To think this would be too much weight to lose?

[Lemononachair]

I've lost 2 stone since last year but I know I'm still overweight. My BMI is around 27 so I wanted to lose around another stone to put me comfortably within the healthy range.

However, the calculator suggests that to be in the middle of the healthy range I'd need to lose 2 1/2 stone and that I could actually lose as much as 4 1/2 stone and still be a healthy BMI!

I'm short so I know I can't get away with weighing as much as someone taller but this really surprised me because I'm a reasonably well padded size 12/14 but I've noticed significant differences in my body since losing weight. My bum has shrunken to the extent where it hurts to sit on a hard surface because my bones dig in. I can see and feel my ribs, collarbones and hip bones pretty well - not to the extent where I look emaciated but there isn't much coverage there anymore and I'm sure if I lost another stone they would be quite prominent and another 2 1/2 stone off would make me quite gaunt. I'm already noticeably wrinklier in the face than I was too.

Maybe I've just been overweight so long I've lost sight of what a normal weight looks like!

I do agree that we (collectively) have lost sight of what is normal, because 'average' is now pretty large. Things like collarbones are prominent on people of a healthy weight, that isn't a sign of illness.

I agree that you have been overweight so long you have lost sight of what a normal sized person looks like. You should be able to see bones and unless you’re over 5 ft 7 a size 12/14 is unlikely to be anything other than plump. Keep your weight loss going until you get to BMI 22/23, and then review from there. If you feel you could lose more (and most shorter people can as they have smaller frames) then do it.

That's also a really good point, scrappydappydoooooo.

The Polish study linked to earlier, the median women's age was 67. Which is close to 70 & a long way from 40, I humbly submit. What puzzles me is that they found the worst bone density when BMI = 24.0-25.9, but then the best bone density at 26-27.9. Other BMI groups were between best or worst. They don't actually supply real bone density numbers, so we can't tell from abstract if the differences are clinically negligible.

The lack of linear relationship betw. BMI & osteoporosis risk suggests artefacts in that specific sample of 369 women.

Some of the other research is also more nuanced, but all seems to agree that 40 yr olds are not like 70 yr olds. Which is precisely why being in the BMI range 25-30 for the elderly may be a lot less important than other risk factors. Maybe OP is pushing 70 but if she's nearer to 20 then BMI best

I think we have lost sight of what is normal. I am short & have recently lost 2 stone of babyweight. I am now within the healthy bmi range (10st) but i know i need to loose another stone to be happy/comfortable with my weight...and at that weight i will STILL be a stone over the lower end of the healthy weight for my BMI!!

I don't set great store by BMI but I think it's generally a decent aim to be within the healthy range.

According to the NHS my healthy range is 9 1/2 to 12 1/2 stone! I've got into healthy range after years of obesity BUT my body fat percentage is too high still.

I don't want to be thin but I do want to be healthy and strong and I am dieting and training towards that aim.

For me the ideal weight will probably end up being 11 to 11 1/2 stone with body fat between 25 and 30%. If I can get there. The weight won't be a problem but the body fat percentage will be tougher to deal with.

Oh and for all those saying a size 12 isnt overweight i have recently been a size 12/14 and 12 stone, and at 5.2 i was fat. I felt genuinely massive! It was not a good look!!

But how short is short ' op?

5'0 and a size 12-14 will look very different to that size in someone at 5'4.

Exactly what icypop said

I don’t know what age you are, but after 30, more so after 40, it is paramount to safeguard your muscle mass. Low calorie diets aggressively attack muscle, that’s why you lose so much weight fast, most of it is muscle and muscle is heavy. It is concerning that you can feel the bones of your bottom when you sit down, glutes are big muscles and should cushion. If I were you, I would shift focus from losing weight to gaining health and improving how you feel and look. Definitely go for resistance exercise to build up and maintain your muscle mass. It will give you the curves you desire and the toned body overall. Modify your diet to facilitate muscle building - good amount of protein, plenty of dairy/plant fats and slow-digesting carbs like pulses or fibery veg, fruit. ‘Weight is not everything’ as you have discovered. We don’t walk around with a number displayed on your foreheads. People generally look at somebody from the standpoint do they look healthy, do they look fit? Their number on the scales is pretty irrelevant.

A huge well done for losing the weight (I've a bit to lose myself) but I agree that you've lost sight of what's normal. There should be not much but skin covering your collar and hip bones at a healthy weight. It might be unusual to look at if you've had a bit more cushion but don't be worried you're becoming skeletal. Good luck for the next bit

This thread reminds me of rhe women who posted a thread saying she had complained to Boden for using a severely under weight woman, and posted the image for comment, and the image contained what was clearly a healthy weight woman, albeit likely towards the lower end of healthy bmi, but still clearly a healthy weight. There has been other similar threads.

There is no doubt, some people have simply no concept of what a healthy weight looks like, and have moved to perceiving it as under weight, even severely under weight.

There is no doubt when you lose weight, you start to realise how much smaller you look, and usually are happy, but that doesn't now mean you're even a healthy weight yet, Simply you're comparing your self to what you used to look like.

Bluntness100 I'd love to read that but couldn't find in search, if you've a link please share

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/3136577-AIBU-to-think-Bodens-models-are-too-thin

Well found reductator!

To be fair though, for every thread like that there are plenty of threads where poster try to argue people like Catherine (DOC) or Gigi Hadid are perfectly normal weights and we’ve lost sight of normal etc

I aleays thought that BMI ranges must have changed too. I was in the health range at 9stone12 but now it nearer 9 stone 6.
I think it must have changes in last 20 years.

I was genuinely quite scared to lose weight because I thought it would make me look old and haggard and that I'd lose the parts of my body that I did like.

Yes, an acquaintance of mine in their fifties has lost a lot of weight in the last few months. And now they look absolutely horrendous! It aged them 15 years. The face has become full of wrinkles and the skin now looks visibly old.

And their body doesn’t look much better either, unnaturally thin legs with no muscle tone and the flat ‘old lady’ bum.

Obviously I won’t say this to their face, but they really did look better, younger and more radiant before weight loss, yes, a bit chubby, but a young 50. Now they look like an aged leather boot.

I'm a size 12-14 at the moment, and I'm overweight. I'm 5'4", and when I jump up and down, bits wobble. That's overweight. I'm just in the healthy BMI range but I'm definitely bigger than I should be.

And their body doesn’t look much better either, unnaturally thin legs with no muscle tone and the flat ‘old lady’ bum.

Obviously I won’t say this to their face, but they really did look better, younger and more radiant before weight loss, yes, a bit chubby, but a young 50. Now they look like an aged leather boot.

That's not an example of getting fit and healthy then is it. Starving yourself into losing muscle along with fat is not healthy. Losing fat and building toned, supple muscles is. Your "friend" wouldn't have a 'flat old lady bum' if she ate a good muscle building diet and built her glutes up. Because it's not a choice between being overweight or underweight.

There is actually our individual biological healthy weight right in the middle of that, where we have a good body fat/muscle ratio. Decent fitness and endurance, strong bones and eat a varied, healthy diet. And that, totally biologically normal state is the state that people seem to forget is an option, when it should be the norm.

@HereTheyCome, what does your friend in their 50s weigh now, and how tall are they?

Bmi is rubbish. For my height my ideal weight is between 8.5 and 11.5 stone. Well I haven’t been 11.5 stone since before I had my first child 🤣 At 11.5 stone I was a size 10 so If i was 8.5 stone what size would I have been? A size 6 or an 8? Never gonna happen 😭

You must be the same height as me - 5ft 6/7? It’s not about clothes sizes. I’m currently a stone over my usual weight at 10 stone and I’m still a size 10 as I am at 9 stone. Both are healthy but 10 stone is too chunky

Somewhere I have a calendar from the early 80's with an ideal weight chart on it. It's one of those lifestyle type things from a women's magazine. I'll try to find it sometime

The BMI is a 'healthy' range - if you feel happier at the top of that range, it is better to stay there than to yo-yo diet endlessly trying to get to the mid- to bottom-end of the range.

Reassess for yourself when you are in the healthy range, and when you are more 'used to' your 'new' body. You may or may not want to be less weight than that.