Met BF% goal, but not weight/clothing size; NOW what?

Swimgoddess

So I'm practically at my goal body fat percentage-wise, but would still like to lose an additional 11-18lbs (I'll re-evaluate when I hit 145 to see if I can go to 138 without compromising WHR/"curves") and 2-3 clothing sizes (from a 10/11 in jeans to an 8).

I guess my question is, NOW WHAT? I don't really have much interest in lowering my body fat % much more (maybe 17%, but I'm a fan of having curves and all those "bonuses" that occur with ovulation; dewy skin, sexier voice, pheromones, increased sex drive, etc.) What's the best way to reach my other goals while maintaining my current body composition?

dragonbug300

Probably just continuing what you're currently doing for weight loss will help. To promote hormonal health, eat plenty of fats. You may even want to take omega-3 supplements. Usually it gets more difficult to lose that 'good' fat when you reach your set point.

sarahlyzzibeth

One thing to keep in mind is your bone structure... I know I will never, never , never be smaller than a size 10 pant size, and that's because I was blessed with wide hips (the distance between the two crests of my hips will never be small enough to fit in a size 8 pant). And I'm okay with that! As long as I'm healthy, pant size is just a number.

Swimgoddess

My wrist circumference (6") puts me in the "small frame" category by quite a bit for being 5'8.5"; Self Magazine's Happy Weight Calculator gives an ideal weight of 144lbs. I've also been 142lbs and 19% BF before while I was active-duty AND after having 2 kids, so I know it can be done. My third baby was the smallest and I gained less with her than I did with #1. She's also nearly 15 months, so I know my hips are fully back to "normal".

wolfchild59

Like the poster above said, your body shape may not just ever allow you to drop additional sizes in a healthy way. I also have wider hips and often deal with pants that fit just right at my hips being too big in the waist. And doubt that I'll ever be able to go any lower in my pants size that I'm currently in.

I was checking out http://www.mybodygallery.com the other day after someone here posted it and it's fascinating to see the differences in body types. I put my current stats and saw lots of women thinner than me and a couple rounder, with pants sizes from two below mine to two above mine. And then when I looked at the pic set for my goal weight, I saw almost the same range in pants sizes, but it only went to one above mine instead of two.

So I you get to a weight and BF% that is healthy and where you want to be, then despite what the number on the tag says, that's where your body is healthy so it's sorta just time to accept that as your size. Thankfully, I never had a clothing size goal, so I've just been happy to go down at all. heh

Swimgoddess

I appreciate all the previous responses, but am bumping for more input since my frame/bone structure doesn't seem to be the issue.

I just always assumed I'd hit my goal weight/size long before the body fat % target.

SHBoss1673

well, first think i'll ask is why?

I know this may sound silly, but I'm serious, really ask yourself what reason you have for wanting to lose more weight. I mean, 17% is pretty darn good for ANYBODY of the female persuasion. Tell me you're not just doing it so you can say you fit into a particular clothing size! I may have to drive to whereever you live and bonk you on the head.

But really, ask yourself this: If I took a picture, cut off the head from the shot, would I like the body? If you say yes, then stop trying to lose weight.

Now, as to the now what section, make other goals, goals that don't include weight. I.E. performance goals, time goals, maybe something you've always wanted to do but never thought you could...etc.

Here's something to keep in mind. Weight loss is a head game for many people. Make sure you're thinking about your body in the right manner. Examine how you feel about food. Examine how you feel about exercise. Really think about that stuff. Long term success means having the right attitude and lifestyle.

Swimgoddess

^^^ Thank You.

The reason why my goals are set to where they are is because that is where I felt I was at my peak fitness and appearance-wise while I was active duty AND it was easy to maintain and makes sense for where I am in my life (status as a mother). Sure I could argue my boot camp stats were my peak but that would be highly unreasonable (131lbs, nulliparous and with amenorrhea). But 8 months after my second baby (ONLY 5 YRS AGO) I was 138-142, 19% body fat, a size 8, happy & fit.

So I don't feel it's unreasonable to want to achieve that again. Am I happier with myself now than when I started? Hell yes! Am I so unhappy with where I'm at now that I can't enjoy it? No. Is there room for improvement without compromising my beliefs in what is proportionate and aesthetic? I believe so because I've been there and done that.

Just need to know if I should just keep doing what I'm doing? Before I was operating under the belief I was eating about 125 calories above my BMR based on 26% BF and MFP's .5lb (edited because I accidentally hit post) deficit. Now I find I'm smack dab at my BMR again for being 19.8% BF. Which might explain the plateau. I also have a Polar FT7 coming in, so would I still set that for fat burn? I'm doing Circuit Weight Training 3x/wk with weights I can only tolerate 6-10 reps on; do I need to adjust that?. I do 20-75 min of cardio 1-2x per week.

Losingitin2011

The thing is, the body changes as we get older. It changes a lot after having children. At my healthiest I was a size 8 and about 150, but I had no hips, or boobs. I have accepted that my body changed. My hips will not likely get much smaller than they are now, and I'll probably be about a size 10/12. Another factor to consider is that sizes have changed. They're getting smaller for the same number. An 8 now, could easily be a 4-6 from 10 years ago. Personally I think you look absolutely amazing and I can only hope to look that good when I get to my goal. :-)

h3h8m3

I don't really understand what your question is. What are you hoping to accomplish? You're at a healthy body fat %, you definitely don't need to reduce that any further.

So what do you want to do? You can't make yourself thinner without losing either fat or muscle.

Seems like there are two options, either you gained a bunch of muscle since your earlier days, so you're at a higher weight but lower body fat %, or your body has changed in some other way.

Maybe if you give some more specific questions about what you actually want to accomplish some of the smart folks here can give more helpful advice.

Swimgoddess

I'm having trouble understanding why I could be 19% BF at 138-142 as little as 5 years ago after having 2 of my 3 children, but because I hit 19.8% at 156 now, it's not possible/recommended to lose more weight/tone-up/lean out to 138-145 and maintain that 19% BF.

SHBoss1673

I'm having trouble understanding why I could be 19% BF at 138-142 as little as 5 years ago after having 2 of my 3 children, but because I hit 19.8% at 156 now, it's not possible/recommended to lose more weight/tone-up/lean out to 138-145 and maintain that 19% BF.

how is it possible? mmm, changes, that's it. more muscle mass, more bone mass, more water weight, difference in type of body fat measuring tools.

But I'd be eating more than your BMR at 19.8% BF, I'd be looking at maybe half way between BMR and maintenance at least (maybe more). Especially if you're lightly active or more. You don't have a heck of a lot of extra fat around to make up the deficit, and if you're not making up the deficit, you're eating into muscle mass, and that's not a good thing.

Shadowcasting

My wrist circumference (6") puts me in the "small frame" category by quite a bit for being 5'8.5"; Self Magazine's Happy Weight Calculator gives an ideal weight of 144lbs. I've also been 142lbs and 19% BF before while I was active-duty AND after having 2 kids, so I know it can be done. My third baby was the smallest and I gained less with her than I did with #1. She's also nearly 15 months, so I know my hips are fully back to "normal".

Okay, I'm sorry but your ideas about frame and hips are a bit off.

Your hips don't "go back to normal" after a baby. Once the hips spread through pregnancy and child birth, they stay that way. That's just basic biology/human anatomy. Anthropologists and medical examiners often use the pelvis and changes to it to identify bodies -- and they can differentiate a pelvis that supported a pregnancy and childbirth \(or more than one) from one that never has.

Also, your wrist circumference has nothing to do with the width of your hips. It is possible, and not uncommon, to have small wrists and wide hips. They are not dependent upon one another.

Swimgoddess

Okay, I'm sorry but your ideas about frame and hips are a bit off.

Your hips don't "go back to normal" after a baby. Once the hips spread through pregnancy and child birth, they stay that way. That's just basic biology/human anatomy. Anthropologists and medical examiners often use the pelvis and changes to it to identify bodies -- and they can differentiate a pelvis that supported a pregnancy (or more than one) and childbirth from one that never has.

Also, your wrist circumference has nothing to do with the width of your hips. It is possible, and not uncommon, to have small wrists and wide hips. They are not dependent upon one another.

I understand that there is a difference between a nulliparous pelvis and a parous one. That's why my goals are set for a point I had reached >after< I already had 2 kids. Are you telling me that my pelvis widens/changes with EACH pregnancy even though my children's birth weights got progressively lower? In that case, poor Mrs. Duggar. I can respect the wrist thing, but it's what I have readily available to work with, unless you have a better idea/resource you can point me to? I wear a size 9 shoe and my bra band measurement is 32-34".

I just want to be as fit as I can.

noltes2

well, first think i'll ask is why?

I know this may sound silly, but I'm serious, really ask yourself what reason you have for wanting to lose more weight. I mean, 17% is pretty darn good for ANYBODY of the female persuasion. Tell me you're not just doing it so you can say you fit into a particular clothing size! I may have to drive to whereever you live and bonk you on the head.

But really, ask yourself this: If I took a picture, cut off the head from the shot, would I like the body? If you say yes, then stop trying to lose weight.

Now, as to the now what section, make other goals, goals that don't include weight. I.E. performance goals, time goals, maybe something you've always wanted to do but never thought you could...etc.

Here's something to keep in mind. Weight loss is a head game for many people. Make sure you're thinking about your body in the right manner. Examine how you feel about food. Examine how you feel about exercise. Really think about that stuff. Long term success means having the right attitude and lifestyle.

Yes, exactly this! If you are 5'8.5, 156 pounds and less than 20% bf that puts you in an OPTIMAL range! Heck, I haven't had kids and I am not under 20%. My personal trainer raised his eyebrows when I said I wanted to hit below 20 and said, "that's pretty lean!" So if you lose more weight it's either going to come from lean mass, or the remaining body fat you have, which you said you were trying to avoid. If you still decide you want to shrink some more, I would recommend working with a trainer since you have very specific and targeted goals. In my opinion it is worth the cost - every single penny!

Also, how did you get your body fat tested? Is it possible the calculations could be higher or lower than you got? Either way you are doing so great!

Losingitin2011

http://www.healthcentral.com/diet-exercise/ideal-body-weight-3146-143.html

This is kind of what I'm going off of to start because I don't agree with the BMI being for everyone. What does it say for you?

Swimgoddess

http://www.healthcentral.com/diet-exercise/ideal-body-weight-3146-143.html

This is kind of what I'm going off of to start because I don't agree with the BMI being for everyone. What does it say for you?

144-158, the Self Mag Calculator uses wrist circumference too and also came up with 144, but it considered additional factors such as having children, never smoking and not having obesity in my family.

Edited to address:

But I'd be eating more than your BMR at 19.8% BF, I'd be looking at maybe half way between BMR and maintenance at least (maybe more). Especially if you're lightly active or more. You don't have a heck of a lot of extra fat around to make up the deficit, and if you're not making up the deficit, you're eating into muscle mass, and that's not a good thing.

I use the Katch-McArdle method to do my BMR, which until yesterday, resulted in 1,508. I was set for MFP's .5/wk setting which was 1600. Now Katch-McArdle BMR is at 1,599 and I'm set at MFP maintenance/1,840. I was eating back all exercise calories until a week ago I got frustrated with the plateau and reduced to half >pending arrival of my HRM< just ordered; then I'll go back to eating all.