Evolution of a weight loss goal? Did yours change as you got closer to the end?

You're welcome. Took me a bit of time to locate the reference points but it was worth looking up... even personally. I put "Average" bone density as I found a study that averaged it, etc.

It even explains why 7lbs pre-op loss makes sense with my large number of lost inches. 7lb = 3175.1g ÷ 0.9g = 3527.8889ml which makes a heck of a lot of sense with numbers like my lost inches. 4 off my hips, 3.5 off each thigh, 1.5 off each calf, 3.5 off my ribs, 2 off each bicep, 1 off each forearm during the time I lost ONLY 7 lbs (not working out at the time so no muscle building). My GP was right. 7lbs is a lot. 3.5 liters of fat.

I am editing because my cell means no paragraphs but I think I am going to save some of this info to my blog here. Something tells me it is handy to remember.

BMI is one number and it is not perfect but it is simple and comparable.  

Cuter than curves - the % of skin is taken for an àverage person who they usually define as male of 150 lbs.  

People gain weight by becoming more spherical, which is a method that conserves surface area.  Ie the skin SURFACE AREA grows, but not as much as the VOLUME OF FAT inside.  That is, your skin size will not go up in same percentage as your weight.

The sharpee puppy look is made worse by fat.  After the fat is gone it looks more like crepe paper which is LIGHT.

The bottom line is, you are never going to take off all your skin, at most the excess skin will be a few inches here and there.  So it is not 12-15 lbs you can get rid of, once you are in the 150 range.

There is excess skin - but (1) the EXCESS part doesn`t weigh as much as people think and (2) it is a MYTH the centers are pushing to get people to stop losing at a higher weight than they may think is ideal

The bottom line is that we are FAT FAT FAT with lots of excess FAT FAT FAT and only by surgery or some other method of restricting our intake so that our output exceeds our input do we lose FAT FAT FAT.

It is actually a fact that excess skin has weight.

Extra skin doesn't weigh as much as most people would like.   It's only a few cell layers thick.

Look at old people.  Many are bones and loose skin, and light as feathers.

Besides, if I had an extra 10 lbs in my butt due to my genetic heritage and massive overeating, does that mean I can consider myself not 145 lbs but 135 lbs compared to a skinny butt person like Karen?

If you fed it, it is yours.  It's not earrings or a removable hairpiece.  

If you ask the people that had plastics, they were all expecting to lose weight after surgery and most DID NOT.  The extra skin is yours  - it is part of your weight.  Define your ideal weight to INCLUDE your skin, unless you plan to run around skinless.

People use the "extra skin" line - and the dieticians at these clinics pu**** - to convince themselves to stop at a higher weight than they want.   The dieticians - who to me are really messed up - push you to stop at a "fat" weight.  

Then people say to themselves.

"I'm not really stopping at 170 lbs - I'm stopping at 160 lbs due to all the extra skin"

Excuse me, you are stopping at 170 lbs.  Which is totally OK, but don't lie to yourself.

I think it's labeling by the centers and it really bugs me. - you were fat so you will always be fat and can't aspire to be normal BMI.  I've posted about it before.

Always being "overweight" is not the same thing as always being "fat".

You can have a very low body fat percentage and have a weight that is higher then a BMI considers "within the healthy weight range".

Cripes... Oh heck... Go back to telling people to not listen to their own medical staff. Science should have made sense to you but I am not going to bother trying to explain it all to you in even more detail. 

Some people can and will aspire to a normal BMI, and some will never be suited to it.

Just like people are not shaped the same... People don't have the same type of hair... Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Since I will always be a "fat" weight according to you... And should aim for a "healthy" weight according to the BMI charts... I hope you will be the nurse assigned to my anorexic self if I try to achieve it. Oh forget that! I will continue to go based on body fat percentage.

Some things about the magical BMI numbers:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/weight -loss/bmi4.htm

Before 1980, doctors generally used weight-for-height tables -- one for men and one for women -- that included ranges of body weights for ea*****h of height. These tables were limited because they were based on weight alone, rather than body composition. BMI became an international standard for obesity measurement in the 1980s. The public learned about BMI the late 1990s, when the government launched an initiative to encourage healthy eating and exercise.

In 1998, the National Institutes of Health lowered the overweight threshold for BMI 27.8 to 25 to match international guidelines. The move added 30 million Americans who were previously in the "healthy weight" category to the "overweight" category. Today, the NIH advises doctors and their patients to include BMI in a complete assessment of a person's body size and overall health.

In fact... I am actually more than a bit adverse to using numbers from a formula developed in 1832. Even if they were renamed in 1972. http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/47.long

It became evident then that the best index was the ratio of the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters, or the Quetelet Index described in 1832. Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874) was a Belgian mathematician, astronomer and statistician, who developed a passionate interest in probability calculus that he applied to study human physical characteristics and social aptitudes. His pioneering cross-sectional studies of human growth led him to conclude that other than the spurts of growth after birth and during puberty, ‘the weight increases as the square of the height’, known as the Quetelet Index until it was termed the Body Mass Index in 1972 by Ancel Keys (1904–2004).

Use it as a loose guide... As something to give you a generalized concept...

How about I give you some insight from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_BMI/index.html

If an athlete or other person with a lot of muscle has a BMI over 25, is that person still considered to be overweight?

According to the BMI weight status categories, anyone with a BMI over 25 would be classified as overweight and anyone with a BMI over 30 would be classified as obese.

It is important to remember, however, that BMI is not a direct measure of body fatness and that BMI is calculated from an individual's weight whi*****ludes both muscle and fat. As a result, some individuals may have a high BMI but not have a high percentage of body fat. For example, highly trained athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness. Although some people with a BMI in the overweight range (from 25.0 to 29.9) may not have excess body fatness, most people with a BMI in the obese range (equal to or greater than 30) will have increased levels of body fatness.

It is also important to remember that weight is only one factor related to risk for disease. If you have questions or concerns about the appropriateness of your weight, you should discuss them with your healthcare provider.

*sigh*

I agree that BMI isn't perfect, but it is one number that can be used as a reference.  

The point I want to make is that THE INDIVIDUAL is in charge of their health and the weight they decide they want NOT the clinic.

Studies prove that INWARDLY centered people do better at weight loss and change than OUTWARDLY centered people. (perhaps the words should be internal and external).  

Overweight = having too much fat.  If you can`t face certain realities, you can`t do what we have to do.

It is important to remember, however, that BMI is not a direct measure of body fatness and that BMI is calculated from an individual's weight whi*****ludes both muscle and fat. As a result, some individuals may have a high BMI but not have a high percentage of body fat.

If you can't grasp this then maybe you need to STFU?

Just saying... Since you told me "Overweight = having too much fat.  If you can`t face certain realities, you can`t do what we have to do."

Try me... Really. I love being told I can't face reality by someone who professes to be a nurse but can't even understand the medically sound information I posted in the previous post.

Wait... You didn't bother to read it, let alone try to understand it. DID YOU?

Telling ME I can't do what "we" have to do? Really... YOU TELLING ME? You?!

Because I have more muscle in my left arse cheek then some ever aspire to... I don't have what it takes?

Let me make this clear to you... Body builders with under 10% body fat are typically over weight and it has nothing to do with being fat. You are an uneducated, unknowledgeable, scary individual who goes around doing things like telling people who are under 2 weeks post-op to ignore the medical advice of their Doctors and go straight to soft food let alone telling people to blow off appointments booked by their own medical staff.

YOU NEED AN INTERVENTION!

I may not be perfect, and may have to research things but I will be darned if you aren't one of the most DAFT individuals and one of the most BATTY TWITS I have EVER had the displeasure of being confronted with.

You CAN'T be BOTHERED learning to PREPARE FOOD and COOK for yourself. YOUR WORDS when I spoke to you kindly in person. You BOGGLE my mind!

JUST STOP giving out DANGEROUS advice... Maybe you need to get a reality check. OH WAIT... YOU ALREADY DID!

YOUR BODY! YOUR CHOICE! YOU TOOK PREVACID PPI INSTEAD OF AS DIRECTED AND EARNED A 1 WAY TICKET TO AN ULCER!

*wanders off muttering about people who need to check themselves before they tell someone they "can't face realities" and "do what we have to do"...*

*******************************************

I am really sorry to any others in this thread. I just can't hold it in here.

If people can`t accept that they are FAT then this surgery will not help them.

Everything else (my BMI is better than it looks, it`s weight from a lot of extra skin that I had to grow to cover my fat) is a rationalization.

And speaking of STFU yes I am a nurse.  I am not a self made expert who has never even had the surgery but thinks she knows everything there is to know.

I also accept I was and am too fat.  I know that even at my current weight I am likely over 30% fat.

And I don`t believe that an ordinary height woman over 300 lbs is less than 30% body fat.  That is delusional.

If people can`t accept that they are FAT then this surgery will not help them.

Everything else (my BMI is better than it looks, it`s weight from a lot of extra skin that I had to grow to cover my fat) is a rationalization.

And speaking of STFU yes I am a nurse.  I am not a self made expert who has never even had the surgery but thinks she knows everything there is to know.

I also accept I was and am too fat.  I know that even at my current weight I am likely over 30% fat.

And I don`t believe that an ordinary height woman over 300 lbs is less than 30% body fat.  That is delusional.

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/

Try it.

Do my numbers then do your own if you have a tape measure.

332 pounds
46 inch waist
6.5 inch wrist
54.5 inch hips
11 inch forearm
Select woman.

And I don't think 5'9-10" is now the average height for a woman. I thought it was closer to 5'4 1/2" - 5'6". Even if one erred on the side of caution and said I was 5'9"... I am not average height. I'm just kind enough to slouch occasionally so I am not looking down at people, and wear flats.

I have no delusions about my body... I confound the heck out of most Doctors... But that is OK! It is indisputable that with 28.22% body fat I have 93.75 lbs of fat. I am not saying I don't have fat on my body. I do. Nearly 94 lbs of it... But I have 238.45 lbs of muscle, bone, blood, skin, hair, and organs. Shocking but not delusional. Surprisingly proportional.

FYI for me to be a "normal" weight I would simply need to be 168 lbs give or take a pound. that would get me under the start of a BMI of 25. We are very different heights, and body types... With different attributes, and different starting points. Me at your starting point wouldn't have qualified for surgery.

As for being a "self made expert" nope... But I read. I read medical studies, anecdotal tales, and lean heavily on focusing on the science. The fact that I happen to know about OTHER things which may some how relate to THIS world... Bonus.

Many clinics in Ontario set goals at 75-85 EWL, which is very high, above "normal" BMI range and is intended as cheering up factor for the "average" person, struggling with losing pounds. Many patients experience slow down at this point and it is considered normal. However, if your body keeps losing and the tool keeps working, why would you stop it now? To align with those who cannot lose? Doesn't make sense to me. I had to "work hard" around BMI of 27-26, my friend stopped at 31, other people easily got to 22-20. Did we all have to align? Or could we?  NO WAY.  It's your body. You know it better than a clinic. Don't delude yourself, believing that your plan was properly"individualized". They work out of statistical guidelines, i.e. good for majority. But you're unique!

BTW, evolution of my goal was up, not down. My surgeon set a goal around BMI of 23 and I never went below 24. But this doesn't mean I failed, lol.