5'6" ladies... What is your goal?

1skholloway

I find this thread so interesting. I have been overweight all my life. I have lost weight and been close to or at maintenance but never stayed there long. As I near there again (I think), I wonder how to know when to stop losing. My SW this go 'round was about 250#, CW is 178#. and today's GW is 170#. I have a large frame and carry my weight very well. I wear a U.S. size 14. People think I am smaller than I actually am and are already saying I am small enough. I have lots of toning up that I would like to do. I hope if I can accomplish that, I would go down at least 1-2 sizes. In particularly, I have a large belly overlapping my pelvic area that I would love to get rid of. I can't afford surgery so I need to spend lots of time at the gym doing strength training.

LisaTcan

HW - 175 LW - 130 CW - pregnant!

I'm 5'6'' and my highest weight was 175 in my teens. I hovered between 140-150 for years and then got down to 133 with a lot of muscle mass last year. I felt great at this weight, was very active and a size 4.

I'm currently 9 months pregnant and 170, hoping to get down to 130 postpartum.

Edited to say - I find my size has a lot to do with how much muscle I have. I was a size 8 at 145 but once I started weight lifting I was 133 and a size 4. However I also had no breasts

Psycrysi

5'6" SW:155 CW:147 GW:140 UGW:130 I'm 51 yrs. old.

5K85

Current weight 5"6' 245

5K85

Goal, 235 by august

annieoldie

I started at 165 a couple of weeks ago( my heaviest yet) and would like to get to 126. Years ago I was 118lb but I was much younger then.

ProfDawnLee

I am 8 months pregnant and 160. Will reach 170 by the time I hit 9 months. Hoping to get to 130 postpartum as well. In fact hoping to get there by January. What's your plan to lose the baby weight? I'm afraid it's going to be really tough as I've never been this heavy before. I have always been between a size 2-8 and even a size 10 seems so far away. I do exercise a lot but the eating healthy thing is tough for me.

bubble_wrap0428

Starting weight was 205, down to 185 pounds, goal is 170 pounds. I like having a curvier figure plus I'm weight lifting a lot.

quinnbee2017

214 I was 220.would love to weight 160

Anyone can add me

87sid

HW:235 GW:135. CW:178
I'm basing my goal weight on when I thought I looked best before my pregnancies 9 years ago. But my body carries the weight a little differently now so we'll see when I get close. Ideally I'd like to be back in a size 5 pant.

julialavergne

I started at 207 and I'm currently at 198. I'm aiming for 135! (61.2kg)

CatherineLaurel

I can't decide whether I should make my goal weight 145 or 135. I'm 5'6".

FitOldMomma

5'6"
SW: 296.5
CW: 169.4
GW: 160
UGW: 154...to be in the NORMAL range on BMI charts.

kam744

5'6
SW 172
CW 149
GW 135-130

Pam_1965

I am 5'6 and 50 years old. Three years ago I was at 220. I got down to 155 in 9 months. Slowly added on some weight so started losing again in January. My goal was 145. I got down to 144 in June then went on a week long cruise and then 2 more weeks in Cape Cod. Now I am at 150. My true goal is to be 135. I still have belly fat to get rid of. Everyone who sees me says I am super skinny, but clothes hide a lot! I have small hips and nice legs, so can wear a size 4 and look really good. Hate the belly though. I also had a breast reduction 3 years ago after I lost 70 pounds (insurance paid). Best thing I have ever done (besides the divorce and losing weight). I have a 50 year old belly and a 35-40 year old everything else. Belly is driving me crazy.

robininfl

jeebieheebies wrote: »

.

Btw, everyone has the same bones. No "heavier bones" or "small bones". Google 'body fat scans' where you can see the skeleton.

Is that true? That's really interesting. My oldest daughter's wrists are 2" bigger around than mine, and she wears bigger rings, ankle bones are wider, we are both around the same lean-ness and she's a couple inches shorter than me.

If we compared xrays of our arms, the bones wouldn't look different?

That's really odd. I don't, personally, think bones weigh enough to make a big difference in anybody's weight, not arguing that. And frame size varies (if I stand behind second daughter, you can see my shoulders are considerably wider than hers, for examle.). Is the difference in the wrists just frame size? Her bones are placed wider but are each the same size as mine? Why, then, are the fingers thicker, when she is thin like I am?

That's just really interesting to think about. Thank you.

walkdmc

I'm 5'6", in my 40's and SW:260, CW:187. At one point I was 155 pounds, still one pound "overweight" but I looked and felt fantastic. My goal is 150, then I'll reassess.

FitPhillygirl

I'm 5'7" and 131lbs. My goal is to keep maintaining or not go higher than 135lbs.

heatherlcarey426

Currently 178, down from 185. Goal is 140 long way to go...

ilex70

5'6 here and 46. My scales died and new ones haven't arrived yet, but I'm guessing around 150-ish and most recently purchases sizes 4-6. Like a PP said US sizing is crazy. Curious if I will be a 2 or a 0 at 136.

First big goal was to get to a healthy BMI.

Current is to get to 25% body fat, which per DEXA, and presuming I don't lose muscle, would be 136. Doing resistance training and watching my protein intake, so hopefully that works out.

ETA: I have a small frame FWIW. 6" wrist, 8" ankle and my fingers are now skinnier than my 10 year old daughters. DEXA said my bones weigh 9 pounds.

choplikekarate

I'm almost 5'6 and currently weighing in at about 125-127. I'd like to get down to at least 120 and reassess if I need to cut more or maintain once I hit that.

jeebieheebies

robininfl wrote: »

jeebieheebies wrote: »

.

Btw, everyone has the same bones. No "heavier bones" or "small bones". Google 'body fat scans' where you can see the skeleton.

Is that true? That's really interesting. My oldest daughter's wrists are 2" bigger around than mine, and she wears bigger rings, ankle bones are wider, we are both around the same lean-ness and she's a couple inches shorter than me.

If we compared xrays of our arms, the bones wouldn't look different?

That's really odd. I don't, personally, think bones weigh enough to make a big difference in anybody's weight, not arguing that. And frame size varies (if I stand behind second daughter, you can see my shoulders are considerably wider than hers, for examle.). Is the difference in the wrists just frame size? Her bones are placed wider but are each the same size as mine? Why, then, are the fingers thicker, when she is thin like I am?

That's just really interesting to think about. Thank you.

Thanks for replying! I'm definitely not an expert but am curious about frame size, like you said. For the most part, I think people who say "I carry my weight well because I have a large frame", "people say I look smaller than I really weigh" etc probably have extra muscle (which of course is more compact than fat). Because I think "frame size" really boils down more to how much fat/muscle you have. When I was 155 lbs, my body shape was the same, but my "frame size" was obviously bigger than it is not at 145lbs. If I had been 155lbs all my life, then I would think of that as my default "frame size", I think. I am assuming this probably resonates with other people?

But I googled to try to find out details/evidence about frame structure and couldn't find a good answer. I did learn:
• Overweight people do have bigger bones (thicker, not just denser), but this is probably due to carrying around extra weight:

Ann Ross, an anthropologist at North Carolina State University and one of the researchers, described the change in the bone as "almost like a buttress making something stronger."

• "If you have a wider frame, then you'll need to string a bit more muscle, ligaments, and tendons between the bones, which could affect your weight. (not sure how valid this is, got it from a reddit thread)

So yeah ... it was a LOT of just threads like this with anecdotal evidence ("I am barrel-chested so look great at a higher weight!") and speculation ("Thai people look better when at a lower weight than Finns!"). And I am a bit skeptical of the wrist measurement thing, even though it IS an official "frame measurement" but I don't think that entails that frame=something you're born with, and not just a result of your fat+muscle? Because it's not like you can't store ANY fat on your wrist, and I have seen obese people with noticeably large wrists.

Let me know if you find anything interesting that seems more scientific than what I found!

robininfl

jeebieheebies wrote: »

robininfl wrote: »

jeebieheebies wrote: »

.

Btw, everyone has the same bones. No "heavier bones" or "small bones". Google 'body fat scans' where you can see the skeleton.

Is that true? That's really interesting. My oldest daughter's wrists are 2" bigger around than mine, and she wears bigger rings, ankle bones are wider, we are both around the same lean-ness and she's a couple inches shorter than me.

If we compared xrays of our arms, the bones wouldn't look different?

That's really odd. I don't, personally, think bones weigh enough to make a big difference in anybody's weight, not arguing that. And frame size varies (if I stand behind second daughter, you can see my shoulders are considerably wider than hers, for examle.). Is the difference in the wrists just frame size? Her bones are placed wider but are each the same size as mine? Why, then, are the fingers thicker, when she is thin like I am?

That's just really interesting to think about. Thank you.

Thanks for replying! I'm definitely not an expert but am curious about frame size, like you said. For the most part, I think people who say "I carry my weight well because I have a large frame", "people say I look smaller than I really weigh" etc probably have extra muscle (which of course is more compact than fat). Because I think "frame size" really boils down more to how much fat/muscle you have. When I was 155 lbs, my body shape was the same, but my "frame size" was obviously bigger than it is not at 145lbs. If I had been 155lbs all my life, then I would think of that as my default "frame size", I think. I am assuming this probably resonates with other people?

But I googled to try to find out details/evidence about frame structure and couldn't find a good answer. I did learn:
• Overweight people do have bigger bones (thicker, not just denser), but this is probably due to carrying around extra weight:

Ann Ross, an anthropologist at North Carolina State University and one of the researchers, described the change in the bone as "almost like a buttress making something stronger."

• "If you have a wider frame, then you'll need to string a bit more muscle, ligaments, and tendons between the bones, which could affect your weight. (not sure how valid this is, got it from a reddit thread)

So yeah ... it was a LOT of just threads like this with anecdotal evidence ("I am barrel-chested so look great at a higher weight!") and speculation ("Thai people look better when at a lower weight than Finns!"). And I am a bit skeptical of the wrist measurement thing, even though it IS an official "frame measurement" but I don't think that entails that frame=something you're born with, and not just a result of your fat+muscle? Because it's not like you can't store ANY fat on your wrist, and I have seen obese people with noticeably large wrists.

Let me know if you find anything interesting that seems more scientific than what I found!

I'll ask the daughter who is physical therapist student. But I had wide shoulders even when severely underweight, and have the same wide shoulders now. All of us (me and the daughters) are built pretty spare so our shape is defined more by the bones than anything else, and those sizes vary. And of course, skeleton size has grown as nutrition has improved around the world, when old remains are found those are smaller than we are now, but I am sure skeletal size isn't the same among different people even of the same height.

I do not think one can argue that frame or bone density means you can healthily weigh more than the healthy BMI because that # has cushion built in, especially for women. There will always be outliers, but not many.

frankiesgirl21

5'7 cw=142-145 gw=125 small frame. weird huh? (thanks Rents!) I am older now so we'll see when I get down that way. May have to re evaluate.

5K85

249, want to get to 227, better confidence

bellaeliza08

I want to be exactly 20kgs under my bf so 54 lol

Koldnomore

Started at 248 back in 2004, dropped down to 140 at my lowest in 2014, car accident etc, back to 170 now slowly coming down again. Was 161 this morning Looking to get around 125 as I was still very flabby at 140 despite the fact that I do lift weights 3 times / week.

yesimpson

Technically in maintenance, but a little over my favourite weight, so eating at a tiny deficit in order to lose 3-4lbs and get back to 120-121lbs at 5'6"

5K85

I do weight lifting as much as I can going to finish it today and have some protein

LaceyBirds

5'6.5" tall, 60.7 years old.

HW: 238
SW: 230
CW: 147.8
Original GW: 135
Possibly revised GW: 145 due to sagging skin issues. Time will tell.