"I want to lose weight, but I don't want to get too skinny!"
Options
Replies
-
I want to lose weight and be 'too skinny' not death rattle thin, gonna pass out if I miss that one bite of cracker thin. But skinny.0
-
I'm with many others on this: my first goal is at the high end of the normal weight BMI range. That's when I'll evaluate how I look and what's my next goal. I have a large chest (from past experience, I'm guessing that won't be the place I lose a lot of weight) and prominent hip bones, so being on the low end of the normal weight range might not look all that good. But then again, a lot of that depends on how much fat and how much muscle there is.0
-
When I graduated from high school, I weighed 108 pounds @ 5'3" (BMI of 19.1). I looked like a toothpick with 2 olives stuck to the top (32DD). I gained in college and ended up in some strength training classes to build more leg muscles, I was a dancer and wanted explosive leaps. I ended up looking really great @ 136# (BMI 24.1). I quit dancing in a troupe, started teaching high school, had 3 kids, and got heavy. My top weight was 181# (BMI 32.2). My goal is 145 (7 pounds to go!) I can already see my muscles showing all over. I don't want to go much lower than that and that's not even in the healthy range for my height. Looking at my pictures from high school, I just don't like how I look. I'm skinny, but I'm not toned.0
-
I've seen a couple of women in the gym who are a bit too skinny in my opinion. I'm not saying they are anorexic skinny. But I personally like curves on a woman, myself included. But I do understand partially where you're coming from. When I was in the best shape of my life...quite a few of my friends told me I was too skinny. I think this was a tad bit of jealousy on their part because there was no way I was too skinny...I was 142 pounds at 5 8 with 15 % bodyfat. I was lean but I was not too skinny. I never, never want to look like the runway models out there! Some woman may want that look but not me. Just my two cents:)
0 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
0 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.-4 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
To each their own. It's thin enough for me. And thin enough for my doctor to tell me I shouldn't lose anymore. I think I'll listen to him over you, but thanks.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »holly55555 wrote: »Well for me, "too skinny" means getting to a body fat percentage that is very difficult for me to maintain. I want to be able to eat like a normal and healthy person - and be allowed cheat meals! I don't want to kill myself getting to a super thin body and then never get to enjoy foods I love just to stay there. My goal is to be fit and still eat what I want (in moderation).
Why would you have to sacrifice foods you love and be unable eat like a normal (whatever that means), healthy person even if you did get "super thin"?
I'm already thin, just trying to lower BF%. To get a super low BF, you don't really get to cheat or you have to workout crazy amounts. My cousin is a fitness model and that is what she does to stay in such awesome shape, but I just don't have any desire to be at that level. That's where I draw my line of "too thin" or in her case "too in shape", hahaha. My goal is 18%, currently at 25% 0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So while most overweight people realize they are too heavy and want to lose weight, most don't want to become a runway model who looks emaciated. That's all they are saying.
Good thing the vast, overwhelming majority of once heavy people will never even taste "runway model emaciated".
Which does make it odd that so many fat people run around claiming to be terrified of getting "too skinny".
Well. Most normal weight people will never be above 300 lbs. Does it make it completely irrational to be terrified of this possibility and take measures to avoid it?
0 -
I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands.
But see this is where stuff like this is baffling as hell to me.
Yes we all vary, to a degree, but your doctor telling you to not lose more weight doesn't make sense to me.
I'm a 5' 10" male, size 12 men's shoe, with a medium build and a decent amount of visible muscle mass. At my smallest I was in the higher end of your current goal range, and still had plenty of fat left to lose. In order to get ultra lean, 10% or less, I'm likely going to have to drop down into the 160s or even 150s. And that's again lean with a decent amount of muscle, which will leave me pretty ripped, but not too skinny.
Unless you're a radical outlier with a far above average amount of muscle, it's amazing to me that your doctor would advise you not to lose more weight when you're in the range many taller men than you would rest at when at a normal, healthy weight. Has your doc down thorough body fat and lean mass percentage tests on you?
I'm not making any commentary on where you feel you look best, but rather on the idea that a doctor would actually advise you that being above 170 lbs is your ideal range, to the point of telling you to NOT go lower. What does he/she think is going to happen if you do?0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So while most overweight people realize they are too heavy and want to lose weight, most don't want to become a runway model who looks emaciated. That's all they are saying.
Good thing the vast, overwhelming majority of once heavy people will never even taste "runway model emaciated".
Which does make it odd that so many fat people run around claiming to be terrified of getting "too skinny".
Well. Most normal weight people will never be above 300 lbs. Does it make it completely irrational to be terrified of this possibility and take measures to avoid it?
How many normal weight people have you met, or talked to, who have an active fear of reaching 300 or more pounds?
So far, for me, it's 0. However I've lost count of the many people, from obese to just moderately overweight, who've expressed some fear, real or put upon, that they sooooo don't want to get too skinny.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »So while most overweight people realize they are too heavy and want to lose weight, most don't want to become a runway model who looks emaciated. That's all they are saying.
Good thing the vast, overwhelming majority of once heavy people will never even taste "runway model emaciated".
Which does make it odd that so many fat people run around claiming to be terrified of getting "too skinny".
Well. Most normal weight people will never be above 300 lbs. Does it make it completely irrational to be terrified of this possibility and take measures to avoid it?
How many normal weight people have you met, or talked to, who have an active fear of reaching 300 or more pounds?
So far, for me, it's 0. However I've lost count of the many people, from obese to just moderately overweight, who've expressed some fear, real or put upon, that they sooooo don't want to get too skinny.
I think there are just many more people in the overweight range that it would be a lot less acceptable to express those feelings out loud. I know the things I've heard when people have emphatically stated they do not want to get fat and listed reasons - it ain't pretty.
Late edit: I mean, when people state reasons why they want to lose weight, to me it seems they're also stating why they do not want to become or remain fat. It's probably just done in a much more routine and perhaps respectful manner that you may not even realize it's happening?0 -
I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.0 -
DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands.
But see this is where stuff like this is baffling as hell to me.
Yes we all vary, to a degree, but your doctor telling you to not lose more weight doesn't make sense to me.
I'm a 5' 10" male, size 12 men's shoe, with a medium build and a decent amount of visible muscle mass. At my smallest I was in the higher end of your current goal range, and still had plenty of fat left to lose. In order to get ultra lean, 10% or less, I'm likely going to have to drop down into the 160s or even 150s. And that's again lean with a decent amount of muscle, which will leave me pretty ripped, but not too skinny.
Unless you're a radical outlier with a far above average amount of muscle, it's amazing to me that your doctor would advise you not to lose more weight when you're in the range many taller men than you would rest at when at a normal, healthy weight. Has your doc down thorough body fat and lean mass percentage tests on you?
I'm not making any commentary on where you feel you look best, but rather on the idea that a doctor would actually advise you that being above 170 lbs is your ideal range, to the point of telling you to NOT go lower. What does he/she think is going to happen if you do?
If a woman is an American size 10/12 in pants, my guess is that their body fat percentage is not in a good range. The extra weight is likely fat, not muscle.0 -
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
0 -
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
How old are you? When I was a teenager, I was a size 6 at 5'4" and probably around 105 pounds due to my extremely wide hips. Now at age 40 at almost the same weight, I'm a size 2. Sizes have changed dramatically over the years. My body isn't any more muscular than it was when I was a teenager. It's probably less muscular due to aging causing more fat. I'm guessing that size 2 could even have been a size 8 over 20 years ago. It's at least a 6 though.0 -
I'm 41 - 5'4" & 171lbs. Size US10/12.
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
How old are you? When I was a teenager, I was a size 6 at 5'4" and probably around 105 pounds due to my extremely wide hips. Now at age 40 at almost the same weight, I'm a size 2. Sizes have changed dramatically over the years. My body isn't any more muscular than it was when I was a teenager. It's probably less muscular due to aging causing more fat. I'm guessing that size 2 could even have been a size 8 over 20 years ago. It's at least a 6 though.
When I was 22, I was a brickhouse and wore a US8. I've had two kids and two c-sections since then, so I don't think the midsection is really going to quite recover. I'd be perfectly happy to drop 25lbs and fit easily and comfortably into US6/8 for the rest of my life.
0 -
I'm 41 - 5'4" & 171lbs. Size US10/12.
I'm a US10/12 and 38% bodyfat! Plenty of fat to lose in my midsection. I'm not too worried about getting too skinny.DawnieB1977 wrote: »I find it strange too. People claim to have different body types though and claim to be more muscular naturally whereas they look emaciated at a low weight, but I do wonder if they are fooling themselves. Without purposely lifting weights to bulk up, I question if they are right. I look best at the low end of the bmi scale or a little underweight according to bmi.
Well, there are such things as different body types, so I'm not sure why you think someone is fooling themselves if they say this. I'm 5 foot 8. My goal is to be between 170 and 175, which is above my ideal weight range. I got down to about 173 years ago, and even my doctor told me not to lose any more weight. I am built big though. I wear size 12 shoes, and have big hands. I just have a larger body type, and I can carry more weight and still look thin. I was about a 10/12, sometimes an 8 at that weight. Going any lower just isn't sustainable for me. Not fooling myself, just being realistic.
10/12 is not thin.
Is that an American 10/12 or a British one? I'm thin at a 10/12, but I'm English, so it's a US6/8.
I think it depends how you carry your weight though. I'm a UK14 (US10) now, but as I'm losing baby weight, I don't look right, my belly is still fat, so I don't look good at this size. I'm 5'6. Some women carry weight differently though and might look better at the same size.
I meant American sizes. If someone is an American pants size 10/12, they likely have extra fat in their stomach.
That said, I don't think anything smaller than a generously cut US6 will ever fit me due to my hips. When I was in my early 20s and *super* fit, my trainer said we might need to shave my bones to get me into a 6. (Today's size 6s are a little bigger, I think.)
How old are you? When I was a teenager, I was a size 6 at 5'4" and probably around 105 pounds due to my extremely wide hips. Now at age 40 at almost the same weight, I'm a size 2. Sizes have changed dramatically over the years. My body isn't any more muscular than it was when I was a teenager. It's probably less muscular due to aging causing more fat. I'm guessing that size 2 could even have been a size 8 over 20 years ago. It's at least a 6 though.
When I was 22, I was a brickhouse and wore a US8. I've had two kids and two c-sections since then, so I don't think the midsection is really going to quite recover. I'd be perfectly happy to drop 25lbs and fit easily and comfortably into US6/8 for the rest of my life.
aaah, you're around my age then. that size 8 is probably a size 2 or 4 in today's sizes.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions