Weight loss question

[Captain Cactus]

I can't seem to find any good articles on this topic online so I'm turning to you, my online community!

How do we know what our "ideal" weight is supposed to be?  How do we know if weight loss is "too much"?

I ask for myself.  I'm 5'10, 40 years old.  Started out at 190lbs on January 1st of 2020.  I'm down to 156lbs today.  I'm not doing any fad diets, just not drinking much alcohol or eating restaurant food, except for some chinese once a month or so as a treat.  All my life, and especially while working in sales, I have eaten restaurant food, candy, junk food.  I'm not talking fast food, but probably eating restaurant food 2-5 times per week.  Now it's all home-cooked meals, generally avoiding refined carbs (ie Doritos and white bread).

So I've been losing weight, I think I look great, clothes fit me, it's easier to exercise now, etc... but the weight keeps coming off and I'm not really sure how much more I'll keep losing.  I'm not sure if eventually I'll hit a "correct" weight and stop losing, given the current exercise levels and food intake?  I don't think I have any underlying diseases because I just had my bloodwork done.  So I suspect it's just the diet and exercise.

Anyone with experience in this area?

[SunnyDays]

There are lots of weight charts online, but the one I have from Mayo Clinic says that a healthy weight for someone your height is 132 - 167.  Men and women of the same height will differ.  A lot depends on your frame size, which can be measured by putting your fingers around your wrist. If your fingers overlap, you have a small frame, if they meet, a medium frame and if there’s a gap, a large frame.  You won’t continue to lose weight indefinitely; only as much as your caloric intake/output supports.  Also, muscle weighs more than fat, so that will affect the number on the scale.

[ixtap]

I know that people have all kinds of complaints about BMI when it comes to the upper limits, but as I understand it, the lower limits are pretty accurate for where you are reaching levels that could compromise your health.

DH has never been overweight and has trouble maintaining his weight. He doesn't adjust well when his routine changes. That is, he will eat less if he is more sedentary, but he has to make a conscious effort to eat more if he starts getting more exercise. He absolutely cannot maintain without fairly large amounts of carbs - usually pasta in his case. He is 5'10 and I (and his doctors) get concerned when he drops below ~135. (ETA: 130 - he is usually between 135 and 140. Sorry for the misinfo, I don't actually monitor my husband's weight, he just shares it when it is changing).

[Tigerpine]

I'm a few years older than you, about your height, and I've NEVER weighed more than 135lbs.  I am admittedly skinny, but overall healthy.

[Rhinodad]

I believe the current evidence is not only based on BMI, but also on waist circumference. A lot is even determined by ethnic background as far as risk profiles go. I would think if your body responds the way you'd like it to when trying to do physical tasks, your waist circumference is where it needs to be, and you are getting the needed sleep...I'd say you're good...especially if you just had blood work done. Now, if you haven't had blood work done, I'd be concernced about a very over active thyroid, but sounds like that was checked.

[Metalcat]

I really wouldn't worry about being under weight.

You will only end up unhealthily under weight if you aren't eating enough to function. At that point you will feel tired and cold all the time.

Just keep eating intuitively and your weight loss will level off. The less you weigh, the fewer calories you need, so the loss slows down the more you lose until it just stops.

You have to eat very, very little to get to a point of being unhealthily thin. Worrying about that while eating a healthy diet is kind of like worrying about putting on too much muscle because you go to the gym. It's just not something that happens without a lot of effort or underlying illness.

Basically, keep doing what you're doing and don't worry about it. Although, be prepared for a lot of people to comment that you're "getting too thin". It's super annoying.

ETA: I lost 70lbs doing what you are doing and just never worried about my weight. I just ate well and exercised and eventually my body landed where it wanted to stay.

[jeroly]

I believe the current evidence is not only based on BMI, but also on waist circumference. A lot is even determined by ethnic background as far as risk profiles go. I would think if your body responds the way you'd like it to when trying to do physical tasks, your waist circumference is where it needs to be, and you are getting the needed sleep...I'd say you're good...especially if you just had blood work done. Now, if you haven't had blood work done, I'd be concernced about a very over active thyroid, but sounds like that was checked.

I thinnk that using a BMI calculator is useful.  It's only a guide as you could be exceptionally 'big boned' or 'small boned' but worth bearing in mind.

BMI Categories:
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
Overweight = 25–29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

Back in my 20's, I had very little money for an extended period of time and wasn't eating much. I got down to a BMI of 19 and felt like I was noticeably underweight. 

In my 30's I got into running and was doing marathon training.  Before my fastest marathon I had a BMI of 20.  I felt very slender but significantly stronger as the difference was probably more than made up for by increased muscle mass / lower body fat percentage.  I wound up injuring myself and gained weight up to a BMI of around 23.5.

Later in my 30's I wanted to impress someone (okay, an ex-gf lol) and made a point to lose weight and got down to a BMI of 21.5.  I fit into 'skinny jeans' and looked and felt good. That remains my ongoing goal weight, never since attained.

For most of my 30's, 40's, and 50's, my BMI was between 23.5 and 26.  I usually felt overweight, even at the low end of the range.

Now that I am in my 60's I find that I can fit into small sized shirts snugly and medium sized shirts comfortably with my current BMI of 23-23.5, but I still feel pudgy and would like to get down in the coming weeks/months to 22-22.5.  When my BMI gets up to 25 my clothes don't fit and I feel fat.

[draco44]

I agree with Malcat. If you get to a point where you are truly underweight, other physical symptoms or mental cloudiness should tip you off. I'd add that there's also a good possibility you may actually hit a point where you regain weight at some point if your continued health diet and exercise leads to you shedding more fat and gaining additional muscle, since as noted above, muscle is much denser than body fat.

[wenchsenior]

I have a bit of experience with this, having been at various levels of my 'normal' weight according to BMI charts, but also having spent extended periods of time struggling with being underweight for no obvious reason (i.e., not overexercising, no eating disorders, no diagnosed health issues that would cause it). 

My experience tends to agree with comments above that being underweight according to BMI charts dove-tailed with me not feeling 'right'.  I felt spindly, breakable, weak, and just not good. I looked gaunt, as well.  It was really disturbing, but it wasn't as obvious as being low-energy (I didn't notice that...had plenty of energy) or cold (I'm always ALWAYS cold unless I'm exercising or having a hot flash).   I just felt really wrong in my body. 

Whereas, at the high end of 'normal' according to BMI charts, I thought I LOOKED rather unappealingly pudgy for my little frame and definitely wanted to lose a few pounds, but I FELT fine/normal.

I think you'll probably know when you get too low...but keep an eye on that 132 lb number as a warning bell to self monitor very carefully.  For me, only 5 lbs can make a huge difference.  I feel 'not right' at 105 lbs, but absolutely fine starting at around 110 lbs, and my body looks quite different between those two weights. Probably not coincidentally, that 5 lb transitions between 'low' and 'normal' on the BMI scale for a 5'4" woman.

[Sibley]

Quick and dirty method:

1. Stand up
2. Take your shirt off
3. Run your hand over your rib cage

You should be able to feel your ribs with gentle pressure. Not sharply, there should be a fat layer.

My guess is you're fine. Like others have said, if you were underweight you'd feel it. Tired, lacking stamina, perhaps getting minor illnesses easily, feeling cold.

[use2betrix]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but are you male or female?

Body type/muscle mass (and gender) matters a lot.

I’m 5’9 and have been around 12% BF at 220 lbs and 170 lbs. no one would consider me overweight at either weight.

For an average 5’10 man who is not especially muscular, I’d say around 145-160 is normal.

Depending where you carry body fat, if you have visible abs, you’re most likely at a healthy weight. Some people lose weight in their abdominal section last, in which case they may not have visible abs but still be “somewhat” thin.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

BMI is valuable on a societal level but of very little use for individuals. It doesn't take into account your body type, sex, or ethnicity. All those things are significant factors.

If you want to be 'healthy' then instead of focussing on the weight, set targets for fat %, and/or muscle mass.

Or convert those targets into real world numbers - how many pullups/pushups you can do, how quickly you can run 1/2/5 miles, what you want your waist circumference to be, how much you want to deadlift, etc.

[American GenX]

There are lots of weight charts online, but the one I have from Mayo Clinic says that a healthy weight for someone your height is 132 - 167.

5' 10" 132?  Hard to believe that's healthy.  Even 167 sounds low to me.  I wouldn't think many people would be in that range from what I see of people.

[MudPuppy]

It isn’t unhealthy for most people at all. I think it’s not as common as it might otherwise be, but living in the US can skew your sense of healthy weight.

[use2betrix]

There are lots of weight charts online, but the one I have from Mayo Clinic says that a healthy weight for someone your height is 132 - 167.

5' 10" 132?  Hard to believe that's healthy.  Even 167 sounds low to me.  I wouldn't think many people would be in that range from what I see of people.

Are you in the US? 70% of Americans are overweight with 40% being obese.

Below I estimated based on knowledge and experience well beyond BMI charts, that 145-160 is very reasonable.

For men, looking at healthy, athletic guys in the 16-19 range is a good example. They haven’t let “life” get to them and the frequent inactivity that the American life often entails.

I grew up wrestling, and most the guys between 135 & 160 lbs were between 5’7 and 6’.

Runners are also a good group to look at (as long as you’re not considering the occasional unhealthy skinny guys). I’d best most competitive 5’10 long distance runners are 140ish or less.

[Metalcat]

It isn’t unhealthy for most people at all. I think it’s not as common as it might otherwise be, but living in the US can skew your sense of healthy weight.

Agreed, you have to be very, very thin to be under a BMI of 18.5. My lowest BMI in recent years was 19 and most people thought I was too thin, and I wasn't able to find clothes made small enough for me, and I'm tall for a woman, so it's not that I'm usually tiny or anything.

I was that exact same weight 20 years ago and nobody considered me too thin back then or would even have called me "skinny", and I was never the smallest size in the store, not even close.

It drove me nuts having constant comments about being too thin. Lol, thankfully fucking prednisone took care of that problem for me, lol. I'm cool with it though, because at least I can buy clothes now.

[GreenSheep]

It isn’t unhealthy for most people at all. I think it’s not as common as it might otherwise be, but living in the US can skew your sense of healthy weight.

Agreed, you have to be very, very thin to be under a BMI of 18.5. My lowest BMI in recent years was 19 and most people thought I was too thin, and I wasn't able to find clothes made small enough for me, and I'm tall for a woman, so it's not that I'm usually tiny or anything.

I was that exact same weight 20 years ago and nobody considered me too thin back then or would even have called me "skinny", and I was never the smallest size in the store, not even close.

It drove me nuts having constant comments about being too thin. Lol, thankfully fucking prednisone took care of that problem for me, lol. I'm cool with it though, because at least I can buy clothes now.

Exactly. People in the US have a skewed idea of what a "normal weight" looks like. I assume it's becoming more common in other countries, too. Just look at movies and tv shows from several decades ago and compare the size of the people in them to the size of people you see out and about in public today.

As a very thin person, I hate the fact that it's socially acceptable to comment on someone's thinness but not on someone's fatness -- even though I'm very happy with my weight. Even comments like, "Oh, come on, you can have a piece of cake! You don't have to worry about it!" drive me nuts. People, how do you think I STAY like this?! And as Malcat noted, (almost?) no one made these comments 20 years ago, but they sure do now. What looks "normal" to most people now is often significantly overweight. Also... clothing hides a whole lot. Before FIRE, I worked in healthcare, so I saw a whole lot of naked bodies that looked different from what you might expect when seeing them fully clothed!

[Captain Cactus]

Yes, 5’10”, 40 year old male in the USA.  I am basically down to the weight I was when I was 16, but I look like a man now and not a kid.  I have been laying low since last March cuz Covid, so nobody has really seen me behind video conferencing, and there they don’t really notice a difference I guess.  Americans are default overweight following high school.  Life keeps people busy and nobody has the time to stop and think about what they’re doing.  And if everyone around you is fat or at least puffy, you don’t feel so out of place.  How can the average be bad?  I just know I needed a change.

I lived in France for a few years when I was 16, just turning 17 a few months later.  Literally everyone in my school was thin and the girls were generally beautiful.  There was one kid, one, who was overweight/obese and he clearly had something glandular going on.  He was really nice but I remember people referring to him as the fat kid, even adults. 

I haven’t been back there in 20 years almost except for a short visit 14 years ago.  I suspect the population has gotten larger with the adoption of more processed foods in the everyday diet. 

I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing, will see if the weight keeps coming off gradually.  We shall see!

[sailinlight]

There are lots of weight charts online, but the one I have from Mayo Clinic says that a healthy weight for someone your height is 132 - 167.

5' 10" 132?  Hard to believe that's healthy.  Even 167 sounds low to me.  I wouldn't think many people would be in that range from what I see of people.

I think this depends a lot on your muscle density, I'm 5'10" and usually about +/-10 around 145. At 155 I feel and start looking unhealthy and it's a motivator to get my ass up and start getting active. If I were 167 it would definitely not be healthy for me.

[GreenSheep]

You might consider using the idea of calorie density to help manage your weight over time, whether you're in a position where you want it to go up or down. If you add more foods that are low in calories but bulky, like vegetables, for example, then you'll end up eating less while still feeling full. If you eat foods that are more calorie-dense, like nuts and avocados, then you'll need more food to feel full. Processing can change the calorie density of a food, too; whole wheat bread is more calorie-dense than actual whole wheat berries, nut butters are more calorie-dense than whole nuts, dried fruit is more calorie-dense than fresh fruit, etc.

So you can still get the nutrients you want/need while changing the amount of calories you're taking in. You don't have to start eating ice cream and fast food if you decide you need to gain weight -- you can just eat some of the more calorie-dense foods and some slightly-more-processed versions of healthy foods.

[oneday]

There are lots of weight charts online, but the one I have from Mayo Clinic says that a healthy weight for someone your height is 132 - 167.

5' 10" 132?  Hard to believe that's healthy.  Even 167 sounds low to me.  I wouldn't think many people would be in that range from what I see of people.

When my BMI was 20, I got comments about how underweight I looked. I was working out a decent amount. Nothing overly ambitious, just 5k's in under 45 minutes and weekend day hikes and a little bit of weight bearing exercises. I was far better muscled and my body worked/felt amazing.

And since I was part of a medical weight loss program, I was being monitored weekly. Doc looked at weight and other stats; a nutritionist led a class which I attended in person, so she saw me. I was terrified that someone would "bust" me for losing too much, but it never happened.

Even in the weight loss class, most people don't have that low of a BMI. Now I've put on a bit of weight, still in the healthy range per BMI, and people feel free to tell me how much better I look. They don't care that my body functions less well now.

@Captain Cactus I was also worried about losing too much, but it did level off after a time.

[Metalcat]

Yes, 5’10”, 40 year old male in the USA.  I am basically down to the weight I was when I was 16, but I look like a man now and not a kid.  I have been laying low since last March cuz Covid, so nobody has really seen me behind video conferencing, and there they don’t really notice a difference I guess.  Americans are default overweight following high school.  Life keeps people busy and nobody has the time to stop and think about what they’re doing.  And if everyone around you is fat or at least puffy, you don’t feel so out of place.  How can the average be bad?  I just know I needed a change.

I lived in France for a few years when I was 16, just turning 17 a few months later.  Literally everyone in my school was thin and the girls were generally beautiful.  There was one kid, one, who was overweight/obese and he clearly had something glandular going on.  He was really nice but I remember people referring to him as the fat kid, even adults. 

I haven’t been back there in 20 years almost except for a short visit 14 years ago.  I suspect the population has gotten larger with the adoption of more processed foods in the everyday diet. 

I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing, will see if the weight keeps coming off gradually.  We shall see!

Yeah, I would just keep doing what you are doing and don't bother trying to quantify anything.

I think you've gotten from the replies here that you don't need to worry about getting too thin, so just put it out of your mind as a concern.

If you do find that you don't like the appearance of how thin you are, you can consciously eat a bit more. That's what I did. Medication made me gain about 20lbs over a few years, and I actually really like how it looks, especially in my face, so I added just a few extra calories a day, like a piece of toast or cream in my coffee instead of milk. Really, that's all I have to do to prevent unwanted weight loss.

For me, I had always maintained a healthy weight my entire life, until I did my doctorate and gained a pound or two a month until I graduated obese. Once I graduated, I never bothered with a "diet" for the purpose of "losing weight", I just went back to my old l, healthy lifestyle and knew that that wouldn't be able to sustain my obesity.

I was cool with whatever weight a healthy lifestyle would produce, because if you are eating right for maintaining a healthy weight, then unless there's a biological reason, it's impossible to sustain either too much or too little fat.

I didn't track anything, no calories, no macros, I didn't care. I just ate well and exercised and got back to the exact same that I was as a teenager. I didn't even weight myself for the first 40lbs of loss. I did start tracking briefly after I had already lost 50lbs, when I switched to vegetarian, because I felt exhausted, and tracking showed I was eating too few calories, so I bulked up my serving sizes and felt good again. My point being, I don't track unless something isn't right.

I still don't weigh myself unless I notice a change.

So if what you are doing is working and you feel good and you're happy with your appearance, then I recommend that you not overthink it. Just keep doing what you are doing as long as it's working.

Don't worry yourself with numbers that you apparently don't need.

[American GenX]

Looked it up online and found this on the CDC website:

Data are for the U.S.

Measured average height, weight, and waist circumference for adults aged 20 and over

    Men:
    Height in inches: 69.0
    Weight in pounds: 199.8
    Waist circumference in inches: 40.5

    Women:
    Height in inches: 63.5
    Weight in pounds: 170.8
    Waist circumference in inches: 38.7

[MudPuppy]

America is 70% overweight, of course the averages are heavier than the healthy weight range.

[oneday]

Looked it up online and found this on the CDC website:

Data are for the U.S.

Measured average height, weight, and waist circumference for adults aged 20 and over

    Men:
    Height in inches: 69.0
    Weight in pounds: 199.8
    Waist circumference in inches: 40.5

    Women:
    Height in inches: 63.5
    Weight in pounds: 170.8
    Waist circumference in inches: 38.7

This average man is overweight, borderline obese. This average woman is just barely into the obese category.

[wenchsenior]

Looked it up online and found this on the CDC website:

Data are for the U.S.

Measured average height, weight, and waist circumference for adults aged 20 and over

    Men:
    Height in inches: 69.0
    Weight in pounds: 199.8
    Waist circumference in inches: 40.5

    Women:
    Height in inches: 63.5
    Weight in pounds: 170.8
    Waist circumference in inches: 38.7

Wow.  Just...wow.   

[American GenX]

America is 70% overweight, of course the averages are heavier than the healthy weight range.

I've read it's actually over 70%, but check out the CDC's graph for obesity and severe obesity rate for both men and women.  It's been trending up for years:

[MudPuppy]

Now I’m just confused. Are you saying these average weights are healthy or no?

[Metalcat]

Now I’m just confused. Are you saying these average weights are healthy or no?

I think people are just pointing out that the north american sense of "normal" or "healthy" weight has inflated, and that it's hard for some people to see very lean healthy weights and not think they look too thin.

[MudPuppy]

That’s what I initially said in reply to @American GenX saying that the high weight still was too thin to be healthy. Then they posted data about the average size height/weight for Americans and then again posted that people keep getting bigger and bigger. That’s why I think I might be confused, because those statements seem at odds to each other.

[Metalcat]

That’s what I initially said in reply to @American GenX saying that the high weight still was too thin to be healthy. Then they posted data about the average size height/weight for Americans and then again posted that people keep getting bigger and bigger. That’s why I think I might be confused, because those statements seem at odds to each other.

Ah, I get the confusion. It wasn't clear that you were replying to one post specifically.

[MudPuppy]

It’s been a long week, I think my brain just has sand in the gears

[Much Fishing to Do]

There are lots of weight charts online, but the one I have from Mayo Clinic says that a healthy weight for someone your height is 132 - 167.

5' 10" 132?  Hard to believe that's healthy.  Even 167 sounds low to me.  I wouldn't think many people would be in that range from what I see of people.

Are you in the US? 70% of Americans are overweight with 40% being obese.

Below I estimated based on knowledge and experience well beyond BMI charts, that 145-160 is very reasonable.

For men, looking at healthy, athletic guys in the 16-19 range is a good example. They haven’t let “life” get to them and the frequent inactivity that the American life often entails.

I grew up wrestling, and most the guys between 135 & 160 lbs were between 5’7 and 6’.

Runners are also a good group to look at (as long as you’re not considering the occasional unhealthy skinny guys). I’d best most competitive 5’10 long distance runners are 140ish or less.

I'm 5'9" and was I'd qualify as maybe a 'locally competitive' marathoner at 30, generally weighing about 138 then.  I did notice most competitive long distance runners were around my size, give or take a couple inches and a few pounds.  After my business/family took over and the running stopped I was generally around 155 in my 40s.  Whenever I'd focus on my weight and get it under 150 I thought I both felt and looked great.  I've seen as high as 175 recently (the covid-19 blues as they call it was pretty accurate for me). 

I definitely was not unhealthily 'underweight' at 135.  I think 145 is probably 'ideal' for me not running.  Feel too large (and with it a bit sluggish)  above 155, and fat at 170.

My personal opinion is it wouldn't be of much benefit for me to try to get under 145 (I would love to get there again), but if if I did go lower I certainly wouldn't worry about it.  I think being underweight is a worry strictly for 1) when you can;t explain it (so is it cancer?), 2) eating disorders, 3) over the age of 70 when it may help to have some extra pounds on to sustain you thru future health issues.

[American GenX]

There were a few posts that commented on Americans being overweight, so my first CDC reference was just putting a number on the average weight, and the second to show the trend over time.  And it's not healthy.

[GoCubsGo]

Great job on the weight loss!  I will definitely second that frame and body composition matter. I comfortably sit around 190lbs at 5'10 and am a fairly heavy weightlifter.  I actually lose weight when I eat bad and take a week off lifting.  I did do a fairly strict diet and more cardio and it just didn't look like I was "supposed" to be at that weight (170) and multiple people told me that. 

You have the weight off, I'd recommend building some muscle now.  Functional strength is always useful in life.

[American GenX]

I've seen as high as 175 recently (the covid-19 blues as they call it was pretty accurate for me). 

I actually lost quite bit of weight during the pandemic - I did a LOT of biking, while still working a full time job.

[Much Fishing to Do]

I've seen as high as 175 recently (the covid-19 blues as they call it was pretty accurate for me). 

I actually lost quite bit of weight during the pandemic - I did a LOT of biking, while still working a full time job.

Hmmm, sounds like that worked better than my schedule of eating, drinking, complaining about the weather and generally being pissed about everything including my job...go figure ;-)

[American GenX]

I've seen as high as 175 recently (the covid-19 blues as they call it was pretty accurate for me). 

I actually lost quite bit of weight during the pandemic - I did a LOT of biking, while still working a full time job.

Hmmm, sounds like that worked better than my schedule of eating, drinking, complaining about the weather and generally being pissed about everything including my job...go figure ;-)

Ha...  Well my doctor told me most people are going in the other direction.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I would be interested to know the median and mode weight rather than the average, which seems like it would be heavily skewed by obese people.

[vand]

Just going by what the scales say is a horrific way of going about it.

Measuring your body fat is much better way of going about it. For men I would say 10-12% is the healthy sustainable sort of level where you "look good naked".   Range for women is higher and also wider, so more difficult to say, but 12%-22% is considered athletic.

Another easy way to do this is just seeing how much skin you can pinch yourself around the waist. A healthy amount is probably no more than 1 inch.  You can get a pair of callipers and do a more rigerous exam.

I got down to about 5% BF when I was doing marathons and ultra distances, but I found it difficult to keep down to that sort of level unless you are meticulous with your diet and do a lot of physical activity.

[Metalcat]

Just going by what the scales say is a horrific way of going about it.

Measuring your body fat is much better way of going about it. For men I would say 10-12% is the healthy sustainable sort of level where you "look good naked".   Range for women is higher and also wider, so more difficult to say, but 12%-22% is considered athletic.

Another easy way to do this is just seeing how much skin you can pinch yourself around the waist. A healthy amount is probably no more than 1 inch.  You can get a pair of callipers and do a more rigerous exam.

I got down to about 5% BF when I was doing marathons and ultra distances, but I found it difficult to keep down to that sort of level unless you are meticulous with your diet and do a lot of physical activity.

Horrific? Really? That seems like an overstatement.

I would call using just a scale "ineffectual" if someone has specific body composition goals, but for me, the lifestyle was more my focus and I was cool with whatever body composition resulted from living a healthy lifestyle. I didn't need to measure anything really, and I used a scale just to keep track for my own interest.

I've maintained significant weight loss within a healthy range and feel very good in my own skin for nearly a decade. The less I measure/evaluate myself, the easier and more enjoyable I find it to sustain. I never exercise for appearance's sake. The improved appearance is just a bonus for living well.

Also, if someone loses a lot of weight, it's not unusual to be able to pinch more than an inch of belly skin.

As for what "looks good naked", I think that's up to the individual. However, yes, if the goal is to get down to a certain percentage of fat to "look good naked", then just using a scale is pretty useless. That said, a lot of people who lose a lot of weight don't look better naked, it depends on how resilient their skin is.

Looking good naked might not be the person's goal though. They might just want to stop eating garbage and exercise enough to feel great.

[Raenia]

I really wouldn't worry about being under weight.

You will only end up unhealthily under weight if you aren't eating enough to function. At that point you will feel tired and cold all the time.

Just keep eating intuitively and your weight loss will level off. The less you weigh, the fewer calories you need, so the loss slows down the more you lose until it just stops.

You have to eat very, very little to get to a point of being unhealthily thin. Worrying about that while eating a healthy diet is kind of like worrying about putting on too much muscle because you go to the gym. It's just not something that happens without a lot of effort or underlying illness.

Basically, keep doing what you're doing and don't worry about it. Although, be prepared for a lot of people to comment that you're "getting too thin". It's super annoying.

ETA: I lost 70lbs doing what you are doing and just never worried about my weight. I just ate well and exercised and eventually my body landed where it wanted to stay.

+1 to all this.  Just keep doing what you're doing, it'll level out naturally, or you'll definitely know when to stop.

As someone who's been flirting with being underweight for most of my adult life (5'7", 120-125lbs), I can confirm.  When I'm not eating enough, I'm cold all the time, frequently lightheaded, I have mental fog/spaciness, etc.  I really envy people who can put on weight and keep it on - I know from experience that I feel much healthier at 135, but I just can't seem to stay there.

[Imma]

I've seen as high as 175 recently (the covid-19 blues as they call it was pretty accurate for me). 

I actually lost quite bit of weight during the pandemic - I did a LOT of biking, while still working a full time job.

Me too, and so did several of my family members. None of us are stress-eaters, we are fatigue-eaters. And with work from home and no commutes anymore we suddenly all had tons of energy and lots of time for walks and bike rides.

I am totally shocked by the numbers you posted regarding average size/height of American women. I can't find the same statistics for my country, but I'm 4" taller than the average American woman, my waist is 31" and I'm not exactly skinny.

[wenchsenior]

I would be interested to know the median and mode weight rather than the average, which seems like it would be heavily skewed by obese people.

Me too, b/c those numbers are absolutely incredible.

ETA: I don't know how accurate this is, but here's median Americans.   Yikes.  Almost 150 lbs as a young adult woman (assuming average height is 5'4''?!)

https://dqydj.com/weight-percentile-by-age-calculator/

[mm1970]

I would be interested to know the median and mode weight rather than the average, which seems like it would be heavily skewed by obese people.

Me too, b/c those numbers are absolutely incredible.

ETA: I don't know how accurate this is, but here's median Americans.   Yikes.  Almost 150 lbs as a young adult woman (assuming average height is 5'4''?!)

https://dqydj.com/weight-percentile-by-age-calculator/

Firstly, I to the OP, I think you are fine.  You'll know when you get too thin.  I have a coworker who is 6' tall and 135 lbs.  He's just thin.  He's a cyclist.  He struggles to gain weight.  Always has.  He also has brittle-ish bones.  So that's the downside.

I'm only 5'2.5", and I'm 146 lbs.  I was 150 last week because it was that time of the month.  So, I am not at all surprised at the numbers - note that I don't consider myself overweight.  Okay, maybe I hit the chocolate a bit much in December.  Usually, I'm around 141-142 lbs.  That's "overweight" by BMI but I ignore that, and so does my doctor.

I have been <130 lbs as an adult.  It was a real struggle to get there and stay there.  I was cold a lot.  I could not sleep at night because my hipbones would dig into the mattress when I was <125.

Two years ago I was 132 instead of 140+.  The difference?  Two years ago I was running half marathons and not weightlifting at all.  I got the stomach flu around that time and dropped below <130 and my husband said it looked like my skin was melting off my bones.  Now, I run less and lift more.  It makes a difference.  I'm wearing the same pants.  Well, I would be if I were wearing anything but leggings.  They still fit anyway.

I'm not surprised that obesity and overweight is increasing in the US.  I read a lot of research about this topic.  Processed food vs fresh food.  Too many simple carbs vs fats.  Not enough movement.  Stress and insulin.  And, sadly, being overweight as a child.  A great number of fat cells are made when you are a child and teenager.  Anyone who has been overweight as a child will have a MUCH harder time losing weight as an adult.  Their baseline is going to be higher.

Same if you have been an overweight adult.  Once you have been overweight, you have (in many cases) permanently altered your body.  The way that people who have never been overweight react to various foods is very different from people who were formerly overweight.  (Refuse to Regain by Dr. Barbara Berkeley).

There has actually been research that shows that weight can be related to what happens during pregnancy a generation ago.  So, what your mother went through when SHE was in the womb can affect YOUR weight.

[MissPeach]

I am going to come from this a little differently. I am into weight lifting. In that sport body fat percentage and muscle mass is the bigger goal than a certain weight. For pros who are into aesthetics it's really common to see low body far (often to unhealthy levels) and higher than average muscle mass. This can make someone look really lean and athletic. Most of these athletes would be overweight on BMI charts but are actually too thin and they face health consequences to be so lean.

If you are a women, most women who are trying for 'bikini ready' are probably 21-25% body fat. Most guides put around 30%+ as overweight. 20% and under is usually what you see for athletes. Men typically have lower body fat percentages than women.

For me, I have more muscle than a lot of women my size. I also have way above average bone thickness. So I will always probably be at the higher end of the BMI charts or even above them and not be overweight. I was able to get my body fat, muscle, and bone calculated with a DEXA scan for about $50. There are some weight scales, calipers, etc. that can also give you an idea but DEXA is the fancy, most accurate way to get data on fat, bone, and muscle by body part.

If your body fat percentage is within a reasonable range I wouldn't worry regardless of what the scale or BMI say.

[vand]

Just going by what the scales say is a horrific way of going about it.

Measuring your body fat is much better way of going about it. For men I would say 10-12% is the healthy sustainable sort of level where you "look good naked".   Range for women is higher and also wider, so more difficult to say, but 12%-22% is considered athletic.

Another easy way to do this is just seeing how much skin you can pinch yourself around the waist. A healthy amount is probably no more than 1 inch.  You can get a pair of callipers and do a more rigerous exam.

I got down to about 5% BF when I was doing marathons and ultra distances, but I found it difficult to keep down to that sort of level unless you are meticulous with your diet and do a lot of physical activity.

Horrific? Really? That seems like an overstatement.

I would call using just a scale "ineffectual" if someone has specific body composition goals, but for me, the lifestyle was more my focus and I was cool with whatever body composition resulted from living a healthy lifestyle. I didn't need to measure anything really, and I used a scale just to keep track for my own interest.

I've maintained significant weight loss within a healthy range and feel very good in my own skin for nearly a decade. The less I measure/evaluate myself, the easier and more enjoyable I find it to sustain. I never exercise for appearance's sake. The improved appearance is just a bonus for living well.

Also, if someone loses a lot of weight, it's not unusual to be able to pinch more than an inch of belly skin.

As for what "looks good naked", I think that's up to the individual. However, yes, if the goal is to get down to a certain percentage of fat to "look good naked", then just using a scale is pretty useless. That said, a lot of people who lose a lot of weight don't look better naked, it depends on how resilient their skin is.

Looking good naked might not be the person's goal though. They might just want to stop eating garbage and exercise enough to feel great.

OK, maybe "horrific" is not a good word to use. I'm just trying to add some colour into the discussion.  Just looking at overall weight does not tell us anything about composition, which is far more useful. It's like how the Soviets always used to put out 10% GDP growth numbers but underneath the hood half the population was digging ditches and the other half was filling them up.

On an individual basis I would say that height to waist ratio is a useful one, much more so than BMI.

[Metalcat]

Just going by what the scales say is a horrific way of going about it.

Measuring your body fat is much better way of going about it. For men I would say 10-12% is the healthy sustainable sort of level where you "look good naked".   Range for women is higher and also wider, so more difficult to say, but 12%-22% is considered athletic.

Another easy way to do this is just seeing how much skin you can pinch yourself around the waist. A healthy amount is probably no more than 1 inch.  You can get a pair of callipers and do a more rigerous exam.

I got down to about 5% BF when I was doing marathons and ultra distances, but I found it difficult to keep down to that sort of level unless you are meticulous with your diet and do a lot of physical activity.

Horrific? Really? That seems like an overstatement.

I would call using just a scale "ineffectual" if someone has specific body composition goals, but for me, the lifestyle was more my focus and I was cool with whatever body composition resulted from living a healthy lifestyle. I didn't need to measure anything really, and I used a scale just to keep track for my own interest.

I've maintained significant weight loss within a healthy range and feel very good in my own skin for nearly a decade. The less I measure/evaluate myself, the easier and more enjoyable I find it to sustain. I never exercise for appearance's sake. The improved appearance is just a bonus for living well.

Also, if someone loses a lot of weight, it's not unusual to be able to pinch more than an inch of belly skin.

As for what "looks good naked", I think that's up to the individual. However, yes, if the goal is to get down to a certain percentage of fat to "look good naked", then just using a scale is pretty useless. That said, a lot of people who lose a lot of weight don't look better naked, it depends on how resilient their skin is.

Looking good naked might not be the person's goal though. They might just want to stop eating garbage and exercise enough to feel great.

OK, maybe "horrific" is not a good word to use. I'm just trying to add some colour into the discussion.  Just looking at overall weight does not tell us anything about composition, which is far more useful. It's like how the Soviets always used to put out 10% GDP growth numbers but underneath the hood half the population was digging ditches and the other half was filling them up.

On an individual basis I would say that height to waist ratio is a useful one, much more so than BMI.

Agreed.

Since a lot of people can have excess belly fat while in a healthy BMI range, it is useful to monitor that if you feel you may be unusually thick in the middle for your size.

However, aside from that, I still think that if someone is in roughly a healthy weight range and feeling really good and living an excellent lifestyle, then there's no reason for them to worry about measuring anything, unless they have some specific body composition goals for some reason.

If someone is eating really well, maintaining a healthy weight, is physically active, and feels good in their body, then why feel the pressure to measure anything?

OP just asked how to tell if they're getting too thin. A bunch of us said "if you are living a healthy lifestyle, you probably don't need to worry about getting too thin".

Beyond that, unless OP expresses a specific goal like wanting visible abs, or whatever, then I don't think they need to measure anything. I don't even think they need to bother with the scale.

[use2betrix]

Just going by what the scales say is a horrific way of going about it.

Measuring your body fat is much better way of going about it. For men I would say 10-12% is the healthy sustainable sort of level where you "look good naked".   Range for women is higher and also wider, so more difficult to say, but 12%-22% is considered athletic.

Another easy way to do this is just seeing how much skin you can pinch yourself around the waist. A healthy amount is probably no more than 1 inch.  You can get a pair of callipers and do a more rigerous exam.

I got down to about 5% BF when I was doing marathons and ultra distances, but I found it difficult to keep down to that sort of level unless you are meticulous with your diet and do a lot of physical activity.

Horrific? Really? That seems like an overstatement.

I would call using just a scale "ineffectual" if someone has specific body composition goals, but for me, the lifestyle was more my focus and I was cool with whatever body composition resulted from living a healthy lifestyle. I didn't need to measure anything really, and I used a scale just to keep track for my own interest.

I've maintained significant weight loss within a healthy range and feel very good in my own skin for nearly a decade. The less I measure/evaluate myself, the easier and more enjoyable I find it to sustain. I never exercise for appearance's sake. The improved appearance is just a bonus for living well.

Also, if someone loses a lot of weight, it's not unusual to be able to pinch more than an inch of belly skin.

As for what "looks good naked", I think that's up to the individual. However, yes, if the goal is to get down to a certain percentage of fat to "look good naked", then just using a scale is pretty useless. That said, a lot of people who lose a lot of weight don't look better naked, it depends on how resilient their skin is.

Looking good naked might not be the person's goal though. They might just want to stop eating garbage and exercise enough to feel great.

OK, maybe "horrific" is not a good word to use. I'm just trying to add some colour into the discussion.  Just looking at overall weight does not tell us anything about composition, which is far more useful. It's like how the Soviets always used to put out 10% GDP growth numbers but underneath the hood half the population was digging ditches and the other half was filling them up.

On an individual basis I would say that height to waist ratio is a useful one, much more so than BMI.

Agreed.

Since a lot of people can have excess belly fat while in a healthy BMI range, it is useful to monitor that if you feel you may be unusually thick in the middle for your size.

However, aside from that, I still think that if someone is in roughly a healthy weight range and feeling really good and living an excellent lifestyle, then there's no reason for them to worry about measuring anything, unless they have some specific body composition goals for some reason.

If someone is eating really well, maintaining a healthy weight, is physically active, and feels good in their body, then why feel the pressure to measure anything?

OP just asked how to tell if they're getting too thin. A bunch of us said "if you are living a healthy lifestyle, you probably don't need to worry about getting too thin".

Beyond that, unless OP expresses a specific goal like wanting visible abs, or whatever, then I don't think they need to measure anything. I don't even think they need to bother with the scale.

There are countless studies that link excess belly fat to an increased risk for heart disease. The first study even specifically mentions it increases the risk “in healthy weight individuals.”

https://www.cardiosmart.org/news/2019/8/belly-fat-increases-heart-risks-even-in-healthy-weight-adult s
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160926142822.htm
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/belly-fat-linked-with-higher-heart-disease-risk-2018072614354
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/belly-fat-linked-to-increased-risk-of-repeat-heart-attacks

[Metalcat]

Just going by what the scales say is a horrific way of going about it.

Measuring your body fat is much better way of going about it. For men I would say 10-12% is the healthy sustainable sort of level where you "look good naked".   Range for women is higher and also wider, so more difficult to say, but 12%-22% is considered athletic.

Another easy way to do this is just seeing how much skin you can pinch yourself around the waist. A healthy amount is probably no more than 1 inch.  You can get a pair of callipers and do a more rigerous exam.

I got down to about 5% BF when I was doing marathons and ultra distances, but I found it difficult to keep down to that sort of level unless you are meticulous with your diet and do a lot of physical activity.

Horrific? Really? That seems like an overstatement.

I would call using just a scale "ineffectual" if someone has specific body composition goals, but for me, the lifestyle was more my focus and I was cool with whatever body composition resulted from living a healthy lifestyle. I didn't need to measure anything really, and I used a scale just to keep track for my own interest.

I've maintained significant weight loss within a healthy range and feel very good in my own skin for nearly a decade. The less I measure/evaluate myself, the easier and more enjoyable I find it to sustain. I never exercise for appearance's sake. The improved appearance is just a bonus for living well.

Also, if someone loses a lot of weight, it's not unusual to be able to pinch more than an inch of belly skin.

As for what "looks good naked", I think that's up to the individual. However, yes, if the goal is to get down to a certain percentage of fat to "look good naked", then just using a scale is pretty useless. That said, a lot of people who lose a lot of weight don't look better naked, it depends on how resilient their skin is.

Looking good naked might not be the person's goal though. They might just want to stop eating garbage and exercise enough to feel great.

OK, maybe "horrific" is not a good word to use. I'm just trying to add some colour into the discussion.  Just looking at overall weight does not tell us anything about composition, which is far more useful. It's like how the Soviets always used to put out 10% GDP growth numbers but underneath the hood half the population was digging ditches and the other half was filling them up.

On an individual basis I would say that height to waist ratio is a useful one, much more so than BMI.

Agreed.

Since a lot of people can have excess belly fat while in a healthy BMI range, it is useful to monitor that if you feel you may be unusually thick in the middle for your size.

However, aside from that, I still think that if someone is in roughly a healthy weight range and feeling really good and living an excellent lifestyle, then there's no reason for them to worry about measuring anything, unless they have some specific body composition goals for some reason.

If someone is eating really well, maintaining a healthy weight, is physically active, and feels good in their body, then why feel the pressure to measure anything?

OP just asked how to tell if they're getting too thin. A bunch of us said "if you are living a healthy lifestyle, you probably don't need to worry about getting too thin".

Beyond that, unless OP expresses a specific goal like wanting visible abs, or whatever, then I don't think they need to measure anything. I don't even think they need to bother with the scale.

There are countless studies that link excess belly fat to an increased risk for heart disease. The first study even specifically mentions it increases the risk “in healthy weight individuals.”

https://www.cardiosmart.org/news/2019/8/belly-fat-increases-heart-risks-even-in-healthy-weight-adult s
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160926142822.htm
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/belly-fat-linked-with-higher-heart-disease-risk-2018072614354
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/belly-fat-linked-to-increased-risk-of-repeat-heart-attacks

Did I say something that contradicted that??

I just specifically said that it's useful to monitor waist size if someone is within the healthy range of BMI but has a lot of belly fat. I said *not* to ignore excess belly fat.

ETA: the rest of my post said "aside from that", meaning aside from case where the person has belly fat. So assuming the person doesn't have much belly fat, and they're a healthy weight, then I don't see much necessity to measure.