Since thick is in, should I stay at 145 on my 5'2 frame
Replies
-
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »This thread was incredibly amusing....
All I have to say is it really isn't going to matter what you look like if your attitude and personality are less than desirable. Sure. It will get you a date. And maybe a relationship for a while. But eventually acting and being the way that some of the people here are being...not naming names but.... it won't last long. But at least you'll look good for you I guess? I suppose really that's all that matters...But it didn't seem like that was your sole intent for asking the question sooooo....
Good luck spot reducing!
I know for a fact a far number of the ladies in this thread are married/in long term relationships.
Not that your attempt at insults amount to much really, there are mass murders and criminals who manage to have people who will stick by them but some women with varying opinions on body image are the ones who'll be running into trouble? I mean....okay. Sure.
you'll never know who i really meant though now will you?
Wow, thanks for taking the heat off me veganbettie
and your...what did she say...."orange" skin? because clearly people can't have different skin tones....
And, to be honest, I don't know a single woman who wouldn't love to look like Amber Rose PRE-SURGERY. In fact, every woman I know that looks more like that post-surgery pic would kill for her natural fit shape. The implants make her look grotesque. It's one thing to be naturally bodacious. Quite another to get surgically altered to look like a physiological impossibility.Also note that the ladies in Sir Mix A Lot's video have normal fine hindquarters, not silly puffed up nonsense like Amber and Kim have now.
But, then, the good Sir did point out that Silicone Parts are made for Toys....so he was a refined gentleman in his tastes.
Glad to see that some of you do have common sense lol. I find it almost an insult to women in general that some women go for that completely sexualized look. It's not attractive. It's an open invitation for pervs and makes them look like sexual objects. But I guess it does reflect on their IQ... in a way I pity them if they felt they had to go to such extents to get attention, when they were so beautiful before.
Ok yeah I apparently have strong feelings about that.
Hello Judgey McJudgerson .I have strong feelings about women who put down other women for their appearance (and their supposed IQ's) and call them 'trash'.
Women: their own worst enemies. I've never seen guys be as vile to a woman as I have witnessed women be in daily interactions.
0 -
It went from SIGH to full on WTAF at the end there. The sudden shift to the "wow you actually said that?" level took even me by surprise.0 -
Wow. Let me let all of my "naturally" voluptuous friends and family members know that they are trashy, disgusting, have a low IQ, and are a walking invitation for perverts.0
-
I wonder, if I wear a shirt with concentric circles on it, is that an open invitation for people to shoot me?0
-
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I wonder, if I wear a shirt with concentric circles on it, is that an open invitation for people to shoot me?
Legit L'edOL0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I wonder, if I wear a shirt with concentric circles on it, is that an open invitation for people to shoot me?
Never work for Target or ever do something sponsored by Target. You will become a target.0 -
Lmao. So stupid it's funny.chivalryder wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I wonder, if I wear a shirt with concentric circles on it, is that an open invitation for people to shoot me?
Never work for Target or ever do something sponsored by Target. You will become a target.
0 -
-
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »veganbettie wrote: »This thread was incredibly amusing....
All I have to say is it really isn't going to matter what you look like if your attitude and personality are less than desirable. Sure. It will get you a date. And maybe a relationship for a while. But eventually acting and being the way that some of the people here are being...not naming names but.... it won't last long. But at least you'll look good for you I guess? I suppose really that's all that matters...But it didn't seem like that was your sole intent for asking the question sooooo....
Good luck spot reducing!
I know for a fact a far number of the ladies in this thread are married/in long term relationships.
Not that your attempt at insults amount to much really, there are mass murders and criminals who manage to have people who will stick by them but some women with varying opinions on body image are the ones who'll be running into trouble? I mean....okay. Sure.
you'll never know who i really meant though now will you?
Wow, thanks for taking the heat off me veganbettie and your...what did she say...."orange" skin? because clearly people can't have different skin tones....
And, to be honest, I don't know a single woman who wouldn't love to look like Amber Rose PRE-SURGERY. In fact, every woman I know that looks more like that post-surgery pic would kill for her natural fit shape. The implants make her look grotesque. It's one thing to be naturally bodacious. Quite another to get surgically altered to look like a physiological impossibility.Also note that the ladies in Sir Mix A Lot's video have normal fine hindquarters, not silly puffed up nonsense like Amber and Kim have now.
But, then, the good Sir did point out that Silicone Parts are made for Toys....so he was a refined gentleman in his tastes.
Glad to see that some of you do have common sense lol. I find it almost an insult to women in general that some women go for that completely sexualized look. It's not attractive. It's an open invitation for pervs and makes them look like sexual objects. But I guess it does reflect on their IQ... in a way I pity them if they felt they had to go to such extents to get attention, when they were so beautiful before.
Ok yeah I apparently have strong feelings about that.
Hello Judgey McJudgerson .I have strong feelings about women who put down other women for their appearance (and their supposed IQ's) and call them 'trash'.
Women: their own worst enemies. I've never seen guys be as vile to a woman as I have witnessed women be in daily interactions.
Oh, please. You haven't looked hard enough.0 -
-
deluxmary2000 wrote: »
Truth!0 -
Thick is in? Dammit. Why didn't anyone tell me?
0 -
I'm 5'6" and 159 lbs. (considered overweight on the BMI scale). I go to the gym 6 days a week. I can run a 7:30 mile. I run 2-5 miles (8 min pace) about 4 days a week. I lift heavy things 4 times a week. My blood pressure is low and I'm completely healthy. So the BMI chart can kiss my a**. If a doctor examines me and takes note of my excellent stats and observes my fitness level and still tells me I need to lose 5 lbs. to get to "normal" BMI in order to consider me healthy...I'm finding a new doc.
I hope you bought that dress - it looks fantastic on you.0 -
And as an overall observation, it would be REALLY nice if people would
a - size their pictures realistically, so they don't distort how the text is presented by warping the
size of the box
b - not quote pictures like that, so they don't mess up more pages
.
Yes, this. So very much this.rainbowbow wrote:No reason to stay overweight at risk for health problems just to fulfill some sort of "fad" beauty ideal
.
Yep.almostplenty wrote:we've become so desensitized to what a normal body weight looks like,
with 60+% of Americans overweight
One of my _doctors_ asked me today how much I intended to lose, and when I told her my initial goal
is about another 30 lb (110 total) which will put me 8-10 lb under the top end of a healthy BMI range,
she said she didn't see where it would come from. I think I have a pretty realistic idea of what my
body looks like, and I pointed out a couple external/visible areas that are flabby, plus I know
there's some internal (visceral) fat still to lose, and my thighs & hips (while greatly improved) still
hold more fat than they need.
Also told her that when I get to my initial goal I'll step up the weightlifting (which I've been doing all
along, and am seeing/feeling great results!) to do more work on shaping. Will evaluate how I feel &
look after that, and _might_ go another 10-15 lb down, but that still leaves me in the upper half of
a healthy BMI range.
.
Being confident is nice. Being healthy is better.MissKriss3 wrote:I'm extremely confident weighing 174# at 5'1". Thanks to strength training.
At your height, 125 is the top of the healthy weight range. 160 is the top of the overweight range.
http://www.shapeup.org/bmi/bmi6.pdf
.
Waist training (extreme corseting) will change your shape, including malforming your lower ribs.angellll12 wrote:Do you have pictures? ... I like the way your waist is small and your hips and butt pop.
You don't even look 175, esp being only 5'1. I'm going to waist train, this belly ruins everything.
While you're wearing the corset, your internal organs will be shifted to new locations, compressed
into less space. This impedes function.
.
Why do you think women used to be thought so frail, faint so easily, have deformed babies, etc?westcoastgrl wrote:There are some slight risks to it, but women have been using corsets for centuries without perishing.
It's because they were pushing their organs into new & wrong locations.
.
Not understanding how that's supposed to happen, since muscle didn't come from fat to begin with.jvidon wrote:If u stop working out, the muscle returns to fat
.
I'm at 32 & 42 and have trouble finding pants that fit the hips w/o gapping at the waist.jesusjohn wrote:Amber Rose waist is 27. Hips are 40
Luckily, I can sew, so I hit the thrift store, find pants that fit my hips, and make them fit my waist.
.
Sure you can: get pregnant.rainbowwow wrote:you cannot make your breasts larger
.
You obviously haven't worked with too many (any?) elderly women.sunglasses wrote:None of us with boobies will be sagging to our navels either
.
But I _am_ curvy. I don't know calculus, so can't describe them well, but my calves curve, my hipsjorocka wrote:I've never once described myself as curvy- I really wish we could get over that
curve, my belly curves, my butt curves, my back curves, my shoulders curve, my breasts curve...
And since I've gotten closer to a healthy weight, plus strengthening the underlying muscles, the
curves look a lot better.
.
That would be a 34A or a 30C.rosie wrote:Now I'm in 32B.... Doesn't that translate to an A?
Sometimes if your normal size doesn't fit, try the equivalent one "next door".
Go up one band size & down one cup size, or vice versa.
.
So, something which measures population trends (large sample size) is inaccurate,lillu wrote:People don't seem to realize that BMI is highly inaccurate. And not just for body builders and
athletes. It has a significant error rate when varying age, gender, and ethnicity and was never
supposed to be used for individual assessment. I'm actually shocked that knowing this, many
doctors still use BMI to classify their patients. Waist circumference is much more accurate.
but something which doesn't take into account height, weight, or frame size is accurate??
Telling someone who's 4'9" that she's healthy with a 33" waist because "having a waist that's 33" or
less is healthy" is foolish. That's not a healthy amount of abdominal fat for someone that small.
Telling someone who's 6'2" that she's not healthy because her waist is 35" is also foolish. She's
probably got less abdominal fat in comparison to her overall weight than the tiny woman does.0 -
I'm 5'6" and 159 lbs. (considered overweight on the BMI scale). I go to the gym 6 days a week. I can run a 7:30 mile. I run 2-5 miles (8 min pace) about 4 days a week. I lift heavy things 4 times a week. My blood pressure is low and I'm completely healthy. So the BMI chart can kiss my a**. If a doctor examines me and takes note of my excellent stats and observes my fitness level and still tells me I need to lose 5 lbs. to get to "normal" BMI in order to consider me healthy...I'm finding a new doc.
I hope you bought that dress - it looks fantastic on you.
Sadly no. I was trying to match my BF and went with an equally cute LBD. Wish I had bought both now.0 -
@MKEgal there is some evidence that waist size is a better indicator of health than bmi. Risks for diseases went up when waist circumference is more than half your height (I assume this excludes waist training).
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/04/beyond-bmi-a-better-tool-to-measure-your-health/0 -
I'm 5'6" and 159 lbs. (considered overweight on the BMI scale). I go to the gym 6 days a week. I can run a 7:30 mile. I run 2-5 miles (8 min pace) about 4 days a week. I lift heavy things 4 times a week. My blood pressure is low and I'm completely healthy. So the BMI chart can kiss my a**. If a doctor examines me and takes note of my excellent stats and observes my fitness level and still tells me I need to lose 5 lbs. to get to "normal" BMI in order to consider me healthy...I'm finding a new doc.
I hope you bought that dress - it looks fantastic on you.
Sadly no. I was trying to match my BF and went with an equally cute LBD. Wish I had bought both now.
This is basically a crime. An actual crime.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
@MKEgal there is some evidence that waist size is a better indicator of health than bmi. Risks for diseases went up when waist circumference is more than half your height (I assume this excludes waist training).
