A year long effort at losing weight through exercise, food moderation, and, well, smoking again, has yielded great results. The results have been so good, a few people who have not seen me in a while have looked at me with rather alarmed looks and asked me if I am sick.
Now, I had always joked that the only way I would ever see the south side of 200 pounds again was if I had my leg amputed or came down with metastic cancer. Neither have been the reason for the weight loss among the myriad of influences contributing to the benefit.
So I took a new picture today now adorning the blog. That's the face of a guy who is 5' 11" and 188. It's not a bad thing. The tops of my feet get wet in the shower now. I can bend over and tie my shoe laces without losing my breath. My knee does not throb as often. The grocery bill has dropped precipitously, but butts are expensive.
I can actually lay down in regular-sized bathtubs without my shoulders rubbing against the sides -- barely. A two person tub could be inviting for another again. Relaxed fit jeans actually feel, well, relaxed rather than snug everywhere but the waist, which has a few inches of fat hanging over. For, let's face it, relaxed fit jeans are a way for a person to buy clothes a size smaller than they really should in an effort to boost self esteem somehow. Nothing like actual, regular fit pants being a little baggy to really get that necessary boost.
So I can actually tuck my shirts in without feeling like I am "wearing it out." Belts are more than a mere ornament, they actually keep my pants up. I also do not have to inhale to buckle it on the last hole in the belt, either. Nor to they start to distort as had been done in the past.
On the downside, fruit spoils faster than sodium-laced snack foods. Fruit can't be sealed in a time capsule, I guess, but Doritos and Twinkies will be there 100 years from now, provided global warming hasn't flooded over the building cornerstone in which they get buried.
So out of curiosity, I hit the BMI calculator index on the internet, plugging in the old and new weights for the 5' 11" frame. It comes as no surprise the older weight had me as obese at 37.7. Obesity by the malnourished twit who devised the scale starts at 30. Overweight is 25.0 to 29.9.
Well, the current weight of 188 puts me in the overweight category at 26.2.
Still fat? Then how come folks caution me not to lose anymore weight? How come folks quietly ask me if I am sick?
I blame it on my French Canadian genes, water skiing, and football.
Though 5' 11", I have only a 30" inseam. Torso weighs more than calf, damn it. (This also explains my glacier speed in sports that kept me a center, catcher, and goalie lo those many years deluding myself I had athletic talent.)
And waterskiing and football developed my quads and hamstrings, such that I had rather well developed, if beefy and slow, legs.
So who devised the BMI scale? Was their sample size merely concentration camp survivors?
I would have to drop another 9 pounds to get to 179 to be the heaviest "normal weight" for my height. I could melt to 135, or 53 pounds less than that picture, and this scale would say I was on the low end of "normal weight." Low end of normal weight? I would be dead, but at least the coffin would be cheaper. I could split a vault with someone of equally as "normal" weight.
5' 11" and 135? Models weight more than that, for god's sake.
Yes, I am going to rationalize, I really have the frame of someone 6' 1" or 6' 2" based on the stubby little Canadian Maple tree trunks that serve as my lower appendages. Doing that gets me into the high end of the normal weight category, which is not that bad. At my top weight I had to rationalize I was 7' 3" to get into the normal weight classification.
That isn't a mere rationalization. It's a delusion.

Stubby-Legged Canucks Everywhere Feel My Pain
(Note fabric belt for greater flexibility)


Salon.com
Comments
JK: My Canuckistani grandfather was 5' 9" with a 27" inch inseam. Then again he was also part American Indian. But we've blamed enough on them. :)
OE: Long torso is a great rationalization for ignoring the BMI when going all blimp on yourself. Beware my good man.
One complaint -- where's the before picture?
You look kind of sick . Have you seen a dorctor?
R
As for the short-legged rationalization, reminds me of my mom, who, as she lost inches and her weigh ballooned, rationalized that though she stood at 5'2", she was really 5'6", which is why her 195 pounds wasn't "as bad"
Looking good. Now quite smoking. It'll stunt your growth. Oh wait... to late.
You look great!
rated
Neil: Not into lifting. Not looking to bulk up, as muscle quickly turns to fat. Working more with elliptical machines and biking now that winter has taken kayaking off the table. (sobs)
John: I avoided a lot of cameras. I still have trouble fitting through doors when my ego is not in check.
Nikke: Read the last line re rationalization and delusion... :)
Cartouche: Your comment reminded of the Saturday Night Live spoof ad for a cereal called Colon Blow.
Marcelle: thanks.
WonderPony: Yes, but no races, I am but a shetland.
Patricia: Younger looking is relative. I don't look near death anymore. :)
Sally: Those horizontal stripes adorn the entire townhouse, as I need quick and dirty "window treatments" and cleaned out one style at Wal*Mart. $16 for the 80" ones, and $14 for the 60" ones. LIfe on the cheap, BAY-Bee. Interesting not about gymnasts. That was not a predilection of mine vis-a-vis my own athletic pursuits. ... as it were.
OE: See comment to Sally. I cannot afford one.
Chris: Equator living has some appeal. Warmer, cheaper, and more fresh fruit.
It's not only Canucks who suffer from BMI. Although I could stand to
lose 20 pounds, my current BMI of 30+ is a joke. To get to 25 I've have to weigh less than my lean body mass.
And the torso/leg ratio resonates. I'm 6'2"" with almost 32" inseam.
Thus, I'm even taller than Geoff sitting down.
Ignore the stats, they don't take into account a myriad of individual body factors. Take pride in how you feel and what you've accomplished.
Brawer: Yeah. I was not really concerned with the BMI thing to start. Simply tried to make sure I was NOT setting goals to start that were so unrealistic as to be discouraging. Then, once I started hitting them, I just decided to keep going with it. So, when folks started suggesting I had gone too far, I figured I had to double check the BMI stuff to see where I was.
I know your blog was meant to be funny (I read the tags), but a lot of people erroneously live and die by the BMI.
I know a guy who is 5'3" tall and weighs 185 lbs. If you went by the BMI he would be grossly overweight, yet he has 5% body fat and his biceps are about the size of my thighs. Plus, he is an amatuer ju-jitsu champion. BMI combined with waist circumference and a health assesment is the better gauge.
Trudge: I am down about the same from my high, but a little less in the year. No idea the BMI stuff nor am I thrilled at the idea of pumping myself up, as it were, given I am at an age where sagging is to be expected.
Con: Believe me, a year ago I would have leapt at that chance.
Mamoore: Actually the argument was made to ME by MY doctor two years ago as I was expressing my disgust at how far I had to go.
Mical: There's always plateaus. Gotta change it up and shift the metabolism a little bit.
Old New: It's all the compassionate conservatism coursing through my veins.
Mary: I would argue it is the old me emerging, not a new one.
Now that that's out of the way...I know what you mean. My mother's started to mutter that I shouldn't lose any more weight, but I'm not even at the mathematical MIDDLE of my "healthy weight" on the BMI yet. Getting there will require losing another 6 lbs...something that probably ain't gonna happen, considering my body's hit a nice happy stasis point 25 lbs. below where it used to be.
You know who came up with BMI? The insurance industry, that's who.
Grrrr.
When I run into people who haven't seen me in a while, they question my height rather than my weight. I was formerly 5'4", now I am a slender 7' tall woman. :))
I totally cheat on my BMI. I lost 2 inches of spinal height to arthritis. What? I have to be 10 pounds lighter all of a sudden? Those 2 inches mean the difference between normal and overweight. I figure my BMI with the taller height is sort of grandfathered in.
Sao Kay: I have been using the "big boned" rationalization for years. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.
JC: Yeah, they are on the radar.
Brie: Yeah, I was going to have to be 7' 3" to make it work at my peak. No way to rationalize that one.
Annoir: I remember reading that about Phelps. I guess pot stunts your growth. Sure did help his wing span.
Sirenita: Yeah, go with that. Losing 2" just means compression of the basic frame. Move to the Equator as someone suggested to me. :)
Juliet: You Canuckistanis really know how to burst our American bubbles. But I still have the sea dogs hat, although it is a little more worn from sweat when kayaking and biking. :)
Steve: glad you liked the line. Was worried it might have been deemed hurtful by making light of that, but it did seem to fit the mood I was in, so I went with it. Comedy is a tough business. :)
G - Yeah. Loose the "ciggy butts," You're the package!
I am 5' and 125, and according to the charts, I am "overweight", although I work out and fit into a size 6-7. To be what they tell me, I have to weigh 95-100 lbs and I think be a size 0? Just a few years ago, I was 109 lbs, and people asked me if I was "SICK".
Far more important to toss that BMI chart, outdataed and old fashioned., out the door. Good job, I say. Oh and to all the non smokers, I say Smoke on, or quit someday, (I plan to) don't worry about it- yes we should quit- I'm not ready yet. When you are ready to quit, you will.
Far more important to get blood pressure normal, no high blood sugar, or high chloeslterol.
I'm continually amazed (appalled?) at our similarities in all but politics. As a former half-assed jock, I can relate to legs too short for the rest of me, tho short legs also meant quick if not fast. Now if I'd just had some of these extra pounds back then, I coulda been a contender, instead of a bum, which is what I am.
Like you, I have reasonably concluded my BMI belongs in the 6'2" to 6'3" range, especially since I am now on the wrong side of 200. I'm also what they used to call "big-boned" -- which means never being able to find a leather watchband or shoes that fit quite right.
When I had my Nautilus and returned to fighting trim, 6'0" (I say 6'0" tho I am actually 5'11 1/2" and have had to resort to that mild like since I am continually confronted by guys who tell me I must be taller since they are 5'10" and I'm staring down on their bald spot) and 160 pounds. And yes, when I was in shape (other than round), I was constantly being asked if I was sick or something.
The BMI numbers are bullshit in my book, tho the dire warnings about obesity becoming epidemic in the US do not bode well for future cost of healthcare. On the other hand, it is often said that being overweight is exaggerated as a cause of poor health.
Can't say for sure who's right about that, but to be on the safe side, I think Obama shoulda picked a different surgeon general. See -- we can agree about politics!
As a female, when I was younger, a BMI of 20-25 was considered healthy. Now that I'm approaching 60 (will be 59 in January), the healthy range is considered 22-28. My guess is that the chart that you used did not differentiate for age. At 5'6", I can now weigh a little over 160# and still be at a healthy weight--so long as I'm also FIT--by eating properly and getting adequate exercise.
I don't know your age, but if you are over 50, then take the charts with a grain of salt, and talk to a nutritionist or a physiologist to find out your "real" healthy BMI.
As an aside, one of the reasons that people think you look sick is because they're not used to seeing the bones of your face. I haven't been particularly active in Open Salon, I don't remember your before picture, and you look great to me!