Is it better to be underweight than overweight?

Yes, kinda stupid question and I know both are bad but if you could choose for me to be over weight (say 40-50 pounds overweight) or underweight (like 10 pounds under) and no inbetween choose what would you rather do. I'm not going to do anything bit just wodering. I know I can't keep a stable weight and I'm either over weight or underweight. So I'm thinking that going back and forth is way worse than just staying at one place. So what would be the best? I know I will aim for a healthy weight but I will go up and down no matter what. So it's a just wondering what's not as bad for your health?

[BeeFree]

There are many people considered underweight (with a BMI of 18 or under) who are perfectly healthy, and just happen to have speedier metabolisms or live super active lifestyles. If you're comparing it to 50 pounds of excess weight, then being underweight is a safer.
It's normal to fluctuate 5-10 pounds every couple of months (excluding prementrual water retention), but yo-yoing a lot more than that can be hard on your body. Consistency is best. Try to find a place where you're not restricting and not overeating, exersize 3-4 times a week and keep the stress levels as low as possible. You're body will find it's happy place.

[BeeFree]

Typo-
*being underweight is safer.

[Zoelula]

The belief that you have to be one or the other, either overweight or underweight is part of your eating disorder. It's an error in thinking that comes with the territory. If you eat healthy for your age, activity level and metabolism, your weight should stay steady with only a couple pound natural variation. If you get help for your eating disorder one of the things that will change is this fear that you will always either have to work on restricting and losing weight or you will gain weight in an uncontrolled manner. It just isn't so.

[beachbunn1986]

well for me being under weight is better but i also am anerexic