Is my goal weight too little?

BTS7061

I’m 5’5 and 122 lbs, I’m thinking about 115, so I don’t have to loose too much, but is that too little since it’s almost underweight?

MelanieCN77

I'm 5'5 and 135 and I can't imagine being 20lbs lighter. Suspect you know the answer to your question, though.

amaheybb

Really it’s up to you. I’m just under 5’4” and I think 115 is a little low even for me. But if you think 115 is too low and you want to keep getting smaller, maybe look into recomp? Lifting weights can help you continue to drop clothing sizes without losing more physical weight.

kshama2001

Depends on your frame size http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp

I'm 1.5 inches taller, have a large frame, and my family would do an intervention if I got into the high 140s.

middlehaitch

Totally depends.
For some their bone structure/skeletal configuration can make it unattainable or unrealistic.

I maintain easily at the low end of the BMI scale, but I am petite, and that is the weight I have been most of my adult life.

Something to take into consideration is would the lighter weight be easily maintainable.
Would your calorie allowance keep you satiated or, would you be forever depriving yourself?

If you would like to improve your body shape, think of doing a recomp- maintaining your current weight while lifting weights (or doing some other type of resistance routine).

Cheers, h.

apullum

I would ask your doctor whether that seems like a reasonable weight for you. My guess is that if you’re asking this question, then you already doubt it’s a good weight for you.

I will say that I’m just under 5 feet tall and I maintain at 112-115. This is in the middle of my optimal BMI range. I sometimes have trouble finding clothes that are small enough, both because of my height and my weight. It’s the opposite of the problem I had 100 pounds ago.

Lillymoo01

middlehaitch wrote: »

Totally depends.
For some their bone structure/skeletal configuration can make it unattainable or unrealistic.

I maintain easily at the low end of the BMI scale, but I am petite, and that is the weight I have been most of my adult life.

Something to take into consideration is would the lighter weight be easily maintainable.
Would your calorie allowance keep you satiated or, would you be forever depriving yourself?

If you would like to improve your body shape, think of doing a recomp- maintaining your current weight while lifting weights (or doing some other type of resistance routine).

Cheers, h.

^^ This. There is no point getting down to that weight if you can't maintain it once there. I am at the lower end of the BMI range but know that I can stay satiated at this weight because I am quite active. If I became less active there is no way I'd want to eat so little so the logical solution would be to aim for a range that is closer to the middle or upper level of the BMI range instead.

shadow2soul

Why not Body recomp?

I am 5’4.5” and when I was 120lbs I was pretty tiny. I wasn’t 100% happy with it, because I lacked muscle mass. I am a bit heavier now, but focusing on doing more of a recomp. It’s very very slow, but I am losing inches and seeing definition that I didn’t have before (profile pic is 137lbs).

Teabythesea_

I’m 5’5” and when I got under 120 people started to become concerned, myself included. I had very little muscle and that made me look even more unhealthy. Now I’m at 132, have a decent amount of muscle and still think I look rather small... so I’m still trying to gain. I wouldn’t recommend it as it was not sustainable, at least not for me. If you’re still unhappy with your body at 122 then I definitely suggest trying recomp. When I began eating more and putting on muscle my body changed in ways I didn’t think it could and I’m way more confident and healthy at 132 than I ever was being under 120! Losing another 7 lbs is a lot and will result in a drastically different physical appearance given your already (presumably) small frame compared to someone who’s heavier. So keep that in mind when aiming for a lower number on the scale.

alexmose

I am 5’4 and 114 and have been told I’m too thin. Trying to gain weight currently.

ShayCarver89

Why do people feel the need to come here and ask these types of things?

middlehaitch

ShayCarver89 wrote: »

Why do people feel the need to come here and ask these types of things?

The same reason you have asked your question.
They want feedback on their thoughts.

Cheers, h.

ShayCarver89

middlehaitch wrote: »

ShayCarver89 wrote: »

Why do people feel the need to come here and ask these types of things?

The same reason you have asked your question.
The want feedback on their thoughts.

Cheers, h.

Ask a doctor. Use a calculator. Use common sense.

