Are some people not meant to be thin

I do not believe this for one fraction of a second. I think it's the biggest cop-out in the world. My mom tried using this mentality on me, saying girls in our family are just genetically programmed to have big butts, fat thighs, and cellulite covering them, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Well guess what, I lost my jiggly butt, no longer have fat thighs, and got rid of all the cellulite covering them. People who say this--like my mom--I'm pretty sure are just using it as a defense mechanism and excuse to avoid putting in the hard work that losing weight takes.

Edited to add: This does not mean that I am not limited by my genetics in any way. We all are to a certain degree. I am not fine-boned, so I will probably never weigh under 106 lbs, despite being EXTREMELY short (5'0") and lean. I will never have Giselle Bundchen's legs, because my thighs are so muscular they could never get that slender, and they will never magically grow 6", so I will always have stumpy-short legs. There are certain things you have to accept about your body, and just be the best you YOU can be.

I've almost responded to this thread a number of times today. This is sort of the way I was leaning, that "not meant to be" is a cop out for the most part. I think partly because this poster and I have had similar experiences.
I used to think that I was meant to be bigger. Then I started training for a figure competition. Low and behold, when I was actually diligent about my diet and exercise, the weight I couldn't move before started to come off.

It does come down to what your concept of "thin" is. I can be very lean, with abs but I will never wear a size 2 or 4 in pants. Without sacrificing a good amount of muscle mass, I will never be tiny. I would still consider myself thin.

I said that a lot back in the day. "I am big boned"... I have a "big frame". Come to find out.. after losing 50 lbs I have a much smaller frame than I thought. YOu might want to check out....

Same here.

Fat since childhood.
Assumed I was "big boned".
Lost a lot of weight in my late teens.
Got to a great weight for a large framed man.
Had tons of fat left.
Discovered that I actually am a medium framed guy.

Thin is over rated.

Go for strong and healthy.

Thin is over rated.

Go for strong and healthy.

don't mind having all three...:flowerforyou:

At 5' 5" a "healthy" weight range would be 111-150 lbs, based on BMI standards.

If it were me, and I couldn't seem to get below the high end of the healthy weight range without making myself miserable, I'd probably just be happy with that, and try to maintain.

Just wondering. I've hit a plateau at about 148-150lbs. I can't get past 148. I am 26 and looking back I've always been on the thick side since I was a baby. I've never been thin. Maybe I'm not suppose to be. I'm getting frustrated not being able to lose more weight. I started at 170 in feburary. Since May I've been at 150 and u keep losing and gaining the same pound. I've been restricting what I eat to only 1200 calories and still nothing.

Read This: This:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_calorie_is_a_calorie

I am fascinatedly in.

Please for more opeds and wiki links without any context or explanations at all.

I want out! But I was already in.

I said that a lot back in the day. "I am big boned"... I have a "big frame". Come to find out.. after losing 50 lbs I have a much smaller frame than I thought. YOu might want to check out....

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


It is an ideal weight tracker for your body type..

Sorry Op, I don't have much to add to your original question but I checked this out out of curiosity...it told me I would need to lose 14lbs in order to be "ideal". Down to 90-99lbs. Not sure I would put too much faith in this. Its better to just go by how you feel and look imho.

Mine was dead on for the lowest range. Funny how these things work.

Thin is over rated.

Go for strong and healthy.

don't mind having all three...:flowerforyou:

I've been very think and trust me it's over rated.

You've lost 20 lbs., which is great, and your BMI is in what is called the "high normal" category. There are larger boned people who will never be at the lower range of the BMI scale. I have a daughter who is 5'10", large framed, big shoulders, and she has always been on the "high normal" side or a tad "overweight." She wears a size 11 shoe and can even wear men's sport coats. She will never be run-way model thin; her wrists are the size of my upper arms. If you want to try to overcome your plateau, go for it, but don't starve yourself or go into a cycle of self-hatred or think you are "copping out."

I have a sister who is 2 inches taller than I am and 6 lbs. lighter. I've had 3 children, and she has never had children. I will probably never weigh as little as she does, but I have had to let go of having that super thin body and accept having a fit mother's body. I don't think that's a lie or a "cop out."

I'm pretty sure both people who mentioned "cop out", myself and the person I quoted, specifically mentioned body type and the different interpretations of being "thin". Both of us said the same thing that some body types won't be model thin with sacrificing muscle mass and drastic dieting.

FTR - I'm also 5'5 and am on the higher end of the BMI when at my preferred maintainance.

That link to health central about "ideal body weight" is crap, according to it, I'm underweight but I've still got a heap of fat in my chest and stomach.

The simple fact is there is no "ideal weight". A persons weight is a compromise between what it looks like physically, how it works physically, how the person is feeling regarding hunger, energy, cold sensitivity, heat sensitivity etc etc.

The only person who gets to decide what your "ideal weight" is YOU. Also, please don't use BMI as a "guide", first of all it was designed for large populations, secondly it has an approximation that lets you use height squared, a slightly better formula is 1.3 x weight divided by height to the power of 2.5. This is because weight is correlated to height to the power of 2.5, but back when the original formula was made, people didn't have access to scientific calculators nor knew how to use logarithmic tables.

I thought BMI was designed for smaller people, not larger. For instance, larger males and people who are larger framed and muscular but have low body fat can be classified as "overweight." For instance, the weight range is the same for males and females. One example, at 6', anything over 184 lbs. is overweight. I have 3 large males in my family, all of whom are "overweight" or "obese"; none of these guys has been 184 since early high school. My husband is definitely overweight/obese by any standards, but my younger son is just a big guy who works out a lot. My daughter, also larger framed, has always been on the high normal or low overweight range. These people will never be in the mid-range or low normal range. The range is much more generous for smaller people. I'm short and in the middle of normal range, but I actually have some curves and bodyfat,, more than my "overweight" 6'3" son. In fact, according to my BMI, I could be 10 lbs. heavier and still not be "overweight", but when I was at that weight, I was definitely plump.

Like others said, it depends on your definition of "thin". I'm the same height as you - and I know people at my same height who weigh 115-120, and it suits their body type. At my healthiest, I weighed about 140 - which I think suits my particular body type, so I don't think I'd ever aim for the lower-end of my BMI range.

Just wondering. I've hit a plateau at about 148-150lbs. I can't get past 148. I am 26 and looking back I've always been on the thick side since I was a baby. I've never been thin. Maybe I'm not suppose to be. I'm getting frustrated not being able to lose more weight. I started at 170 in feburary. Since May I've been at 150 and u keep losing and gaining the same pound. I've been restricting what I eat to only 1200 calories and still nothing.

Your not eating 1200 calories otherwise you would lose weight. So either your over estimating your food or the numbers your working with are wrong.

Have a look at this link it will help with accurately weighing and measuring food

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide

I would agree with this poster. I'm 53, 5'5" and I've been eating closer to 1400 calories per day and slowly losing weight. If you are truly eating at 1200 calories/day, you should be losing weight. It would be helpful if your diary were open. Are you weighing your foods with a scale? You're half my age and have probably a far higher metabolism than mine, so if you're not losing weight at 1200 calories there's something going on. I used to eat at 1200 calories but plateaued at 161 for 8 weeks. Since then, I've upped my daily intake range 1,350 to 1,600 (I change it up every so often to keep my body guessing) and I started losing weight again.

I don't know.
Are some people not meant to be fat ?

.

Do you think you would continue to plateau if you suddenly found yourself in, say, Somalia?

But swashbuckling isn't in the MFP exercise database.... How would I know how many kcals are burned being a pirate? A HRM doesn't go with the look..... I MUST KNOW!

Are you happy with they way you look?
I'm your height and know from past experience that your weight would look fine and curvy not at all fat or whatever.
Do you exercise? Some strength training might make you feel better.
I aim to be around your size when I reach my goal, however I eat more than you do and exercise regularly. I have found that's the key for me.
Slow and steady.