accepting yourself at a higher weight
brenn24179
Posts: 2,144 Member
I am 5'4. I got down to 156 lbs and seen it once on the scales. I have had my weight off for a year and a half. I always go up to 160, so I am just accepting it. I wear small clothes , sz 8 and 10s for some reason. I tried all summer to get down but maybe this is where I should be or maybe it is because I want to eat more. As long as I dont gain more, I can accept this. ANy of ya had to accept a larger number on the scales?
13
Replies
-
I've chosen to maintain at a higher weight (I've maintained at quite a few different weights in last 6 years) when as I recomped and got leaner I found I was finding maintaining harder and getting hungrier.
No I don't accept any particular weight as I regard it as being under my control but if 156lbs is hard and 160lbs is easy (or easier) then I really don't see 4lbs as being worth the struggle. Happiness and ease of adherence are two huge factors in long term maintenance.26 -
Over the last 20 years, my maintenance weight has gone up by about 10 lbs, from 135 to 145. I'm also 5'4 and anticipate that my maintenance weight will continue to creep a bit with time for the rest of my life - either up or down.
It's as easy to accept as the engineered lifestyle changes that built the body I have. 20 years ago, I was a ballet dancer, figure skater, and swimmer. NOW, I lift heavy, roll with a zillion more medical conditions than I had in college, and have *much* better looking arms and shoulders (more balanced muscularity vs my legs) than I did when I was young.
Your body is amazing! It'll change to support the activities you undertake every day to make things easier for you! How cool is that?
I'm not living the same life I was 20 years ago, so I really don't expect to have the same body. That would make all this hard work I've done frustratingly pointless.
I bet you've put in a lot of hard work to get where you are too, and your body has just changed to help do all that more efficiently.
GOOD JOB, BODIES! 28 -
ElizabethKalmbach wrote: »Over the last 20 years, my maintenance weight has gone up by about 10 lbs, from 135 to 145. I'm also 5'4 and anticipate that my maintenance weight will continue to creep a bit with time for the rest of my life - either up or down.
It's as easy to accept as the engineered lifestyle changes that built the body I have. 20 years ago, I was a ballet dancer, figure skater, and swimmer. NOW, I lift heavy, roll with a zillion more medical conditions than I had in college, and have *much* better looking arms and shoulders (more balanced muscularity vs my legs) than I did when I was young.
Your body is amazing! It'll change to support the activities you undertake every day to make things easier for you! How cool is that?
I'm not living the same life I was 20 years ago, so I really don't expect to have the same body. That would make all this hard work I've done frustratingly pointless.
I bet you've put in a lot of hard work to get where you are too, and your body has just changed to help do all that more efficiently. GOOD JOB, BODIES!
Yeah, you look kinda jacked btw...
O.P., I have come to believe our "goal" weight, is not always our ideal. I have been as low as 175 at dexa 9.6% from well over 400lbs. It just sucked. Have regained 17.5 lbs as of this a.m. starting to feel a little better. I might press up to 220-230 at 6'3". So, for me, a higher weight is ok.12 -
If you are happy at this weight and your health doesn't indicate a need to lose weight then just accepting it can be good for you.7
-
psychod787 wrote: »Yeah, you look kinda jacked btw...
O.P., I have come to believe our "goal" weight, is not always our ideal. I have been as low as 175 at dexa 9.6% from well over 400lbs. It just sucked. Have regained 17.5 lbs as of this a.m. starting to feel a little better. I might press up to 220-230 at 6'3". So, for me, a higher weight is ok.
Haha, thanks, but that picture is about 6 years old. It's what I looked like the last time I got done fighting my way through a bout of new medical nonsense. I have it up to inspire myself to keep pushing through the *latest* round of medical nonsense. My current weight is about 15 lbs greater than what you see in that photo, but more importantly, my hair is currently hot pink.16 -
I maintained at 150 for around 3 years before I decided to lose a bit more. I’m currently at 135. Still within a normal bmi just towards the lower end ( I’m 5 ft 8.5). My intention is to lose a bit more( I still have plenty fat in my tummy) then bulk up to around 145 over the course of a year or so. Then see what I look like. I’m weight training so the aim is for a more muscular look, which is my preference.12
-
This content has been removed.
-
What's your waist size? I ask because that's what really tells the tale when it comes to being a healthy weight, carrying extra weight around our middles is a health risk.
Sometimes we can just talk ourselves into thinking that the weight we currently are is ok.
And BMI? I know its not the ideal method for everyone but its a good indication of what is ideal and it also will give a range of weights for your height that is still healthy/normal.
If you personally feel good, have had bloodwork done and all is well including your fitness level then thats the main thing. What is ideal differs from person to person.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
I have a small waist, smallest part of me, I guess that is why I wear small sizes. My weight is in my boobs and legs. Those women with really skinny legs can weigh alot less.
6 -
I am 5’4”, 52 years old, and weigh 157. My body fat is about 23%. I started my journey at 197. I have a large frame. That took me awhile to accept having a goal weight of 150 was ok. For years I tried to keep under 130. I was sick all the time.
I totally disagree about waist size and BMI being good indicators. Waist size, if too large, can cause health problems. However, I don’t have the skinny waist I had in my 20’s. I tend to pack on muscle quickly, so BMI isn’t even part of my mindset.
I feel good at my current weight. I am strong. I wear size 8. I have nice healthy curves. I am grateful my body can do so many things. And I have a teenage daughter watching how I handle my body acceptance and overall health picture. I have to be a good model for her.
If you feel healthy and strong, have a good body fat percentage, have good results from bloodwork, then rock the heck out your current weight and enjoy all the things your healthy body can do.10 -
It’s not waist size that matters, but waist-to-hip ratio. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. A ratio of .8 and above for women and 1 and above for men put them at higher risk for some serious health conditions.5
-
It’s not waist size that matters, but waist-to-hip ratio. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. A ratio of .8 and above for women and 1 and above for men put them at higher risk for some serious health conditions.
As with BMI it's a statistical sort of factoid and not a direct correlation to any single human in particular. When in doubt, check with your doctor.3 -
It’s not waist size that matters, but waist-to-hip ratio. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. A ratio of .8 and above for women and 1 and above for men put them at higher risk for some serious health conditions.
I have never understood this test. My waist and hips shrink and grow proportionally. When I was overweight the ratio was .8 and now that I'm at a BMI of ~20 my hip to waist ratio is still .8. It isn't going to change without surgery. Does this mean I will be at risk regardless of my weight?5 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »It’s not waist size that matters, but waist-to-hip ratio. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. A ratio of .8 and above for women and 1 and above for men put them at higher risk for some serious health conditions.
I have never understood this test. My waist and hips shrink and grow proportionally. When I was overweight the ratio was .8 and now that I'm at a BMI of ~20 my hip to waist ratio is still .8. It isn't going to change without surgery. Does this mean I will be at risk regardless of my weight?
Waist to hip ratio is a proxy for visceral fat. It’s the visceral fat (fat in your abdomen wrapped around your organs) which is the real health factor. If you are prone to carrying your weight here, you will usually have a higher hip to waist ratio, but it’s not the ratio as such which matters. Some people have narrow hips and are straight waisted and have a normal amount of visceral fat.7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »It’s not waist size that matters, but waist-to-hip ratio. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. A ratio of .8 and above for women and 1 and above for men put them at higher risk for some serious health conditions.
I have never understood this test. My waist and hips shrink and grow proportionally. When I was overweight the ratio was .8 and now that I'm at a BMI of ~20 my hip to waist ratio is still .8. It isn't going to change without surgery. Does this mean I will be at risk regardless of my weight?
Waist to hip ratio is a proxy for visceral fat. It’s the visceral fat (fat in your abdomen wrapped around your organs) which is the real health factor. If you are prone to carrying your weight here, you will usually have a higher hip to waist ratio, but it’s not the ratio as such which matters. Some people have narrow hips and are straight waisted and have a normal amount of visceral fat.
Sorry. I was not clear. I understand the theory behind the equation. I'm just not so sure I agree with where they draw the line. I have very narrow hips and a very short torso. The smallest my waist has been (as an adult) was 27" and that's when I was 18 and weighing ~95 pounds. It's currently 28" which gives me the .8 ratio with my 35" hips.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
FluffyKitty987 wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »It’s not waist size that matters, but waist-to-hip ratio. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. A ratio of .8 and above for women and 1 and above for men put them at higher risk for some serious health conditions.
I have never understood this test. My waist and hips shrink and grow proportionally. When I was overweight the ratio was .8 and now that I'm at a BMI of ~20 my hip to waist ratio is still .8. It isn't going to change without surgery. Does this mean I will be at risk regardless of my weight?
Waist to hip ratio is a proxy for visceral fat. It’s the visceral fat (fat in your abdomen wrapped around your organs) which is the real health factor. If you are prone to carrying your weight here, you will usually have a higher hip to waist ratio, but it’s not the ratio as such which matters. Some people have narrow hips and are straight waisted and have a normal amount of visceral fat.
Sorry. I was not clear. I understand the theory behind the equation. I'm just not so sure I agree with where they draw the line. I have very narrow hips and a very short torso. The smallest my waist has been (as an adult) was 27" and that's when I was 18 and weighing ~95 pounds. It's currently 28" which gives me the .8 ratio with my 35" hips.
I definitely don’t think measurements of waist size or hip size is for everyone. Maybe it works for some people. The smallest my waist ever was was 29 inches & I was skeletal at that point (my ribs & spine clearly visible, sticking out). ☠️💀 That’s why I don’t rely on these kinds of methods to determine my health. I’m now at 30 inches but with a lot more muscle. 😃💪💖
Much like BMI, it's a guide and nothing more. I'm another one with a very short torso - there is literally barely a finger width between my illiac crest and my lower ribs. Even at my skinniest, I had no curves and no waist to speak of. Straight as a board here LOL4 -
It's a matter of perception. I don't accept not hitting goals, but I separate my "self" from my goals. I re-evaluate and review:
1. Is this achievable?
2. Is this what I want?
3. What are the roadblocks?
I take a quick look at what went wrong along the lines of personal habits. For instance I align bulk/cut seasonally so I focus on deficit January - September and a surplus October - December and adjust my workouts from endurance to progressive resistance.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »It’s not waist size that matters, but waist-to-hip ratio. Divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. A ratio of .8 and above for women and 1 and above for men put them at higher risk for some serious health conditions.
I have never understood this test. My waist and hips shrink and grow proportionally. When I was overweight the ratio was .8 and now that I'm at a BMI of ~20 my hip to waist ratio is still .8. It isn't going to change without surgery. Does this mean I will be at risk regardless of my weight?
Waist to hip ratio is a proxy for visceral fat. It’s the visceral fat (fat in your abdomen wrapped around your organs) which is the real health factor. If you are prone to carrying your weight here, you will usually have a higher hip to waist ratio, but it’s not the ratio as such which matters. Some people have narrow hips and are straight waisted and have a normal amount of visceral fat.
That’s how I am. My hips are tiny. My waist is 27 inches. Short of packing on fat on my hips — which would be a stupidly ridiculous goal — I am almost always going to be close to that .8. It’s not a flaw. It’s just how I’m built. Even when I was underweight, it was almost .8. I can’t change my rib cage and my short waisted build.
For me, waist to height is a better ratio.3 -
I'm not sure whether or not the waist to hip measure can be described as a spurious correlation or not, but the fact that it's often not useful makes me incredibly suspicious...
11 -
I take all these measurements with a pinch of salt. I’m in a healthy weight range and very slowly building a bit of muscle. So I’m not worried about my bmi waist or any ratio of my various body parts. I’m not gonna change anything in my lifestyle.3
-
ElizabethKalmbach wrote: »I'm not sure whether or not the waist to hip measure can be described as a spurious correlation or not, but the fact that it's often not useful makes me incredibly suspicious...
Damn margarine...lol5 -
@Psychod787 At least there's a downward trend in margarine consumption/divorce in Maine... That entire web site is hilarious and a good reminder that correlation is not causation.3
-
Yes. I was around 140ish when I was younger (late teens, early twenties). Sometimes even lighter, 135. (I'm 5'10" so that is pretty thin for me.)
Now I'm 30. I made 145 my goal, but once I got down to 155, I had trouble getting the last 10 off. I would just fall off the wagon over and over. So, I looked in the mirror and realized I was happy with the way I looked, a little bit bigger maybe, but not really in a bad way. I figured maybe my body is just happy with my food intake and I should just stay there, so I did. No sense in aiming for some arbitrary goal just because.6 -
Well good thing I don't use margarine!7
-
Body frame really is a "thing," not part of HAES. I'm really bird-boned, and my maintenance weight would look malnourished on my medium-boned sized adult daughter. Anyway! I really just came here to laugh at that divorce rate-margarine use correlation, so funny!8
-
I think there are weights your body likes. For me, it's 150-155 and 160-165. It's hard for me to maintain in between.3
-
I think there are weights your body likes. For me, it's 150-155 and 160-165. It's hard for me to maintain in between.
I sorta agree with this. I maintained effortlessly at 150 to. 155 for several years. I drank quite a bit didn’t monitor portion sizes, did plenty of cardio which balanced things out. I then lost 10.
Maintenance at 140 with my eating habits was not quite so effortless. I cut out a lot of my boozing and was a bit more careful with food. I’m currently 133. It’s taken some effort to get there. More or less teetotal and logging more carefully ( tho I still don’t weigh everything). I guess it just depends on how much attention you want to give to losing more when you are within a normal bmi.
Also, I’m not intending to stay at 133, I want to bulk. So I won’t know if it is harder to maintain for any period of time at 133. I have to say I’m not a fan of weighing everything and so if I had to do that to maintain at a particular weight, well I would have a rethink about whether that weight was viable for a happy life.6 -
@cupcakesandproteinshakes I agree with what you're saying. I find when I'm at my lowest it takes a lot more effort to stay there. Sometimes I am happy to make the effort, other times I just want to let go a bit. We're only talking 5-6lbs so its not a huge deal and it doesn't affect how my clothes fit. I prefer not to get too hung up on the scale number or the whole process that is maintenance.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions