Unrealistic expectations (short, but large framed women?)

springtrio

Hi all - hoping to gain some advice.

My doctor says I have some unrealistic expectations. I however, am wondering if there is a slight chance he can be wrong.

In 2009-2010, I shed a little over 100lbs. Unfortunately in late 2010/early this year, I gained back 30 of them. 5 of which I've taken off in the past 10 days. I'm assuming most is water weight but whatever.

I struggled to get into the 140's. No matter what I did, I could NOT get below 140. I'm 5'4, and I've weighed 130 before but I was 18. It wasn't a healthy 130. It was an exercise all my calories off 130 and I'll eat whatever I want (fast food). Fast forward almost 9 years later with 3 kids and a husband...we all know where that landed me. Anywho, I'm very large framed and he said my body is comfortable and "healthy" at 140, no matter how much I changed things up. I really don't want to settle because 140 for my height/weight combo is still on the high range of healthy and wondering if that staying there could bring me health problems later on in life. Is there a specific reason my body will not let me get out of the 140's?

If you've been through this, or you've had a client/patient deal with what I'm going through, anyone please help. I want to make realistic expectations for myself...not holding onto a number I'll never achieve.

shoppie

Hmm, I'm 4 inches taller than you and currently reckon I should weigh around 145/150. I actually weigh 168 and definitely still need to lose weight (not just fat) I would say I have a medium frame. Are you very muscular because maybe that's why your weight is on the high side of healthy?

BrentGetsFit

I'm not a short, large-framed woman but some advice comes to mind. How did you determine your goal weight? Are you looking at body fat percentage at all? If you're in the ballpark of what the BMI chart says is healthy, now might be the time to ignore the scale and focus on body fat. With less BF you may weigh more but it will be muscle and therefore look better. Good luck

springtrio

Hmm, I'm 4 inches taller than you and currently reckon I should weigh around 145/150. I actually weigh 168 and definitely still need to lose weight (not just fat) I would say I have a medium frame. Are you very muscular because maybe that's why your weight is on the high side of healthy?

I'm extremely muscular. It's the only good thing I can say about losing weight is I pack on muscle within days of lifting weights.

Newkell

at 140 you are in the healthy range. I am a short, large framed woman and at my most comfortable thinnest I was around 140-145. I got below to 135 once (after starving myself when I was really young too) and couldn't maintain it. After 3 kids maybe a healthy 140 will be good for you. It sounds like you have come a long way. Enjoy your success! Maybe toning up would be a good thing? you might be 140 but will look like 120. good luck

springtrio

I'm not a short, large-framed woman but some advice comes to mind. How did you determine your goal weight? Are you looking at body fat percentage at all? If you're in the ballpark of what the BMI chart says is healthy, now might be the time to ignore the scale and focus on body fat. With less BF you may weigh more but it will be muscle and therefore look better. Good luck

How? I'm going by what I was before I was ever overweight. Bare in mind, I was a teenager the last time I was in the healthy weight category. (17, I think). I'm 28 now. I don't have an appointment with my dr for a while but I will bring up body fat percentage next time I do go. I'm unfortunately not in that ballpark, have to lose to get back to those 140's, but I think I'm going to focus on BF once I bring it up to him. I absolutely hate weight lifting (but for my body type, it's actually the best exercise for me because I tend to build muscle easily) but I think I may work on it. Thank you for your help - never thought to look at BF percentage.

shoppie

Well I reckon if you are very muscular its probably right as I'm working on being slender but def not muscular. If you're at all concerned, I'd agree with the suggestion re: measuring body fat Sounds like you are doing great, I had my third baby 5 months ago and would love to be a healthy weight and feel content with my body

JennLifts

It's not an unhealthy weight at 140. I'm your height, and i'm 120. But I'm a tiny frame.. I'd say set your goal at 140, and once you hit it re *kitten* by 5lb increments, listening to those around you about how you look.

digby765

I read somewhere that said the older we get we should carry a few extra pounds more than we did in our teens/20's/30's etc, i seem to recall that those extra pounds shouldn't be more than 7-10 post 50, not sure thats of much help though, will be interesting to see what other MFPers contribute here...:flowerforyou:

2Bgoddess

that is a good point about the muscle. Carrying a significant amount of weight for a long period of time requires a lot of muscle under it, especially if you were still quite active. your thighs and calves muscles will have built up over time, and since they are large muscles to begin with, can account for some of that weight you cannot seem to shed.

fitness experts at a local gym should be able to point you in the direction of exercises meant to tone and reduce the bulky muscle, giving you a leaner look, and possibly a small loss in weight. try not to hold the number on the scale as your goal, rather how you look, feel and what fits!

(my dad was heavy for years, and had HUGE leg muscles cuz he was also a Letter Carrier, 6 hours of walking a day will do that for sure!)

springtrio

at 140 you are in the healthy range. I am a short, large framed woman and at my most comfortable thinnest I was around 140-145. I got below to 135 once (after starving myself when I was really young too) and couldn't maintain it. After 3 kids maybe a healthy 140 will be good for you. It sounds like you have come a long way. Enjoy your success! Maybe toning up would be a good thing? you might be 140 but will look like 120. good luck

So glad I"m not alone. It's just hard to settle when I've came so far. Thank you!

digby765

Ooops should have added that those few extra pounds were based on you being the correct 'healthy' weight in teens 20's etc etc

springtrio

that is a good point about the muscle. Carrying a significant amount of weight for a long period of time requires a lot of muscle under it, especially if you were still quite active. your thighs and calves muscles will have built up over time, and since they are large muscles to begin with, can account for some of that weight you cannot seem to shed.

fitness experts at a local gym should be able to point you in the direction of exercises meant to tone and reduce the bulky muscle, giving you a leaner look, and possibly a small loss in weight. try not to hold the number on the scale as your goal, rather how you look, feel and what fits!

(my dad was heavy for years, and had HUGE leg muscles cuz he was also a Letter Carrier, 6 hours of walking a day will do that for sure!)

I get my "big bones" from my father, too. :P

I also hate gyms but think I may have to go and join just to get properly educated on what to do.

2Bgoddess

forget joining! most gyms will offer a free trial day, or week or something...start asking questions the minute you get in! LOL

sonybalony

I too am 5'4" (I have shrunk since basic training twenty years ago!), large framed and at my lightest I was 138 and looked emaciated... It was horrid. At my very healthiest, in the Army, doing physical training daily, I weighted 145 and was H.O.T.!!! Muscular and feminine looking. That is only a 7 pound difference, but what a difference it was!!! I too put on muscle quickly. Unfortunately I take fat off VERY slowly due to PCOS.

Perhaps the way you feel or the way your clothing fits would be a better indicator for you. Do you have energy to hang with the kiddos at the park? If your hubby asked you to go on a canoe trip would you fear you would die or would you be up for the challenge? The number on the scale is just a number. Where your body is happy (and seeing as it seems happy at a VERY reasonable number) should be a nice point to fine tune. Enjoy your body and enjoy your life. Dieting forever trying to get to a "number" is no fun. Start living the NEXT phase, maintaining and getting comfortable in a healthier, happier body!

Warmth and Friendship from Missouri!

Sonia

springtrio

forget joining! most gyms will offer a free trial day, or week or something...start asking questions the minute you get in! LOL

Unfortunately the only gym in town is an independently owned one (our town protests against anything bigbox - Walmart, Kmart, Walgreens...you name it...LOL). I wish we had an LA Fitness or Ballys since I know they always offer those awesome free trials. So with three kids going to school at different times my only option is this gym. I could be more social so joining couldn't hurt.

springtrio

I too am 5'4" (I have shrunk since basic training twenty years ago!), large framed and at my lightest I was 138 and looked emaciated... It was horrid. At my very healthiest, in the Army, doing physical training daily, I weighted 145 and was H.O.T.!!! Muscular and feminine looking. That is only a 7 pound difference, but what a difference it was!!! I too put on muscle quickly. Unfortunately I take fat off VERY slowly due to PCOS.

Perhaps the way you feel or the way your clothing fits would be a better indicator for you. Do you have energy to hang with the kiddos at the park? If your hubby asked you to go on a canoe trip would you fear you would die or would you be up for the challenge? The number on the scale is just a number. Where your body is happy (and seeing as it seems happy at a VERY reasonable number) should be a nice point to fine tune. Enjoy your body and enjoy your life. Dieting forever trying to get to a "number" is no fun. Start living the NEXT phase, maintaining and getting comfortable in a healthier, happier body!

Warmth and Friendship from Missouri!

Sonia

Thank you - I think that's the hardest part for me...accepting that I'm not a small framed woman and I'll never be. Like you, I have that picture of myself in the 130's that looks like I'm about 115 because of my bone structure and I kind of hold on to it as I'll one day reach it, but not sure if it's the right thing for my body. My mother in law told me I need to learn to work on the outside or I'll end up sabotaging myself (like I did this past winter) and gaining some weight back like she did.

I do have lots of energy (I'm a runner) and it energizes me so that I can be there for my kids and play with them everyday. What about calories? Realistically can you eat 1,200 a day for those pants to fit better, or do you eat more? Do you require your larger frame needs more or is that more of a myth?

zornig

So glad I"m not alone. It's just hard to settle when I've came so far. Thank you!

I'm not sure why you've got it into your head that 140 pounds is "settling" for anything. The numbers you're referring to for these "ranges" are somewhat arbitrary; but even so, as you said, 140 is within the range! You no longer have the metabolism of an 18 year old, for one. And if you're exercising and in decent shape, you'll probably look fantastic and healthy at 140.

songbyrdsweet

Have you gotten your body fat measured? I'm 5'0 but my goal weight is about 10-15 lbs higher than most other women on MFP. I am just focused on body fat loss.

LorinaLynn

Here's an example of why the scale isn't the be-all, end-all.

Here's me in a pair of jeans when I was 19 years old and about 110 lbs. And me at 39 years old and about 130 lbs in the exact same pair of jeans last week.



Granted, those jeans are much, much tighter now, and my waist doesn't look as tiny. But seeing how jeans stretch out as you wear them, and these have been unworn and stored in a hot attic for 20 years, there may be some shrinkage at play. And I'd much rather have my 39 year old abs than my 19 year old midriff.

So don't stress getting to the same number on the scale. When you have more muscle, you're going to weigh more, but look better, at the same size.

springtrio

Here's an example of why the scale isn't the be-all, end-all.

Here's me in a pair of jeans when I was 19 years old and about 110 lbs. And me at 39 years old and about 130 lbs in the exact same pair of jeans last week.



Granted, those jeans are much, much tighter now, and my waist doesn't look as tiny. But seeing how jeans stretch out as you wear them, and these have been unworn and stored in a hot attic for 20 years, there may be some shrinkage at play. And I'd much rather have my 39 year old abs than my 19 year old midriff.

So don't stress getting to the same number on the scale. When you have more muscle, you're going to weigh more, but look better, at the same size.

Thank you for posting this - you are MUCH more fit at 39 than you were at 19. Your posts ALWAYS make me smile - thank you.

I think the hardest part is accepting something else other than what I had imagined when I started this journey. I just wish I wasn't so obsessive with the scale.

sonybalony

I too am 5'4" (I have shrunk since basic training twenty years ago!), large framed and at my lightest I was 138 and looked emaciated... It was horrid. At my very healthiest, in the Army, doing physical training daily, I weighted 145 and was H.O.T.!!! Muscular and feminine looking. That is only a 7 pound difference, but what a difference it was!!! I too put on muscle quickly. Unfortunately I take fat off VERY slowly due to PCOS.

Perhaps the way you feel or the way your clothing fits would be a better indicator for you. Do you have energy to hang with the kiddos at the park? If your hubby asked you to go on a canoe trip would you fear you would die or would you be up for the challenge? The number on the scale is just a number. Where your body is happy (and seeing as it seems happy at a VERY reasonable number) should be a nice point to fine tune. Enjoy your body and enjoy your life. Dieting forever trying to get to a "number" is no fun. Start living the NEXT phase, maintaining and getting comfortable in a healthier, happier body!

Warmth and Friendship from Missouri!

Sonia

Thank you - I think that's the hardest part for me...accepting that I'm not a small framed woman and I'll never be. Like you, I have that picture of myself in the 130's that looks like I'm about 115 because of my bone structure and I kind of hold on to it as I'll one day reach it, but not sure if it's the right thing for my body. My mother in law told me I need to learn to work on the outside or I'll end up sabotaging myself (like I did this past winter) and gaining some weight back like she did.

I do have lots of energy (I'm a runner) and it energizes me so that I can be there for my kids and play with them everyday. What about calories? Realistically can you eat 1,200 a day for those pants to fit better, or do you eat more? Do you require your larger frame needs more or is that more of a myth?

When I lost weight the first time (I kept if off for many years until I had babies... rotten teenage babies now!!!) Once I reached 145, I exercised daily and ate when I was hungry. Healthy meals with the occasional crap meal. I didn't count calories then but I know that when I reach a stable weight after the second bubba was born, I ate 150 more cal a day for a week and checked my weight, then I added 150 more for a week and checked again and repeated until I found the calories that maintained my weight, with little fluctuation. I don't know if frame size determines calories as much as activity and individual metabolism. :-) We are all very very individual, what works for me may be horrible for you. Trial and error until you find what works best for you!

With Friendhsip and Warmth from Missouri,

Sonia