How should goal weight versus ideal weight be defined while on GLP1?

BLASIUS

BLASIUS

Explorer
Joined
Aug 10, 2025
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Location
Italy
Hi everyone,

I'm curious how those of you taking GLP1 medications settle on a Goal Weight as opposed to an Ideal Weight.

I went over where I currently stand in this thread:


/community-link/post/162277/


Height 180cm

CW 104 Kg

IW 71,3 Kg (as reported by my body composition measurement scale)

GW ??

If I were to treat GW as equal to IW, I'd still have 33 Kg to shed (my starting weight was 120kg in July 2025), yet to me that figure looks enormous, so what should I take into account?

Would it be wiser to settle for a middle ground (say 80 Kg), or should I keep pushing all the way to IW?

I'd love to hear what you think
 
Whatever you decide it is, that is your goal weight. No formula exists for "ideal weight". A better question would be what you are actually trying to achieve.
 
I’m with the view that it’s about your own aims. Plus many other variables come into play.

If you carry a decent amount of muscle and lift weights, your number will land noticeably above someone who is sedentary or doesn’t do much physically demanding work.

Reaching the normal weight bracket brings a sizable mental upside, yet in many respects targeting a BMI between 25 and 30 — say 80kg — is actually more logical if you want something you can hold onto over the long haul without having to eat very little each day. The reason is that after big weight loss, energy expenditure falls and tends to stay depressed long term, so maintaining the loss calls for fewer calories per day than would be typical for your weight, age and activity level. This varies widely, but it clearly hits people with severe obesity who drop a lot of weight much harder. A few extra kilos won’t change much, but the nearer you get to normal weight, the tougher loss becomes because your body fights to keep every fat cell.

Once I went from 145 to 75kg — a 70 kg loss — my energy expenditure halved and remained there, meaning 1600-1900 kcal/day was needed to shed the weight and also to hold at that level. Only adding tirz/reta pushed me down further to 65kg, presumably through small daily calorie reductions. Losing weight at 5-10kg/y requires a 1-200 kcal/day deficit, which is very difficult to measure accurately.

Health-wise, that 20kg you’ve already shed matters most for lowering long-term risks. Shedding more lowers risks further, but avoiding regain is the key part for pulling risks out of the extreme range, so modest expectations aren’t a bad idea. And once you’re anywhere close to normal weight, fitness counts far more than fatness for health risks. That makes sustainability of the loss hugely important: if keeping calories at a sensible level takes constant effort, the chances of long-term maintenance worsen. This is a solid reason to remain on GLPs after weight loss for maintenance, but it may also mean choosing a higher target so upkeep is easier. Still, being content with whatever you actually achieve matters, whether or not it matches your goal weight. There’s no promise of losing 50kg with any current GLP drugs, and no promise even with GLP stacking if you respond below average to them.

Even though I see the logic here, I’ve reached a BMI of 23 with tirz15mg/reta5mg/cagri0.5mg/hgh0.8iu, and I probably need all of them for any shot at staying there.
 
In my case, 2 primary elements come into play. BMI matters, though it ranks lower in importance, yet it still offers a rough idea. The second element is BF %. I'm aiming for 12-15%...currently at 29%, so I recognize it's a considerable distance, but achievable within the coming few months. About 2 years back, when I hit the BMI I needed along with 19% BF, without any medication, it took me roughly 16 months. At that time I began at 36% BF. So from that experience, 2 lessons stand out. With Reta supporting me, I can reach it, and conversely, BMI isn't the key factor.
 
Abrakebabra said:

Whatever you decide it is, that is your goal weight. No formula exists for "ideal weight". A better question would be what you are actually trying to achieve.
Click to expand...
Sure, this comes down to how the terms are defined, yet everyone taking GLP1 still needs to settle on a Goal Weight and come up with some rule for arriving at it.

You could, of course, simply keep using GLP1 for a stretch (say 1 year) with no Goal Weight in mind and just watch how your results develop, but in my view that isn't a sound method.

Having a Goal suits me better, since it keeps me focused and pushes me to adjust my habits when needed.

At the start of my GLP1 journey, I set my GW at 80Kg (roughly 40Kg to lose) over 2 years.

9 months in, I'm ahead of where I expected to be, but over the last 2 months the weight loss hasn't been sufficient, so I'm working to figure out how to turn that around
 
lessthanhalf said:

I’m with the view that it’s about your own aims. Plus many other variables come into play.

If you carry a decent amount of muscle and lift weights, your number will land noticeably above someone who is sedentary or doesn’t do much physically demanding work.

Reaching the normal weight bracket brings a sizable mental upside, yet in many respects targeting a BMI between 25 and 30 — say 80kg — is actually more logical if you want something you can hold onto over the long haul without having to eat very little each day. The reason is that after big weight loss, energy expenditure falls and tends to stay depressed long term, so maintaining the loss calls for fewer calories per day than would be typical for your weight, age and activity level. This varies widely, but it clearly hits people with severe obesity who drop a lot of weight much harder. A few extra kilos won’t change much, but the nearer you get to normal weight, the tougher loss becomes because your body fights to keep every fat cell.

Once I went from 145 to 75kg — a 70 kg loss — my energy expenditure halved and remained there, meaning 1600-1900 kcal/day was needed to shed the weight and also to hold at that level. Only adding tirz/reta pushed me down further to 65kg, presumably through small daily calorie reductions. Losing weight at 5-10kg/y requires a 1-200 kcal/day deficit, which is very difficult to measure accurately.

Health-wise, that 20kg you’ve already shed matters most for lowering long-term risks. Shedding more lowers risks further, but avoiding regain is the key part for pulling risks out of the extreme range, so modest expectations aren’t a bad idea. And once you’re anywhere close to normal weight, fitness counts far more than fatness for health risks. That makes sustainability of the loss hugely important: if keeping calories at a sensible level takes constant effort, the chances of long-term maintenance worsen. This is a solid reason to remain on GLPs after weight loss for maintenance, but it may also mean choosing a higher target so upkeep is easier. Still, being content with whatever you actually achieve matters, whether or not it matches your goal weight. There’s no promise of losing 50kg with any current GLP drugs, and no promise even with GLP stacking if you respond below average to them.

Even though I see the logic here, I’ve reached a BMI of 23 with tirz15mg/reta5mg/cagri0.5mg/hgh0.8iu, and I probably need all of them for any shot at staying there.
Click to expand...
Nice work,

once you hit your ultimate GW, your username will need an update to match — perhaps "Almost1/3" would suit you better 🤣
 
ultima thule said:

In my case, 2 primary elements come into play. BMI matters, though it ranks lower in importance, yet it still offers a rough idea. The second element is BF %. I'm aiming for 12-15%...currently at 29%, so I recognize it's a considerable distance, but achievable within the coming few months. About 2 years back, when I hit the BMI I needed along with 19% BF, without any medication, it took me roughly 16 months. At that time I began at 36% BF. So from that experience, 2 lessons stand out. With Reta supporting me, I can reach it, and conversely, BMI isn't the key factor.
Click to expand...
Targeting a particular BF% makes more sense than chasing a particular BMI — I realize BMI is only a rough estimate.

Right now my BF% sits at 25.3%. If I wanted to get down to 15% BF, what would my weight need to be?

Would that be 71.3 Kg, which is what my bioimpedance scale reports?
 
BLASIUS said:

ultima thule said:

In my case, 2 primary elements come into play. BMI matters, though it ranks lower in importance, yet it still offers a rough idea. The second element is BF %. I'm aiming for 12-15%...currently at 29%, so I recognize it's a considerable distance, but achievable within the coming few months. About 2 years back, when I hit the BMI I needed along with 19% BF, without any medication, it took me roughly 16 months. At that time I began at 36% BF. So from that experience, 2 lessons stand out. With Reta supporting me, I can reach it, and conversely, BMI isn't the key factor.
Click to expand...
Targeting a particular BF% makes more sense than chasing a particular BMI — I realize BMI is only a rough estimate.

Right now my BF% sits at 25.3%. If I wanted to get down to 15% BF, what would my weight need to be?

Would that be 71.3 Kg, which is what my bioimpedance scale reports?
Click to expand...
The fat-to-muscle ratio is what matters here. A guy carrying 50% body fat can end up with the same BMI as a bodybuilder sitting at 7%... fat weighs less than muscle does... the best approach is to shed fat while adding muscle at the same time.
 
Appreciate it — back when I set up the account, I was sitting at nearly half of where I started.

Assuming your scale gives reliable readings — and honestly, they frequently don't, sometimes not even close — then sitting at 25% body fat now means dropping to 15% would require roughly 10kg less, provided lean mass stays the same. It's not exact, but it's in the right neighborhood, which would land you at 15% around 94kg, or perhaps 90-92kg if you lost some lean mass along the way. 15% is quite lean, so those scales would only be trustworthy if you carry a good amount of muscle. My math here is fairly rough, but it tracks more sensibly than what your scale is reporting. The sole precise way to measure body fat is a dexa scan or MRI. There are also online calculators that work off waist, neck, and arm circumference measurements (I believe).

I'd guess I'm near that 25% figure myself, though I don't exercise much.
 
ultima thule said:

BLASIUS said:

ultima thule said:

In my case, 2 primary elements come into play. BMI matters, though it ranks lower in importance, yet it still offers a rough idea. The second element is BF %. I'm aiming for 12-15%...currently at 29%, so I recognize it's a considerable distance, but achievable within the coming few months. About 2 years back, when I hit the BMI I needed along with 19% BF, without any medication, it took me roughly 16 months. At that time I began at 36% BF. So from that experience, 2 lessons stand out. With Reta supporting me, I can reach it, and conversely, BMI isn't the key factor.
Click to expand...
Targeting a particular BF% makes more sense than chasing a particular BMI — I realize BMI is only a rough estimate.

Right now my BF% sits at 25.3%. If I wanted to get down to 15% BF, what would my weight need to be?

Would that be 71.3 Kg, which is what my bioimpedance scale reports?
Click to expand...
The fat-to-muscle ratio is what matters here. A guy carrying 50% body fat can end up with the same BMI as a bodybuilder sitting at 7%... fat weighs less than muscle does... the best approach is to shed fat while adding muscle at the same time.
Click to expand...
Assuming my bioimpedance scale is accurate, my body contains 26,5 Kg of fat (25,3% BF). If my Ideal Weight were 71,3Kg according to that same scale, then I would still need to shed another 34 Kg — which would mean losing not just fat, but lean mass too.

So is the scale feeding me a meaningless IW, or is there something I'm not getting?
 
My initial target sat roughly 10-15 lbs above the weight I carried in my 30s. I picked that number because it felt attainable and didn't demand extreme sacrifice—my real aim is simply being able to do whatever I want as I age. These days I'm 15 lbs under that original target, and probably the lightest I've been since middle school (possibly my freshman year of HS). I feel fantastic and the scale is still creeping down. I expect to shed another 10-15 lbs before switching to maintenance, though fat loss is what I'm focused on now. I haven't set a specific BF number, but I'll recognize it once that stubborn layer around my midsection gets smaller. Throughout all of this I've kept up strength training to hold onto muscle.
 
This is the same thing I am wrestling with, and no goal weight or target seems to come to mind.

Sitting at 104.3kg now, having begun at 114.8kg back in the middle of march
 
At 1.8m and 90kg, a BMI around 28 isn't problematic when body fat sits at 15%. Whether a high BMI still counts as a cardiovascular risk factor when body fat is low and muscle mass is high is open to debate, though the reality is that surplus muscle doesn't carry the same metabolic harm as surplus fat. Dropping another 17kg of lean muscle — plus likely some fat — to reach 73kg and a BMI of 22 would in all likelihood be the less healthy path. At 15% body fat you're already quite lean, well under the average; typically only dedicated bodybuilders chase lower numbers, and the routes they take tend to be unhealthy.

So if your scale is accurate, targeting under 90kg while holding 15% body fat would be fairly extreme. Measuring your waist can hint at visceral fat, which is a reasonably solid signal of metabolic health.
 
A Dexa scan is what I'd suggest; without it, you're basically guessing about your actual situation. When you're making a call this significant, having solid data on your body composition is genuinely the best approach.

The catch is that not all machines are reliable. My own experience with a small women's health clinic gave me results that were way off. If a university with an exercise science program is nearby, that's your top option. For my part, I'd check that they're using a GE machine, since those tend to be on the higher-quality end. As for scales, they're practically worthless. They can't even reliably track changes over time, much less give you an accurate number.

So what makes a reasonable target? For men, roughly 20% is considered healthy, 15% is quite good, and staying below 12% is tough for most people to sustain. Women's figures run about 10% higher than those.
 
When I tried to set a target weight using standard charts, I hit a wall too. So I brought it up with my primary care physician, and her response was simply that I looked good. No joke — that was the medical guidance I got. Keep in mind, my weight was around 250lbs then.

As a 6'4" male, BMI numbers put my "normal" range at 152-205. According to Metlife tables, I should be between 181-207.

Then a few weeks back I got a Dexa scan. It reported 223lbs with 23% body fat, and set my "goal" at 218lbs and 20% body fat. To get there, I'm meant to lose down to 218 while adding 3lbs of muscle. Whether that math actually works out, I have no idea🤣.

At least the Dexa scan gives me something to aim for, since BMI and weight charts don't seem like great tools. My doctor's "you look good" is the least exact of all.
 
TruckingUK said:

This is the same thing I am wrestling with, and no goal weight or target seems to come to mind.

Sitting at 104.3kg now, having begun at 114.8kg back in the middle of march
Click to expand...
Seems like we're in the same boat🤣
 
lessthanhalf said:

At 1.8m and 90kg, a BMI around 28 isn't problematic when body fat sits at 15%. Whether a high BMI still counts as a cardiovascular risk factor when body fat is low and muscle mass is high is open to debate, though the reality is that surplus muscle doesn't carry the same metabolic harm as surplus fat. Dropping another 17kg of lean muscle — plus likely some fat — to reach 73kg and a BMI of 22 would in all likelihood be the less healthy path. At 15% body fat you're already quite lean, well under the average; typically only dedicated bodybuilders chase lower numbers, and the routes they take tend to be unhealthy.

So if your scale is accurate, targeting under 90kg while holding 15% body fat would be fairly extreme. Measuring your waist can hint at visceral fat, which is a reasonably solid signal of metabolic health.
Click to expand...
Do you figure that my original GW of 80kg was set too low?
 
BLASIUS said:

ultima thule said:

BLASIUS said:

ultima thule said:

In my case, 2 primary elements come into play. BMI matters, though it ranks lower in importance, yet it still offers a rough idea. The second element is BF %. I'm aiming for 12-15%...currently at 29%, so I recognize it's a considerable distance, but achievable within the coming few months. About 2 years back, when I hit the BMI I needed along with 19% BF, without any medication, it took me roughly 16 months. At that time I began at 36% BF. So from that experience, 2 lessons stand out. With Reta supporting me, I can reach it, and conversely, BMI isn't the key factor.
Click to expand...
Targeting a particular BF% makes more sense than chasing a particular BMI — I realize BMI is only a rough estimate.

Right now my BF% sits at 25.3%. If I wanted to get down to 15% BF, what would my weight need to be?

Would that be 71.3 Kg, which is what my bioimpedance scale reports?
Click to expand...
The fat-to-muscle ratio is what matters here. A guy carrying 50% body fat can end up with the same BMI as a bodybuilder sitting at 7%... fat weighs less than muscle does... the best approach is to shed fat while adding muscle at the same time.
Click to expand...
Assuming my bioimpedance scale is accurate, my body contains 26,5 Kg of fat (25,3% BF). If my Ideal Weight were 71,3Kg according to that same scale, then I would still need to shed another 34 Kg — which would mean losing not just fat, but lean mass too.

So is the scale feeding me a meaningless IW, or is there something I'm not getting?
Click to expand...
Body fat scales don't give reliable readings. At 172cm and 77kg, my bf is probably in the 19-20% range right now. Back when I weighed 82kg it sat at 25% per DEXA, even though Inbody put me at 20%.

Your own figure could be nearer 30%. There's no requirement to track it if it doesn't matter to you — the scale still works for watching progress even when the number itself is off. But for an accurate figure, DEXA is the option to go with.

Set yourself several targets instead of one. The first might be getting to 18-20% bf, then work out the weight that corresponds to.

BMI alone would have me targeting 65kg, which is far too low in my case given how much muscle I carry
 
Back
Top