Ideal weight vs different body types

Options
Raven2evil
Raven2evil Posts: 73 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
So I'm 5'1" (yes i'm super short). I' currently 160 lbs. According to charts and my height my ideal healthy weight would be 116. No I have never been 116 lbs nor do i want to be. So that makes me almost 50 lbs overweight. BUT i have a lot of muscle and have 31.2% body fat which isn't terrible but it def could be better. So my ideal weight for myself would be 125-135. Does anyone else feel they have this problem where they feel like if they were to get to their "medical" idea weight they would look bad? I would have to lose muscle in order to get to that size i don't want that. Are there any other charts that we can use or are we to just set our own goals of what we think we'd look good as.
«1

Replies

  • MorgueBabe
    MorgueBabe Posts: 1,188 Member
    Options
    O_o
    You wouldn't have to lose any muscle.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    If you just follow BMI calculators, a lot of athletes are obese. So don't worry too much about it. Go by body fat %.

    I'm sorta in the same boat, by following some calculators I would have to be 154lbs to get to 25% body fat, but that would make me overweight too. To get to a healthier weight of 140lbs, I'd have to go down to 20% fat... which is underweight for my age. Personally I'll just go with how I look. I've been at my goal weight (130lbs) but I had not much in term of muscles. So I made my goal low, and if I'm happy with my looks before then, I'll switch to maintenance.
  • TD1273
    TD1273 Posts: 3
    Options
    Raven,

    Body weight is a horrible way to determine your fitness level. I could show you 3 different pictures of me at nearly the same weight and you would be looking at 3 very different people. The scale is a dirty fraud that is not to be trusted. A continual before and after photo journal is the only way you will accurately be able to track where you are at, where you are headed and where you want to be.
  • Raven2evil
    Raven2evil Posts: 73 Member
    Options
    O_o
    You wouldn't have to lose any muscle.
    I feel like for me to get down to 116 I would need to lose muscle and that I'd look super underweight if I my weight was that low.
  • jadedone
    jadedone Posts: 2,449 Member
    Options
    Personally, I am not super concerned with the scale weight. I don't have a bf scale. I have used the online apps. My goal weight puts me right around 24% bf which is about what I am shooting for. If I get to where I want, with a higher weight on the scale, I am not concerned at all. [my goal is solidly in the middle of "overweight" by BMI standards]

    I do have weight to lose, but I don't have "obesity related health problems" at my current weight. Many people who are where I am today do. I am low risk so far, and my aim is to stay that way. Much of that is controlled by habits and not the scale, so I am focused on continuing and building on healthy habits.
  • MorgueBabe
    MorgueBabe Posts: 1,188 Member
    Options
    Have you looked on my mybodygallery.com
  • Dogwalkingirl
    Dogwalkingirl Posts: 320 Member
    Options
    In my opinion BMI is a load to poop! I was upset as a teenager when I went to a Dr and was told I was overweight. I was 5'6 and at the time about 156 lbs. I was a competitive swimmer, player soccer and wore a size 6-8. Do not focus on that...focus on how you feel, how your clothes fit, inches etc.
  • herblackwings39
    herblackwings39 Posts: 3,930 Member
    Options
    I chose a goal weight near the high end of the range of "healthy" weights for my height. I consider it a starting point, nothing else. If I find out that I'm happier at a higher or lower weight I'll find out when I get closer.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    O_o
    You wouldn't have to lose any muscle.

    what?

    Taking off 30.2% body fat leaves her with 111.7 lbs of lean mass. If she didn't lose lean mass, at 116 she'd have 4.3/116=3.7% body fat.

    So yes, she would.
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    OP: Why do you feel like you should be aiming at precisely the middle of the BMI range? Up to 25 is normal. If you went for 25, that'd have you weighing 132. The high end of the range is precisely for heavier muscled people.
  • TD1273
    TD1273 Posts: 3
    Options
    In my opinion BMI is a load to poop! I was upset as a teenager when I went to a Dr and was told I was overweight. I was 5'6 and at the time about 156 lbs. I was a competitive swimmer, player soccer and wore a size 6-8. Do not focus on that...focus on how you feel, how your clothes fit, inches etc.


    You nailed it.
  • squirrelythegreat
    squirrelythegreat Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    It's all about how you feel, not about what a number on a piece of paper says about you. I think I'm still obese on the chart (overweight for sure) and I ran a half marathon a week and a half ago. Ignore BMI.
  • tonyoconnor129
    tonyoconnor129 Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    To quote Valentine Michael Smith, "I am but an egg."
    In other words I am so new to this fitness thing that
    I can not comment on your question directly. But I can
    tell you where I am on this particular trip down fitness
    lane.
    I am 54, 6'3 and started this trip at 230lbs. I joined MFP
    and set a goal to get to 195 pounds. when I was 230 pounds my Body fat % was at about 30,
    over fat for both my age and height, forgetting about BMI 's which are too general to be of any real use
    except to say, "yep, you are tall and fat, short and fat, tall and skinny short and skinny"
    Now, since January, a month before I joined here, I have gotten down to 201 pounds, and my Body Fat% is
    down to balancing around 19.5%
    So, in the beginning, I was carrying 69 pounds of FAT, and 161 pounds of lean mass.
    Now I am only carrying around about 40 pounds of fat, and 161 pounds of lean.
    With the exercise and diet it seems I have been able to stave off the muscle loss
    while burning the fat.

    I have been sticking to about 1800 calories a day, vegetarian, nearly vegan diet, and WALKING to the ends of the earth, it seems. I also do some varying strength exercises mostly with body weight. I have added resistance bands, and tai chi for balance.

    I agree that the scale is not the best way to measure fitness, but for me it is all I have, not to mention fitting into old clothes again. Next stop-- 38 inch waist, again.
  • sandy_gee
    sandy_gee Posts: 372 Member
    Options
    mybodygallery.com

    Love this site^
    Input height, body shape, and see tons of women at different weights!
  • kristinL16
    kristinL16 Posts: 401 Member
    Options
    I would go by body fat percentage rather than weight (or at least put more emphasis on the BF%). As I write this, I wonder if there is any data that shows that being at a higher weight but healthy BF% is just as good (or not) as being a lower weight and healthy BF%?

    Anyway, I agree that everyone is different. You may find that as you lose weight you don't think your goal is too low, or you may decide that it is. I am about 5' tall and my goal is 115-120. When I was in college I felt I looked best at 105-110. I don't know what my BF % was then. I am now 38 (next week) and have 4 kids. I don't know that it is sustainable for me to be that weight again, but we will see. As it is I lose VERY slow and will just be happy to get to 120 and have less body fat. I weigh 134 right now and definitely have too much fat.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,411 MFP Moderator
    Options
    If it makes you feel better, for me to get into a normal weight range or BMI, I would have to be 175 lbs, would mean 10+ lbs of muscle loss. I would rather be overweight with a 6 pack.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    <--- overweight according to the BMI

    Pay attention to body fat % and the mirror.

    Out of interest, where are you getting your BF% from?
  • zenchild
    zenchild Posts: 680 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'1" and 116 now. It's still a bit more than I want. I have a short torso and I'm never going to be super skinny. I have hips and a butt and I always will. I still have a bit of a tummy and love handles. I had much more when I was 135. I'm not going for a goal weight as much as a goal shape, as measured by a certain pair of jeans. To that end, I've stopped trying to lose weight as much as I'm trying to get healthier. I don't care what the scale says as long as I can get one smooth curve from my waist to my hip. That will probably happen when I'm about 110-112.
  • IlyanaRose
    IlyanaRose Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    I'm 5ft 1" as well, and as much as I'd like to be 110lbs or less, it'll probably never happen. I have wide hips, a big bottom and big boobs; I'm not built to skinny. My target is 126lbs with anything under that being a bonus, but I would probably have to starve myself to get to the lower end of the healthy BMI range.
  • affacat
    affacat Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    i'm 5'5 and a half, male, and weight 150. my scale tells me i'm 20% bf, and 24.9 bmi, so top end of 'average'.

    however, my natural build is thick chested (as in, all shirts that fit me are super tight at the chest, with tons of room at the belly) because i have a sort of barrel chest build.

    depending on what online calculator i use, i've seen bmi calcs tell me i should be as low as 116... which is absolutely absurd. if i was 135, i'd look anorexic. i'm aiming for about 142.5, but even then, by that point i'll probably have added muscle mass and will finish closer to 145.

    build matters way, way more than any calculation can account for, especially if you're not a normal build. when i'm at my fittest, people several inches taller than me have the same weight, but their stomach/chest is a straight line, where as my stomach drops back a couple inches. (even at 150, my lower ribs all show).

Categories