The FastDay Forum

I think once you get down in weight you have to decide when you feel comfortable and what you are willing to maintain. The smaller you are the harder it is to maintain. So, if you are happy with yourself at a little higher weight than you planned, then go with that! Years ago I wanted to be 125lbs. But, as the years go by, I think I would even be happy with 140!! But, I will see how it is when I get there. Right now I just need to get out of the 170s!

[carorees]

..... The smaller you are the harder it is to maintain. .....

From the physiological point of view it's really no harder to maintain at a BMI of 22 than it is at a BMI of 24 - but from the psychological point of view?????

For some people it may be harder due to all the myriad mechanism the body puts into play when it undergoes a famine reaction.

Surely the target setting question has a different answer for someone who is struggling to lose weight on 2 fasts a week than someone who is losing easily?

I think we should be looking longer term at what eating/fasting pattern is sustainable. I'm happy with my current regime but I don't know at what weight I will plateau. So I'd say one has to take many things into consideration. If getting to a lower target involves adding more fast days or restricting feed days and if those changes are unsustainable, there's little point trying. However, if on your current regimen you will hit this lower target then as kencc says, you may as well aim for a BMI of around 21/22 (taking account of frame size) or a fat% that puts you in the lean category.

Go with what feels good and where you are healthy in all aspects. When I was in my 20s I weighed in the 1teens-20s at 5 ft 8 in. - very thin, but I was healthy! I originally wanted to get to 135 (weight in my 30s), but I am small boned and losing height, so I also need to think of my bone health now. My Dr. wanted me to stop at 145, I wanted 140 and have reached that. Now I need to add more strength training to head off bone loss. My waist, like Ballerina, is larger than I'd like, but maybe with the strength training that will go down. Now, where is the oomph to get regular strength training exercise in????



Thanks for starting this thread, Julianna!

I'm now feeling like a carorees-in-training here by introducing studies-based points for discussion but I know I've read something similar before and an index search of 6 different performance, LC and 5:2 related books didn't yield the desired "Ah Ha!"-moment.

While low BMIs are possible for some people (and enviable by many - myself included) there are a number of meta-studies out that show possibilities of reduced life spans especially as you get older. It's possible, in other words, to go too far.

Articles that seems to summarize the range of study-based opinions best (so far) for general reading are:

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/w ... longevity/

and maybe:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... 96933.html

and for the scientifically minded:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62367/

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/87883 ... u8fEqsK4.4

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2010/nci-01.htm


The Google search from which these links were located for "low BMI and longevity" is huge - 440,000 hits. A bit too much to scan in one sitting though I'm curious enough now to continue looking for a while...

[carorees]

@ADFnFuel use PubMed for your searches if you want to find the scientific studies! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

..... The smaller you are the harder it is to maintain. .....

From the physiological point of view it's really no harder to maintain at a BMI of 22 than it is at a BMI of 24 - but from the psychological point of view?????

Actually physically it is harder because the less you weigh, the less calories you burn every day. So, you have to eat less to maintain it.

This was my rationale for shifting my target down when I hit my original target on my birthday (here progress-f4/topic6427-270.html#p106174)...

I am moving my target weight because (in no particular order):
a) I still have a considerable layer of flab everywhere, plus a life-preserver round my lower midriff, to eliminate;
b) I want a buffer of a good few pounds so that carrying my messages home (erhum, read books), going on marches or loitering at art galleries doesn't knacker my back and / or legs / feet / ankles / hips etc!
c) 116lbs still borders on overweight for someone of my height (well, depending upon which leg I stand on, snigger: 4' 9" or 4' 10.75"), and *is* overweight by 2lbs according to the new BMI calculations (their top of normal is 114lbs);
d) I'd like a decent buffer for going into maintenance - I think quite a few of the dieting gurus (e.g. Rose Elliot, Atkins, Johnson) recommend going just below one's target;
e) Johnson states that a BMI of 21 is 'healthiest' (though, frustratingly, he doesn't give any reference to proper research, just that the insurance companies use that figure! Ed @kencc, do you have any?) and the North American Veggie society says research shows greater longevity for BMIs between 19 to 22 (but has no citations either). A monster survey on all cause mortality and BMI http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1000367 gives an 'optimal range' of a BMI between 22.5 to 24.9 (it is, rather oddly, slightly lower for never-smokers) and the middle of the bottom of the curve looks to be about 23.45 (as far as I can measure off the screen).

Now, I know that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing', but I'm rather going with my 'gut' here (no pun intended) and heading for the bottom of that NEJM paper's optimal BMI range of 22.5 (110.5lbs for my 4' 10.75" height) but will be happy to maintain on 112lbs, BMI 22.8. I'm now just wondering whether I need to decrease my target waist with that too?

I'm comfortable with my weight as it is now, who cares if men think that women look better when they are thin - but do they really? I was skinny and flat chested when I was younger and hated it as in those days men preferred a fuller figure.

Neither do I want to extend my life, as long as I stay healthy while I'm still breathing that's OK with me. Who wants to worry about a very low BMI when they are old a wrinkly? I don't!

I'm not overweight now, I prefer to stay as I am.

Brilliant thread. I don't think I'm in any danger of going under my BMI any time soon. But if I put my figures in for myself when I was a teen, and in full training for county sports, I still come out at the higher end of my BMI range because of my frame size.

For me at the moment, getting into a size 14 UK dress size would be the ultimate whoop, whoop moment. A size 12 is dream land stuff. But who knows, it may happen a couple of years after I reach target, the saggy skin may have disappeared and my weight finally stabalised by the time I'm 60. But at least it will down at the range that will be healthy.

I suggest a few ways of looking at this ...

1. Genetics ... if you're at higher risk of developing bad stuff like type 2 diabetes, heart problems, some cancers, etc because it runs in your family then setting a target of, say, BMI 21/22 might be highly advisable. My wife's family has a long history of type 2 ... at a BMI above 24 my wife was pre-diabetic; BMI below 23 she's OK - inevitable she will develop type 2 but perhaps not until she's 90.

2. Apple shape ... abdominal fat is bad, bad, bad ... highly advisable to keep waist/height ratio below 50% - more important than BMI/body weight stuff.

3. Statistically, for the average person the lowest risk of developing the bad stuff is maintaining a BMI of 21/22.

4. Modern illogical perceptions ... if someone mentions dieting to get to a target BMI of, say, 19/20 there's almost a collective sharp intake of breath, pursing of lips, air of disapproval and dark mutterings about eating disorders. Which, to me, is nonsense when there are greater and greater numbers of young women damaging themselves by becoming obese than there are by becoming anorexic.

5. 30 years ago ... in the US the average middle-aged woman weighed about 150lbs with a BMI of about 26; now she weighs about 170lbs with a BMI of about 29. 30 years ago there were large numbers of healthy, good looking, non-bony, non-gaunt middle-aged women with a BMI of 21/22.

6. The bony/gaunt stuff ... (to be controversial) is just an excuse that women make up for themselves to avoid the effort of getting to and maintaining a BMI of 21/22. The male perspective ... on internet dating sites, middle-aged women who describe themselves as 'slim' get far more hits than those who use various euphemisms for fat/plump such as cuddly, well built, whatever ... men usually say whatever they think their female partner wants to hear e.g. cuddly is good; but, given the chance, most men would prefer slim women. Losing weight and becoming 'gaunt' may take some getting used to ... my wife was 'accused' (the exact word my wife used) by a friend of becoming gaunt ... but the friend soon got used to seeing my wife like that and now says my wife, being slim, looks young for her age. I think a large part of that was because my wife (although she denies it) subtly changed hair style/make up to suit a changed facial shape and changed her wardrobe to well cut clothes that suited her slimmer figure. However I would say all of that wouldn't I ..........

So ...... aiming for a BMI of, say, 20/21/22 is definitely not too low.

Thank you @KenCCfor your insight. Must admit sometimes your comments can be quite, and i say this with respect, inciteful, or in other words, look to "stir us up" but maybe its teh way we can read into it as people and in particular woman can be quite defensive about matters related to body and beauty, and where it can be implied we defend our leaning towards being overweight for various reasons.

that said let me comment on your comments

your
1. Genetics ... if you're at higher risk of developing bad stuff like type 2 diabetes, heart problems, some cancers, etc because it runs in your family then setting a target of, say, BMI 21/22 might be highly advisable. My wife's family has a long history of type 2 ... at a BMI above 24 my wife was pre-diabetic; BMI below 23 she's OK - inevitable she will develop type 2 but perhaps not until she's 90.


I would agree with this. 21/22 seems safer if you are predisposed to type 2 diabetes, and keeping BMI low means delaying when this may happen.


your 2

2. Apple shape ... abdominal fat is bad, bad, bad ... highly advisable to keep waist/height ratio below 50% - more important than BMI/body weight stuff.

I have been told (recently actually and pre-5:2 weight) that my apple shape is "perfect" . that little bit of tummy is quite fine in "their ideas" and change nothing. Indeed for me the tummy fat from child bearing or overeating or both but then distributed to arms and legs was not good so I did something about it.

so when you say abdominal fat is bad .. do you mean totally health wise and more abdominal fat leads to diabetes, heart failure, lower life span?

the concept of waist/height at below 50% I'm not that familiar with.. does this figure not correlate 100% with BMI?


your 3

3. Statistically, for the average person the lowest risk of developing the bad stuff is maintaining a BMI of 21/22.

seems posts later to yours have many references to studies. eg. @ADFnFuelhttp://www.52fastdiet.co.uk/5-2-diet-chat-f6/what-is-the-right-target-weight-loss-goal-can-it-be-too-low-t10468-15.html
and

@fatdogpost 5-2-diet-chat-f6/what-is-the-right-target-weight-loss-goal-can-it-be-too-low-t10468-15.html#p135338

refers to many studies but they seem to range widely from 19 to 23.5
its hard to know what the right figure is. anything lower than 20 seems to low so your 21/22 is looking good. i have a bit to go then as im running at 24.25 post Christmas though I've seen it under 24 before Christmas.


your 4th point

4. Modern illogical perceptions ... if someone mentions dieting to get to a target BMI of, say, 19/20 there's almost a collective sharp intake of breath, pursing of lips, air of disapproval and dark mutterings about eating disorders. Which, to me, is nonsense when there are greater and greater numbers of young women damaging themselves by becoming obese than there are by becoming anorexic.


good point.


your 5th point

5. 30 years ago ... in the US the average middle-aged woman weighed about 150lbs with a BMI of about 26; now she weighs about 170lbs with a BMI of about 29. 30 years ago there were large numbers of healthy, good looking, non-bony, non-gaunt middle-aged women with a BMI of 21/22.

similar stats in Australia and UK I'm sure.
but hasn't the life span of the population increased over this 30 year period?
is it possible 21/22 BMI is then too low?'


and lastly


6. The bony/gaunt stuff ... (to be controversial) is just an excuse that women make up for themselves to avoid the effort of getting to and maintaining a BMI of 21/22. The male perspective ... on internet dating sites, middle-aged women who describe themselves as 'slim' get far more hits than those who use various euphemisms for fat/plump such as cuddly, well built, whatever ... men usually say whatever they think their female partner wants to hear e.g. cuddly is good; but, given the chance, most men would prefer slim women. Losing weight and becoming 'gaunt' may take some getting used to ... my wife was 'accused' (the exact word my wife used) by a friend of becoming gaunt ... but the friend soon got used to seeing my wife like that and now says my wife, being slim, looks young for her age. I think a large part of that was because my wife (although she denies it) subtly changed hair style/make up to suit a changed facial shape and changed her wardrobe to well cut clothes that suited her slimmer figure. However I would say all of that wouldn't I ..........

So ......

There is a small percentage of the male population that just love "big women" and "BBW" sites for dating/escorts are popular. but lets leave that group aside as a special sexually oriented group of males that have their reasons for being that way. and i respect their orientation to the larger woman.

back to my earlier point, i have been told that my "curves" are perfect and that thus if i was a really slim figure it would be less than perfect, so its probably dangerous to generalise here.

I guess you did say "most men"

The "gaunt" fear of women is mainly about the face I think. I'm not sure but perhaps the thinner face, even with the most suitable haircut can age the woman by 10 years or more. I'm not sure but doesnt wrinkles appear more prominent if you have "thinner face". Not an expert here

i looked up gaunt on the net and Maquarie dictionaary says

1.
(of a person) lean and haggard, especially because of suffering, hunger, or age.
"a tall, gaunt woman in black"
synonyms: haggard, drawn, cadaverous, skeletal, emaciated, skin-and-bones, skinny, spindly, thin, over-thin, size-zero, spare, bony, angular, lank, lean, raw-boned, pinched, hollow-cheeked, hollow-eyed, lantern-jawed, scrawny, scraggy, shrivelled, wasted, withered, raddled; More


those synonyonms are horrifying aren't they to any woman.

there is a big diff between "lean" and "haggard, skeletal, emaciated"

i guess its a question of degree but there must be some point that us woman can look at our faces in the mirror and say, any thinner and I will be less appealing to myself, my friends, my lover. I think a woman knows when she has reached that point.


Of course we should get toned in the right places, lose our abdominal fat as much as necessary and generally become more healthy but the moment our endeavours affect our facial appearance I would have to agree with the women in the forum that say "enough is enough" .. i will not lose any more weight.

So maybe we have to compromise between the flattest tummy you can get and the most attractive face.. cause a flat tummy might just mean you have to deal with a face that looks drawn, tired and worn out. maybe you cant have both?

I guess some of these are people going to the extreme and getting under 19 BMI but google
in google images for gaunt face with weight loss.. scary

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gaun ... l&tbm=isch

Looking at that too, it confirms that it's not just the face but the neck. a gaunt neck is not good new for a "mature" lady.

not big on celebrity slide shows but this one shows the extremes of weight loss perfectly

http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entert ... r/#slide=6

and its not just about the women when we talk of "gaunt"and less attractive, and aging. Countless examples of man maybe going too far.. yes, their original weight needed attention but these may have gone too far and articles talk of thinning faces and hollowed eyes.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/3459 ... eight-loss

and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... -loss.html

6. The bony/gaunt stuff ... (to be controversial) is just an excuse that women make up for themselves to avoid the effort of getting to and maintaining a BMI of 21/22. The male perspective ... on internet dating sites, middle-aged women who describe themselves as 'slim' get far more hits than those who use various euphemisms for fat/plump such as cuddly, well built, whatever ... men usually say whatever they think their female partner wants to hear e.g. cuddly is good; but, given the chance, most men would prefer slim women. Losing weight and becoming 'gaunt' may take some getting used to ... my wife was 'accused' (the exact word my wife used) by a friend of becoming gaunt ... but the friend soon got used to seeing my wife like that and now says my wife, being slim, looks young for her age. I think a large part of that was because my wife (although she denies it) subtly changed hair style/make up to suit a changed facial shape and changed her wardrobe to well cut clothes that suited her slimmer figure. However I would say all of that wouldn't I ..........

So ...... aiming for a BMI of, say, 20/21/22 is definitely not too low.

OMG I have so many problems with this part of your post. People have different bone structures. That is a fact, not an excuse. As someone who mentioned feeling like I had hit a good weight because I was getting bony, I find this not only controversial but unnecessarily rude. As a former anorexic, I find it dangerous. There's enough size-ist so-and-sos out there in the world, I don't really like encountering them in here.

Wow. this is the first time on this forum someone really made me angry.

By the way, in every study I've ever seen, the average man doesn't like bony women, they like curvy ones. Women with smaller to average bone structures might be curvy at a BMI of 20-22, but not all women will.

"The bony/gaunt stuff ... (to be controversial) is just an excuse that women make up for themselves to avoid the effort of getting to and maintaining a BMI of 21/22. The male perspective ... on internet dating sites, middle-aged women who describe themselves as 'slim' get far more hits than those who use various euphemisms for fat/plump such as cuddly, well built, whatever ... men usually say whatever they think their female partner wants to hear e.g. cuddly is good; but, given the chance, most men would prefer slim women. Losing weight and becoming 'gaunt' may take some getting used to ... my wife was 'accused' (the exact word my wife used) by a friend of becoming gaunt ... but the friend soon got used to seeing my wife like that and now says my wife, being slim, looks young for her age. I think a large part of that was because my wife (although she denies it) subtly changed hair style/make up to suit a changed facial shape and changed her wardrobe to well cut clothes that suited her slimmer figure. However I would say all of that wouldn't I .........."

I found the above offensive too, if was to make a BMI of 21-22 I would be skeletal as I am currently heavy boned and will be lucky to make 25 BMI without starving myself! I think what you are advocating is dangerous, places pressure on the women here to conform to some kind of male fantasy and is inappropriate for this forum.

[carorees]

2. Apple shape ... abdominal fat is bad, bad, bad ... highly advisable to keep waist/height ratio below 50% - more important than BMI/body weight stuff.I have been told (recently actually and pre-5:2 weight) that my apple shape is "perfect" . that little bit of tummy is quite fine in "their ideas" and change nothing. Indeed for me the tummy fat from child bearing or overeating or both but then distributed to arms and legs was not good so I did something about it. so when you say abdominal fat is bad .. do you mean totally health wise and more abdominal fat leads to diabetes, heart failure, lower life span?the concept of waist/height at below 50% I'm not that familiar with.. does this figure not correlate 100% with BMI? 

Yes, many studies have confirmed that abdominal fat (not the fat under the skin below your belly button but around your abdominal organs) is the most dangerous and adds to your risk of developing diabetes and heart disease whatever your BMI. Measuring your waist above your belly button is a good estimate of this fat and using a cut off of half your height has been shown to be a good target. In women, ideally it should even be a bit lower.

Because some people are apple shaped, others pear shaped your waist:height ratio does not necessarily correlate with BMI. My BMI is 25.5 (overweight) but my waist:height ratio is 44.5 (well into the healthy range).

See my thread on where to measure your waist in the resources section for more info.

Kencc wrote,

" The bony/gaunt stuff ... (to be controversial) is just an excuse that women make up for themselves to avoid the effort of getting to and maintaining a BMI of 21/22"..........

Ken, you were quite right when you called your statement 'CONTROVERSIAL'. Personally, I do not care about or for BMI as I feel it is a very misleading and inaccurate criteria. However, I do find your statement accusing people, sorry, accusing women of being too lazy to conform to your personal ideal is at best rather disingenuous and at worst rude. If I were you I would take myself off to the naughty step for a while to contemplate my behaviour and then come back here and apologise to all the ladies who are busting a gut (no pun intended, but if it fits...) to get themselves healthier and slimmer, some of them against odds which I hope you never have to endure.

Ballerina x

Well said @Ballerina!