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/04/beyond-bmi-a-better-tool-to-measure-your-health/
While this may be correct in general, you also need to consider that it's just one variable to measure among several. At 169 cm (5'6) and 98 kg (218) I doubt the fact that my waist falls within the acceptable healthy range means I'm at a healthy weight. I'm still considered obese by BMI, so BMI can't be ignored just for the sake of it.
Edit: Never mind, mine does fall slightly out of line by an inch. I was going by the usual recommendation of 35 inch waist or less. But my point still stands. Would I be healthy at 200 pounds?0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »@MKEgal there is some evidence that waist size is a better indicator of health than bmi. Risks for diseases went up when waist circumference is more than half your height (I assume this excludes waist training).
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/04/beyond-bmi-a-better-tool-to-measure-your-health/
While this may be correct in general, you also need to consider that it's just one variable to measure among several. At 169 cm (5'6) and 98 kg (218) I doubt the fact that my waist falls within the acceptable healthy range means I'm at a healthy weight. I'm still considered obese by BMI, so BMI can't be ignored just for the sake of it.
Edit: Never mind, mine does fall slightly out of line by an inch. I was going by the usual recommendation of 35 inch waist or less. But my point still stands. Would I be healthy at 200 pounds?
I have no idea. Possibly. There's a lot of variables and other considerations. In general, abdominal fat causes the most problems, though.0 -
OP: I respect your right to have whatever sort of body makes you feel best... but... 145 on a 5'2" person is over the medical overweight limit by almost 10 lbs. Unless you pack it ALL in the hips/butt/thighs area, please be aware of what you're doing. That's all. No offense implied.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »@MKEgal there is some evidence that waist size is a better indicator of health than bmi. Risks for diseases went up when waist circumference is more than half your height (I assume this excludes waist training).
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/04/beyond-bmi-a-better-tool-to-measure-your-health/
While this may be correct in general, you also need to consider that it's just one variable to measure among several. At 169 cm (5'6) and 98 kg (218) I doubt the fact that my waist falls within the acceptable healthy range means I'm at a healthy weight. I'm still considered obese by BMI, so BMI can't be ignored just for the sake of it.
Edit: Never mind, mine does fall slightly out of line by an inch. I was going by the usual recommendation of 35 inch waist or less. But my point still stands. Would I be healthy at 200 pounds?
I have no idea. Possibly. There's a lot of variables and other considerations. In general, abdominal fat causes the most problems, though.
I'm not disagreeing with waist as an indicator, in fact I believe it's good variable to measure for those aiming to be in the slightly overweight category. My goal preference would be somewhere between 24 and 28 BMI depending on how I look and how easy it is for me to maintain. I have that leeway due to having a little less fat than average in the abdominal area.
On the other hand, someone who is shaped differently where they're genetically square due to having a wider build, larger framed bones, and a different abdominal muscle build may be considered unhealthy when they don't have much in terms of fat there. All I'm saying not one measurement should be taken as the pillar of health, but several.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »@MKEgal there is some evidence that waist size is a better indicator of health than bmi. Risks for diseases went up when waist circumference is more than half your height (I assume this excludes waist training).
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/04/beyond-bmi-a-better-tool-to-measure-your-health/
While this may be correct in general, you also need to consider that it's just one variable to measure among several. At 169 cm (5'6) and 98 kg (218) I doubt the fact that my waist falls within the acceptable healthy range means I'm at a healthy weight. I'm still considered obese by BMI, so BMI can't be ignored just for the sake of it.
Edit: Never mind, mine does fall slightly out of line by an inch. I was going by the usual recommendation of 35 inch waist or less. But my point still stands. Would I be healthy at 200 pounds?
Depends. Losing 18 pounds might not change your waist measurement at all. Losing 58 might not (I lost 30 pounds and 3 inches on my waist but none on my hips for example.) Weight loss is a strange thing.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »@MKEgal there is some evidence that waist size is a better indicator of health than bmi. Risks for diseases went up when waist circumference is more than half your height (I assume this excludes waist training).
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/04/beyond-bmi-a-better-tool-to-measure-your-health/
While this may be correct in general, you also need to consider that it's just one variable to measure among several. At 169 cm (5'6) and 98 kg (218) I doubt the fact that my waist falls within the acceptable healthy range means I'm at a healthy weight. I'm still considered obese by BMI, so BMI can't be ignored just for the sake of it.
Edit: Never mind, mine does fall slightly out of line by an inch. I was going by the usual recommendation of 35 inch waist or less. But my point still stands. Would I be healthy at 200 pounds?
I have no idea. Possibly. There's a lot of variables and other considerations. In general, abdominal fat causes the most problems, though.
I'm not disagreeing with waist as an indicator, in fact I believe it's good variable to measure for those aiming to be in the slightly overweight category. My goal preference would be somewhere between 24 and 28 BMI depending on how I look and how easy it is for me to maintain. I have that leeway due to having a little less fat than average in the abdominal area.
On the other hand, someone who is shaped differently where they're genetically square due to having a wider build, larger framed bones, and a different abdominal muscle build may be considered unhealthy when they don't have much in terms of fat there. All I'm saying not one measurement should be taken as the pillar of health, but several.
Agreed. And none of these measurements or indicators are written in stone.
0 -
I've lost 25 lbs and my thighs have lost 1 inch.0
-
Obviously different people feel comfortable at different weights. I can't say you wouldn't be perfectly healthy at 5'2" and 145 pounds...that would depend on your body composition and level of fitness. Clearly @Lillulu4, while her BMI might be slightly above the "healthy" range appears fit (and fabulous) but she has more muscle mass than the average woman, which is why BMI is not always accurate, particularly for athletes and bodybuilders.
Corset training and body wraps will help you look slimmer...as long as you are wearing the corset or don't drink a big glass of water. But exercise...some weight training...some cardio...is the only way to achieve lasting results. If you were "curvy" when you were heavier, most likely your body will remain curvy when you lose weight...you will just have smaller curves. Most people don't go from an hourglass or pear to a rectangle, they just become slimmer versions of their current shape.
Personally I am happiest hovering around the low end of my BMI range. But I have a very small frame.0 -
JLo is gorgeous. I'm just going to assume that some of you just don't know how to read, or are somehow incapable of seeing the difference between a bigger, natural booty, and a completely fake and unnatural one. Because that's the only reason I can think of why you all are putting words in my mouth.
But yeah, deciding to make yourself look completely unnatural and obscene does reflect on someone's personality, unfortunately, and I'm totally judging.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »@MKEgal there is some evidence that waist size is a better indicator of health than bmi. Risks for diseases went up when waist circumference is more than half your height (I assume this excludes waist training).
http://health.clevelandclinic.org/2013/04/beyond-bmi-a-better-tool-to-measure-your-health/
While this may be correct in general, you also need to consider that it's just one variable to measure among several. At 169 cm (5'6) and 98 kg (218) I doubt the fact that my waist falls within the acceptable healthy range means I'm at a healthy weight. I'm still considered obese by BMI, so BMI can't be ignored just for the sake of it.
Edit: Never mind, mine does fall slightly out of line by an inch. I was going by the usual recommendation of 35 inch waist or less. But my point still stands. Would I be healthy at 200 pounds?
True. I wasn't saying to ignore BMI altogether. But the point on the BMI scale where risk of chronic disease is increased is at the obesity range. Because the BMI scale is so inaccurate, the waist circumference should be used as a more specific tool to measure health (or risk really)for people not in the obese category since too much added fat around the abdomen is the biggest risk indicator. It just helps to more accurately display weight distribution (though also not a perfect metric). So someone with huge boobs, big butt, or lots of muscle may not be as bad off as the BMI scale would suggest or automatically considered unhealthy (as many here have suggested).0 -
Apples be hatin'0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions