Some of us are just not made to be *that* skinny
Options
Replies
-
I'm 5'6 and was 154lbs before getting pregnant (30 weeks now) so just in a healthy BMI range, but I was wearing a UK size 10/12 (US 6/8) and looked fine. I wanted to lose another 5-10lbs, but no-one would've said I was overweight, and in fact most people who know me in real life thought I weighed a lot less anyway. Even my personal trainer thought I looked like I weighed less.
The thinnest I've been, in my early 20s, was 145lbs, and at 154lbs I was wearing the same clothes (I kept some). I didn't do strength training back then, and I restricted calories too much, and I looked a bit gaunt at that weight, so actually 10 years later and 9lbs heavier I looked better!0 -
You can't always go off of guidelines.
My daughter is 18 yrs old, 5'7 1/2, 112lb, and not unhealthy. Very healthy and eats what she wants.
Just she is very petite and always been that way.0 -
I am going to share my experience losing 65 pounds, and I hope this helps.
I wanted to lose weight to meet a social norm. I was laser-focused, super-motivated, and had a personal trainer and fitness classes to keep me on track. I reached my goal weight of 165lbs in a relatively short amount of time, I knew that I needed another goal if I wanted to maintain that weight and stay with the social norm, lest I fall back into my old habits and gain it all back.
Over time, my focus changed completely. I finally realized by looking around me that the social norm wasn't health, but instead was the ILLUSION of health. Low-fat, high carb snack foods, excessive cardio, six-packs on Abercrombie bags, and secret late-night binging and weekend overindulgence.... followed by guilt and excessive dieting. THAT is the social norm... a vicious cycle that eventually collapses and returns you to where you started: overweight and depressed.
Over time, I stopped caring about social norms anymore because, let's face it, the social norm is to eat crappy food and keep generally poor health!! I see plenty of "thin" people who still eat garbage food... thin doesn't always mean healthy.
I began to focus on being the best version of myself that is possible. That means staying fit and healthy so I can live a long and full life, and never have to miss out on something because I wasn't fit enough to do it. I now eat healthy because I am making an investment in my future, and I exercise because I genuinely enjoy lifting weights and riding my bike to get away from my normal life for an hour a day. I get a good feeling from exercise that I can't get sitting around doing nothing.
If you eat healthy and exercise regularly for an entire year, then whatever weight you end up at is the best version of yourself, and you should feel great about that! Looking a certain way in a swimsuit is not a definition of health. If only you knew all of the crazy, unhealthy body tricks used by fitness models to get to 5% fat....
If you can truly and honestly say that you eat healthy and exercise regularly, but still think you are fat, then you should seek professional help to deal with some psychological issues, because it is physiologically impossible to do those things daily be unhealthy. The body simply doesn't work that way. An unheathly body is like a lump of coal... with enough pressure (i.e. good eating and exercise) and time, it WILL become a diamond... with the exception of VERY VERY VERY rare hormonal issues, it is an inevitability.
Just remember to live for health, and not image, and suddenly you find yourself more motivated to do the right thing every day.
If you're looking for motivation or inspiration, you can also check out my website at FatToFit Dot Org.0 -
actually 120-130 for a woman who is 5 ft 5 is on the cusp of being underweight.
The guideline I've always seen: For a woman, 100 lbs for the first 5', plus 5 lbs. for each additional inch. For a man, 106 lbs. for the first 5', plus 6 lbs. for each additional inch. Don't know how it works for people under 5', or the really tall.
According to that formula, a woman 5'5" "should" weigh 125 lbs. The BMR for 120-130 is 20 to 21.6. Underweight doesn't kick in until a BMI less than 18.5. So, no, hardly on the cusp of underweight.
That said, I agree with the OP. I'm 5'5" and look/feel best around 135-140.
If I was to do that 100 + 10 cos I am 5'2, that would make me around just under 8stone that would put me slap bang back into my ED, until GP's take it seriously and not keep using BMI we will have to fend for ourselves, 8 stone lmao, never gonna happen0 -
'Skinny' is not an attractive term. Get yourself to a weight that you feel healthy and good at, and happy when you look in the mirror.0
-
actually 120-130 for a woman who is 5 ft 5 is on the cusp of being underweight.
I would stick with your goals.
Actually, it's 110... I would know, I only just managed to put on a few pounds and surpass that! Yet, at 113 (and 5'5"), I actually have curves- a soft look, a waist that goes in and out, a lower half that could rival Beyonces (...or not), anything but a straight up and down stick figure- and it's because I have a petite frame. My mother is the same way! Which brings us back to the exact point OP was getting at: BMI charts are the last thing you should go by when you're taking steps to improve your health. This is too true.0 -
actually 120-130 for a woman who is 5 ft 5 is on the cusp of being underweight.
The guideline I've always seen: For a woman, 100 lbs for the first 5', plus 5 lbs. for each additional inch. For a man, 106 lbs. for the first 5', plus 6 lbs. for each additional inch. Don't know how it works for people under 5', or the really tall.
According to that formula, a woman 5'5" "should" weigh 125 lbs. The BMR for 120-130 is 20 to 21.6. Underweight doesn't kick in until a BMI less than 18.5. So, no, hardly on the cusp of underweight.
That said, I agree with the OP. I'm 5'5" and look/feel best around 135-140.
That guideline is a load of BS as it doesn't take into account frames size or muscle mass.
According to that I should be 110lbs. I would need to lose muscle mass to get to that weight with a safe level of body fat.
I've seen this "guideline" quotes a few times on mfp. I'd love to know where people are getting it from, my guess is a book that also sells you a diet plan :noway:
Op go by the mirror and how you feel. Not an arbitrary number. :flowerforyou:
It's called Broca's index, developed by a surgeon in 1871, so it's been around a while. I was incorrect on part of it--men start with 110 lbs., not 106. Plus or minus 15% for women to account for build; plus or minus 10% for men. May not be accurate for women right around 5'.
Can't remember where I first saw it many years ago--definitely NOT a diet book, though. (Even if it were mentioned in a diet book, that in itself doesn't make it incorrect or BS.) Broca's index had some influence on the early life-insurance company weight tables.0 -
I am also 5'5. I am currently 172 lbs and at this point, people are telling me I am getting too small. My goal is 155, but I would love to walk around saying that I'm 5'5 125... it just ain't gonna happen. I'm a bigger girl but I actually love having curves!
What I really want is a flat stomach and smaller thighs. When I reach that point, whatever weight it may be, I'll stop!0 -
actually 120-130 for a woman who is 5 ft 5 is on the cusp of being underweight.
The guideline I've always seen: For a woman, 100 lbs for the first 5', plus 5 lbs. for each additional inch. For a man, 106 lbs. for the first 5', plus 6 lbs. for each additional inch. Don't know how it works for people under 5', or the really tall.
According to that formula, a woman 5'5" "should" weigh 125 lbs. The BMR for 120-130 is 20 to 21.6. Underweight doesn't kick in until a BMI less than 18.5. So, no, hardly on the cusp of underweight.
That said, I agree with the OP. I'm 5'5" and look/feel best around 135-140.
That guideline is a load of BS as it doesn't take into account frames size or muscle mass.
According to that I should be 110lbs. I would need to lose muscle mass to get to that weight with a safe level of body fat.
I've seen this "guideline" quotes a few times on mfp. I'd love to know where people are getting it from, my guess is a book that also sells you a diet plan :noway:
Op go by the mirror and how you feel. Not an arbitrary number. :flowerforyou:
It's called Broca's index, developed by a surgeon in 1871, so it's been around a while. I was incorrect on part of it--men start with 110 lbs., not 106. Plus or minus 15% for women to account for build; plus or minus 10% for men. May not be accurate for women right around 5'.
Can't remember where I first saw it many years ago--definitely NOT a diet book, though. (Even if it were mentioned in a diet book, that in itself doesn't make it incorrect or BS.) Broca's index had some influence on the early life-insurance company weight tables.
And from what I have read it isn't commonly used anymore and is a rough estimation that applies to middle body sizes best.0 -
Throw out the scale. It's a bad measuring unit of success. For an attractive body your goals should be 15 to 20 lbs of lean muscle combined with 15% body fat (Women). 10% bodyfat guys. Take a weekly picture that is repeatable if you want a good measuring stick.
I'm guessing you didn't have the lean muscle when you got down to a low body fat % before.
If anyone watched the Biggest Loser finale, that was why Rachel looked anorexic.
LeadingMuscle.com0 -
I'm 5'6 and 122lbs... I have no thigh gap and still a good deal of tummy fat. There are no magic numbers to achieve societal ideals of perfection. Enjoy your natural shape and curves. We all differ0
-
Throw out the scale. It's a bad measuring unit of success. For an attractive body your goals should be 15 to 20 lbs of lean muscle combined with 15% body fat (Women). 10% bodyfat guys. Take weekly pictures that a repeatable if you want a good measuring stick.
I'm guessing you didn't have the lean muscle when you got down to a low body fat % before.
If anyone watched the Biggest Loser finale, that was why Rachel looked anorexic.
LeadingMuscle.com
15 % is extremely lean for women, competition lean. Its is just above essential bodyfat at 13%. Athletes are typically between 12-20%, fitness 21-24%
There is no "attractive" body. Everyone has their preference and there are a lot of attractive bodies at higher bodyfat percentage.0 -
I think she is referring to the system for athletes that is generalized for females to weigh 100 pounds at 5feet tall then 5 pounds additionally for ever inch there after. So if she's 5'5 it'd be 100 pounds plus 5x5 so 125. That rule in particular is for endurance athletes or highschoolers and i wouldn't necessarily tact that rule onto an average woman... who cares the number anyone gives you, honestly, if you're happy in your skin that's all that matters
0 -
Yeah, don't ever just through out a 15% body fat for women generically. I run cross country and track and i'm about 13% and i don't have periods at all which is nice but when i want to start having kids you can't be in the athletic body fat range at all. 15% is extremely lean unless you are a seriously competitive athlete specializing usually in endurance events.0
-
I am almost 5'2. My lowest weight was 125 in high school. The next time I see that number will be well after I am dead!! I would be happy at 160!!!0
-
That just shows we're all different. My starting weight is 155lbs and I'm currently 149lbs and I'm still flabby with lots of rolls of fat. I think I need to lose about 30lbs of fat, but I guess with the extra muscle I'm working on I'll be about 130. We're all different (I am also 5'5'')0
-
The chart I just looked at says anywhere from 117 to 155 is the ideal weight range for a 5'5" woman. So, your goal weight is fine.
http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heightweightchart.htm0 -
I'm your height and I've been thinking about this too - I've lost some weight and am at roughly 134lbs so technically a really healthy weight but parts of me (like my back and waist) are OBVIOUSLY still fat because I have rolls yet my shoulders and collarbones kind of scare me because they've suddenly gotten so skinny - there's no cushioning there at all. My Mum has been saying I look too skinny and have lost too much weight but I'm still not happy with my body
all very confusing. I know spot-reducing doesn't work so all I can think of doing is keeping up with the diet and hopefully the weight loss will even out when I get nearer to 120. 0 -
A really refreshing post! I am 5'4' and it I'm pretty sure I would look ill if I were to get to the 135 or whatever it is to be the perfect weight according to BMI, I could do it if I were just skin and fat and not have any muscle. Good to see someone else know that skinny doesnt equal sexy. Better to be happy and healthy!0
-
i'm 5'5 as well and I assume i live in the same society as you and i've never noticed being told i need to look one way or another or be one weight or another.
be an adult and put on your big girl panties and you decide what you want to make of yourself and stop blaming society. you chose what you want to allow in your life0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions