actually loose skin, or they still have belly fat or arm fat or big hips, and they think that another 10 pounds off would solve that. At the lower weight, some folks appear too thin in the face and other visible parts of the body like wrists and hands, and that can cause comments about having lost "too much."

For some, losing weight takes on the glow of being the solution to all one's problems. Of course, it isn't.

It sometimes sounds as though women have nothing better to do than worry about how they look and whether they can wear a bikini. But that can be a misleading impression. 3FC is a weight loss site, so folks are going to talk mostly about weight loss.

I have no answers to the "why" questions.

Jay

This whole conversation reminds me of a commercial/ad campaign from a couple of years ago. The one where there would be really glamorous, attractive (according to our society's standards) and fit/thin people doing things like walking the red carpet and they would suddenly collapse. Then the voiceover would be to "know your numbers", meaning your cholesterol, bp, etc. I would laugh everytime!

I feel like a goal weight is a very personal decision. For me, I focus on eating well, exercising, drinking lots of water, getting plenty of sleep and my body decides what weight it wants to be. I try not to get worked up over the numbers, both the scale and clothing sizes. To the OP, I love the milkmaid reference! Some of us are sturdier stock than others. Am I healthy? Well according to my dr I am. I feel good. Do I want to lose any more weight? No, I feel good at my current weight. Do I want others to tell me what weight I should be, with the exception of my dr? No.

I can only answer the question from my own perspective.

First off, I haven't heard about any lowering of the BMI thing. Secondly, this has been a true journey for me. I like a leaner look on me (not skinny, drawn or unhealthy) but fit, strong and fab. I have come this far, why not achieve what I REALLY want? Why limit myself to satisfactory? Why limit myself to mediocrity when I want and can achieve more? Is has nothing to do with me being dissatisfied with my accomplishment. It has nothing to do with trying to please men when they look at me. It has EVERYTHING to do with me and reaching a point in my life that I want nothing less than my personal best.

I think everyone has the right to set their own goal and see how they feel in terms of getting to that goal and how they feel at that goal. Often people may lose weight and get to a healthy weight range but be 'skinny fat' and think it is really fat they need to get off their body when instead it may be that they need to focus on something else like building muscle and shaping their body.

Overall, this is a support site and we try to support everyone in their weight loss goals. If someone asked about their goal or was having trouble losing weight and I saw they personally were at a healthy weight, I think I would step in and ask what are their real goals? Is the goal a number on the scale or is it a certain look/size? Often it is a certain look/size and there have been plenty of people on this site who have readjusted their goals along the way.

Overall, you can't judge someone's body type by their screen name and if someone is losing weight in a healthy way, then I will support them in their goals whether that goal is 120 or its 200.

Here is a snippet from www.life123.com that was sent to me with regard this thread.
Therefore, in 1998, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute published a BMI guide in its "Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults." It identified five BMI ranges, including underweight (BMI less than 18.5), normal weight (BMI 20-25), overweight (BMI 25-30), obese (BMI 30-35) and morbidly obese (BMI 35+). These ranges are still the standard today

One of the most wonderful things about "weight loss" (and yes, I put that in quotes) is that there are so many different facets to it. For many people it is so much more than simply dropping pounds.
Cholesterol, blood pressure, pulse, joint strain ...
Stronger, faster, more endurance ...
Appearance, clothing selection ...
BMI, body fat percentage, waist to hip ratio, inches, pounds, sizes ...

We can never know which of this vast selection has been forefront in a poster's mind. We cannot assume to know what they want or what they're after. And it is certainly not our job to judge, this thing that we do not know, by appearance. Or rather our perception of her appearance, which is fraught with our preferences.

I think Thighs Be Gone said this very well .... It has EVERYTHING to do with me and reaching a point in my life that I want nothing less than my personal best.