Since thick is in, should I stay at 145 on my 5'2 frame
Replies
-
angellll12 wrote: »Not everything revolves around a man, not everything a girl does is for a man. Maybe she just likes that style, if shes confident, feels sexy, is happy how can you hate on that? Maybe that's how she feels she looks best, not everyone is into that conservative look, you think girls who dresses conservative can't be 'trashy'? Can't really judge a book by its cover because you'll be surprised.
I admire girls like that, who walk around showing their assets( purposely ) not giving a *kitten* what others think. Girls in general who have that attitude, fat, skinny, curvy, who are really confident in their body I admire.
I was catching up on this thread and I just *kitten* LOST IT RIGHT HERE. If this is a trait you admire then screw what is 'IN' and do what YOU want for YOUR body. Stop actively seeking validation from the vast strangers of MFP and do what YOU think is best for your body. Only you actually know what that is. Become like the very women you admire.
Why are people so preoccupied with looks anyway? I am more proud of the health I have gained and what my body can DO rather than what it looks like. Looks are a factor in attraction but I do not need a mate to feel validated or loved. I get that from the squat rack.
0 -
I think 125 looks curvy on a 5'2 gal....so my opinion is you've got 20 more to go!0
-
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Eerg, I'm going to sound like a broken record. People can misuse frame size, sure. But, it's a very real thing. People do have different sized frames. I am 5'2", my rib cage under bust is 25 inches, my waist 23 inches. I have small shoulders. I have a smaller frame then another person my height. And that is why we shouldn't all be at the same place on the BMI chart (among other reasons of course, such as muscle mass, etc). But, that is why I am at a low weight, with lowish body fat, and I don't look underweight and I look healthy and fit. And I eat 1900 plus calories a day. 1900 is the amount I eat at a lower activity level, it goes up higher when I am very active. But, another person my height would look emaciated at my weight.
It is a real thing - but the BMI has a range, and a pretty big one at that, and in the main, it takes frame into context. You would be at the low end and I would be at the high end, even if we had the same BF% and a similar proportionate muscle mass. I have high muscle mass so am above it even at healthy BF% - but the fact that I am above it is not due to frame, even though mine is large.0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »If you are healthy and satisfied with how you look, then go for it.
I couldn't agree more. It's about how you feel. Where do you feel comfortable? It's not all about the number!0 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Eerg, I'm going to sound like a broken record. People can misuse frame size, sure. But, it's a very real thing. People do have different sized frames. I am 5'2", my rib cage under bust is 25 inches, my waist 23 inches. I have small shoulders. I have a smaller frame then another person my height. And that is why we shouldn't all be at the same place on the BMI chart (among other reasons of course, such as muscle mass, etc). But, that is why I am at a low weight, with lowish body fat, and I don't look underweight and I look healthy and fit. And I eat 1900 plus calories a day. 1900 is the amount I eat at a lower activity level, it goes up higher when I am very active. But, another person my height would look emaciated at my weight.
It is a real thing - but the BMI has a range, and a pretty big one at that, and in the main, it takes frame into context. You would be at the low end and I would be at the high end, even if we had the same BF% and a similar proportionate muscle mass. I have high muscle mass so am above it even at healthy BF% - but the fact that I am above it is not due to frame, even though mine is large.
Yeah, I agree and understand. That's true. Frame size is just one factor. Muscle mass is also an important factor as well.
0 -
NotJunkMail wrote: »I think 125 looks curvy on a 5'2 gal....so my opinion is you've got 20 more to go!
Who invited you?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
NotJunkMail wrote: »I think 125 looks curvy on a 5'2 gal....so my opinion is you've got 20 more to go!
What a silly blanket statement made without any context whatsoever. Losing 20lbs would put someone currently 125lb at the low end of the healthy range - just above underweight. Nice suggestion, especially without knowing the person's frame or muscle mass. The 105lb could be fine - but I bet 125lb would also look good on that same person (and is right in the middle of the range). In fact, 105lb could be underweight for some.
0 -
Yes "thick" is a word to describe a women's figure. She is not skinny, nor fat and has meat in all the right places (thighs, hips, breast and booty).....basically a slang term you can find in the urban dictionary.
Huh. I'd call that "voluptuous" or "curvy" or any one of a number of other complementary words. "Thick" doesn't sound....nice. Or, even really accurate, because it usually implies "thick in the middle" to me, and most of the women mentioned in this thread have slimmer waists. But, now I know new slang. Look at me, being all rad!
Rad? The 80's called, they want their slang back.0 -
Who cares what's in? Do what you like! If you're healthy and happy at 145, why not stay there?
0 -
That's way too many butts.mamapeach910 wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »Hate to be pedantic, but re: that silly woman's comment that women with "over-sexualized bodies" tend to have low IQs... that's actually, like, the opposite of the truth. Hourglass and pear shape in women has been shown to be correlated with many positive health outcomes, including lifespan, fertility, and HIGHER AVERAGE IQ. Physical attractiveness is a product of an appearance of health/fertility/developmental fitness, and developmental fitness influences the development of the brain, which is, after all, just another body part.
Also I find her comments to be extremely sex-negative, victim-blamey, and cretinous.
I don't have a big butt, so I have no dog in this fight, but I'm dropping this link here anyway:
University Herald: Women with big butts are smarter and resistant to chronic illnesses
So the IQ came with my hoohas? SWEET. j/k
Too funny about resistant to chronic illness. I have 4 of them.
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »levitateme wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »levitateme wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »So what if her shirt's half undone, her boobs whatever, her butt whatever? Maybe she's comfortable, maybe she likes feeling however she feels. Maybe, she's a mom who's a bit too warm, like the person who posted minutes before you. Maybe she's the opposite of insecure. Maybe she's dressing that way entirely for herself because she enjoys living in her body.
Nope. Don't buy it..
I've known women like that who are very comfortable with their bodies not insecure in the way you are trying to claim.
I find it funny that most of the time these women are deemed trashy, attention seeking or are supposedly super insecure by those who are very insecure themselves.
Not saying that all women who dress a certain way are above the tearing down of other women, but it's pretty lame to make such judgmental generalizations.
It is lame. It's really gross to see women who are so misogynistic. If I see a girl wearing a bikini top and short shorts at the supermarket, I assume she is either on her way from or to the beach, not that she is desperate for attention.
what do you think your husband would be thinking...
My fiance is attracted to women, so if he saw an attractive woman he would probably think she's attractive. I can't read his thoughts - don't really care to - and he isn't going to dump me because he saw some chick in a bathing suit.
You are really insecure and assume that everyone is as insecure as you.
Ding ding ding!
Hey, I get it though. I have moments of insecurity, too. If I'm with a guy and he's checking out another girl, sometimes I might get that inner cringe. It happens - no one is perfect.
But, it's my responsibility to recognize where that is coming from and not project it onto an innocent woman and her wardrobe - or flip out at my man for being a human being.
I think this is a great response, really nicely articulates an attitude worth striving for, if people are unsettled by the confidence or physicality of other women. It does presuppose an acceptance of the ideas amusedmonkey and others expressed, about being okay with sexuality, and taking for granted every person's freedom and right to enjoy it.
i think it can be hard - many have grown up in sex-negative cultures, and/or with certain beliefs about men & women & relationships. it's worth examining those attitudes.
not entirely related to misogyny, but i did have to get rid of some stuff left over from catholic school and coming of age in the 90s, when fearmongering around sex was everywhere (because of the aids crisis). slight diversion, but just saying, this was on the radio when i was a kid -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgYBYD-8gM
I remember that song! And yes, completely this. I grew up in a very conservative family in a very conservative section of the Bible belt. It can be difficult to reevaluate the way you were raised. Worth it though.
You know, we often don't agree in other threads but I'm happy to find us on the same side of this discussion. It's kinda nice.
Don't we? Ah well, glad we did here
I'm surprised this thread is still kicking! I've been off, sorry
0 -
NotJunkMail wrote: »I think 125 looks curvy on a 5'2 gal....so my opinion is you've got 20 more to go!
What a silly blanket statement made without any context whatsoever. Losing 20lbs would put someone currently 125lb at the low end of the healthy range - just above underweight. Nice suggestion, especially without knowing the person's frame or muscle mass. The 105lb could be fine - but I bet 125lb would also look good on that same person (and is right in the middle of the range). In fact, 105lb could be underweight for some.
I believe he meant since she's at 145, she should lose 20lbs since 125 is his opinion of curvy. Or am I going crazy. Either way, I don't agree with his opinion.0 -
NotJunkMail wrote: »I think 125 looks curvy on a 5'2 gal....so my opinion is you've got 20 more to go!
What a silly blanket statement made without any context whatsoever. Losing 20lbs would put someone currently 125lb at the low end of the healthy range - just above underweight. Nice suggestion, especially without knowing the person's frame or muscle mass. The 105lb could be fine - but I bet 125lb would also look good on that same person (and is right in the middle of the range). In fact, 105lb could be underweight for some.
I believe he meant since she's at 145, she should lose 20lbs since 125 is his opinion of curvy. Or am I going crazy. Either way, I don't agree with his opinion.
Oh, my derp. I probably mis-read that (I was wondering where he got the numbers from). But yep - still blanket statement.
0 -
angellll12 wrote: »Since I've lost weight, I also lost weight in my boobs I went from a C cup to a B cup, a big B cup though. I still want curves, and an *kitten*. i feel like if I lose anymore weight I lose my boobs, I'm not into that skinny skinny look. What do you think about 145 pounds on a 5'2 frame? Maybe ten more pounds? I'm scared to lose my butt and boobs.
Plus I'm having a hard time losing anymore weight
0 -
juliah1234 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »If you are healthy and satisfied with how you look, then go for it.
I couldn't agree more. It's about how you feel. Where do you feel comfortable? It's not all about the number!
I agree! How do you feel in your own skin? Are you healthy? If both are positive answers, then you are good!0 -
NotJunkMail wrote: »I think 125 looks curvy on a 5'2 gal....so my opinion is you've got 20 more to go!
Wut? GTFO.0 -
NotJunkMail wrote: »I think 125 looks curvy on a 5'2 gal....so my opinion is you've got 20 more to go!
No0 -
.0
-
angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
At least my 38A's won't be down to my knees in 20 years. I'll take that over being "womanly" anyday.
0 -
angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
Yes, because us women with naturally small breasts or wiry frames are not womanly. We are skim woman; 2% woman only. Because femininity is evidently measured in cup sizes.
I get you want to retain a full figure and your curves and feel good about your body, but your asserting your right to do so should not rely on throwing other women under the bus. Talk about internalized misogyny and competitiveness! You do realize that a skinny woman being sexy does not revoke your right to also be sexy, right? There isn't a quota of sexiness, that different body types need to fight each other for the rights to.
Like... 80% of this thread is women trying to tell other women they are "doing it wrong". Please stop throwing shade all around.
0 -
lydiakitten wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
Yes, because us women with naturally small breasts or wiry frames are not womanly. We are skim woman; 2% woman only. Because femininity is evidently measured in cup sizes.
I get you want to retain a full figure and your curves and feel good about your body, but your asserting your right to do so should not rely on throwing other women under the bus. Talk about internalized misogyny and competitiveness! You do realize that a skinny woman being sexy does not revoke your right to also be sexy, right? There isn't a quota of sexiness, and different body types need to fight each other for the title.
Like... 80% of this thread is women trying to tell other women they are "doing it wrong". Please stop throwing shade all around.
This. The amount of derp and mysognistic generalizations about women and their body types on this thread is ridiculous. The size of your boobs or butt does not affect your status as a 'womanly' woman. The size of either has no bearing on a woman's IQ or attitude to life. Stop with the body shaming, ffs0 -
TitaniaEcks wrote: »TitaniaEcks wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »
I agree with Angel. Your bmi is currently 26.5 - that is considered 'overweight' -
What magical health transformation happens between 24.9 and 26.5?
Well clearly you become diabetic and your heart starts to give up the minute you hit a 25 bmi. At 26.5 you might as well just give up and die.
Obviously.
Look, you're making a slippery slope argument. If you can say, "Well, 26.5 is fine because it's only one and a half BMI points from 24.9," then you can keep going and say, "Well, 28 is fine because it's one and a half from 26.5," and so on. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And doctors decided it's 25. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of it? 24 is better than 25 and 23 is better than 24... There's a peak health BMI - I think it was 22 last I checked? - and the farther you get from it, the worse off you are.
...I'm pretty sure you're the one with the slipper slope argument here by suggesting that because someone is fine at one point they're going to be fine at a higher point/will allow themselves to become heavier with no regard to their health.
If the best you've got is well you should want to be closer yi this point because reasons/but what if you get bigger!' without actually offering any risks that are more prevalant at 26 or 26.5 BMI then 24.9...I simply have nothing for you except "That's nice."
The health risks do increase as you get further from the ideal BMI. It's shaped like a bell curve. You have a slightly higher chance of heart disease at 26.5 than at 25, for example, and slightly higher at 28 than at 26.5. How can I make this clearer?
How much higher? An actual amount worthy of consideration or something that pales when put against factors like activity, nutrition, and genetic background and is probably not worth striving for because the actual increase in risk is near nothing? What is the actual risk, where is the bell curve, where is your proof that the difference between 24.9 and 26.5 is anything more than hand wavey "Well it just is!'
Show me that those two BMI points matter without a slippery slope argument (implying that being comfortable at one point means someone will be comfortable higher) in a clear and measurable way.
0 -
Listen, your body type is what it is and you can't really change that naturally. If you feel happy and healthy the way you are now then stay at 145lbs. If you know you are not healthy yet or are not happy then keep going even if it means losing your curves. I'm also 5'2" but I'm a natural hourglass so even at my all time low weight as an adult of 115 lbs and 20% body fat I was still wearing F+ cup sizes boobs wise(36,24,37). It doesn't sound like that's the case for you. Ultimately, I think you can be healthy at our height at 145 so if you can love yourself as is you're good.0
-
lydiakitten wrote: »angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
Yes, because us women with naturally small breasts or wiry frames are not womanly. We are skim woman; 2% woman only. Because femininity is evidently measured in cup sizes.
That was good. Good one there.
So...I don't know if the OP responded in the 25 pages of replies....your body changes shape when you lose weight, sometimes in ways you love and sometimes not. Finding a balance you like - is about finding a balance YOU like and feel good about.
That being said, a good bra, clothes that work with you - not against you and a good tailor? Not to be underestimated.
If you're not sure what you feel right now, there is no harm in going to Nordstrom or wherever and getting professionally fitted (you're supposed to go every 6 months anyhow) and then trying on a bunch of clothes to see if you want to work on changing your body...or just your clothes.
0 -
MissKriss3 wrote: »
angellll12 wrote: »MissKriss3 wrote: »I'm extremely confident weighing 174# at 5'1". Thanks to strength training. #thickchick
Do you have pictures? I'd like to see how that looks .
I think you look awesome!0 -
angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
At least my 38A's won't be down to my knees in 20 years. I'll take that over being "womanly" anyday.
It's unlikely anyone around a normal weight will have boobs that will be down by their knees at any point. So if that is literally the only thing making you happy about your small chest I'm kinda sad for you.
Perhaps you should learn to reply to what you perceive as an insult without insulting others in return.0 -
angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
At least my 38A's won't be down to my knees in 20 years. I'll take that over being "womanly" anyday.
It's unlikely anyone around a normal weight will have boobs that will be down by their knees at any point. So if that is literally the only thing making you happy about your small chest I'm kinda sad for you.
Perhaps you should learn to reply to what you perceive as an insult without insulting others in return.
This thread just keeps delivering.
Women with small bewbs insulting women with large bewbs. Women with 'curves' insulting those with less bewbs/butt. It's ridiculous. I just wish that people could express a preference without putting other shapes/body types down. We all have preferences, and that's absolutely fine and as it should be, but I just cannot understand why people need to express them in such a way as to demean others. I like a slightly muscular 'curvy' look - does than mean that a slender look is not attractive or womanly? Absolutely not. Also, having one person insult your body type does not make it ok to insult that persons body type, because you know what? You are not only insulting that person, you are also insulting a good amout of others with the same body type.
ETA: that was agreeing with you Daiako and just adding my 2c to what you posted (just realized it may look like I was aiming it at you - which was not the case at all): 0 -
angellll12 wrote: »I rather have some fat then be skinny with small breast, it's not womanly since we're being honest. I don't mind a little stomach, I'll probably go down to 130 and stop there and just workout to maintain and be healthy, I can look hot still without looking like I try so hard at the gym.
At least my 38A's won't be down to my knees in 20 years. I'll take that over being "womanly" anyday.
It's unlikely anyone around a normal weight will have boobs that will be down by their knees at any point. So if that is literally the only thing making you happy about your small chest I'm kinda sad for you.
Perhaps you should learn to reply to what you perceive as an insult without insulting others in return.
This thread just keeps delivering.
Women with small bewbs insulting women with large bewbs. Women with 'curves' insulting those with less bewbs/butt. It's ridiculous. I just wish that people could express a preference without putting other shapes/body types down. We all have preferences, and that's absolutely fine and as it should be, but I just cannot understand why people need to express them in such a way as to demean others. I like a slightly muscular 'curvy' look - does than mean that a slender look is not attractive or womanly? Absolutely not. Also, having one person insult your body type does not make it ok to insult that persons body type, because you know what? You are not only insulting that person, you are also insulting a good amout of others with the same body type.
Amen.0 -
Agree, that was disappointing.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