Teabythesea_

ShayCarver89 wrote: »

Ask a doctor. Use a calculator. Use common sense.

The same can be said for the majority of posts on here, but these forums are often the most readily available and diverse source of information. This is why they’re here... for questions. I don’t see what the issue with this question in particular is?

AnnPT77

I'm in the "ask your doctor" camp, because it's so dependent on body configuration, especially the relative size of big body parts (like shoulders and hips, where some have wider structures requiring more meat and connective tissue and fluid to wrap them, thus require a higher healthy weight). For women, breast size is also a major issue. Some women carry quite a few pounds of breast tissue, others very little, even once excess fat is out of the picture.

I doubt you'll see a huge difference between 122 and 115, frankly. I agree with those that recomposition would probably be more of an appearance-changer than more weight loss, though a slower path. (https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat)

Personally, I overshot goal and hit 116 at 5'5". I didn't feel like it was crazy-light for me, but I have a narrow pelvis (around 33" when thin, and that area around the abdomen/hips was where I was still holding a bit of squishy (non-muscle) padding (but upper body was quite lean). I also don't have breasts (literally: post-bilateral mastectomies). So, I'd say BMI around 20 (120 pounds or maybe 125) would be my preference (I'm around BMI 22 right now again: though I held the 120 for the better part of a year, I've let it creep up in the couple of years since).

Best guess at my BF% at 116-120 pounds was still in the lower 20s, but unevenly distributed: Upper body looked teens-ish BF, lower looked mid-20s at least. I'm not completely devoid of muscle, either.

BTW: I didn't find that "frame size calculator" at all helpful, for me personally. My small body parts (hands, feet, wrists and even elbows) are pretty large, peasant-thick. My hips are narrow, and like I said, no breasts. Frame size calculator says I'm medium to large framed . . . but no. Weights in the 140s are actually over-fat, for me. (I'm not saying that's true for others of different build or even different preference; it isn't.)

It's really so, so individual!

mtnstar

kshama2001 wrote: »

Depends on your frame size http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp

I'm 1.5 inches taller, have a large frame, and my family would do an intervention if I got into the high 140s.

Thank you for posting the frame calculator! This has helped me make sense of why BMI has always seemed inaccurate for me!

hixa30

I don't think that asking your doctor is particularly useful if they use BMI to make a decision. How do you feel? If you feel physically "normal" then I see nothing wrong with reducing your weight and seeing how that goes. All these "calculators" don't seem particularly useful, apparently I have a large frame, based on the wrist test. If anyone looked at me they'd immediately say that I don't have a large frame (except around my stomach). Yet it says that I have. Just look at yourself in a full length mirror. That's my advice.

sbelletti

I'm 5'5" and small framed. At my fittest, I was 125lbs and looked and felt great. I went as low as 122 which gave my abs a little more definition, but I couldn't maintain it and was just too thin. Personally, I like to range 125-130lbs with good muscle tone. Also... The scale is great for checking that you are on track, but once you are close to goal weight I find that the way my clothes fit is a better indicator. Building muscle may make the scale quit moving, but you'll see the difference in how your body looks.

apullum

I would take “frame size” with a hefty grain of salt. When I weighed 100 pounds more, those calculators told me I was large framed. Now they say I am small framed. Of course, the size of my bones did not change at all. I simply lost fat all over, including around my wrists.

missiontofitness

I'm also 5'4/5'5 and I was around 112-116 in high school. For me, I was extremely skinny and waif-like, and I wouldn't be satisfied with that as my body type as an adult. YMMV, and for other people, that's a look they want. You go Glen Coco.

I suggest body recomp as others have mentioned. The number doesn't matter as much as how happy you are in your own skin. I'm aiming for the 120s again as a general goal, but I'm moreso going to be focusing on recomp once I've finished my weight loss to a point where I'm happy.

Recomp may be better for you, if you are already doubting whether the 110's are for you.

lynn_glenmont

What do you hope that losing another 7 lbs will accomplish? Is it just to see that number on a scale, or do you think it will have some positive effect on the way you look or feel?