Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

"Unrealistic" body goals

11213141517

Replies

  • saintor1saintor1 Member Posts: 339 Member Member Posts: 339 Member
    In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.

    When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.

    Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?

    Thoughts?

    The best way to win the argument is not to announce the goal, but achieve it like you did. :smile: Now I try (with mitigated success) to keep them for myself. >90% would judge my body goal "unrealistic". Male 54yo 5'10", has been near 240lbs, now low-150 and I want 130 or less. IDK the BF%, probably around 10%. I think that I heard it all... "Unhealthy" is the one that came most often.... majority assumes that it is just ok to gain weight with age. It is not rare to see 25yo men at 125-130 5'10"....in Asia, people don't gain as much weight along with age like in our Western world. And gaining all this weight is exactly "unhealthy", in my opinion.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Member Posts: 5,780 Member Member Posts: 5,780 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.

    When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.

    Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?

    Thoughts?

    The best way to win the argument is not to announce the goal, but achieve it like you did. :smile: Now I try (with mitigated success) to keep them for myself. >90% would judge my body goal "unrealistic". Male 54yo 5'10", has been near 240lbs, now low-150 and I want 130 or less. IDK the BF%, probably around 10%. I think that I heard it all... "Unhealthy" is the one that came most often.... majority assumes that it is just ok to gain weight with age. It is not rare to see 25yo men at 125-130 5'10"....in Asia, people don't gain as much weight along with age like in our Western world. And gaining all this weight is exactly "unhealthy", in my opinion.

    Less then 130 and you are clinically underweight. What is your endgame?
    edited April 19
  • KHMcGKHMcG Member Posts: 1,081 Member Member Posts: 1,081 Member
    In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.

    When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.

    Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?

    Thoughts?

    OK I'll weigh in on this... Pun intended.

    A couple thoughts to frame this...
    How much influence does your encouragement carry?
    Are you able to objectively see this individual attaining that goal?
    Will your encouragement set them up for failure (quitting and downward personal identity) or help them achieve a measure of success that is beneficial to body mind and spirit.
    Are you a medical practitioner or fitness professional that can directly say "whoa that may not be a good idea, how about setting a SMART goal based on these facts."
    If you are not a pro and you feel that the goal may lead to unhealthy behaviours would it be prudent to advise them to see a fitness pro or thier family doctor first.

    Goals have an origin. The purpose to strive for a high level of success is most often the foundation of success and the root of destructive behaviour patterns. You likely don't know thier purpose. BUT you should challenge the individual to discover thier purpose and reflect on its lifestyle, emotional, physical and mental impact.
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    saintor1 wrote: »
    In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.

    When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.

    Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?

    Thoughts?

    The best way to win the argument is not to announce the goal, but achieve it like you did. :smile: Now I try (with mitigated success) to keep them for myself. >90% would judge my body goal "unrealistic". Male 54yo 5'10", has been near 240lbs, now low-150 and I want 130 or less. IDK the BF%, probably around 10%. I think that I heard it all... "Unhealthy" is the one that came most often.... majority assumes that it is just ok to gain weight with age. It is not rare to see 25yo men at 125-130 5'10"....in Asia, people don't gain as much weight along with age like in our Western world. And gaining all this weight is exactly "unhealthy", in my opinion.

    5'10" and below 130 is unhealthy...it's clinically underweight. You would be not only have to be lacking in body fat, but substantially lacking in muscle as well.

    FWIW I am 5'10" (female) and was between 125-135 all through my 20's and early 30's (when I wasn't pregnant).
    At 5'10" and 130 it is an 18.7 BMI - not clinically underweight and still within the healthy range. And while I agree that you aren't going to be muscular at that weight - it's not like someone will be wasting away either.
    It's not the body type that most men probably aspire to, but I don't think that it is particularly "unhealthy" either.
  • WhatsthemotiveWhatsthemotive Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member
    The poster said he was 5 ‘ 10” and wanted to be 130 or less. According to the BMI charts, 129 is the lowest for normal, and less than 129 is underweight. Is it healthy to feel that you must be at or below the lowest weight that is not underweight?

    I don’t know anything about the poster, but I suspect that those who care about him are concerned that this reflects an unhealthy mindset in addition to flirting with physically unhealthy goals.
  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Member Posts: 39,106 Member Member Posts: 39,106 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    saintor1 wrote: »
    In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.

    When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.

    Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?

    Thoughts?

    The best way to win the argument is not to announce the goal, but achieve it like you did. :smile: Now I try (with mitigated success) to keep them for myself. >90% would judge my body goal "unrealistic". Male 54yo 5'10", has been near 240lbs, now low-150 and I want 130 or less. IDK the BF%, probably around 10%. I think that I heard it all... "Unhealthy" is the one that came most often.... majority assumes that it is just ok to gain weight with age. It is not rare to see 25yo men at 125-130 5'10"....in Asia, people don't gain as much weight along with age like in our Western world. And gaining all this weight is exactly "unhealthy", in my opinion.

    5'10" and below 130 is unhealthy...it's clinically underweight. You would be not only have to be lacking in body fat, but substantially lacking in muscle as well.

    FWIW I am 5'10" (female) and was between 125-135 all through my 20's and early 30's (when I wasn't pregnant).
    At 5'10" and 130 it is an 18.7 BMI - not clinically underweight and still within the healthy range. And while I agree that you aren't going to be muscular at that weight - it's not like someone will be wasting away either.
    It's not the body type that most men probably aspire to, but I don't think that it is particularly "unhealthy" either.

    I'm 5'10" and was 130 my senior year in high school...I looked ill. Any guy that is 5'10" and 130 Lbs is going to look emaciated due to no fat and basically no muscle mass...5'10" 130 Lbs is skin and bones...very "heroin chic".

    132 is the low end of BMI for 5'10"...

    https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/healthdisp/pdf/tipsheets/Are-You-at-a-Healthy-Weight.pdf


  • J72FITJ72FIT Member Posts: 5,780 Member Member Posts: 5,780 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    saintor1 wrote: »
    In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.

    When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.

    Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?

    Thoughts?

    The best way to win the argument is not to announce the goal, but achieve it like you did. :smile: Now I try (with mitigated success) to keep them for myself. >90% would judge my body goal "unrealistic". Male 54yo 5'10", has been near 240lbs, now low-150 and I want 130 or less. IDK the BF%, probably around 10%. I think that I heard it all... "Unhealthy" is the one that came most often.... majority assumes that it is just ok to gain weight with age. It is not rare to see 25yo men at 125-130 5'10"....in Asia, people don't gain as much weight along with age like in our Western world. And gaining all this weight is exactly "unhealthy", in my opinion.

    5'10" and below 130 is unhealthy...it's clinically underweight. You would be not only have to be lacking in body fat, but substantially lacking in muscle as well.

    FWIW I am 5'10" (female) and was between 125-135 all through my 20's and early 30's (when I wasn't pregnant).
    At 5'10" and 130 it is an 18.7 BMI - not clinically underweight and still within the healthy range. And while I agree that you aren't going to be muscular at that weight - it's not like someone will be wasting away either.
    It's not the body type that most men probably aspire to, but I don't think that it is particularly "unhealthy" either.

    He also mentioned weighing 130 or less. Less then 130 is clinically underweight...
    edited April 19
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    saintor1 wrote: »
    In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.

    When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.

    Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?

    Thoughts?

    The best way to win the argument is not to announce the goal, but achieve it like you did. :smile: Now I try (with mitigated success) to keep them for myself. >90% would judge my body goal "unrealistic". Male 54yo 5'10", has been near 240lbs, now low-150 and I want 130 or less. IDK the BF%, probably around 10%. I think that I heard it all... "Unhealthy" is the one that came most often.... majority assumes that it is just ok to gain weight with age. It is not rare to see 25yo men at 125-130 5'10"....in Asia, people don't gain as much weight along with age like in our Western world. And gaining all this weight is exactly "unhealthy", in my opinion.

    5'10" and below 130 is unhealthy...it's clinically underweight. You would be not only have to be lacking in body fat, but substantially lacking in muscle as well.

    FWIW I am 5'10" (female) and was between 125-135 all through my 20's and early 30's (when I wasn't pregnant).
    At 5'10" and 130 it is an 18.7 BMI - not clinically underweight and still within the healthy range. And while I agree that you aren't going to be muscular at that weight - it's not like someone will be wasting away either.
    It's not the body type that most men probably aspire to, but I don't think that it is particularly "unhealthy" either.

    He also mentioned weighing 130 or less. Less then 130 is clinically underweight...

    Yeah he said 130 or less - so I assumed he would be happy with 130.

    I mean - maybe we are using different calculators - the one I am using says it is a BMI of 18.7 - and normal BMI bottoms out at 18.5.

    Despite what some of the people here feel about how they think he would look, I'm not sure why someone who is within the CDC guidelines for a normal BMI would automatically be considered unhealthy.

    I assume they give you a range for a reason. It's not like someone is going to drop dead of malnutrition if they are a pound under the "healthy" range, any more than they are going to have a heart attack the minute they go above the "healthy" range.
    edited April 19
  • WhatsthemotiveWhatsthemotive Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member
    I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.
  • WhatsthemotiveWhatsthemotive Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member Member, Premium Posts: 143 Member
    “Close to underweight “
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member
    Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.
    I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.

    As someone who is overweight now (in my 50's) but spent many of my younger years in that very BMI range, I guess I am probably a little offended by the descriptors used for it. I was perfectly healthy, probably healthier than I am now at a 28 BMI, when I was in that weight range.

    I mean no one would be all up in arms about it if his goal was 1 lb from the maximum healthy range. Many people here actually have goal weights in the overweight range.

    I honestly don't get all the disagrees about it - so people are disagreeing with the CDC guidelines that that weight is healthy? I think that is perhaps because most people here are on the opposite side - maybe they can't imagine being that thin? I've been on both sides, it's just not all that outrageous to me.
  • rheddmobilerheddmobile Member Posts: 6,209 Member Member Posts: 6,209 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.
    I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.

    As someone who is overweight now (in my 50's) but spent many of my younger years in that very BMI range, I guess I am probably a little offended by the descriptors used for it. I was perfectly healthy, probably healthier than I am now at a 28 BMI, when I was in that weight range.

    I mean no one would be all up in arms about it if his goal was 1 lb from the maximum healthy range. Many people here actually have goal weights in the overweight range.

    I honestly don't get all the disagrees about it - so people are disagreeing with the CDC guidelines that that weight is healthy? I think that is perhaps because most people here are on the opposite side - maybe they can't imagine being that thin? I've been on both sides, it's just not all that outrageous to me.

    I agree with the responses above about younger people and would also like to point out that the low end of BMI is more appropriate for most women, who tend to be lighter-boned and carry less muscle, than it is for most men.

    Also would Iike to point out that poster is Asian and Asians are often lighter boned to the point that some doctors use different BMI charts for them. So 130 may be less extreme for his body type than people are assuming.
    edited April 19
  • snowflake954snowflake954 Member Posts: 6,456 Member Member Posts: 6,456 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.
    I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.

    As someone who is overweight now (in my 50's) but spent many of my younger years in that very BMI range, I guess I am probably a little offended by the descriptors used for it. I was perfectly healthy, probably healthier than I am now at a 28 BMI, when I was in that weight range.

    I mean no one would be all up in arms about it if his goal was 1 lb from the maximum healthy range. Many people here actually have goal weights in the overweight range.

    I honestly don't get all the disagrees about it - so people are disagreeing with the CDC guidelines that that weight is healthy? I think that is perhaps because most people here are on the opposite side - maybe they can't imagine being that thin? I've been on both sides, it's just not all that outrageous to me.

    I agree with the responses above about younger people and would also like to point out that the low end of BMI is more appropriate for most women, who tend to be lighter-boned and carry less muscle, than it is for most men.

    Also would Iike to point out that poster is Asian and Asians are often lighter boned to the point that some doctors use different BMI charts for them. So 130 may be less extreme for his body type than people are assuming.

    How do you know the poster is Asian? I thought he was just using Asian men as an example to justify going so low.
  • wunderkindkingwunderkindking Member Posts: 450 Member Member Posts: 450 Member
    The whole BMI range is valid.

    So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'

    Or so I would assume.
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 639 Member Member Posts: 639 Member

    I'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. :smile:
Sign In or Register to comment.