Weight loss question

[poxpower]

The lower your body fat, the better, down to around 5-6% if you're a male.

[SAR]

BMI is a comparatively crude predictor of mortality. Measures that take into account fat around the waist are better predictors.

The idea is that there are fats we deposit around our waist and organs that are likely indicative of metabolic disorders, diabetes and heart disease.

Here's a paper that constructs a measure of body shape, using both BMI and waist circumference, and uses it to predict all-cause mortality:

 https://journals.plo...al.pone.0039504

And there is a calculator based on their measure "a body shape index" ABSI which gives your probability of mortality compared to average. Be careful with the waist measure if you do it, as small differences can affect the outcome strongly.

https://www.fatcalc.com/absi

As far as manipulating your numbers go, diet is the best predictor followed by exercise. Eat lots of whole plants, and eat relatively little meat. If you eat meat, eat something that ate a natural diet to get the omega 3 to 6 ratio in your favor. Omega 3s are anti-inflammatory, and 6s pro-inflammatory, and they both compete for the same receptors. Ancestrally it is estimated that we would have evolved with close to a 1:1 ratio of these fats. Now that number is heavily skewed in favor of omega 6s.

[JoJo]

I'm a female, same height as you on a long weight loss journey (I came down from a high over 300 lbs in 2018).  I briefly got down to 156 in November last year and actually started looking "bony" like ribs, shoulder blades sticking out.  But this is because I carry a bunch of weight in my muscular legs, and there is a few pounds of excess skin that won't go away without surgery.  I think without having surgery, my sweet spot is in the mid- 160s, and it's easier to maintain here rather than at 156.  Wearing around a size 8 bottom and  S/M tops/jackets/dresses.

[dignam]

It's been said here a few times, but there are several variables that can affect what is a "healthy" weight.  Your frame size and body composition are the two biggies.

Have you heard of "skinny fat"?  It's people that look outwardly healthy because they're thin; however they lack muscle mass and can actually be quite unhealthy due to high body fat %.

Look at NFL running backs.  Most of them are not tall and have BMIs that are easily > 25.  But they're built like brick shit houses; no one is going to say they're unhealthy.

I pack on both muscle and fat pretty easily, which can be both a blessing and a curse.  I'm 5'6" with a thicker frame but my ideal weight is probably between 150-160, even though BMI says >155 is overweight.  Never once has a doctor commented on my weight.

[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

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.

I was simply adding to your statement in regards to the belly fat comment...

[Metalcat]

I was simply adding to your statement in regards to the belly fat comment...

Lol, cool.

[FIRE 20/20]

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 only responding because I'm close to your height (5'10") and age (44).  For the past 20 years or so I've generally eaten well and exercised regularly, and vary between 155 lbs. and 165 lbs.  The difference primarily comes from the fact that I train differently in different seasons; when I'm at the low end I'm running and not doing much weight lifting.  When I'm closer to 165 I'm lifting weights frequently although I'm certainly nowhere near a "serious" weight lifter.  When I'm at the light end I look like a casual runner - relatively lean although I never get close to looking gaunt.  When I'm at the higher end I think I look more generally fit or athletic - not skinny but not musclebound. 
I don't know if those are healthy numbers or not, but they seem to be where my body rests when I'm doing the things I'm supposed to do to be healthy. 

[KarefulKactus15]

Just came here to say that "normal" in America is super skewed.  Most guys think 30+ extra lbs above the 1950s male equivalent is normal and healthy.

For anyone into tracking their stats, I suggest body fat % AND weight as the best 2 variables.

One is not as good without the other.  For example if your weight goes up after some heavy gym work, without the body fat % tracking you wouldn't realize that was lost fat and added muscles.

The navy method of body fat calculation is very accurate for men and can be done with a tape measure (the cloth kind, not the construction kind)

For a data point:
Male
29 years old
6FT
170lb
12% BF

[mm1970]

Just came here to say that "normal" in America is super skewed.  Most guys think 30+ extra lbs above the 1950s male equivalent is normal and healthy.

For anyone into tracking their stats, I suggest body fat % AND weight as the best 2 variables.

One is not as good without the other.  For example if your weight goes up after some heavy gym work, without the body fat % tracking you wouldn't realize that was lost fat and added muscles.

The navy method of body fat calculation is very accurate for men and can be done with a tape measure (the cloth kind, not the construction kind)

For a data point:
Male
29 years old
6FT
170lb
12% BF

Sucks for women, though.  Ask me how I know!

[mr.moneybeard]

I have a Health Degree. My advice is unless you are categorized as underweight on the BMI chart, you are go to go! I personally shoot for being right above the underweight mark.

The less fat on your body, the healthier you are!

[GuitarStv]

This is a very simple question to answer.  Weight loss is too much when you start to notice it having an impact your physical performance.

Get a baseline marker for cardio (rounds of boxing, time to run 5k, time to bike 100 km) and a baseline for strength (bench/squat/deadlift/overhead press numbers).  You'll notice that more weight tends to allow higher strength numbers, and that lower weight tends to allow better cardio numbers - that's fine and normal.  If both start to drop though, there's something wrong.

As long as your body is performing well, your weight loss is healthy.

[Metalcat]

I have a Health Degree. My advice is unless you are categorized as underweight on the BMI chart, you are go to go! I personally shoot for being right above the underweight mark.

The less fat on your body, the healthier you are!

This is demonstrably untrue. There are many unhealthy thin people.

[GuitarStv]

I have a Health Degree. My advice is unless you are categorized as underweight on the BMI chart, you are go to go! I personally shoot for being right above the underweight mark.

The less fat on your body, the healthier you are!

This is demonstrably untrue. There are many unhealthy thin people.

Nonsense.  Look at this guy's low fat levels:


Picture of health that we all aspire to.

[wenchsenior]

I have a Health Degree. My advice is unless you are categorized as underweight on the BMI chart, you are go to go! I personally shoot for being right above the underweight mark.

The less fat on your body, the healthier you are!

This is demonstrably untrue. There are many unhealthy thin people.

Yeah, if this were true, I'd have no health issues at all LOL.  Alas...

[robartsd]

I prefer to look at body fat % rather than weight/BMI. I've been using a body analysis scale nearly daily to track my improvements for a bit over a year. Do remember that the body analysis scale is not an ideal way to measure body fat % (I regularly see a variance of about 1% within a few days and I have no idea how close my average reading is to the true value), so I'd probably look to get a more accurate reading if you are worried about becoming underweight based on the scale's analysis. If you simply target a mid range healty % and the scale says you're there, you can be pretty sure you're somewhere in the healthy range (I still clearly still need to loose some fat, but I'm in way better shape than I was a year ago - perhaps the best shape of my adult life).

My strategy for weight loss has been:

• Track all food consumption. It's a bit of a pain; but I know that if I don't track, I will overeat. I started with myfitnesspal.com but I quickly became frustrated with the quality of their community database (and I didn't value their social networking features at all). I briefly tried mynetdiary.com which had a great UI and a quality database of foods, but key features were locked behind the subscription that I wasn't ready to commit to. I've now used cronometer.com for nearly a year; I like it a lot because I'm a bit of a data nerd (their best database entries list 77 nutrients in foods).
• Consume a sustainable calorie level to prevent yo-yo dieting. After simply tracking. I found that I felt sufficiently nourished as long as I ate enough calories to maintain my weight with sedentary activity levels, but could easily lose 10/lbs per month (my body analysis scale says this loss was about 2/3 fat, 1/3 water weight) by being as active as I could.