Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

accepting yourself at a higher weight

brenn24179brenn24179 Posts: 1,812Member Member Posts: 1,812Member 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

  • LivingtheLeanDreamLivingtheLeanDream Posts: 12,563Member Member Posts: 12,563Member Member
    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.
  • HufflepuffGrl9HufflepuffGrl9 Posts: 205Member Member Posts: 205Member Member
    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.

    Who were you directing the waist size question to? Was it OP?
  • ElizabethKalmbachElizabethKalmbach Posts: 1,220Member Member Posts: 1,220Member Member
    whmscll 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.

    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.
  • Mouse_PotatoMouse_Potato Posts: 1,238Member Member Posts: 1,238Member Member
    whmscll 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.
  • HufflepuffGrl9HufflepuffGrl9 Posts: 205Member Member Posts: 205Member Member
    whmscll 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. 😃💪💖
  • HoneyBadger155HoneyBadger155 Posts: 1,386Member Member Posts: 1,386Member Member
    whmscll 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 LOL
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 6,204Member Member Posts: 6,204Member Member
    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.
  • collectingbluescollectingblues Posts: 2,505Member Member Posts: 2,505Member Member
    whmscll 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.