"I want to lose weight, but I don't want to get too skinny!"
Replies
-
^^^ How is her body image "wrong" when she said she looked "damn good" at that BMI? She said it was "mid-to-high" because from 18-24.9 it IS definitely middle range. Is it just the word "high" that is qualifying you to diagnose her having a bad body image?0
-
-
peachyfuzzle wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »When I got down to 190 I looked like I was about a week away from death.
Let me ask you a question; have you almost always been big?
190 is a pretty high weight for the majority of men. When you say that you looked "about a week away from death" do you think part of that was you being unused to seeing yourself in a much smaller body?
If you happened upon a nearly 200 lbs man who looked like you did, do you think he's look to you like he was severely emaciated?
Those of us who have been big sometimes don't have the same criteria for others as we do for ourselves. And that's can even be the case for people who know us. Which explains the family, friends and co-workers who implore you to stop losing weight, because you're looking "too skinny", even though you're still technically overweight or obese. Yet the thought would never cross their mind if they met you at that weight from day one.
Yep, I have been a fatty mcfatfat my whole life. I am generally very honest about my body, and try as hard as I can to see it for what it is; although, I do realize that is just about an impossibility.
The thing is, even looking back at pictures of me from that time, I still don't think I looked healthy at all. I'm on the lower end of tall at 6'1", so until I started to get over 285-300lbs, I wore the weight pretty well. One of the main reasons why I felt that I looked sickly is because I could actually see my ribs at that weight, and the effect only magnified when lying on my back. There are pictures of me where I look just like skin and bones.
It could have also been an effect of "skinnyfat" as I didn't do any weight training while I was losing that weight. It was all cardio, so while I lost nearly all of my fat, I lost a whole bunch of muscle as well.
I would like to believe that if I didn't know me, and just saw myself walking down the street at 190lbs back then, I would have offered to by myself a sandwich. lol
Thank you for your responses, I've enjoyed reading them. Would you be willing to post a pic of your past sandwich needing self for reference? Or upload it to your profile so you can take it down afterwards. Just curious if your perception of being too thin would match others
0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »When I got down to 190 I looked like I was about a week away from death.
Let me ask you a question; have you almost always been big?
190 is a pretty high weight for the majority of men. When you say that you looked "about a week away from death" do you think part of that was you being unused to seeing yourself in a much smaller body?
If you happened upon a nearly 200 lbs man who looked like you did, do you think he's look to you like he was severely emaciated?
Those of us who have been big sometimes don't have the same criteria for others as we do for ourselves. And that's can even be the case for people who know us. Which explains the family, friends and co-workers who implore you to stop losing weight, because you're looking "too skinny", even though you're still technically overweight or obese. Yet the thought would never cross their mind if they met you at that weight from day one.
Yep, I have been a fatty mcfatfat my whole life. I am generally very honest about my body, and try as hard as I can to see it for what it is; although, I do realize that is just about an impossibility.
The thing is, even looking back at pictures of me from that time, I still don't think I looked healthy at all. I'm on the lower end of tall at 6'1", so until I started to get over 285-300lbs, I wore the weight pretty well. One of the main reasons why I felt that I looked sickly is because I could actually see my ribs at that weight, and the effect only magnified when lying on my back. There are pictures of me where I look just like skin and bones.
It could have also been an effect of "skinnyfat" as I didn't do any weight training while I was losing that weight. It was all cardio, so while I lost nearly all of my fat, I lost a whole bunch of muscle as well.
I would like to believe that if I didn't know me, and just saw myself walking down the street at 190lbs back then, I would have offered to by myself a sandwich. lol
Thank you for your responses, I've enjoyed reading them. Would you be willing to post a pic of your past sandwich needing self for reference? Or upload it to your profile so you can take it down afterwards. Just curious if your perception of being too thin would match others
Haha, you're welcome.
I definitely can, but not until after work. I just went through the pictures I have of me online from that time period and came to the realization that I'm pretty much covered up by other people in all of them. lol0 -
If without any work or effort on my part, somebody could waive a magic wand and give me the choice of being a healthy 130 or a healthy 170 pounds. I'd pick 170. I'm not "afraid" of growing too thin because it takes too much damn work to just "happen" and even if it did happen, as long as my body is functioning and I can do the things I want to do, then my physical appearance is secondary. Remaining a little on the plump side just my personal preference from a purely aesthetic perspective. That said, I don't know if I'll ever make it down to even 170. I've been as high as 360 so really getting under 200 would feel pretty amazing to me.. Heck, I'm 230 now and even THAT feels pretty amazing. I don't HATE FAT. I just hate that I became so fat that it limited my activity. Just because I don't want to be 360 pounds anymore, doesn't mean that I have to have some goal of "ideal bmi" or "ideal bodyfat %" and it doesn't mean that I'm disgusted by fat.0
-
I worry about exercise and dieting making me too skinny to the same extent I worry about
my anti-aging cream resulting in being carded at the liqour store.0 -
I know when I've said I don't want to be skinny, part of it is this:
I've spent years believing in the "real women have curve", "all about that bass", "fat bottom girls make the rockin' world go round" mentality. Losing weight, on some level, feels like a betrayal to the fat girl body love I was trying to give myself for so long. It's not rational, but it's real on an emotional level. It's a way of saying, "I want to be smaller, to be healthier, but I won't be one of THEM, I'm still this awesome fat chick that is relatable and 'real' and all of that."
Weird, huh?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Up until now, I had never been a healthy weight, so I honestly had no idea what my body would look like as I reached my goals. I've always said "I don't want to be too skinny", but when I say that, I'm only referring to what "too skinny" means to me when it comes to my own body. My best friend is my height and probably about 10 lbs lighter than I am now, and I don't think she's too skinny, but I also don't really aspire to have the same body type as she does.
I started out at a BMI of 37.8 and approximately 48% body fat. I'm now at a BMI of 23.9 and approximately 25% body fat. I could certainly lose more weight and remain within the 'healthy' range, but I don't particularly want to be smaller than I am now. Over the 2 years I've spent losing weight and getting fitter, I've put some specific fitness goals in place, and those goals are much more important to me than the number on the scale, especially now that I'm at a healthy weight. I feel good in my body, and my body can do the things I want it to do, so I'm no longer concerned with being a particular weight or size.
Also, although I've always carried a lot of my weight in my lower body, I think losing weight has put more emphasis on my 'pear' shape. I still have plenty of body fat below the waist, but my upper body is considerably more lean. If I continue to lose weight, I may have even less body fat on my upper half than I do now, and that's not a look I especially want for myself. I don't really want a thinner face, and I don't want to be able to see my ribs, so I'm happy where I'm at. My priority now is becoming more fit and maybe adding some muscle.
Oh, plus, the smaller I get, the fewer calories I need, and the less I get to eat to maintain that weight. And I like to eat. So... it seems like a totally reasonable trade-off to me.
0 -
CupcakeCrusoe wrote: »I personally set my goal at the high range of normal bmi because I have never, ever, been normal bmi in my life. Except as you know, an infant and small child.
I will re-evaluate when I get to normal bmi. I think a lot of people do.
Yep, that's exactly what I did.
x20 -
I think it's a bit ridiculous, I mean there's quite a range between being skinny and overweight, and I think maybe people are a bit too optimistic when they assume it's easy to get from overweight to skinny?
Skinny is all relative frankly. I've been told I look skinny, and I laugh. Yeah, I have thin legs. My arms would be thin too if it wasn't for the bat wings I still have from loose skin (it's not that bad, but enough not to give the 'skinny' look, plus I have muscles anyway). But my midsection is anything but skinny, I definitely have curves (and I'm guessing a good 3-4 pounds of loose skin on my stomach). And I still have boobs. I look a lot like that lovely lady in the white/blue dress actually.
Heck I'd go as far as saying to those people that they don't have to worry about it, I'd be surprised if 5% of the people who lose weight actually went from overweight to skinny (especially if they work out - funny thing, I've never heard anyone call someone muscular 'skinny', even if they have a low body fat).0 -
I find this interesting as well.
I think a big part is that goal set on the higher end of the BMI scale seem a lot more manageable. For someone who has been overweight/obese their whole life, a weight of say, 130 may seem nigh impossible, while 170 may seem very obtainable. I know this was me when I was 200 lbs. I set my original goal at around 170 because anything lower seemed laughable at the time.
Another part is that American society, in general, is completely messed up about weight and body image. At higher BMIs, you will generally get a lot of support from the average person. Once you start dropping more and more weight, people tend to start side-eyeing you and throwing around accusations of eating disorders. I think that at this time, people are a lot more aware of eating disorders (particularly anorexia) than in the past. I also think that, in general, people seem to view dieting as something that is temporary and doesn't work very well. I think that people doing this have their hearts in the right place. But they don't realize that eating disorders are primarily MENTAL and have so much more to do than just a number on a scale.
As the American average slides further to "overweight" and "obese", people are searching for more and more body positivity toward that end. The unfortunate thing is that instead of celebrating all the bodies that exist, there tends to be hatred toward "skinny/thin" individuals. I'm unsure if this is about jealousy or if people are just automatically piling negativity on the body they see as the opposite of theirs. In this type of environment, skinny becomes a negative thing.
Sort of relating toward a higher BMI being a more manageable goal, people may be fearful of losing their identity as a bigger person if they are no longer in any way big. When someone has been fat their whole life, it becomes a part of them. I may be totally wrong, though.0 -
I'm 5'4" and 62 days ago I weighed 183 pounds. This morning, I weighed 166.4. While I have lost an inch at the bust, waist, and hips, my clothes all fit the same. I don't have to buy a new wardrobe yet. I've lost nearly 17 pounds and NO ONE in my real life has commented. I had to ask my husband if he noticed a difference. He said "I suppose so."
The only "person" who has noticed is my Wii Fit. It doesn't go "ugh" in a sad disappointed voice any more when I step on it.
At my lowest -- 150 and training for a mini-triathalon -- I was a size 6-8. But the BMI metric told me I was overweight.
I can't imagine weighing 126 pounds, the middle range of my BMI. My b00bs would look like two empty wine skins. My *kitten* would be non-existent. My thighs might not touch any more, but that's because I wouldn't have any muscle.
I have a lot of muscle and my bone density is at least 2.5 The BMI range is too low for my body composition. If you were to look at me now, you would say I could stand to lose another 10 pounds, but according to the BMI, I should lose between 20 - 58 pounds.
I'm aiming for 150 again right now. The BMI will tell me I'm still overweight, but at that weight I like the way I look.
I will say, as someone who has struggled with weight my entire life, the idea of weighing 126 is as alien to me as walking on the sun. That's so small and I am so big! It's like watching my cat try to squeeze into the shoebox.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »The idea body type has fluctuated between women who look like Marilyn Monroe and Jennifer Lopez to women who look like Twiggy and Kate Moss. However, models are getting smaller and smaller. The sizes considered for plus sized models keep shrinking. I think they're size 6-12 now..which is ridiculous because something like half of American women wear a size 14.
Marilyn Monroe was actually a very fit, lean woman for a good majority of her short life. She had a couple periods of weight gain, but for the most part she was VERY smaller than most people are today. The woman who had to fit her film costumes for the Smithsonian said her waist was so small that modern mannequins were too big.
Jlo is another shapely woman, but she's much, much lighter than the average American.
Also sizes are not smaller than ever, they're actually bigger than ever. Today's 14 was about an 18 years ago. Even us men have our clothes vanity sized now. Our clothing size has never been larger in the history of this nation.0 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »MsHarryWinston you look fine as hell in that pic.
But your weight doesn't surprise me. You're taller than average, blessed in the chest, and have some serious muscle mass. You look like our stereotypical image of a beautiful amazonian warrior, ala Wonder Woman. So no, your weight doesn't surprise me at all, and you're an obvious outlier for the typical BMI range.
Which most people aren't. Even though it's common to believe they are.
Why thank you dahling, that's the sweetest thing I've heard all day. I do tend to carry my Amazonian mantle with pride. That song "Brickhouse" is practically my theme song.
I just wanted to show an example of how sometimes there really ARE outliers. We tend to trash the whole "special snowflake" mentality on here because for the most part people ARE pretty delusional. I tend to roll my eyes at people too, but I DO try to keep an open mind and remember my own "oddities" because sometimes there really are random traits here or there that ruins the bell curve ya know?
Definitely. I love women of all shapes and sizes, but that "brickhouse" look? Unbeatable.
I appreciate a good outlier. It's just embarrassing when you have somebody who is obviously not working overtime to make people believe they are.
Hell I've never been delusional about my weight, but even I was convinced, because I carried my weight "well" as a big man, that I was an outlier; I just thought I HAD to be a larger frame, "big boned" (what a nonsense term), etc. Nope, no special snowflake here. Medium framed and just had too much damn fat on my body, like many folks.
0 -
I am sure that I've probably used the exact words "don't want to get too skinny," perhaps even on more than one occasion. For me, it stems from the fact that at 145 pounds, my breasts weigh just over nine pounds. To put that in perspective, this means that at this weight, there is a two-point difference between my BMI including when including my breasts and when not (25.3 vs 23.3).
When measuring my breast weight at 172 pounds, which is the highest I have been, the weight was just under ten pounds - less than a pound of difference in a nearly 30-pound loss. My breasts are composed of very little fat, I simply have a higher-than-average amount of breast tissue. Should I shed another 30 pounds, I'd likely lose even less weight there, as there simply isn't much left to lose. Because of the small amount of fat there, my breasts also look drastically different without the extra padding - I prefer the fuller, rounder look that I have when I'm heavier, but understand that that's not possible to maintain if I wish to lose weight. That being said, the thought of losing any remaining volume without a significant reduction in size is a massive turn-off.
At my current 152lbs, I wear a UK 28HH bra. It's frustrating, expensive, and annoying to try and find clothing that fits both my bust and waist (let alone something that fits both my hips and waist, but that's another problem entirely). Were I to drop down to a 24- or even 26- band, I'd have no choice but to seek out custom lingerie, and I'd be dooming myself to even more hair-pulling when trying to do something as simple as find clothing. Whether that is a good argument for anyone else or not, it's a fantastic argument for me.0 -
As promised... here is the best one I have. This is me at around 205lbs back in 2004:
This minus 15 lbs was my lowest weight.0 -
I am sure that I've probably used the exact words "don't want to get too skinny," perhaps even on more than one occasion. For me, it stems from the fact that at 145 pounds, my breasts weigh just over nine pounds. To put that in perspective, this means that at this weight, there is a two-point difference between my BMI including when including my breasts and when not (25.3 vs 23.3).
When measuring my breast weight at 172 pounds, which is the highest I have been, the weight was just under ten pounds - less than a pound of difference in a nearly 30-pound loss. My breasts are composed of very little fat, I simply have a higher-than-average amount of breast tissue. Should I shed another 30 pounds, I'd likely lose even less weight there, as there simply isn't much left to lose. Because of the small amount of fat there, my breasts also look drastically different without the extra padding - I prefer the fuller, rounder look that I have when I'm heavier, but understand that that's not possible to maintain if I wish to lose weight. That being said, the thought of losing any remaining volume without a significant reduction in size is a massive turn-off.
At my current 152lbs, I wear a UK 28HH bra. It's frustrating, expensive, and annoying to try and find clothing that fits both my bust and waist (let alone something that fits both my hips and waist, but that's another problem entirely). Were I to drop down to a 24- or even 26- band, I'd have no choice but to seek out custom lingerie, and I'd be dooming myself to even more hair-pulling when trying to do something as simple as find clothing. Whether that is a good argument for anyone else or not, it's a fantastic argument for me.
Omg have you tried Brastop.com?
They have bra sizes up to 40-something K and brilliant sales! UK company as well. I used to have to pay $200/bra until I found them a few months ago.
Losing weight kind of screwed me now because my boobs also shrink last, but once they catch up I can start shopping again so my bras are fitting a bit oddly at the moment. ( I went from a 38K to a 36L which they don't carry, because my waist shrank but my boobs didn't. But I'm still losing weight so shopping is pointless at the moment. Once they shrink and inch I can get a 36K).
Anyway, shop there, they are AMAZING. Brilliant return policy and fabulous customer service.
0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »As promised... here is the best one I have. This is me at around 205lbs back in 2004:
This minus 15 lbs was my lowest weight.
Sweet! Not sure what the minus fifteen lbs would look like but from what I can see your cheeks didn't look sunken in or anything, in that picture. Definitely slim but nothing alarming I don't think!
0 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »I am sure that I've probably used the exact words "don't want to get too skinny," perhaps even on more than one occasion. For me, it stems from the fact that at 145 pounds, my breasts weigh just over nine pounds. To put that in perspective, this means that at this weight, there is a two-point difference between my BMI including when including my breasts and when not (25.3 vs 23.3).
When measuring my breast weight at 172 pounds, which is the highest I have been, the weight was just under ten pounds - less than a pound of difference in a nearly 30-pound loss. My breasts are composed of very little fat, I simply have a higher-than-average amount of breast tissue. Should I shed another 30 pounds, I'd likely lose even less weight there, as there simply isn't much left to lose. Because of the small amount of fat there, my breasts also look drastically different without the extra padding - I prefer the fuller, rounder look that I have when I'm heavier, but understand that that's not possible to maintain if I wish to lose weight. That being said, the thought of losing any remaining volume without a significant reduction in size is a massive turn-off.
At my current 152lbs, I wear a UK 28HH bra. It's frustrating, expensive, and annoying to try and find clothing that fits both my bust and waist (let alone something that fits both my hips and waist, but that's another problem entirely). Were I to drop down to a 24- or even 26- band, I'd have no choice but to seek out custom lingerie, and I'd be dooming myself to even more hair-pulling when trying to do something as simple as find clothing. Whether that is a good argument for anyone else or not, it's a fantastic argument for me.
Omg have you tried Brastop.com?
They have bra sizes up to 40-something K and brilliant sales! UK company as well. I used to have to pay $200/bra until I found them a few months ago.
Losing weight kind of screwed me now because my boobs also shrink last, but once they catch up I can start shopping again so my bras are fitting a bit oddly at the moment. ( I went from a 38K to a 36L which they don't carry, because my waist shrank but my boobs didn't. But I'm still losing weight so shopping is pointless at the moment. Once they shrink and inch I can get a 36K).
Anyway, shop there, they are AMAZING. Brilliant return policy and fabulous customer service.
I used to shop there and have since moved on because of some... drama. I still recommend them wholeheartedly to other people, but I don't believe that I am welcome there anymore. When I buy UK, I prefer Large Cup Lingerie despite the much smaller selection for several reasons - they've treated me absolutely fabulously being one, however the main draw is the free worldwide shipping (despite the fact that I haven't bought a bra from this country in almost ten years, I'm Canadian as well). I'm actually leaning towards Polish bras at the moment because of the fact that I get much better projection, comfort and cleavage, but it will be a while before my wallet lets me experiment too much there. If you'd like some links to a few places where you might be able to find cheap bras to get you through your transition phase, or swap out the ones that you have that no longer fit, feel free to shoot me a message! I used to be an active lingerie blogger and still spend far, far too much time talking bras and bra fit, so I know a few places that might be worth checking out.
ETA that another thing to look in to might be the Rixie clip. YMMV, but if 95% of the fit problems that you have with your current bras are related to the band being too large, it could really help you out.
0 -
I am not just a number if its the scale, BMI or body fat % Those are guidelines. I have been underweight and it bites with no stamina, sunken cheeks and freezing. My original goal was not my final one you have to go with where your own body feels good has energy and stamina. We are a very judgmental society wanting perfect bodies skinny is out and so is fat but we are then focusing on only one part the external forgetting the person inside which is more important.0
-
I'm 5'3" which puts my range of "healthy" BMI from 105lbs to 135lbs.
I've had my body fat analyzed both with the caliper method by a professional, as well as the electrical impulse method. With the caliper method (which is generally more accepted as reliable) I had a lean body mass of 125lbs. The electrical impulse method shows anywhere from 110-120 of lean body mass. I'm sorry but I don't think it's ever going to be possible for me to be mid range healthy on BMI.
The idea of BMI is built on averages, and it doesn't take into account body frame, or how muscular you are. For a lot of us it's flawed. I have my weight loss goal set at 170lbs. At that weight I'll re-evaluate how much more I'm going to lose but I can assure you I'll never be out of the overweight range on my BMI. My actual goal is about 20% body fat. That's a real attainable goal. But 20% body fat doesn't make a pretty ticker for every one to look at so I'll stick to pounds, and adjust my goal weight accordingly.
I grew up thinking I was fat as a teen because I didn't weigh 115lbs I weighed a 140lbs. BMI isn't the end all and be all, for healthy weight...it's merely a guide.0 -
I'm 5'3" which puts my range of "healthy" BMI from 105lbs to 135lbs.
I've had my body fat analyzed both with the caliper method by a professional, as well as the electrical impulse method. With the caliper method (which is generally more accepted as reliable) I had a lean body mass of 125lbs. The electrical impulse method shows anywhere from 110-120 of lean body mass. I'm sorry but I don't think it's ever going to be possible for me to be mid range healthy on BMI.
The idea of BMI is built on averages, and it doesn't take into account body frame, or how muscular you are. For a lot of us it's flawed. I have my weight loss goal set at 170lbs. At that weight I'll re-evaluate how much more I'm going to lose but I can assure you I'll never be out of the overweight range on my BMI. My actual goal is about 20% body fat. That's a real attainable goal. But 20% body fat doesn't make a pretty ticker for every one to look at so I'll stick to pounds, and adjust my goal weight accordingly.
I grew up thinking I was fat as a teen because I didn't weigh 115lbs I weighed a 140lbs. BMI isn't the end all and be all, for healthy weight...it's merely a guide.
Why can't you aim to be in the healthy BMI range if you have 125 lbs of lean body mass right now? That's 125 lbs out of how many? Just having 125 lbs of lean body mass doesn't really tell me that much. It could be out of 1000, out of 200 or anything in between. 170 pounds and 5'3" sounds like too much to me for most women. You will lose some of that lean body mass as you lose weight. I doubt that at 170 pounds you will have 20% body fat.
0 -
I'm 5'3" which puts my range of "healthy" BMI from 105lbs to 135lbs.
I've had my body fat analyzed both with the caliper method by a professional, as well as the electrical impulse method. With the caliper method (which is generally more accepted as reliable) I had a lean body mass of 125lbs. The electrical impulse method shows anywhere from 110-120 of lean body mass. I'm sorry but I don't think it's ever going to be possible for me to be mid range healthy on BMI.
The idea of BMI is built on averages, and it doesn't take into account body frame, or how muscular you are. For a lot of us it's flawed. I have my weight loss goal set at 170lbs. At that weight I'll re-evaluate how much more I'm going to lose but I can assure you I'll never be out of the overweight range on my BMI. My actual goal is about 20% body fat. That's a real attainable goal. But 20% body fat doesn't make a pretty ticker for every one to look at so I'll stick to pounds, and adjust my goal weight accordingly.
I grew up thinking I was fat as a teen because I didn't weigh 115lbs I weighed a 140lbs. BMI isn't the end all and be all, for healthy weight...it's merely a guide.
As you lose weight you will lose muscle mass. Depending on how much weight you have to lose you may easily hit within your bmi.0 -
The 125 pounds of lean body mass was a measure when I had 19% body fat and weight 160lbs...I'm currently 189lbs.0
-
Most people guess me 20-30lbs lighter than I am. I've a friend who is a dietitian and my elbow bone (which they use to measure body frame) is off the scale for a woman. My wrist measurement (that has no fat on it) is 6.5 inches. I've a 34 DDD bust...it all adds up to a really funky body shape.0
-
The 125 pounds of lean body mass was a measure when I had 19% body fat and weight 160lbs...I'm currently 189lbs.
That math isn't right. If you were 19%at 160# it would be 129.6#LBM. 22%body fat would put you closer, 124.8#LBM. Still quite healthy while being over in the BMI department at that time.
You have gained 29#. In that time were you lifting in a way that would increase your LBM? If you have you will continue to be healthy in the higher bmi, but if you have not you will find that while losing your weight you will also lose muscle bringing your healthy weight closer to normal bmi.0 -
That said, I picked a goal of 130 which isn't a bad weight for 5'3.5" but it's higher than I might choose if I was basing it on looks alone. I have a GI disease that, if it flares, can cause rapid weight loss. It's happened once to me and it was scary. I do want some fat reserves for that, being underweight is not something I want to risk.
Unintentional weight loss is terrifying. With my condition, I lost 35lb before we got it under control, and I really struggled to maintain that weight. The GI said I could lose another 10, to see if it made it easier to maintain. It did, but then I accidentally lost another 10lb two months later. Part of me wants to ease my weight down another few pounds - and part of me looks at the scale and says "I have 4 more screw-ups before a feeding tube".0 -
Sorry you're right my lean body mass was even higher, at that time I was very active, doing an insane amount of HITT training and weight training. I've since been ill for several years and my scale is showing the lower 110-120 LBM which I know may not be totally accurate. My target weight at 170lbs I know is still high. But I figured until I got closer to my ultimate weight and even more importantly, my ultimate fitness level, there was little point putting an arbitrary goal of 160 or 150lbs.
At 170lbs I fit into all my typical clothes (size 10-12) which even at 140lbs I wear that same size due to my body frame. It gets me close to the target, then I can just work on the fine details of my body recomp.
(edited for grammar)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions