What’s Your Ideal Weight?
I’ve adjusted my goal weight up to 135, compared to my original goal of 120. This is not because I’m giving up; it’s because I’ve come to believe that 135 is truly my ideal weight.
When I first set my goal, I wasn’t sure what an appropriate body weight would be, because I went from rather underweight to nearly obese over the course of 15 years. At some time I must’ve hit my ideal, but I’m damned if I know when. At 5′ 3″, I weighed 100 pounds or so when I graduated from high school, and maybe 110 when I finished college five years later. I gained weight pretty steadily at 5 pounds a year after that, until my highest weight of 167 in July 2002.
I do remember that I first started feeling fat when I hit 135. That’s when my thighs started looking like white lumpy hams, and I couldn’t wear a size 4 any more. (Remember, my mental image of myself was of that scrawny teenager who had a hard time finding clothes small enough to fit.)
So I recently picked 120 as a goal because, hey, it seemed reasonable, it was below my first “fat” weight, and it was smack in the middle of the BMI range for my height.
But it’s time to adjust this goal, for a number of reasons. First, and most important, two independent methods of measuring body mass composition tell me that my current body fat percentage is around 30%, which means I have 102 pounds of lean body mass. I’ve gained some lean body mass since college! Nice! (The two methods I used were the waist-to-hip ratio method described in the Eadeses’ book Protein Power, and the fancy electronic thingy at the gym.) It’s desirable to hang onto all 102 pounds of lean body mass.
It gets a little complicated from here, because it’s hard to find consistent information on what constitutes a healthy body fat percentage. If you google “ideal body fat percentage,” you’ll see what I mean. Depending on who you believe, my body fat percentage could be anywhere from 15% to 33% and still be healthy. Well, I’m at 30%, and my thighs still look lumpy white hams, my back is fat, and my belly bunches up when I sit. Not to mention the wingspans that have replaced my upper arms … Clearly 30% is too much for me.
I decided to go with the Eadeses again, since I find them to be generally relaible. They say a woman of my age should have somewhere between 21 and 27% body fat. Weighing 135 pounds would put me at 24% body fat. In truth, my goal isn’t 135 pounds at all; it’s 24% body fat. If I gain more lean muscle mass, my ideal weight will go up.
I reserve the right to readjust again at any time.
There is another, more political reason that I’m changing my goal weight, and that is because it was based on BMI, and I’ve decided that BMI is a very ineffective measure of a healthy weight. The BMI charts say that I could weigh 105 pounds and have a “healthy” BMI of 18.6. But, again assuming that I don’t want to lose a single ounce of my precious lean body mass, that would give me only about 3% body fat!
Where the heck do these BMI charts come from, anyway? Did someone pull them out of, pardon my vulgarity, their ass? The author of the Bodywords blog started an interesting discussion, based on the recent research showing that a little extra weight can result in lowered overall risk of death. Check out the post; it’s fascinating in the questions it asks.
By the way, another thing I learned from Good Calories, Bad Calories is just how much public health authorities dumb down health science so they can reach the greatest numbers of people. I’m guessing this is an example, too. It’s too complicated to tell us that we should be concerned about body mass composition, because the tests are not readily available. However, almost every household in America has a bathroom scale and a tape measure. So instead of suggesting that people get their body mass composition measured at their annual physicals, we suggest instead that they make an extremely flawed, but very easy, measurement with equipment they have in their own homes.
I’m beginning to think that the person who commented that I should stop weighing myself and go by the way I look and how my clothes fit had a point! I have too keen an interest in science, and have spent too long in the business world, not to place a value on measurement. But it would be helpful if I knew what the heck I am supposed to measure!
Migraine aura picture from



Maybe you could measure waist circumference. In this day and age, when something like two thirds to three quarters of us have metabolic syndrome, prediabetes, or T2 diabetes, waist size indicates the presence of excess belly fat, a marker for hyperinsulinemia even in those of “normal” BMI.
But what is a “good” number to aim at?
Definitions of metabolic syndrome disagree about the cutoffs. US criteria say 40″ for men, 35″ for women. A European group says 37″ for men, 31.5″ for women. Various studies show “slight” risk for women less than 31″ and men less than 35″.
According to NHANES III (1988-1994) average waist sizes were 35″ for women and 38″ for men. Currently the average waist size of UK women is 34″. In 1951 it was 27.5″. Dress patterns in the 1880s had waist sizes from 22.8″ to 25.2″.
My mother claims that before she married (around 1950) her waist size was 22″. Her wedding suit measures 25″. Although we have roughly the same build, I’ll probably never see 25″ again….
Comment by Jen — December 3, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Jen - fascinating info about dress sizes. There are all kinds of secondary markers for hwo much bigger Americans have become. I heard a news item several years ago about how the Seattle transportation authority was increasing the size of the seats on the ferry because our rear ends have become so much wider.
My current waist size is 31″. I’d like to see it in the 20s, but overall I like the way my upper body looks, with the exception of my upper arms. It’s my lower body that doesn’t seem right.
Comment by psipsina — December 3, 2007 @ 11:22 am
BMI is just technobabble for the old height-weight charts. It only considers height & weight — nothing about lean body mass and fat %. There are professional athletes who would be considered obese by BMI standards.
Comment by Dan (aka renegadediabetic) — December 3, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Morning,
I completely agree with you. I had as my original weight loss goal, getting to 135. I passed that, and then made a new goal of 126. Thing is, my body appears to be quite joyful at bouncing between 131 and 133….it hasn’t wanted to move now for 2 months.
Given the fact I look and feel great, I’m okay with that.
Barbara
Comment by Barbara Ling — December 3, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
I set mine at 160 (I’m 5′8″ and 53 yrs old), but I have no idea what I “should” weigh. According to the BMI charts, that makes me “normal” weight, but just barely.
I’ll probably see what I look like and how I feel. Last time I was “normal weight” I was 23 and 150 pounds and looked good, but on the thin side. (150 was my original goal) After that I gained a bit, then more with each baby, then more as they grew up. I’ve always had a weight problem, but until my late 20s always stayed under 180 or so. I’ve been over 180, except for a short dip recently), for about 24 yrs.
Comment by Cindy Moore — December 3, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
What is your height? Trying to get a better picture. Thanks.
Comment by weasel! — December 13, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Hi, weasel, nice to see you again.
Well, it’s a longish post, but my height is in fact buried in there - I’m 5′3″.
Comment by Migraineur — December 13, 2007 @ 10:47 am