I'm 5'5", currently 221 lbs., and my goal weight is 165. I plan on putting on a lot of muscle and joining/continuing to play a lot of intense sports and activities when I get to that weight, so I'm curious what you all think.
Would being 165 lbs. be considered "overweight" if I would be fairly muscular? The BMI calculator says I'd be in the "overweight" category (about 27.5), but even the CDC website says the calculator is flawed when it comes to people with a lot of muscle. Also, I remember having friends in college who weighed 165-170 lbs. but looked like they weighed 140-150 because they were so ripped.
Either way, I think 165 is a good goal to get to. What do you guys/gals think?
If you have ore muscle than average, then yes, it's possible to be above a BMI of 25 and still be healthy. Body fat percentage would probably be a better thing to track, if you can find a somewhat accurate way of measuring it (scales that claim to measure body fat percentage are notoriously inaccurate).
That said, gaining muscle and losing fat simultaneously is difficult at best. Other than newbie gains, you likely won't put on muscle while eating at a deficit (required for fat loss).
Why not get to 165 and then assess at that point if you like where you are or not.
I'm 5'6, 204 and my goal weight is 165, which according to by bf% estimates, should be a good goal. BMI is kind of bs. It doesn't tell you anything you don't already know by looking in a mirror.
Some people with healthy BMIs are obese and other people with high bmis are jacked. There are cheap ways of estimated bf% that are inaccurate and expensive ways that are accurate.
I would suggest looking for images of different people/figures of people at given bf% and start with the one that looks most like you. Based on that, you can estimate your bf%, set a goal bf%, and then have an idea of what weight would look good on you.
Wow, thanks for the quick replies, everyone!
@amethystgirl - I'm not concerned much about progress/speed of losing weight vs. gaining muscle, I just know that the shape that I eventually want to be in will be a) 165 lbs. and b) quite muscular, at least for now. ;) My progress so far is satisfying, I'm just curious about end goals.
@baltimore - I was thinking about that, too. Like right now, what the scale says versus what size of clothing I can wear is pretty different, so I know I'm already gaining a lot of muscle.
LOL @smashley23 re: mirror - you're totally right. I guess I'm also just curious because by the time I reach 165 I'll have some loose skin, and I know it'll make me look heavier than I weigh/ I have a strong prescription of Low Self Esteem goggles that makes me not believe the progress I see in the mirror. GREAT idea about the pictures though - that's a really good way of tracking it.
SO MUCH WIN!!!
It depends on your body type, but most 5'5" 165 pound females would still have a reasonably high body fat percentage. But it's a good goal to start with. Are you female?
I would think at 5'5" and 165lbs, if you are female is still too high.
I am large framed, and I was very athletic (weight training and training for sports year round) and at 5'10" and 170lbs I was very lean and muscular (with a 6 pack of abs). That put me at a BMI of 24.4.
Unless you are male, or a serious body builder I think its probably too high.
Since having kids, I know I have lost muscle mass, I will have to get below my 170lbs to look the same way I did before kids.
Yes, I am. I always tended to look a lot lighter than I weigh, so I think I may also literally have big, heavy bones to boot.
165 will look and feel waaay better than 221 no matter what anyone says
I'm female, and my lean body mass is about 136, so for me a weight of 180 would be healthy. I just want to look/be more fit, so I set my goal lower. A "normal range" for a 5'6 female 115-155, so 165 isn't unreasonable if one has higher lean body mass.
Don't set goals that are too far out or depend too much on having genetics that are three or four standard deviations above the norm. Stick to Baltimoreamt's advice - get to your first goal post, and then see what you think.
And don't invest moral significance in any goalpost. They're all just temporary, while you work our what's actually possible for your genetics, body type and mentality.
I'm serious about that. Screw numerical goals, strive to be the best YOU you can be. Scale weight is just a number with no significance. Being able to perform some physical feat related to what you want to do is all that counts, whether that's related to lifting heavy shi... (yay!), moving really fast (booo! Hisss!) or far ( mmmeh), your goals are personal to you, and the only scale worth using is how much you've improved relative to your own personal goal.
So sod what anyone else thinks. What do you think sound like fun?
I'm 5'6 and my goal is 160. I am 49 yrs old and have had one baby. Also, large boned.
If you take your first finger and thumb and encircle your wrist (like a bracelet) do the two digits touch or is there a gap? If there is a gap you are large boned.
When I do that I have a gap equal to the length of a thumb joint. Obviously, I'm never going to reach goals that require having a fine-boned joint structure, but since my personal goals are all strength-centered that doesn't phase me one little bit.
If your goals require a bone structure that's different from the one you actually have, we need to talk to figure out a goal that's actually in line with your genetics rather than your dreams.
@melkor - TOTALLY with you on this one. I know 165 is just a number; but it's something to strive for, more realistic than "meh, when I know I look good." But I know it's a number. I know for myself that I do better with discrete goals.
I do want to feel healthy enough and have enough energy to join a lot of club sports later down the line. At this point I have orthopedic/joint issues (beginning to resolve, HOORAY) that I don't want to stress out because I've still got some weight to lose. Ultimately that is what I want for a goal - to have the stamina, say, to enter and survive the Run For Your Lives race, even if my bad knees and feet prevent me from actually running it.
@julieraven - yep, I'm with melkor, I'd need an extra knuckle/finger joint to bridge that gap. And that even on top of my wrists having gotten skinnier from my initial weight loss, LOL. So that's basically the gist of it all - I do want to participate in healthy activities, keep some muscle on me, and already have the large-boned structure, so 165 is reasonable, right?
What are everyone else's non-weight goals, by the way? For example, melkor what are yours, if I may ask?
I am overweight most of the time on a BMI and what the scale says I dont pay attention to half the time either. Playing intense sports is going to help you increase your cardiovascular and get a good calorie burn going.
Paying attention to your body fat percentage as opposed to the scale or BMI index is the best way to go. Keep in mind that a female that is 22% body fat is considered fit.
Im 5 "2" and weight 135 pounds which puts me at the getting over weight category however my body fat is about and I am deffinatley not fat as u can see.