trying to lose 10 lbs
scarlettfox1224
Posts: 3 Member
I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
Tagged:
0
Replies
-
This would put you in a range that is statistically the best range to be in, almost precisely the ideal weight often used in Germany. If I were you, I would not try to lose any more weight before I had a good conversation with my doctor MD. It may well be better for you to lose more weight (or not), but as a lay person, there is no way for you to determine that in any reliable way.scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?1 -
Losing those last 10 lbs is unlikely to be quick. If you can lose half a pound a week, I'd consider that a win.
Just determine your deficit needed and be SUPER accurate with logging. And be prepared for scale fluctuations. Patience and time, and it'll come off.
You're likely to gain 1-2 pounds as you adjust to maintenance after being in a deficit, so if you want to end up at 125 you might want to set 123 as your target. Either way, your weight will still fluctuate all the time, so pick a range vs a specific number as your GW.2 -
scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
What's your frame size? I have a large frame, am a half an inch shorter than you, and my family would do an intervention if I got into the 130s, let alone the 120s.
http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp1 -
scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
I can't see you, so I'm guessing, but 125 is pretty thin on me at 5'5" (where it's BMI 20.8, lower zone of normal weight range statistically speaking), and it would be BMI 19.6 for you, where the normal range is 18.5-24.9. Granting that probably more women are OK lower in the range, that's still a pretty low weight.
Out of curiosity, how old are you? Have you been 125 with a mature adult body configuration? What does your doctor (not your friends or family) say about that weight goal? Any chance that goal is coming from what celebrities or influencers claim their body weight is?
Most women at 5'7" would get better appearance results from gaining some muscle - which women scared of muscles would call "toning"
) - rather than losing more weight. But like I said, we haven't seen you, so I'm guessing.
Unless your body configuration is very, very unusual, I question whether you should even lose 10 pounds, and strongly doubt that you should lose more. (Repeating: Ask your doctor.)
If you must lose weight (in your opinion), do it super slowly, get excellent nutrition (especially but not exclusively protein), and lift some weights . . . err, do some "toning", if that sounds better.
Best wishes!
P.S. If I'm coming across like your fussy granny, and you're a full adult woman so aren't reacting well to that, I'll just say that as I'm age 67, I'm probably old enough to be your fussy granny, or at least your old auntie. But I've been every age of younger myself, and felt differently at different points along the way, so I'm speaking from that. I truly would love to see you be healthy, beautiful, strong and thriving - that's where I'm coming from - even though I'm a total stranger.13 -
kshama2001 wrote: »scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
What's your frame size? I have a large frame, am a half an inch shorter than you, and my family would do an intervention if I got into the 130s, let alone the 120s.
http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp
I have a small frame.
0 -
scarlettfox1224 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
What's your frame size? I have a large frame, am a half an inch shorter than you, and my family would do an intervention if I got into the 130s, let alone the 120s.
http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp
I have a small frame.
The frame thing is IMO a little misleading. I'm going to assume you're an adult, because pre-adult people aren't even supposed to be using MFP (interpreting adult generously).
Do you have narrow hips? Narrow shoulders? Small breasts? Very little muscle? Then maybe something in the lower range of normal BMI zone would be appropriate.
Usually the frame-size estimators use wrist or elbow measurements to estimate frame size. It's really the bigger parts of the skeleton that relate to figuring out a healthy weight, but those are hard to measure in people who are substantially overweight (which you aren't). In women, even with a small frame (hips/shoulders kind of thing) breast size makes a difference.
For me, the wrist/elbow measurement thingies suggest I have a medium to large frame. I don't. I just have curiously giant hands and arm bones. I have narrow hips, zero breasts (post mastectomies, no reconstruction). (Even then, 125 - a weight I've been at recently - is thin on me at 5'5". Not skeletal, but thin - too thin for many people's taste, given feedback I got even here on MFP. But that's my business, just as your weight choices are you're business.)
My point is that I hope you're taking a clear-eyed look at your total body configuration, not just wrists/ elbows, or even making a quick assumption.
People of Asian heritage sometimes are more lightly-built, and there is different BMI guidance for that sub-population. The thing is, the border between normal and underweight is still 18.5, it's just that the overweight zone starts at BMI 23 instead of 25, and the obese range at 27 instead of 30.
What does your doctor say about your weight goals?
0 -
without a photo 5-7 and 135 can be many things, flabby with no muscle or some decent muscle and maybe SOME fat. It’s hard to give an accurate opinion on what to do.scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
5-7 and 125 is heading into the too lean category. Thinner isn’t always better.
2 -
scarlettfox1224 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
What's your frame size? I have a large frame, am a half an inch shorter than you, and my family would do an intervention if I got into the 130s, let alone the 120s.
http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp
I have a small frame.
The frame thing is IMO a little misleading. I'm going to assume you're an adult, because pre-adult people aren't even supposed to be using MFP (interpreting adult generously).
Do you have narrow hips? Narrow shoulders? Small breasts? Very little muscle? Then maybe something in the lower range of normal BMI zone would be appropriate.
Usually the frame-size estimators use wrist or elbow measurements to estimate frame size. It's really the bigger parts of the skeleton that relate to figuring out a healthy weight, but those are hard to measure in people who are substantially overweight (which you aren't). In women, even with a small frame (hips/shoulders kind of thing) breast size makes a difference.
For me, the wrist/elbow measurement thingies suggest I have a medium to large frame. I don't. I just have curiously giant hands and arm bones. I have narrow hips, zero breasts (post mastectomies, no reconstruction). (Even then, 125 - a weight I've been at recently - is thin on me at 5'5". Not skeletal, but thin - too thin for many people's taste, given feedback I got even here on MFP. But that's my business, just as your weight choices are you're business.)
My point is that I hope you're taking a clear-eyed look at your total body configuration, not just wrists/ elbows, or even making a quick assumption.
People of Asian heritage sometimes are more lightly-built, and there is different BMI guidance for that sub-population. The thing is, the border between normal and underweight is still 18.5, it's just that the overweight zone starts at BMI 23 instead of 25, and the obese range at 27 instead of 30.
What does your doctor say about your weight goals?
I have broad shoulders, medium sized breasts, and a decent amount of muscle. I'm not sure what that means in terms of frame size. I guess it would probably make me medium. And yes, I am an adult.0 -
scarlettfox1224 wrote: »scarlettfox1224 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »scarlettfox1224 wrote: »I weigh around 135 right now and am aiming to be 125. I am 5'7. Any tips on how to do this in an attainable way that is effective and quick? Should I lose more weight than that or stick to the 10lbs weight loss goal for now?
What's your frame size? I have a large frame, am a half an inch shorter than you, and my family would do an intervention if I got into the 130s, let alone the 120s.
http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp
I have a small frame.
The frame thing is IMO a little misleading. I'm going to assume you're an adult, because pre-adult people aren't even supposed to be using MFP (interpreting adult generously).
Do you have narrow hips? Narrow shoulders? Small breasts? Very little muscle? Then maybe something in the lower range of normal BMI zone would be appropriate.
Usually the frame-size estimators use wrist or elbow measurements to estimate frame size. It's really the bigger parts of the skeleton that relate to figuring out a healthy weight, but those are hard to measure in people who are substantially overweight (which you aren't). In women, even with a small frame (hips/shoulders kind of thing) breast size makes a difference.
For me, the wrist/elbow measurement thingies suggest I have a medium to large frame. I don't. I just have curiously giant hands and arm bones. I have narrow hips, zero breasts (post mastectomies, no reconstruction). (Even then, 125 - a weight I've been at recently - is thin on me at 5'5". Not skeletal, but thin - too thin for many people's taste, given feedback I got even here on MFP. But that's my business, just as your weight choices are you're business.)
My point is that I hope you're taking a clear-eyed look at your total body configuration, not just wrists/ elbows, or even making a quick assumption.
People of Asian heritage sometimes are more lightly-built, and there is different BMI guidance for that sub-population. The thing is, the border between normal and underweight is still 18.5, it's just that the overweight zone starts at BMI 23 instead of 25, and the obese range at 27 instead of 30.
What does your doctor say about your weight goals?
I have broad shoulders, medium sized breasts, and a decent amount of muscle. I'm not sure what that means in terms of frame size. I guess it would probably make me medium. And yes, I am an adult.
Yeah, without seeing you, that sounds kind of medium, actually.
To your original question, partly repeating myself, if you feel like losing is the right thing for you now, I'd suggest setting yourself up in MFP for half a pound a week loss, then monitoring for a full menstrual cycle on that regimen to see if you're close to average so lose at half a pound a week on average in reality. Once you have that much experiential data, you can adjust calorie intake if necessary to dial in the loss rate.
That won't be quick, but with so little to lose, losing slowly is the healthier option, i.e., I'd call it more effective, to use your term. If you exercise, MFP intends that you eat back exercise calories, too. You can synch a tracker if you have a compatible one, rather than logging exercise manually, let MFP and the tracker work out your daily calorie goal.
It's the calories that govern loss, but good overall nutrition is important for health, body composition, satiation, appearance, and that sort of thing. Continuing your exercise program (cardiovascular and strength) or starting one if you don't have one is also a good adjunct for health and appearance reasons.
You don't need to follow some complicated named diet unless that helps you: The right calorie level will lead to your weight goals, and balanced nutrition (choosing foods you like eating) is fine to get there healthfully. If you don't have much background with nutrition, just getting close to the MFP default macros, plus eating lots of nice fruits/veggies in the mix, is a reasonable start. (No need to be exact on macros; close on average is plenty fine.)1 -
Do you want to lose weight or do you want to LOOK leaner?
I feel like there's a difference. You can lose 10 pounds and look saggy/flabby still, but if you start lifting weights and toning your body will tighten up and look leaner... though the scale may stay the same or even go up.
All I'm saying is that the number on the scale is not always the important thing to focus on.6 -
Do you want to lose weight or do you want to LOOK leaner?
I feel like there's a difference. You can lose 10 pounds and look saggy/flabby still, but if you start lifting weights and toning your body will tighten up and look leaner... though the scale may stay the same or even go up.
All I'm saying is that the number on the scale is not always the important thing to focus on.
3000% this, but that idea of improving body composition didn't seem to be getting much traction with the OP. 🤷♀️
Celine Dion is a lovely woman with an amazing voice, but that's not the body type I prefer for myself. (Reports have her at 5'6"-5'7", mid-one-teens to mid-one-twenties pounds in her recent-ish very thin configuration, so only a little thinner than we're talking about here.)
I not motivated much about my appearance one way or another at this stage, but if I were, I'd be going for a more fit look.0 -
Without appropriate stimulus when losing without excess fat the partitioning of what you are likely to lose shifts.
So you could be looking at 1:1 fat to lean mass or even 0.5 to 1 if you do big deficit, no protein, no exercise stimulus. Vs me while obese where with similar conditions (except for protein) was losing at a 10 : 1 ratio at one point. And anywhere in between
Without recomp effort the most likely result is a smaller version of today. Perhaps some increase in muscle definition albeit not necessarily additional muscle--just visibility maybe (op said good muscle mass)
Personally the goals as defined are not what I would choose for myself and I would definitely encourage in person third party validation. Would also proceed extremely cautiously and with small deficits for all the above reasons and more--including eventual maintenance 🤷♂️2 -
Oopsies 🤣0
-
Oopsies.... doggy info was for text!!!🤣0
-
Speaking of recomp, Kelsey Wells, who is also 5'7" tall, arguably looks better (fitter) at 140 pounds than 122 pounds.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/2016072756018/fitness-blogger-kelsey-wells-shows-weight-doesnt-matter/1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Speaking of recomp, Kelsey Wells, who is also 5'7" tall, arguably looks better (fitter) at 140 pounds than 122 pounds.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/2016072756018/fitness-blogger-kelsey-wells-shows-weight-doesnt-matter/
I think she got a little creative with angles and posing. But yeah, it depends on a variety of factors how you will look at any given weight.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Speaking of recomp, Kelsey Wells, who is also 5'7" tall, arguably looks better (fitter) at 140 pounds than 122 pounds.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/2016072756018/fitness-blogger-kelsey-wells-shows-weight-doesnt-matter/
Thanks @kshama2001 I wanted to post this very thing for OP so she could see what everyone was talking about and couldn’t find it lol1 -
There are some examples of looking better at the same weight via recomposition over in the related thread here, but they're spread through 126 pages that include a lot of advice/comment rather than progress photos. A plus is that they're clearly not as carefully lit/photographed as some may believe Kelsey Wells to be. They're mostly the typical MFP phone snapshot kind of thing.
Here are examples of of posts from 3 different women near the start of the thread; I don't have to go through the whole thing to pick out relevant photos, but there are more there, based on memory.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/32736021/#Comment_32736021
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/32755881/#Comment_32755881
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/32783608/#Comment_32783608
Here's one that's the same woman at a substantially heavier weight, with more muscle, from recent pages of the thread:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45752661/#Comment_45752661
Start of thread is here: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat/p1
Yeah, it's a slow thing. Takes work. No, I'm not doing it myself. I'm a lazy hedonist. I'm not devoid of muscle, particularly for my demographic (F, 67), but I don't work diligently for that purpose, I just do active fun stuff.
If I wanted to look better, recomp is what I'd do, though, for sure. How cut a person looks with any given amount of muscle is a function of how much overlying subcutaneous fat they still have, and how recently they worked out (i.e., more pumped or less).
I used to be close with athletes/staff at a very strong NCAA Division 1 women's rowing program. The rowers looked pretty cut/muscular in their unisuits right after a race, and utterly lovely and graceful in their short, spaghetti-strap dresses at the banquets . . . at dress-up time, when not pumped, looked pretty much the way I think a large number of women want to look when they say they want to be "slim and toned" or similar verbiage.
(The women's body weights were published on roster during part of that time, as with other athletes; and I knew some of their body weights later from casual conversation. It was typical for them to be probably 20+ pounds heavier than most people would guess, compared with similar-overall-sized non-athletes. Watching their weight-room workouts, they were doing legs with plates that I swear looked like freight train wheels.)1 -
It looks like she first lost the fat and then added muscle rather than recomped if the timeline is left to right plus lighting and a tan make a huge difference with these progress type of shotskshama2001 wrote: »Speaking of recomp, Kelsey Wells, who is also 5'7" tall, arguably looks better (fitter) at 140 pounds than 122 pounds.
https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/2016072756018/fitness-blogger-kelsey-wells-shows-weight-doesnt-matter/
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions