Scale confusion .

2»

Replies

  • laurenebargar
    laurenebargar Posts: 3,081 Member
    capaul42 wrote: »
    Any chance the original reading was 290 and not 190?

    Thats a really good point. OP did they say your weight or write it down for you?
  • AnnaBanana5010
    AnnaBanana5010 Posts: 55 Member
    laurenebargar wrote: »
    AnnaBanana5010 wrote: »
    laurenebargar wrote: »
    Hmm well I dont really have an answer then I would call and talk with your doctor just to see what they have to say.
    Yes I think that's what I should do too !! OMG I forgot the week I went to gyno I had PMS and I actually have PMDD which most people dismiss as a make believe condition anyway some women myself included have an abnormal water weight ... Iam going to just have to weigh myself when I'm not having pms .. scratch all of this .. thank you for being so polite and helpful !!

    Im going to add then, if it truly water weight I would still talk to your doctor, 40 lbs of water weight is something they need to know about, I can go up maybe 5lbs but 40 is a large number.
    I forgot to add I have my period coming up!! Why do I only weigh my self during this week .. ugh anyway I promise I will ask my doctor !

  • AnnaBanana5010
    AnnaBanana5010 Posts: 55 Member
    edited August 2017
    laurenebargar wrote: »
    capaul42 wrote: »
    Any chance the original reading was 290 and not 190?

    Thats a really good point. OP did they say your weight or write it down for you?

    It was a home type scale and I saw it . She showed me the scale .
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    40 lbs of extra water weight would be very obvious. PMDD would not csuse that much fluid retention. That's a lot of edema.
  • AnnaBanana5010
    AnnaBanana5010 Posts: 55 Member
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    40 lbs of extra water weight would be very obvious. PMDD would not csuse that much fluid retention. That's a lot of edema.

    I did not say it was 40 pounds of water weight. I don't know the exact amount of water weight for each cycle .
  • AnnaBanana5010
    AnnaBanana5010 Posts: 55 Member
    jayemes wrote: »
    I would say you weren't 190 last year. If all the readings are in the low 200's now then more than likely you were much heavier than 190. If things are fitting much looser then you've lost weigh. Start here and move forward

    Good plan.
  • joemac1988
    joemac1988 Posts: 1,021 Member
    AnnaBanana5010 wrote: »
    Spring of 2016 scale said I was 190.. I have lost so many inches since than. I do not know how many I did not measure. Iam thinner now . The scale says Iam 230 pounds. I do not understand .. someone close to me thinks I gained lean tissue because I lost fat . Disclaimer please be polite you don't know me . This is a general question no reason to be rude .

    It's probably a combo of things. You may have gained lean tissue (muscle) but 40 lbs in that time frame is unlikely. You may be retaining more water, the scale may be broken.

    The most important thing is the scale is just a unit of measure. If you've lost inches, forget what the scale says!
  • AnnaBanana5010
    AnnaBanana5010 Posts: 55 Member
    joemac1988 wrote: »
    AnnaBanana5010 wrote: »
    Spring of 2016 scale said I was 190.. I have lost so many inches since than. I do not know how many I did not measure. Iam thinner now . The scale says Iam 230 pounds. I do not understand .. someone close to me thinks I gained lean tissue because I lost fat . Disclaimer please be polite you don't know me . This is a general question no reason to be rude .

    It's probably a combo of things. You may have gained lean tissue (muscle) but 40 lbs in that time frame is unlikely. You may be retaining more water, the scale may be broken.

    The most important thing is the scale is just a unit of measure. If you've lost inches, forget what the scale says!

    That's a good point !!
  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    capaul42 wrote: »
    Any chance the original reading was 290 and not 190?

    I believe this is exactly what it is. If the OP's pants are now falling off and they notice visible changes in their body composition, a 50 pound loss since last year makes sense. Gaining 40 pounds of lean mass in a year is just not going to happen like that and would be extremely noticeable.

  • AnnaBanana5010
    AnnaBanana5010 Posts: 55 Member
    Maxematics wrote: »
    capaul42 wrote: »
    Any chance the original reading was 290 and not 190?

    I believe this is exactly what it is. If the OP's pants are now falling off and they notice visible changes in their body composition, a 50 pound loss since last year makes sense. Gaining 40 pounds of lean mass in a year is just not going to happen like that and would be extremely noticeable.
    Maxematics wrote: »
    capaul42 wrote: »
    Any chance the original reading was 290 and not 190?

    I believe this is exactly what it is. If the OP's pants are now falling off and they notice visible changes in their body composition, a 50 pound loss since last year makes sense. Gaining 40 pounds of lean mass in a year is just not going to happen like that and would be extremely noticeable.

    Maybe it isn't lean mass I have no idea what it is. I didn't make any claims.
    No that would mean I would have been a size 24 .... like Tess holiday is a size 24. I know I have a problem and I'm eating clean and exersizing and doing what I need to do. I was never 300 pounds. In fact before I saw that doctor when the scale said I was 190 . I was consecutively 199 pounds from a different doctor that had a much more accurate standard scale ..


    Thanks to everyone for trying to help me Im just going to go to my doctor and tell them what happened and continue to do what I'm doing .
This discussion has been closed.

Categories