I'm 5,7 my perfect weight?

Options
2

Replies

  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    @Christine_72 I understood you were talking about yourself.

    OP, the best weight for you is a personal decision based on your body frame, your musculature, your personal aesthetics, and your willingness to commit time and energy and sacrifice for physique.
  • beanz744
    beanz744 Posts: 221 Member
    Options
    the perfect weight (if theres such a thing) is different from people to people of the same height due to diff in bone structure n frame size. Not even BMI can tell u that accurately. i m borderline obese (but look at my pic coz i m not) if i stepped on a BMI scale because BMI is average weight range for people with the same height. my bone structure n frame was not average but the BMI scale or chart wouldnt know that.

    so ur 'perfect weight' would be a number that make u look good to yourself in the mirror n ur BF% is in a healthy range.
  • new_arc87
    new_arc87 Posts: 38 Member
    Options
    Body fat % is a better measure of healthiness than pure weight.
  • SCoil123
    SCoil123 Posts: 2,108 Member
    Options
    new_arc87 wrote: »
    Body fat % is a better measure of healthiness than pure weight.

    Agreed

  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    @heiliskrimsli I also wanted to add that last time i hit around 140-143lbs in 2015, friends of ours pulled my hubby aside and worriedly asked him if i had cancer, my mum and sister both said my face is starting to look unhealthy and haggard. I looked fine from my waist down, but from my ribs up not so much... My arms were sticks, my collarbones jutted out and i developed that sunken in sickly look in my face.

    I'm 45 now, and the weight that looked good on me in my 20's and 30's just doesn't sit well on me anymore. The thinner i get, the older i look. I need a bit of padding on my face these days.

    I got down to 127lbs when i was around 28, and looking at pictures of me at that time just makes me cringe, i looked just horrible, pretty much skin and bone and had a concave stomach!! :weary:

    So, places like the mayo clinic can give their recommendations, but i prefer to look in the mirror and decide what weight looks best on me, not break my back trying to hit some number on the scale that an organisation tells me i should be.

    And please don't mistake me for one of those fat acceptance people, I hated my body when i was overweight, and was never fine or accepting of it. I lost the 30lbs i had gained, and i'm happy right where i am.

    I can't exist at the lower end of BMI at all, or really even at the midpoint, either. I have a very large frame and pretty massive muscles ; is a family trait. Not body delusion, or misunderstanding of regular body weight, I'm just descended from Vikings.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    tomteboda wrote: »
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    @heiliskrimsli I also wanted to add that last time i hit around 140-143lbs in 2015, friends of ours pulled my hubby aside and worriedly asked him if i had cancer, my mum and sister both said my face is starting to look unhealthy and haggard. I looked fine from my waist down, but from my ribs up not so much... My arms were sticks, my collarbones jutted out and i developed that sunken in sickly look in my face.

    I'm 45 now, and the weight that looked good on me in my 20's and 30's just doesn't sit well on me anymore. The thinner i get, the older i look. I need a bit of padding on my face these days.

    I got down to 127lbs when i was around 28, and looking at pictures of me at that time just makes me cringe, i looked just horrible, pretty much skin and bone and had a concave stomach!! :weary:

    So, places like the mayo clinic can give their recommendations, but i prefer to look in the mirror and decide what weight looks best on me, not break my back trying to hit some number on the scale that an organisation tells me i should be.

    And please don't mistake me for one of those fat acceptance people, I hated my body when i was overweight, and was never fine or accepting of it. I lost the 30lbs i had gained, and i'm happy right where i am.

    I can't exist at the lower end of BMI at all, or really even at the midpoint, either. I have a very large frame and pretty massive muscles ; is a family trait. Not body delusion, or misunderstanding of regular body weight, I'm just descended from Vikings.

    I'm hearing ya, being healthily little and petite is just not in my dna, I'm from sturdy German stock.

    I like your bolded sentence :smile:
  • LucasLean
    LucasLean Posts: 100 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    Well, I was 135 lbs. in my profile photo, a couple weeks ago (never measured body fat % before) <--- 5'8, so pretty close to your height. I'm gaining muscle again though, 'cause I think I should gain more muscle, so it's just a personal preference. And I'm not sure if you're a man or woman, but a guy would want more muscle (more weight) usually. It all depends on how you want to look and you feel at that weight.

    I was pretty hungry when I was at my leanest state, when the lower ab veins started popping. hah
  • Xymheia
    Xymheia Posts: 65 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    124 lbs is definitely possible for 5'7" women with a slim frame. Where I live, women's lightweight rowers max at 125.4 lbs and they're usually 5'7" to 5'8". It's also common for distance athletes. Whether it's healthy for you really depends on your size and shape: 130-145 may be healthier and easier to maintain. I just know one thing: if you have to severely restrict calories to reach that weight and use other tricks like low fiber diets, it's not ideal.
  • Xymheia
    Xymheia Posts: 65 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    I think weight ranges are skewed upwards a bit because many people here weight train and allow their body to build more muscle mass than average which increases their healthy weight slightly.

    145.2 lbs is just a BMI of 22.6 which is about the middle of the BMI scale: it's neither very high nor very low. A BMI of 18.5 (118 lbs) is low and hard to maintain for many people. There are slim women who hover around that weight naturally but many if not most have to train hard and watch their diet to get down to that weight, likely losing muscle mass in the process, so for someone looking for optimal strength and fitness it's probably too low. Female lightweight rowers and boxers are already quite thin at 125 lbs, if they were to go much lower they would sacrifice muscle mass and thus performance. It's also not unusual for them to use tricks to make weight, yet this is not an extremely low weight.

    Therefore I personally consider a medium BMI of between 21-23 ideal for medium to larger frames, especially those of strength athletes, and for those with a small/medium frame slightly lower at 19-21 (approximately 123.2-134 lbs at 5'7") because this can usually be maintained without extreme measures besides regular training and healthy diet, although getting low bodyfat always requires hard work. Unfortunately this is not exact science: the BMI scale only gives a rough guideline to which weight is healthy for someone. What is optimal for an individual depends on their frame, muscle mass, training goals, and so on. Ideal weights of people with a slim frame obviously tend to sit at the lower end of the scale and those of people with larger frames at the higher end. For OP it's possible that she feels fine at 125 lbs, but it's also possible that it's tough for her to maintain, which then indicates that a slightly higher weight may better for her.
  • macchiatto
    macchiatto Posts: 2,890 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    @Christine_72 I know what you mean. I may have looked OK at 116 lbs at age 19 but as I got closer to 40, when I started to go below 128 I started to look too thin and wrinkly in my face; my arms, legs and chest started to get too bony, etc. I just turned 41. Part of me would like to try cutting down to the low 120s to get rid of more belly fat but I know now that further weight loss below my 128-133 range is really not flattering. That's why I feel like recomp makes a lot more sense for me at this point.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Options
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    Muscleflex79 wrote: »
    134 is already on the low end - 124 even more so

    134 is in no way the "low end" of a range that has a lower bound at 118 pounds. OP would have to lose 16 pounds to be medically underweight. I checked at the Mayo Clinic just to be sure.



    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    I'm 5'8 and anything between 143lbs (lowest end) and 150 (highest) sits fine on me.

    I'd say for you, 138-148lbs, depending on your build and muscle mass etc.

    According to the Mayo Clinic, the lowest healthy weight for a 5'8" adult is 122 pounds.

    Why do people here have such a skewed idea of normal weight ranges? At 5'7" tall, the lowest normal healthy weight is 118 pounds, at a BMI of 18.5. Not 138 and definitely not 140.

    I keep seeing responses on this site that severely inflate what the bottom of the normal weight range is, by 15 to 20 (or in this case up to 30 pounds). I don't know why that is, but it's factually incorrect and not helpful to give out misinformation like this.

    Christine was very clearly talking about her personal preferences, not issuing medical guidance, but regarding your point in general , not everyone is using the currently recommended BMI range of 18.5-25.

    For years, the healthy range was deemed to be 20-25, and some organisations are still using/recommending that range, including Slimming World. For the OP's height, BMI 20 equals 128 lbs. This may explain the difference in attitudes you're encountering.

    Her preference, as you refer to it, is still ten pounds above even your inflated bottom end. The fact that you can find certain groups continuing to use a metric that changed to match the findings of further research doesn't make that assertion remain valid. The advice given was that the minimum weight for OP is 138, and it was based on opinion although asserted as if fact. It's not, and it doesn't matter who wants to think it is.

    After all, there are still people who assert that the universe is less than 7000 years old, and they are still wrong.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    Muscleflex79 wrote: »
    134 is already on the low end - 124 even more so

    134 is in no way the "low end" of a range that has a lower bound at 118 pounds. OP would have to lose 16 pounds to be medically underweight. I checked at the Mayo Clinic just to be sure.



    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    I'm 5'8 and anything between 143lbs (lowest end) and 150 (highest) sits fine on me.

    I'd say for you, 138-148lbs, depending on your build and muscle mass etc.

    According to the Mayo Clinic, the lowest healthy weight for a 5'8" adult is 122 pounds.

    Why do people here have such a skewed idea of normal weight ranges? At 5'7" tall, the lowest normal healthy weight is 118 pounds, at a BMI of 18.5. Not 138 and definitely not 140.

    I keep seeing responses on this site that severely inflate what the bottom of the normal weight range is, by 15 to 20 (or in this case up to 30 pounds). I don't know why that is, but it's factually incorrect and not helpful to give out misinformation like this.

    Christine was very clearly talking about her personal preferences, not issuing medical guidance, but regarding your point in general , not everyone is using the currently recommended BMI range of 18.5-25.

    For years, the healthy range was deemed to be 20-25, and some organisations are still using/recommending that range, including Slimming World. For the OP's height, BMI 20 equals 128 lbs. This may explain the difference in attitudes you're encountering.

    Her preference, as you refer to it, is still ten pounds above even your inflated bottom end. The fact that you can find certain groups continuing to use a metric that changed to match the findings of further research doesn't make that assertion remain valid. The advice given was that the minimum weight for OP is 138, and it was based on opinion although asserted as if fact. It's not, and it doesn't matter who wants to think it is.

    After all, there are still people who assert that the universe is less than 7000 years old, and they are still wrong.
    That's a very unusual way to spell "thank you, that would explain it".

    I meant what I wrote. People here are giving advice that applies their own preferences to others and couching it as if it's factual when it is not.

    It is still absurd to me that so many people at My Fitness Pal are deliberately overstating what the healthy weight range is, and also advising people to have target weights that are overweight.
  • yweight1969
    yweight1969 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'7 and 165 is my personal best I've been much smaller the younger I was and never cared for being on the Skinner or thinner side. I like to keep my cushion you know breast and butt. But to each their own
  • yweight1969
    yweight1969 Posts: 64 Member
    Options
    And as the other poster said a lot depends on your age and how your weight is carried and distributed on your body. What look fine when you were younger may not once your out of your 20's and 30's. And the bmi charts and doctors opinions on weight I listen but take it with a grain of salt, because I know we're all.not meant to be slim as well as I know healthy and not being overweight or obese is the goal.as well. But ultimate goal weight is a personal.decisipn at best and not just based on how you look but how you feel.and what your medical test say you know cholesterol, diabetes, etc if all those things are fine holding onto an extra 10-15 lbs won't hurt anything nobody has to follow the bmi charts 100 percent.

Categories