Low TDEE
Replies
-
What's the problem here? This question is rather simple.
-
A safe range to lose weight is 10-20% less than your TDEE. <--- Do the math, using one of the TDEE targets referenced above, and this is your answer. Remember that your TDEE can change over time, particularly with a change in weight and/or activity level.
The problem is that the OP is 2lbs above being underweight. That is random water weight change territory.
So is there a point where "cutting calories" is not the best solution for achieving the look you want to achieve?
Some of us believe that the OP is already there and should look at other options as opposed to cutting 10+% off of her TDEE.
Up to and including doing nothing in regards to changing her weight if her doctor is not on-board.
According to who?
I don't think 110 lbs. is two lbs. from being underweight for her height and frame. A woman of that stature & weight could still have roughly 25-30% bodyfat.
Also, family doctor's know very little when it comes to composing a rational diet; medical school simply doesn't cover these sort of nutrition topics in detail.0 -
According to who?
I don't think 110 lbs. is two lbs. from being underweight for her height and frame. A woman of that stature & weight could still have roughly 25-30% bodyfat.
Also, family doctor's know very little when it comes to composing a rational diet and workout regimen; medical school simply doesn't cover these topics in detail.
2lbs to underweight: simple BMI
oh my god! Really? BMI?
Yup: BMI: occasionally known to be accurate in spite of all the times it has proven to be inaccurate for outliers!
It is called "general rule of thumb" since I don't have the OP in front of me to inspect and decide if BMI is relevant on not in her specific case.
The doctor reference is because she has a heart condition and is unsure about exercise.
Oh, I forgot: this is the thread where we're supposed to support the OP's stated goals without re-examining them!
Sorry!0 -
According to who?
I don't think 110 lbs. is two lbs. from being underweight for her height and frame. A woman of that stature & weight could still have roughly 25-30% bodyfat.
Also, family doctor's know very little when it comes to composing a rational diet and workout regimen; medical school simply doesn't cover these topics in detail.
2lbs to underweight: simple BMI
oh my god! Really? BMI?
Yup: BMI: occasionally known to be accurate in spite of all the times it has proven to be inaccurate for outliers!
It is called "general rule of thumb" since I don't have the OP in front of me to inspect and decide if BMI is relevant on not in her specific case.
The doctor reference is because she has a heart condition and is unsure about exercise.
Oh, I forgot: this is the thread where we support the OP's stated goals without re-examining them!
Sorry!
You really need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to nutrition.
BMI is outdated and misleading. It is unbelievably variable from one person to the next. My BMI puts me in the obese category.0 -
According to who?
I don't think 110 lbs. is two lbs. from being underweight for her height and frame. A woman of that stature & weight could still have roughly 25-30% bodyfat.
Also, family doctor's know very little when it comes to composing a rational diet and workout regimen; medical school simply doesn't cover these topics in detail.
2lbs to underweight: simple BMI
oh my god! Really? BMI?
Yup: BMI: occasionally known to be accurate in spite of all the times it has proven to be inaccurate for outliers!
It is called "general rule of thumb" since I don't have the OP in front of me to inspect and decide if BMI is relevant on not in her specific case.
The doctor reference is because she has a heart condition and is unsure about exercise.
Oh, I forgot: this is the thread where we're supposed to support the OP's stated goals without re-examining them!
Sorry!
But...at her height and as a woman, she'd still have a healthy BMI at 100 pounds - the old style calculator is less accurate for short people and lower weights are now considered within the healthy range if you use the updated calculator (it also allows higher "healthy" weights for tall people). There is no reason she shouldn't drop a few pounds if she wants to unless her doctor says otherwise.0 -
The problem is that BMI has such a foothold that insurance companies use it as a standard measure.
If your doctor is telling you you're obese based on his calculating your BMI, leave the doctor's office immediately and find a new one.0 -
According to who?
I don't think 110 lbs. is two lbs. from being underweight for her height and frame. A woman of that stature & weight could still have roughly 25-30% bodyfat.
Also, family doctor's know very little when it comes to composing a rational diet and workout regimen; medical school simply doesn't cover these topics in detail.
2lbs to underweight: simple BMI
oh my god! Really? BMI?
Yup: BMI: occasionally known to be accurate in spite of all the times it has proven to be inaccurate for outliers!
It is called "general rule of thumb" since I don't have the OP in front of me to inspect and decide if BMI is relevant on not in her specific case.
The doctor reference is because she has a heart condition and is unsure about exercise.
Oh, I forgot: this is the thread where we support the OP's stated goals without re-examining them!
Sorry!
You really need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to nutrition.
BMI is outdated and misleading. It is unbelievably variable from one person to the next. My BMI puts me in the obese category.
You're absolutely right! We HAVE to assume that everyone who posts on MFP is a special snowflake. Quite unlike ALL the other snowflakes. In fact, all our advice and discussion should be based on each person's unique snowflakeness.
So: when faced with a lean looking individual 2lbs from the underweight range we:
a) assume that she is 2lbs from being underweight OR
b) assume that she is skinny fat and has a lot of fat available to lose.
Well: since your BMI (incorrectly) puts you in the obese category, you choose *b*.
And since MY BMI (correctly) puts me in the overweight category, I choose *a*.
Cheers0 -
According to who?
I don't think 110 lbs. is two lbs. from being underweight for her height and frame. A woman of that stature & weight could still have roughly 25-30% bodyfat.
Also, family doctor's know very little when it comes to composing a rational diet and workout regimen; medical school simply doesn't cover these topics in detail.
2lbs to underweight: simple BMI
oh my god! Really? BMI?
Yup: BMI: occasionally known to be accurate in spite of all the times it has proven to be inaccurate for outliers!
It is called "general rule of thumb" since I don't have the OP in front of me to inspect and decide if BMI is relevant on not in her specific case.
The doctor reference is because she has a heart condition and is unsure about exercise.
Oh, I forgot: this is the thread where we support the OP's stated goals without re-examining them!
Sorry!
You really need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to nutrition.
BMI is outdated and misleading. It is unbelievably variable from one person to the next. My BMI puts me in the obese category.
You're absolutely right! We HAVE to assume that everyone who posts on MFP is a special snowflake. Quite unlike ALL the other snowflakes. In fact, all our advise and discussion should be based on each person's unique snowflakeness.
So: when faced with a lean looking individual 2lbs from the underweight range we:
a) assume that she is 2lbs from being underweight OR
b) assume that she is skinny fat and has a lot of fat available to lose.
Well: since your BMI (incorrectly) puts you in the obese category, you chose *b*.
And since MY BMI (correctly) puts me in the overweight category, I chose *a*.
Cheers
You seem to be quite offended when proven wrong. Your nutritional knowledge seems to be from the year 1992.
Also, drop the 2 lbs. from underweight reasoning. I've dated many sub 5'3'' women, and yes, they can be a little chubby at 110-120 lbs (assuming they don't lift). It all depends on how a woman carries her weight.
Carry on. I will prove you even more wrong if you wish for it.
0 -
According to who?
I don't think 110 lbs. is two lbs. from being underweight for her height and frame. A woman of that stature & weight could still have roughly 25-30% bodyfat.
Also, family doctor's know very little when it comes to composing a rational diet and workout regimen; medical school simply doesn't cover these topics in detail.
2lbs to underweight: simple BMI
oh my god! Really? BMI?
Yup: BMI: occasionally known to be accurate in spite of all the times it has proven to be inaccurate for outliers!
It is called "general rule of thumb" since I don't have the OP in front of me to inspect and decide if BMI is relevant on not in her specific case.
The doctor reference is because she has a heart condition and is unsure about exercise.
Oh, I forgot: this is the thread where we support the OP's stated goals without re-examining them!
Sorry!
You really need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to nutrition.
BMI is outdated and misleading. It is unbelievably variable from one person to the next. My BMI puts me in the obese category.
You're absolutely right! We HAVE to assume that everyone who posts on MFP is a special snowflake. Quite unlike ALL the other snowflakes. In fact, all our advise and discussion should be based on each person's unique snowflakeness.
So: when faced with a lean looking individual 2lbs from the underweight range we:
a) assume that she is 2lbs from being underweight OR
b) assume that she is skinny fat and has a lot of fat available to lose.
Well: since your BMI (incorrectly) puts you in the obese category, you chose *b*.
And since MY BMI (correctly) puts me in the overweight category, I chose *a*.
Cheers
You seem to be quite offended when proven wrong.
Also, drop the 2 lbs. from underweight reasoning. I've dated many sub 5'3'' women, and yes, they can be a little chubby at 110 lbs (assuming they don't lift). It all depends on how a woman carries her weight.
Carry on. I will prove you even more wrong if you wish for it.
Yeah, she's more like 10-15 pounds from being underweight even per BMI, so I'm not sure where he's getting this "two pounds!" panic from.0 -
You seem to be quite offended when proven wrong.
Also, drop the 2 lbs. from underweight reasoning. I've dated many sub 5'3'' women, and yes, they can be a little chubby at 110-120 lbs (assuming they don't lift). It all depends on how a woman carries her weight.
Carry on. I will prove you even more wrong if you wish for it.
Sorry, I blanked out.
You proved something somewhere?
OMG: someone call the cops. He killed her and burned her body and determined her true body composition.0 -
You seem to be quite offended when proven wrong.
Also, drop the 2 lbs. from underweight reasoning. I've dated many sub 5'3'' women, and yes, they can be a little chubby at 110-120 lbs (assuming they don't lift). It all depends on how a woman carries her weight.
Carry on. I will prove you even more wrong if you wish for it.
Sorry, I blanked out.
You proved something somewhere?
OMG: someone call the cops. He killed her and burned her body and determined her true body composition.
Use your eyes and the information you have so far... It's not difficult.
OP, is that a current picture and are your stats accurate?0 -
kelleybean1 wrote: »From your profile pic, it looks like you don't need to lose any weight. Why not maintain, and enjoy this time in your life instead of stressing over a few pounds that you don't need to lose? Enjoy some nice long de-stressing walks and go into this marriage happy and healthy.
Cosigned.
0 -
Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.0 -
It's not really viable long term, but for short bursts of weight loss, this is probably the second most effective method, if not the first. The recipes in this book allowed me to function as a 200 pound male with light weight lifting for a couple of months on only 1000 calories per day. I lost twenty pounds of fat and gained muscle in those two months. Long term its much better to maintain a balanced diet. You'll want to do a little bit of light weight training to maintain and possibly gain a little muscle.-5
-
kelleybean1 wrote: »From your profile pic, it looks like you don't need to lose any weight. Why not maintain, and enjoy this time in your life instead of stressing over a few pounds that you don't need to lose? Enjoy some nice long de-stressing walks and go into this marriage happy and healthy.
I agree. ^
Enjoy your wedding. Cutting calories right now can be very bad overall. You can drop water if you eat same calories but eat lower carb. 50-100 grams/day. Carbs require water to digest so when you cut them your body weight temporarily will drop because it doesn't need that water.
When you look at the pictures 20 years from now you will see a beautiful youthful bride and you will wonder why you were so worried about losing weight that you don't need to lose.
P.S. to some other posters who..
loose
My dog got loose today.
lose
I hate it when I lose my keys.
0 -
You can watch this guy on double speed to get an idea what the health implications will be and how to maintain energy. I found my skin improved on this diet.-5
-
Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing0 -
Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).0 -
Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?
He mentioned his history of dating short slightly chubby girls in the 110-120lb range. Is that the kind of validation you are seeking? Cuz it's all I got.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?- Current Professional Chef
- Extensive Biochem & Exercise Science studies
- A plethora of coaching/training jobs
- Experience in Sports Medicine & Training
- Supplement Knowledge
- ...and I study this stuff in my spare time for fun.
Your turn.mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?
He mentioned his history of dating short slightly chubby girls in the 110-120lb range. Is that the kind of validation you are seeking? Cuz it's all I got.
The haters on this site are intense... It's especially humorous when they have no idea what they are talking about or recommending.
I'm not condoning Anorexia... but most of you seem to have false ideas of what that actually is.0 -
Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
I agree with this because I am of this petite range and look/am perfectly health close to 100. It seems people are predisposed to view things through their own lenses. Just because it is not realistic for you to eat 1200 calories/day or be under 110 does not mean it is applicable to everyone.0 -
110 lbs. is a perfectly reasonable weight for someone who is 5'1". Unless the dress is skin tight, a few lbs. won't make a huge difference. If you have strapless,sleeveless, you might do some light lifting and eat extra protein to get some muscle tone in your arms if that's your worry. Or maybe find something else to worry about -- you're getting married in a few weeks and there are plenty of more important things than a few vanity lbs. at this time in your life. As far as the TDEE -- I'm 56 and 5'1.5" and my TDEE is in the 1400 range at lightly active. I'm doubtful that someone 25+ years younger has a lower TDEE than that.0
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?- Current Professional Chef
- Extensive Biochem & Exercise Science studies
- A plethora of coaching/training jobs
- Experience in Sports Medicine & Training
- Supplement Knowledge
- ...and I study this stuff in my spare time for fun.
Your turn.mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?
He mentioned his history of dating short slightly chubby girls in the 110-120lb range. Is that the kind of validation you are seeking? Cuz it's all I got.
The haters on this site are intense... It's especially humorous when they have no idea what they are talking about or recommending.
I didn't hate on anything. Just found it amusing that you would mention dating many 5'3" women, and imply that they were chubby in that weight range. Not the strongest of supporting evidence, though I am not making any claims. My only knowledge on this particular topic is my 5'3" wife is between 20-25%bf at 135lbs. Wouldn't say she is the slightest bit chubby.0 -
OP, have you spoken to your doctor about cutting calories? Because I'd think with a heart condition, that would be the first place I'd go.
IMO, you should just focus on having a beautiful wedding. Even if you were to lose, for example, 3 lbs in your remaining 3 weeks (that's 1 lb a week), no one would ever notice those 3 lbs. No one is going to look at a bride and say "OMG, she is 3 lbs too heavy for that dress!!" Seriously.
Have a nice wedding, enjoy the time with your groom, your family and you friends. Eat some wedding cake. Do some dancing. Possibly get drunk but not too drunk, then go on your honeymoon and "have a good time".0 -
mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?- Current Professional Chef
- Extensive Biochem & Exercise Science studies
- A plethora of coaching/training jobs
- Experience in Sports Medicine & Training
- Supplement Knowledge
- ...and I study this stuff in my spare time for fun.
Your turn.mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?
He mentioned his history of dating short slightly chubby girls in the 110-120lb range. Is that the kind of validation you are seeking? Cuz it's all I got.
The haters on this site are intense... It's especially humorous when they have no idea what they are talking about or recommending.
I didn't hate on anything. Just found it amusing that you would mention dating many 5'3" women, and imply that they were chubby in that weight range. Not the strongest of supporting evidence, though I am not making any claims. My only knowledge on this particular topic is my 5'3" wife is between 20-25%bf at 135lbs. Wouldn't say she is the slightest bit chubby.
Acceptable, but to my support, no one in this thread probably has the experience to tell with their actual eyeballs, how a woman looks naked at that height and weight.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?- Current Professional Chef
- Extensive Biochem & Exercise Science studies
- A plethora of coaching/training jobs
- Experience in Sports Medicine & Training
- Supplement Knowledge
- ...and I study this stuff in my spare time for fun.
Your turn.mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?
He mentioned his history of dating short slightly chubby girls in the 110-120lb range. Is that the kind of validation you are seeking? Cuz it's all I got.
The haters on this site are intense... It's especially humorous when they have no idea what they are talking about or recommending.
I didn't hate on anything. Just found it amusing that you would mention dating many 5'3" women, and imply that they were chubby in that weight range. Not the strongest of supporting evidence, though I am not making any claims. My only knowledge on this particular topic is my 5'3" wife is between 20-25%bf at 135lbs. Wouldn't say she is the slightest bit chubby.
Acceptable, but to my support, no one in this thread probably has the experience to tell with their actual eyeballs, how a woman looks naked at that height and weight.
Why does this last post make me relieved that I am too old and already married so that I don't have to deal with the "dating market" where women are judged this way?
0 -
mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?- Current Professional Chef
- Extensive Biochem & Exercise Science studies
- A plethora of coaching/training jobs
- Experience in Sports Medicine & Training
- Supplement Knowledge
- ...and I study this stuff in my spare time for fun.
Your turn.mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?
He mentioned his history of dating short slightly chubby girls in the 110-120lb range. Is that the kind of validation you are seeking? Cuz it's all I got.
The haters on this site are intense... It's especially humorous when they have no idea what they are talking about or recommending.
I didn't hate on anything. Just found it amusing that you would mention dating many 5'3" women, and imply that they were chubby in that weight range. Not the strongest of supporting evidence, though I am not making any claims. My only knowledge on this particular topic is my 5'3" wife is between 20-25%bf at 135lbs. Wouldn't say she is the slightest bit chubby.
Acceptable, but to my support, no one in this thread probably has the experience to tell with their actual eyeballs, how a woman looks naked at that height and weight.
Why does this last post make me relieved that I am too old and already married so that I don't have to deal with the "dating market" where women are judged this way?
I wouldn't judge you. But I'm not oblivious to facts.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?- Current Professional Chef
- Extensive Biochem & Exercise Science studies
- A plethora of coaching/training jobs
- Experience in Sports Medicine & Training
- Supplement Knowledge
- ...and I study this stuff in my spare time for fun.
Your turn.
You're missing the point, sugar. Your "credentials" are as irrelevant as mine.
Most of us on here have a great grasp on health and wellness because, we, too study it in our spare time and are drawing off of our experience (both in life and here on the forums). Which is exactly what you're doing. You're not more "right" or "qualified" to offer advice. Because it's the internet.0 -
OP regardless of what this has turned into those saying enjoy your day have it right. A couple of pounds is not gonna make or break your photos...trust me...your smile will and if you are feeling faint or hungry...you won't be smiling...and nobody else will be either if you faint at the alter...just eat reasonably for the next couple of weeks, avoid excess sodium, drink lots of water and enjoy your day.0
-
mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?- Current Professional Chef
- Extensive Biochem & Exercise Science studies
- A plethora of coaching/training jobs
- Experience in Sports Medicine & Training
- Supplement Knowledge
- ...and I study this stuff in my spare time for fun.
Your turn.mantium999 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »Not too many adults in the world are 110 lbs. or less.
Try not to discriminate them based on your reasoning that YOU will never be that weight. Take the facts into consideration. The OP could drop to 95-103 lbs. and still be quite healthy based on her stats. Healthier than 99% of the world if she does it right while meeting her macro minimums and consuming a rich variety of nutritious whole foods.
Actually there are far more issues in falling below the minimum BMI of 18.5 (which for OP is 101lbs) than above
And whilst we all accept it as a population measure it is far more accurate on an individual basis at the lower end with fewer outliers than the higher
So I would refute this advice in terms of "health"
As to OP ..least nutritiously and have an amazing wedding ...a few pounds mean nothing
What are your credentials? Because you are speaking as if you are a strong authority on the subject.
I highly doubt the OP will be at risk of any health consequences by losing a reasonable amount of weight assuming she is not sub 10% bodyfat (which she isn't).
What are yours?
He mentioned his history of dating short slightly chubby girls in the 110-120lb range. Is that the kind of validation you are seeking? Cuz it's all I got.
The haters on this site are intense... It's especially humorous when they have no idea what they are talking about or recommending.
I didn't hate on anything. Just found it amusing that you would mention dating many 5'3" women, and imply that they were chubby in that weight range. Not the strongest of supporting evidence, though I am not making any claims. My only knowledge on this particular topic is my 5'3" wife is between 20-25%bf at 135lbs. Wouldn't say she is the slightest bit chubby.
Acceptable, but to my support, no one in this thread probably has the experience to tell with their actual eyeballs, how a woman looks naked at that height and weight.
Not sure if trying to validate or brag, but I am comforted that you don't seem to be drawn to sausage.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions