How do you maintain a BMI of 18.5 or 110 lbs, if you are a 5'4" female?
Options
Replies
-
so is 18.5 good
still can't tell
need an answer in like 1 sentence plz
0 -
-
rainbowbow wrote: »
yessssss thx
although I thought BMI was height and weight. I said *kitten* it and looked at a chart and 18 is right at the low end of "healthy"
although 18.5% BF is a totally different story, yeah that's lean for a woman fsho0 -
Draznyth: The point is that BMI doesn't necessarily stick with BF% as a direct correlation. For the OP, possibly not even now, but in the past, 18.5 has been a nice look/feel, so she's trying to get back to that. 18.5 isn't "good" for many people, or even *most* people. But for the OP, it is a reasonable target.0
-
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »melimomTARDIS wrote: »I don't. I'm 5'5", but every time I go under 133 I get very hungry.
I am currently trying to get back to my happy maintainance weight of 118-120, (currently 127) and I find that the struggle is so real. Trying to lower my weight when my weight is already in a healthy BMI range is really difficult. I dont know what Id have to do to get to 110. (cut off a limb?)
Im 5'4 fwiw
I'm 127 pounds as well and 5'4 and have been 120 in the past, but don't wanna go there again tbh (Boobs were non existant). Lol
What's your weight in your profile photo (if you don't mind me asking)?
about the same as now give or take, um like 2lbs. I wore that swimsuit yesterday to to waterpark. That photo was taken only a month or two ago.0 -
melimomTARDIS wrote: »ExRelaySprinter wrote: »melimomTARDIS wrote: »I don't. I'm 5'5", but every time I go under 133 I get very hungry.
I am currently trying to get back to my happy maintainance weight of 118-120, (currently 127) and I find that the struggle is so real. Trying to lower my weight when my weight is already in a healthy BMI range is really difficult. I dont know what Id have to do to get to 110. (cut off a limb?)
Im 5'4 fwiw
I'm 127 pounds as well and 5'4 and have been 120 in the past, but don't wanna go there again tbh (Boobs were non existant). Lol
What's your weight in your profile photo (if you don't mind me asking)?
about the same as now give or take, um like 2lbs. I wore that swimsuit yesterday to to waterpark. That photo was taken only a month or two ago.
Well you're very slim already!
This is probably why you're finding it hard to lose more weight.0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »melimomTARDIS wrote: »ExRelaySprinter wrote: »melimomTARDIS wrote: »I don't. I'm 5'5", but every time I go under 133 I get very hungry.
I am currently trying to get back to my happy maintainance weight of 118-120, (currently 127) and I find that the struggle is so real. Trying to lower my weight when my weight is already in a healthy BMI range is really difficult. I dont know what Id have to do to get to 110. (cut off a limb?)
Im 5'4 fwiw
I'm 127 pounds as well and 5'4 and have been 120 in the past, but don't wanna go there again tbh (Boobs were non existant). Lol
What's your weight in your profile photo (if you don't mind me asking)?
about the same as now give or take, um like 2lbs. I wore that swimsuit yesterday to to waterpark. That photo was taken only a month or two ago.
Well you're very slim already!
This is probably why you're finding it hard to lose more weight.
Did you just say I am very slim? *dies of happiness*0 -
ElizabethKalmbach wrote: »Draznyth: The point is that BMI doesn't necessarily stick with BF% as a direct correlation. For the OP, possibly not even now, but in the past, 18.5 has been a nice look/feel, so she's trying to get back to that. 18.5 isn't "good" for many people, or even *most* people. But for the OP, it is a reasonable target.
yeah I mean that does somewhat make sense but it sounds like it'd be more optimal to start tracking by BF rather than a fairly arbitrary correlation between BMI and "looking nice", right?0 -
Draznyth: I would certainly argue that, but there are online calculators for BMI, where as sorting out bf% is kind of an "art" based on looking at photos, or a picky sort of thing requiring calipers that many people may find too fussy or intimidating at the start of a journey, I imagine.0
-
ElizabethKalmbach wrote: »Draznyth: I would certainly argue that, but there are online calculators for BMI, where as sorting out bf% is kind of an "art" based on looking at photos, or a picky sort of thing requiring calipers that many people may find too fussy or intimidating at the start of a journey, I imagine.
yea someone else mentioned using both a (free) Omron at his gym and also getting one of those digital calipers. I am considering the Omron personally
you def make a good point tho0 -
Please provide a source for this statement.[/quote]
As a recovered anorexic who has spent years in and out of hospital and in consultation with dietitians, as well as having my own poor health and experiences as well as those of other sufferers, I feel I am pretty well informed. However I am happy to provide sources if your own logic is really failing you that much.0 -
A year ago, I weighed 335. Now I weigh 223. What is my set point? Please advise.worldofalice wrote: »This sounds like an incredibly disordered and body dysmorphic goal. Only about 1% of the population are naturally this tiny, to maintain a weight below your set point (read up on set point theory) will involve obsessing about your food and body rather than using those things as tools to actually LIVE YOUR LIFE.
0 -
If this 'set point' crap were true we'd all still be fat...so uh yeah, no.
In order to maintain 110 pounds, OP, you'd have to eat 1300-1400 calories while sedentary, 1500-1600 if exercising 3 times a week, 1800-1900 if hitting the gym every day, so on and so forth.[/quote]
No we wouldn't. So long as you eat intuitively and listen to your body, you maintain your set point. Although I'm not actually sure why I'm posting this in a group specifically aimed at losing/maintaining low weights, as I feel readers are probably not going to want to hear it.
http://www.mirror-mirror.org/set.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/dont-count-calories-to-lose-weight-the-body-fat-set-point-theory
http://www.bariatric-surgery-source.com/set-point-theory.html
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
A year ago, I weighed 335. Now I weigh 223. What is my set point? Please advise.worldofalice wrote: »This sounds like an incredibly disordered and body dysmorphic goal. Only about 1% of the population are naturally this tiny, to maintain a weight below your set point (read up on set point theory) will involve obsessing about your food and body rather than using those things as tools to actually LIVE YOUR LIFE.
Only your body can tell you that. I would say that your set point is the weight your are at when your are eating intuitively and freely, listening to your body and not having to overthink food or exercise or put excessive effort into maintaining your weight. You hormone levels will control your appetite so your weight stays at it's "happy place".
0 -
WheyistheWay wrote: »worldofalice wrote: »This sounds like an incredibly disordered and body dysmorphic goal. Only about 1% of the population are naturally this tiny, to maintain a weight below your set point (read up on set point theory) will involve obsessing about your food and body rather than using those things as tools to actually LIVE YOUR LIFE. Which is kind of the most important thing, surely? As a nearly physically recovered anorexic with a current bmi of 18, I have no intention of stopping at 18.5. Don't sacrifice your energy levels, metabolism, mental health and social life just for some arbitrary number nobody else cares about anyway.
If this 'set point' crap were true we'd all still be fat...so uh yeah, no.
In order to maintain 110 pounds, OP, you'd have to eat 1300-1400 calories while sedentary, 1500-1600 if exercising 3 times a week, 1800-1900 if hitting the gym every day, so on and so forth.
No we wouldn't. So long as you eat intuitively and listen to your body, you maintain your set point. Although I'm not actually sure why I'm posting this in a group specifically aimed at losing/maintaining low weights, as I feel readers are probably not going to want to hear it.
http://www.mirror-mirror.org/set.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/dont-count-calories-to-lose-weight-the-body-fat-set-point-theory
http://www.bariatric-surgery-source.com/set-point-theory.html
0 -
My body told me 335. I called BS on that.worldofalice wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
A year ago, I weighed 335. Now I weigh 223. What is my set point? Please advise.worldofalice wrote: »This sounds like an incredibly disordered and body dysmorphic goal. Only about 1% of the population are naturally this tiny, to maintain a weight below your set point (read up on set point theory) will involve obsessing about your food and body rather than using those things as tools to actually LIVE YOUR LIFE.
Only your body can tell you that. I would say that your set point is the weight your are at when your are eating intuitively and freely, listening to your body and not having to overthink food or exercise or put excessive effort into maintaining your weight. You hormone levels will control your appetite so your weight stays at it's "happy place".
It would be hard to have an "answer" more devoid of actionable content than the one you just posted.
0 -
I think you should reconsider a few things, mainly your views towards exercise- there is enough time for everything. I am 5'4 and 122 and with a goal of 120. I do my weekly meal prep of breakfast, lunch and two snacks, work out 5 days a week (m-f) consistently, and work and go to school full time. Also, I know it might sound counter productive, but it might help to try adding maybe 100-200 calories to your daily goal, I did and it helped me lose a few stubborn pounds.0
-
vinegar_husbands wrote: »worldofalice wrote: »This sounds like an incredibly disordered and body dysmorphic goal. Only about 1% of the population are naturally this tiny, to maintain a weight below your set point (read up on set point theory) will involve obsessing about your food and body rather than using those things as tools to actually LIVE YOUR LIFE. Which is kind of the most important thing, surely? As a nearly physically recovered anorexic with a current bmi of 18, I have no intention of stopping at 18.5. Don't sacrifice your energy levels, metabolism, mental health and social life just for some arbitrary number nobody else cares about anyway.
Please provide a source for this statement.
As a recovered anorexic who has spent years in and out of hospital and in consultation with dietitians, as well as having my own poor health and experiences as well as those of other sufferers, I feel I am pretty well informed. However I am happy to provide sources, I have included some in a previous comment.-1 -
I think for a recovered anorexic, eating intuitively versus restricting is a great thing. However, I am a formerly obese gal with a binge eating problem.
I intuitively eat whole loaves of bread, in a sitting, slathered in margarine. Once, a whole pie. (need I go on?)I had a "set weight" of 175 for 4 years or so. If I go by what my body tells me, I can easily regain all the weight I lost, and few more pounds for good measure.
0 -
5'2
128 pounds
19% body fat
I eat about 2000-2200 calories per day
Cardio 6-7 days a week
Weights twice weekly plus once a week I go to a HIIT class
At that weight I'm a size 0-2 depending on the clothing maker. I'm also very muscular so maybe my body fat is a bit lower but I'm happy where I'm at
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions