"I want to lose weight, but I don't want to get too skinny!"
Replies
-
I want to lose weight and be 'too skinny' not death rattle thin, gonna pass out if I miss that one bite of cracker thin. But skinny.0
-
I'm with many others on this: my first goal is at the high end of the normal weight BMI range. That's when I'll evaluate how I look and what's my next goal. I have a large chest (from past experience, I'm guessing that won't be the place I lose a lot of weight) and prominent hip bones, so being on the low end of the normal weight range might not look all that good. But then again, a lot of that depends on how much fat and how much muscle there is.0
-
When I graduated from high school, I weighed 108 pounds @ 5'3" (BMI of 19.1). I looked like a toothpick with 2 olives stuck to the top (32DD). I gained in college and ended up in some strength training classes to build more leg muscles, I was a dancer and wanted explosive leaps. I ended up looking really great @ 136# (BMI 24.1). I quit dancing in a troupe, started teaching high school, had 3 kids, and got heavy. My top weight was 181# (BMI 32.2). My goal is 145 (7 pounds to go!) I can already see my muscles showing all over. I don't want to go much lower than that and that's not even in the healthy range for my height. Looking at my pictures from high school, I just don't like how I look. I'm skinny, but I'm not toned.0
-
I've seen a couple of women in the gym who are a bit too skinny in my opinion. I'm not saying they are anorexic skinny. But I personally like curves on a woman, myself included. But I do understand partially where you're coming from. When I was in the best shape of my life...quite a few of my friends told me I was too skinny. I think this was a tad bit of jealousy on their part because there was no way I was too skinny...I was 142 pounds at 5 8 with 15 % bodyfat. I was lean but I was not too skinny. I never, never want to look like the runway models out there! Some woman may want that look but not me. Just my two cents:)
0 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
0 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.-4 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
To each their own. It's thin enough for me. And thin enough for my doctor to tell me I shouldn't lose anymore. I think I'll listen to him over you, but thanks.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »holly55555 wrote: »Well for me, "too skinny" means getting to a body fat percentage that is very difficult for me to maintain. I want to be able to eat like a normal and healthy person - and be allowed cheat meals! I don't want to kill myself getting to a super thin body and then never get to enjoy foods I love just to stay there. My goal is to be fit and still eat what I want (in moderation).
Why would you have to sacrifice foods you love and be unable eat like a normal (whatever that means), healthy person even if you did get "super thin"?
I'm already thin, just trying to lower BF%. To get a super low BF, you don't really get to cheat or you have to workout crazy amounts. My cousin is a fitness model and that is what she does to stay in such awesome shape, but I just don't have any desire to be at that level. That's where I draw my line of "too thin" or in her case "too in shape", hahaha. My goal is 18%, currently at 25% 0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So while most overweight people realize they are too heavy and want to lose weight, most don't want to become a runway model who looks emaciated. That's all they are saying.
Good thing the vast, overwhelming majority of once heavy people will never even taste "runway model emaciated".
Which does make it odd that so many fat people run around claiming to be terrified of getting "too skinny".
Well. Most normal weight people will never be above 300 lbs. Does it make it completely irrational to be terrified of this possibility and take measures to avoid it?
0 -
I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands.
But see this is where stuff like this is baffling as hell to me.
Yes we all vary, to a degree, but your doctor telling you to not lose more weight doesn't make sense to me.
I'm a 5' 10" male, size 12 men's shoe, with a medium build and a decent amount of visible muscle mass. At my smallest I was in the higher end of your current goal range, and still had plenty of fat left to lose. In order to get ultra lean, 10% or less, I'm likely going to have to drop down into the 160s or even 150s. And that's again lean with a decent amount of muscle, which will leave me pretty ripped, but not too skinny.
Unless you're a radical outlier with a far above average amount of muscle, it's amazing to me that your doctor would advise you not to lose more weight when you're in the range many taller men than you would rest at when at a normal, healthy weight. Has your doc down thorough body fat and lean mass percentage tests on you?
I'm not making any commentary on where you feel you look best, but rather on the idea that a doctor would actually advise you that being above 170 lbs is your ideal range, to the point of telling you to NOT go lower. What does he/she think is going to happen if you do?0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So while most overweight people realize they are too heavy and want to lose weight, most don't want to become a runway model who looks emaciated. That's all they are saying.
Good thing the vast, overwhelming majority of once heavy people will never even taste "runway model emaciated".
Which does make it odd that so many fat people run around claiming to be terrified of getting "too skinny".
Well. Most normal weight people will never be above 300 lbs. Does it make it completely irrational to be terrified of this possibility and take measures to avoid it?
How many normal weight people have you met, or talked to, who have an active fear of reaching 300 or more pounds?
So far, for me, it's 0. However I've lost count of the many people, from obese to just moderately overweight, who've expressed some fear, real or put upon, that they sooooo don't want to get too skinny.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So while most overweight people realize they are too heavy and want to lose weight, most don't want to become a runway model who looks emaciated. That's all they are saying.
Good thing the vast, overwhelming majority of once heavy people will never even taste "runway model emaciated".
Which does make it odd that so many fat people run around claiming to be terrified of getting "too skinny".
Well. Most normal weight people will never be above 300 lbs. Does it make it completely irrational to be terrified of this possibility and take measures to avoid it?
How many normal weight people have you met, or talked to, who have an active fear of reaching 300 or more pounds?
So far, for me, it's 0. However I've lost count of the many people, from obese to just moderately overweight, who've expressed some fear, real or put upon, that they sooooo don't want to get too skinny.
I think there are just many more people in the overweight range that it would be a lot less acceptable to express those feelings out loud. I know the things I've heard when people have emphatically stated they do not want to get fat and listed reasons - it ain't pretty.
Late edit: I mean, when people state reasons why they want to lose weight, to me it seems they're also stating why they do not want to become or remain fat. It's probably just done in a much more routine and perhaps respectful manner that you may not even realize it's happening?0 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.0 -
DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands.
But see this is where stuff like this is baffling as hell to me.
Yes we all vary, to a degree, but your doctor telling you to not lose more weight doesn't make sense to me.
I'm a 5' 10" male, size 12 men's shoe, with a medium build and a decent amount of visible muscle mass. At my smallest I was in the higher end of your current goal range, and still had plenty of fat left to lose. In order to get ultra lean, 10% or less, I'm likely going to have to drop down into the 160s or even 150s. And that's again lean with a decent amount of muscle, which will leave me pretty ripped, but not too skinny.
Unless you're a radical outlier with a far above average amount of muscle, it's amazing to me that your doctor would advise you not to lose more weight when you're in the range many taller men than you would rest at when at a normal, healthy weight. Has your doc down thorough body fat and lean mass percentage tests on you?
I'm not making any commentary on where you feel you look best, but rather on the idea that a doctor would actually advise you that being above 170 lbs is your ideal range, to the point of telling you to NOT go lower. What does he/she think is going to happen if you do?
If a woman is an American size 10/12 in pants, my guess is that their body fat percentage is not in a good range. The extra weight is likely fat, not muscle.0 -
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
0 -
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
How old are you? When I was a teenager, I was a size 6 at 5'4" and probably around 105 pounds due to my extremely wide hips. Now at age 40 at almost the same weight, I'm a size 2. Sizes have changed dramatically over the years. My body isn't any more muscular than it was when I was a teenager. It's probably less muscular due to aging causing more fat. I'm guessing that size 2 could even have been a size 8 over 20 years ago. It's at least a 6 though.0 -
I'm 41 - 5'4" & 171lbs. Size US10/12.
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
How old are you? When I was a teenager, I was a size 6 at 5'4" and probably around 105 pounds due to my extremely wide hips. Now at age 40 at almost the same weight, I'm a size 2. Sizes have changed dramatically over the years. My body isn't any more muscular than it was when I was a teenager. It's probably less muscular due to aging causing more fat. I'm guessing that size 2 could even have been a size 8 over 20 years ago. It's at least a 6 though.
When I was 22, I was a brickhouse and wore a US8. I've had two kids and two c-sections since then, so I don't think the midsection is really going to quite recover. I'd be perfectly happy to drop 25lbs and fit easily and comfortably into US6/8 for the rest of my life.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm 41 - 5'4" & 171lbs. Size US10/12.
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
How old are you? When I was a teenager, I was a size 6 at 5'4" and probably around 105 pounds due to my extremely wide hips. Now at age 40 at almost the same weight, I'm a size 2. Sizes have changed dramatically over the years. My body isn't any more muscular than it was when I was a teenager. It's probably less muscular due to aging causing more fat. I'm guessing that size 2 could even have been a size 8 over 20 years ago. It's at least a 6 though.
When I was 22, I was a brickhouse and wore a US8. I've had two kids and two c-sections since then, so I don't think the midsection is really going to quite recover. I'd be perfectly happy to drop 25lbs and fit easily and comfortably into US6/8 for the rest of my life.
aaah, you're around my age then. that size 8 is probably a size 2 or 4 in today's sizes.0 -
oh, you're also my height. I was a size 12/14 when I was only 140 pounds. I have wide hips and also probably gained a lot of weight there. I was 30 pounds lighter than you and wore a larger size. I'm guessing you could get down to a size 2 or at least a 4 in today's sizes.0
-
We'll see!oh, you're also my height. I was a size 12/14 when I was only 140 pounds. I have wide hips and also probably gained a lot of weight there. I was 30 pounds lighter than you and wore a larger size. I'm guessing you could get down to a size 2 or at least a 4 in today's sizes.
0 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »My point is though that in that pic I'm 5'7 and about 160-165 lbs puting me in the "overweight" category of BMI. Does that look overweight to you? At that time you could also see 4-pack definition. So when I personally say I want to get down to 160 because I don't want too look too skinny, sure it sounds odd when for my hight "normal" is 130-150. But seriously? Taking another 30 pounds off of me in that pic? I'm I would NOT look healthy, I would in fact look too skinny.
So while people may pick a weight in the "overweight" category it doesn't always really mean they are "overweight", you know?
Im 5'8 and want to be 160...u look great in this pic and any more weight loss would definitely make u look too skinny.0 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
To each their own. It's thin enough for me. And thin enough for my doctor to tell me I shouldn't lose anymore. I think I'll listen to him over you, but thanks.
it is if you are 6'3 and small framed like the girls in my family.
0 -
170-175 is the ideal range for 5'8"?I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
I'm sorry but that's just out of the healthy weight range. 5 to 10 lbs over.
(she said it's above her ideal range)
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So while most overweight people realize they are too heavy and want to lose weight, most don't want to become a runway model who looks emaciated. That's all they are saying.
Good thing the vast, overwhelming majority of once heavy people will never even taste "runway model emaciated".
Which does make it odd that so many fat people run around claiming to be terrified of getting "too skinny".
Well. Most normal weight people will never be above 300 lbs. Does it make it completely irrational to be terrified of this possibility and take measures to avoid it?
How many normal weight people have you met, or talked to, who have an active fear of reaching 300 or more pounds?
So far, for me, it's 0. However I've lost count of the many people, from obese to just moderately overweight, who've expressed some fear, real or put upon, that they sooooo don't want to get too skinny.
I have a fear of being morbidly obese. I've been obese before, I'm 5'1 and my highest weight was 160. If I could get to 160, what was stopping me from getting to 200? 250? 300? If I had stayed on the path that I was on, I could have very easily gone up. It wouldn't have happened overnight, but it could have happened.
And besides you never know what can happen. I know a girl who went from I'm guessing a size 2/4 to I would say she's about 14/16 now. She got married, had 2 kids, and wasn't able to be as active as she used to be (she was a ballet dancer, so she was always moving). My point is, stuff happens. And it is entirely valid to have a fear/concern about getting heavy.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
170-175 is the ideal range for 5'8"?I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
I'm sorry but that's just out of the healthy weight range. 5 to 10 lbs over.
You're right ..I'm 169 at 5'8 and out of the healthy weight range ..but I wear a UK 10/12 (US 6/8) and have 25.5% bodyfat and I simply don't want to go much slimmer...although I'm going to hit 165 slowly just to see
I know I don't have to lecture you on the use of the BMI population measure in an individual basis so I'll just point out that argument / ongoing thread here0 -
When I was very thin, I did have a fear of eventually becoming morbidly obese - and it was because I knew, based on my insane eating habits, that it could happen (and did, for a few years).
I knew that I could "just not eat," but once I put something into my mouth...I couldn't stop.
I was quite correct in my assessment (or eventually, I was correct about it; I kept my weight quite low for decades).
I realized even at the time that I really had to figure out how to just eat normally for maintenance, but I couldn't see a way to do that. It has taken me many years to get where I am now, which is: eating at a deficit that isn't making me faint, and not compensating later by binging.
I think most of us probably know at least one person (I know more than one) who was quite thin, then suddenly ballooned. And all around us, at least in the U.S., the UK and a number of other countries, see very, very overweight people all over the place. I don't think it's irrational at all to fear severe obesity, when we see it all around us, all the time. We know we're not special snowflakes who will somehow be immune to it no matter what happens.0 -
I'm not reading through this entire thread. But let's be honest here. The majority of women who say that are women who have spent a great deal of energy trying to convince themselves and others that true beauty lies in curves. And that society and the media has misconstrued our perception of beauty so much that we desire the completely unnatural and unattainable lean physique of Ana's. Hence the relentless meme's about "real women" have curves et al.
It's a little difficult to pivot out of such brainwashing and admit to themselves that "lean" is not what they think it means. And let's face it, if they do set a lower yet still healthy goal, their lady friends with consider it a personal attack and a declaration of war against them. In a woman's world, any attempt to better yourself is automatically a back handed insult against other women. In a woman's world, the quickest way to alienate yourself from all of your friends is to get fit. Truth.
And yes, we all have a different definition of skinny. I've been called too skinny AND too muscular in the same sentence. Lol... Wut?!?
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