Big AND Tall

May 26, 2006 12:36 PM

Can you Help a Big Fat guy find his Ideal weight? I am 6'9" (205 cm) and none of the charts go that high.

Additionally, if anybody has any suggestions as to where I can buy a scale that goes over 400 lbs (181 kilos) so I can track my weight I would me much appreciative.

posted by Megafly to health & fitness (23 comments total)

Looks like BMI wise you're at least around 240-260. If you're starting from 400, I'd say that's a real real admirable target, and you can fine tune once you're there. Try for yourself.
posted by kcm at 12:44 PM on May 26, 2006

Here's an ideal body weight chart that goes up to 7'. Here's a scale which goes up to 500 lbs (non-pole version also available)

All disclaimers about weight charts and personal circumstances apply.
posted by mdevore at 12:59 PM on May 26, 2006

This weight calculator says your ideal weight is around 232 pounds. Now toss that out the window. Ideal weight has always been pretty generic, because what you weigh also depends upon your bone structure and metabolism and other genetic/hereditary factors. Also, in my experience if you concentrate on losing such a large amount of weight at the outset, you'll just get discouraged because your goal always seems so far away. Instead, try setting your goal to lose 10% of your total body weight (in this case 10% of 400=40 lbs.). When you've done that, try to lose another 10% and so on.
posted by katyggls at 1:00 PM on May 26, 2006

mdevore's chart is fine if you're some wierd heroin/speed addict.

6'9' and 185? Jesus

I'd guess you're looking at about 260. All of these can be way low though. I'm 5'11' and know my ideal weight is around 190. (It's the Irish/Polish blood, I'm built like a tank). I'd be scrawny at 170 to 180 as many of these recommend.
posted by bitdamaged at 1:39 PM on May 26, 2006

It's not my chart and it's on a hospital site discussing morbid obesity, but you are aware that the weight you gave was the lowest end range for females at that height, right?

Sounds way too fricking skinny for my tastes, but doesn't seem totally out of line, and certainly healthy in comparison to some of the supermodel twigs of a lesser height.
posted by mdevore at 1:49 PM on May 26, 2006

Here's one that will go up to 600lb.
posted by electroboy at 2:00 PM on May 26, 2006

I'm 6'6 and recently saw a nutritionist to figure all this stuff out.

I started at 245 and am slowly working my way down to 220, focusing on lifestyle changes that will last, rather than quickly trying to drop weight.

Have you considered seeing a nutritionist, joining wight watchers, or finding some alternate support system?

Cheers
posted by gregariousrecluse at 2:03 PM on May 26, 2006

I did not ;)

sheepish grin...
posted by bitdamaged at 2:03 PM on May 26, 2006

Talk to your doctor. There are lots of counter-productive ways of losing weight; she can help you come up with a strategy and goal that fits your lifestyle, preferences and body.
posted by joannemerriam at 2:12 PM on May 26, 2006

I don't know how much above 400 you need, but this scale by Siltec goes up to 440 and I've found to it to right on target with my doctor's way expensive scale.
posted by ferociouskitty at 2:36 PM on May 26, 2006

You may be able to buy two good normal scales for less than the price of one 400+ scale. Stand with one foot on each and add the weights together. Exercises your brain at the same time.
posted by Rumple at 4:26 PM on May 26, 2006

Would Rumple's suggestion actually work? Just reading it made my brain wobble.
posted by Scram at 7:12 PM on May 26, 2006

Try it out. I don't see why the two scale idea wouldn't work. Maybe a bit less precise, but after all, with one foot to each scale, they will measure the weight put on each foot, right? Wether your balance is dead center, mostly right or mostly left, you exert the same downards force, and the only path for that force is through your contact with the scales. Seems to make sense to me.
posted by splice at 7:29 PM on May 26, 2006

Having tried the 2-scale method at my highest weight, I definitely would NOT recommend it. It's fine if you want a general idea of your weight and don't care if it's exact, but that's about all. I found it to be impossible to stand still enough to make it settle on a weight, and the approximations that came from it were variable within about a 30 lb range. Also, for a brief moment while you're stepping onto the 2nd scale, the 1st receives the full brunt of your weight. So if you bought 2 cheap dial scales, you'll probably bust that 1st one.

Many doctors will let you pop in and weigh in on their scale, and if you're considering it anyway, know that Weight Watchers centers scales' usually accomodate 600lbs or more. (YMMV on meetings held in churches, community centers, etc.)
posted by ferociouskitty at 8:18 PM on May 26, 2006

Half an inch makes a meaningful difference, so if you're in between inches you might appreciate this BMI calculator that accepts decimal values: http://www.chilidog.com/bmi
posted by NortonDC at 8:51 PM on May 26, 2006

While you may need to lose weight, there may be more important factors to consider. The 'Health at Every Size' movement is currently gaining strength in medical communities, and I think it has a valuable message.

Basically, if you eat right (not restrictive), exercise moderately (as much as you want at something you enjoy) and take care of yourself, your body will naturally go to its set point. (the weight that your body is genetically predisposed to be). And having a set point of 200lbs or 400 lbs is okay, so long as you are HEALTHY. Losing more than 15% of your weight in a short period of time is the definition of anorexia. You don't have to be skinny to be anorexic.

Eating normally is really important. MOst of us learn to ignore our bodies cues, to our disfavor. Eat when you're hungry. Stop when you're full. Its that easy. If you want a cup of ice cream with lunch, have it! Otherwise, all the carrots in the world wont make you feel full. When I tell people to try it, they think they'll binge and gain a ton of weight. But if you allow yourself to have some of your formally forbidden foods, you'll find they seem far less tempting when they aren't off limits.

I know this is a rather long rant, but its something I feel strongly about. After about six months of trying to eat "normally" and not restrict, I feel better, look better, don't obsess over food anymore, and have even lost weight. I would recommend the Health at every size approach to anybody who finds themselves sick of endless dieting. The research is out there to back it up, and is actually far more supported than research that supposedly supports the medical model of weight loss (ie. less weight always equal better health.)
posted by gilsonal at 9:09 PM on May 26, 2006

Okay, I just realized I derailed. The main point is, no chart can tell you accurately what your ideal weight is. If you eat normally, and exercise moderately, the weight you level off at is your ideal weight. BMI charts are not very good estimates of health, except at extremely high and low BMI levels.
posted by gilsonal at 9:11 PM on May 26, 2006

I have also heard the "health at any size" movement referred to as "intuitive eating."
posted by mecran01 at 10:12 PM on May 26, 2006

Scram -- I have never weighed myself with two scales but I can believe ferociouskitty that wobbliness is a factor. However, I use the method all the time in the lab for measuring, say, bones, too big for our 2000 gram electronic scales -- put two scales side by side, zero them, put on the bone, add the two results. I've ground-truthed it with divisble samples and it works as predicted.
posted by Rumple at 10:38 PM on May 26, 2006

[The reason being the price of accurate scales rises exponentially with how much weight they can bear -- a 5 kg scale might be $1,000, a 2 kg scale might be $150.]
posted by Rumple at 10:41 PM on May 26, 2006

Losing more than 15% of your weight in a short period of time is the definition of anorexia.

Not really, it's just one of the potential signs of anorexia, but anorexia is a mental illness. It's true you don't have to be skinny to be anorexic (just like being skinny doesn't mean you're anorexic), but you do have to be suffering from a psychological disorder, otherwise it's simply loss of weight.

Crash diets and losing too much weight too rapidly are bad for your health, yes, absolutely, but that point can be driven home by itself, without scaring people into thinking anorexia is something you 'get' by dieting.

It's the motivation for losing weight that makes the difference, and in anorexia it's a severely distorted motivation, it's people with a bunch of other much more serious problems who mostly aren't even overweight to begin with. If you're psychologically healthy and have no self-destructive bent and none of the typical issues associated with the disorder, then you're not going to become anorexic, period. (Extreme example: Christian Bale in The Machinist, or Adrien Brody in The Pianist, and after. Insanely dangerous level of weight loss - and it probably was much more than 15% at least for Bale - but that's all it was, it didn't turn them into anorexics, because they never were to start with.)

Sorry for extra derail, but it bugs me when the term is used inappropriately.

I do agree with your point anyway, health is so much more important than weight.
posted by funambulist at 5:53 AM on May 27, 2006

"Health at any size" takes a specific objection, and a general one, too.

Specifically, people are incapable of being healthy above a certain BMI (which varies from person to person) -- because at such a BMI they can't exercise even to a modest extent, can't achieve psychological wellness, and/or because such a BMI triggers cardiovascular problems, obstructive sleep apnea, or Type 2 Diabetes or their precursors. One shouldn't rely upon charts, particularly charts devised by low-weight idealogues or by bariatricians who have a vested interested in defining ideal weights as low as possible, to determine that too-high BMI, but rather rely upon a medical assessment of blood sugar, blood pressure, cardiovascular capacity, and an objective assessment of one's activity levels and self-image.

Generally, "healthy at any size" requires a competence to eat nutrionally and not to excess. It is the lack of this very competence which causes obesity in the first instance. When one develops this competence, it is just as easy to lose weight as to maintain it, because one can define "nutritionally and not to excess" consistent with one's health circumstances.

And, it should go without saying, that the most import part of any non-surgical weight-loss program is putting in place a lifelong maintenance program for after one reaches one's goal weight. The people I know who've sustained large weight losses for periods of many years seem all to have personal trainers, OA meetings, or Weight Watchers meetings to keep them accountable.
posted by MattD at 5:55 AM on May 27, 2006

MattD, I finished losing 130-140 pounds about 7 years ago and am still in the ideal BMI range, despite having let a few pounds creep on after the wedding/honeymoon. I don't have any outside group to be "accountable" to; it's just my own motivation. In fact, in just the last week or two, I've begun a push to shed the honeymoon pounds and am already seeing progress.
posted by NortonDC at 9:04 AM on May 27, 2006