is it really too much to lose?

hollymccall

Hey y'all. Let me break this down. I.got into a heated discussion today about my weight loss. The argument was...am I trying to lose too much weight. I am 33 years old, my height is 5'5, and I weigh 144 pounds. My waist is 37 inches, hips are 40 &1/2 inches. My goal weight is 120 pounds. Is that really unreasonable? Is it too much? Opinions are welcomed.

Kenazwa

More than losing weight, it sounds like you need more muscle, which takes up less space than fat and gives you a smaller, firm shape. I weigh 204 at 5'7", and my waist is 37".

There are online calculators that can help more. Visit the fat2fit site.

gmthisfeller

Anything between 120 and your current weight is in the normal BMI range. Dropping pounds to change your current shape would not be a bad thing. More important is your current fat mass percentage. A good target might be about 20%.

mebepiglet123

To me it's purely a personal thing. What will you feel comfortable with? Do you intend to do weights? As this will affect the scales but all good because you will be toned. My estuary Ayr 10 lbs first and see how you feel and look. I would do some research and work out your tdee, don't starve yourself as it will only come back on. Google scoobys calculator.

deksgrl

Focus on losing FAT, not necessarily weight. I can understand why you think you should lose 20 pounds, your waist measurement is a bit high for that weight. But if your measurements were smaller, you probably wouldn't care as much about the number on the scale, if you liked how you looked. You can lower your body fat % without losing a lot of weight.

bcattoes

I would agree about building some muscle. I am also 5'5" but almost 20 years older than you and almost 20 lbs heavier, and both my waist and hips are smaller. And I am pear shaped.

bcattoes

Anything between 120 and your current weight is in the normal BMI range. Dropping pounds to change your current shape would not be a bad thing. More important is your current fat mass percentage. A good target might be about 20%.

That is pretty low for a woman.

deksgrl

Anything between 120 and your current weight is in the normal BMI range. Dropping pounds to change your current shape would not be a bad thing. More important is your current fat mass percentage. A good target might be about 20%.

Depends on her age. 20% is lower than the ideal range for women over 30.

firstsip

Are we sure this isn't a typo? Did you mean 27" for your waist, OP?

mebepiglet123

Anything between 120 and your current weight is in the normal BMI range. Dropping pounds to change your current shape would not be a bad thing. More important is your current fat mass percentage. A good target might be about 20%.

That is pretty low for a woman.

I agree . Would would have to eat super clean and lift a huge amount and it would take years to get to 20%.

mebepiglet123

Are we sure this isn't a typo? Did you mean 27" for your waist, OP?

Considering the hip measurement I agree...

allbarrett

I'm your height , and was at 120 lbs before I started a bulking routine, so I'm up a couple of pounds now. My waist is 25", hips 36", and no one has told me I look underweight (hint: because I'm not). I'm between 17 and 20% body fat (depending on which calculator or method is used).

Don't get into arguments about your weight/fitness goals. If people offer unsolicited advice, thank them for their thoughts and change the topic. If they are persistent, be more blunt.

deksgrl

Are we sure this isn't a typo? Did you mean 27" for your waist, OP?

Considering the hip measurement I agree...

Those of us who carry fat tummies can have those kind of measurements. 37-40 was my waist/hip when I started here. My hip measurement stays about the same, I don't gain/lose there much.

firstsip

Anything between 120 and your current weight is in the normal BMI range. Dropping pounds to change your current shape would not be a bad thing. More important is your current fat mass percentage. A good target might be about 20%.

That is pretty low for a woman.

I agree . Would would have to eat super clean and lift a huge amount and it would take years to get to 20%.

Both of these sentiments are slightly incorrect.

20% is considered a pretty standard "athletic" amount of BF% for a woman. Many fit, menstruating women (as BF dropping "too low" is seen with a loss of menstruation) have or sit around 20% without eating "super clean" or eating a huge amount. What do you consider huge? Amount of weight or time? I've definitely seen many women lifting maybe 3x a week at 20% BF, with little to no cardio even. As for weight, well, that's something I think should be recommended, not dissuaded as being "too difficult." It's not necessarily a super long period to get to 20%, as well, for many people, nor should something taking years necessarily mean a goal is not worthy.

Regardless of what OP wants, 20% isn't "too low." It's on the lower end of healthy, and some "Google charts" sometimes peg it as underfat, but in general, you'd have to dip below 16-18% for most women to actually be in a danger zone for fat.

mschicagocubs

I got down to that a few years ago when I lost 50lbs. Sure, I looked skinnier with clothes on ... I still wasn't blowing people away in a bathing suit.

I suggest focusing less on the number on the scale and focus more on looking better. Work out, lift weights!

bcattoes

Anything between 120 and your current weight is in the normal BMI range. Dropping pounds to change your current shape would not be a bad thing. More important is your current fat mass percentage. A good target might be about 20%.

That is pretty low for a woman.

I agree . Would would have to eat super clean and lift a huge amount and it would take years to get to 20%.

Both of these sentiments are slightly incorrect.

20% is considered a pretty standard "athletic" amount of BF% for a woman. Many fit, menstruating women (as BF dropping "too low" is seen with a loss of menstruation) have or sit around 20% without eating "super clean" or eating a huge amount. What do you consider huge? Amount of weight or time? I've definitely seen many women lifting maybe 3x a week at 20% BF, with little to no cardio even. As for weight, well, that's something I think should be recommended, not dissuaded as being "too difficult." It's not necessarily a super long period to get to 20%, as well, for many people, nor should something taking years necessarily mean a goal is not worthy.

Regardless of what OP wants, 20% isn't "too low." It's on the lower end of healthy, and some "Google charts" sometimes peg it as underfat, but in general, you'd have to dip below 16-18% for most women to actually be in a danger zone for fat.

I didn't say it was "too low". I said it's pretty low. If the OP wants to do that for vanity purposes it's fine, but there is no other reason to shoot for BF% to be that low. 24% or 25% is well within the healthy range and much more easily attained and maintained.

firstsip

Anything between 120 and your current weight is in the normal BMI range. Dropping pounds to change your current shape would not be a bad thing. More important is your current fat mass percentage. A good target might be about 20%.

That is pretty low for a woman.

I agree . Would would have to eat super clean and lift a huge amount and it would take years to get to 20%.

Both of these sentiments are slightly incorrect.

20% is considered a pretty standard "athletic" amount of BF% for a woman. Many fit, menstruating women (as BF dropping "too low" is seen with a loss of menstruation) have or sit around 20% without eating "super clean" or eating a huge amount. What do you consider huge? Amount of weight or time? I've definitely seen many women lifting maybe 3x a week at 20% BF, with little to no cardio even. As for weight, well, that's something I think should be recommended, not dissuaded as being "too difficult." It's not necessarily a super long period to get to 20%, as well, for many people, nor should something taking years necessarily mean a goal is not worthy.

Regardless of what OP wants, 20% isn't "too low." It's on the lower end of healthy, and some "Google charts" sometimes peg it as underfat, but in general, you'd have to dip below 16-18% for most women to actually be in a danger zone for fat.

I didn't say it was "too low". I said it's pretty low. If the OP wants to do that for vanity purposes it's fine, but there is no other reason to shoot for BF% to be that low. 24% or 25% is well within the healthy range and much more easily attained and maintained.

You were actually who I meant specifically with the "slightly," as you're right, you didn't say it was too low nor is it, but it being "pretty low" is arguable on different scales. For an average of most women, it's pretty low. For vanity or athletic looks, it's pretty normal. I'm assuming OP is aiming for vanity looks based on information she's provided here and on her profile.

ETA: Of course, OP didn't specifically cite this number for BF%, but in response to that individual, yes, it's an arbitrary number of BF to recommend for someone.

hollymccall

Focus on losing FAT, not necessarily weight. I can understand why you think you should lose 20 pounds, your waist measurement is a bit high for that weight. But if your measurements were smaller, you probably wouldn't care as much about the number on the scale, if you liked how you looked. You can lower your body fat % without losing a lot of weight.

This is true. I want to lose the fat. Mind you, I've had four children. Not saying that's an excuse. I love being a mom,I want to feel like a woman too tho. Just want to lose the rolls of fat and feel sexy in some lingerie for once.

deksgrl

Focus on losing FAT, not necessarily weight. I can understand why you think you should lose 20 pounds, your waist measurement is a bit high for that weight. But if your measurements were smaller, you probably wouldn't care as much about the number on the scale, if you liked how you looked. You can lower your body fat % without losing a lot of weight.

This is true. I want to lose the fat. Mind you, I've had four children. Not saying that's an excuse. I love being a mom,I want to feel like a woman too tho. Just want to lose the rolls of fat and feel sexy in some lingerie for once.

Understand completely. I tend to carry the fat in the belly too. Do you have access to a gym? What I have found that works well for losing the fat is this: Eat to aim for half a pound a week weight loss, get .8 grams of protein per pound of your body weight, lift heavy weights, light cardio walking about 30-45 minutes.

firstsip

Focus on losing FAT, not necessarily weight. I can understand why you think you should lose 20 pounds, your waist measurement is a bit high for that weight. But if your measurements were smaller, you probably wouldn't care as much about the number on the scale, if you liked how you looked. You can lower your body fat % without losing a lot of weight.

This is true. I want to lose the fat. Mind you, I've had four children. Not saying that's an excuse. I love being a mom,I want to feel like a woman too tho. Just want to lose the rolls of fat and feel sexy in some lingerie for once.

I suggest looking into body recomposition. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com has some good articles and resources to point the way.

You could do that or a modified version. Eat at a small deficit, so some sort of strength training (heavy lifting being the most efficient), and wait for the BF% to melt off (instead of just a number on the scale).

hollymccall

Are we sure this isn't a typo? Did you mean 27" for your waist, OP?

Considering the hip measurement I agree...

It's no typo. I wish! I have alot of fat around my tummy butt and thighs.