22.5. Normal!! woo hoo!!
I just put up the 20th point in the 22-23 column.
hi fives to my other 22-23’ers
I’m 5’10" and weighed 160lb in my work clothes (dress slacks & shoes, polo, wool sweater, wallet, etc) today which I called 157lb for the calculator. I lift a tiny bit 3-4 nights most weeks and have a minor build to show for it. This is the trimmest I can recall being in my adult life and it feels pretty good.
I’ve been low-carbing (Kill me now, I want pasta and tacos so bad) for about 6-7 months which seems to be working well.
27-28 range just now. My highest was well over 40.
Let’s cut out the hostility and attacks in this thread.
24 and change (6’1.5", 190)…
I’ve been working out for strength for the past 5 years but I am doing a olympic distance triathlon in september. With the new workout routine I’ve worked out I should land in the 175 range. If I get lighter than that I start to look sickly.
1m88ish (been a while since I got measured, but I’m a tad shorter than my dad and he’s 1m92), 59 kilos = 16.52, bone-showin’ skinny.
looks left, looks right, nods to self So, how *you *doin’ ?
Currently 23.8, but I’m actively trying to gain a bit more muscle. Goal would put me at about 25.
I am 6-1 and 200 lbs so the BMI calculator says 26.38, making me overweight. :eek:
Screw 'em. 
You can also cross reference to this chart for BMIs that each ht/wt combo correlates to. Clicking a picture at a ht/wt combo sometimes brings up multiple photos of different people with the same ht/wt but with very different body types. For example, check out 5’9" 160, BMI 23 to 24.
I’m about 6’ 220-225, so my BMI is right around 30 and I’m supposedly obese, despite that I have a strict workout regimen, am in excellent shape, and am quite lean with a low bodyfat percentage (around 8-9% IIRC). In order to get to a normal BMI, I’d have to lose close to 40 lbs, which means even if I lost every ounce of fat on my body, which is virtually impossible and horribly unhealthy anyway, I’d still have to lose another 20 lbs of lean mass to get that low; realistically I’d have to lose most or all of that weight as lean mass.
So, I have issues with BMI, besides that it doesn’t work for me, because it really doesn’t work to well for anyone who isn’t roughly average. The problem is, your lean mass does not increase linearly with your height, so if you’re taller than average, your BMI will skew high and indicate you’re more overweight than you really are. Similarly, if you’re shorter than average, it will skew low and indicate you are more underweight than you really are. Thus, it works out fine for evaluating populations since you’re dealing with averages there, but isn’t a very good indicator for individuals. Also, on top of that possibility to have a bad BMI but actually be healthy, it’s more likely for people to have a good BMI but not be very healthy at all.
Woo hoo! 36.1. I’d come and kick all your skinny little asses, but you’d probably run away, and I’d stroke out chasing you.
[QUOTE=the website provided by DSeid]
Women tend to believe they look their best at values between 20 to 22…
[/quote]
Damn it!
So close.
22.3
So I’m almost smack dab in the middle of the 20-25 “normal” range…but 78% of Americans have a higher BMI than I do. Ironic.
Down from 50.7 to 24.3 however, my doc estimates there is at least 10kg of skin and sag a plastic surgeon would cut off and suck out so I am supposed to consider this closer to 21/22 and not go further. My hip bones are uncomfortable to lie on now, I am not looking for any more sticking out bony bits. I laughed one day when I pulled out the Wii Fit, did a body test and had it declare me ideal. Only in some dark basement corner of the internet are human shar-peis considered ideal.
I did jump up ands down and let my body give me a round of applause for the achievement anyway :D.
According to the study mentioned here (scroll down to near the bottom), tall men don’t have a significantly higher BMI than short men, and for women, its actually the opposite - lower BMI with height, largely because bodies don’t scale proportionally, especially in women.
Here (about halfway down, to figure 1) is another study that even says BMI underestimates the prevalence of overweight in tall people (including men; the reference model was based on actual people):
In other words, this directly contradicts all of those tall people saying that BMI is unfair - in reality, it gives them an advantage.
Weirdly, I felt more comfortable sharing this than I would have if the OP had just asked for my weight in lbs, even though it actually gives more information about myself.
This is amazing. How did you do it?
Thanks 
My doctors keep asking me that like I have a secret or something, the answer is I don’t really know. I researched a lot and chose to use the maths of calorie counting but how I stuck to it when most don’t is pretty much a mystery. I didn’t try for biggest loser type numbers nor did I declare anything off limits or bad, I just tried to eat 500 less calories a day net than my body used. At first that was just a question of adding some movement and swapping baked for fried, it got more complex as my weight went down but I just changed what I needed to as I went along. The first 40kg took a year but I fell into habits that made it pretty automatic so it wasn’t particularly burdensome. I think that is one advantage in going from huge to small, it takes such a long time your mind and body adapt to new habits. I still find myself doing calorie cost/benefit analysis in my head but it only takes microseconds and isn’t obstructive. I have maintained for 2 years now and haven’t found it difficult though my old self would look at my new ways and be repulsed. I transitioned into them in a very natural way as I went along.
Mindfulness skills developed in breaking other patterns were very helpful but really, I made the maths my law and obeyed it.