115 or 127 lbs?
Options
Replies
-
Sheseeksstrength wrote: »Hi!
I know this is a little odd to ask, but I am just curious. I am 5'3" and I used to weigh 115 lbs. I personally was confident, happy, and thin at that weight. Life took me for a ride and now I weigh 127 lbs. Many people have told me that I look better now, that I have curves again, and my face isn't as narrow and sunkin in.
I feel "okay" at 127 lbs. I would like to get back down to 115 lbs, but if people find me more attractive at this weight, then I would almost rather stay... My clothes still fit, minus a few things, so I am not worried about that aspect of it. In other words, I don't "have to" lose the weight--- its just vanity thing.
Multiple men have paid more attention to me, and I can't figure out if its because of where I am locationally in my life, or because of my body...
I don't want this to sound conceited, just looking for advice.
So, 12 pounds made a difference in how life treated you? That is not a weight issue at all, but more a personal issue that needs to be addressed. For your height, both 115 is underweight, and 127 is not. Weight chart
It's not about whether other people find you attractive at any weight, it's about staying healthy and deciding what weight is right for you within a healthy BMI range.
As for the rest.....LOL.
I am 5'3 and have been 110-116 my entire life and was a very active competitive long distance swimmer. i was never underweight.
Did you read any subsequent replies? I guess not, because you would have seen where I corrected myself.
i realized that after haha im sorry.. i typed some of it out then put some pizza in the oven did some dishes then came back and posted it then was like ohh dang!
No problem at all.
It would've helped if I'd read the height/weight chart correctly.
0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »ExRelaySprinter wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »Sheseeksstrength wrote: »Hi!
I know this is a little odd to ask, but I am just curious. I am 5'3" and I used to weigh 115 lbs. I personally was confident, happy, and thin at that weight. Life took me for a ride and now I weigh 127 lbs. Many people have told me that I look better now, that I have curves again, and my face isn't as narrow and sunkin in.
I feel "okay" at 127 lbs. I would like to get back down to 115 lbs, but if people find me more attractive at this weight, then I would almost rather stay... My clothes still fit, minus a few things, so I am not worried about that aspect of it. In other words, I don't "have to" lose the weight--- its just vanity thing.
Multiple men have paid more attention to me, and I can't figure out if its because of where I am locationally in my life, or because of my body...
I don't want this to sound conceited, just looking for advice.
So, 12 pounds made a difference in how life treated you? That is not a weight issue at all, but more a personal issue that needs to be addressed. For your height, both 115 is underweight, and 127 is not. Weight chart
It's not about whether other people find you attractive at any weight, it's about staying healthy and deciding what weight is right for you within a healthy BMI range.
As for the rest.....LOL.
@SLLRunner - At 5'3 115lbs is within the healthy range.
104.5 (18.5 BMI) to 140.5 (24.9 BMI) is the healthy range for someone who is 5' 3". 115 lbs would give her a BMI of 20.4.
Well, i'm only an inch taller than the OP (@ 5.4" and 128 lbs) and if i was at the lower end of the BMI chart i'd look Skeletal!
The BMI chart is not a good indicator to what a healthy weight should be, as it doesn't account for frame size, muscle mass or ethnicity (which is a big factor).
She did specifically say that 115 lbs was underweight for 5'3 and to aim for something within the healthy bmi range. I was pointing out that 115 lbs is still within the healthy range.
I won't argue that frame size and body composition will determine what is a good weight for you on the scale. I'm 5'4.5" and I could still lose quite a bit. Do I think I could get down to the lowest? No, but I'm thinking with my frame size I might look okay in the low 120's. However, I know that there are other women out there at my height on the low end of the BMI and look great. There are also women, like @arditarose , that weigh roughly what I do and look 10 x better than me because their frame size/composition is different than mine.
I see what you're saying....and i think i remember commenting on a post that you and arditarose posted your photo's on and said you both looked good.
Sometimes it's not about getting to a low weight.... i used to think this too. ("Oh maybe i should lose another 10 lbs then i'll see my Abs"). No. I'd only end up looking like a scrawny twig. Lol
Most of the time, when you're already at a healthy weight - it's about building muscle to acheive a leaner looking shape.
With regards to the OP, she has said she had irregular periods at 115lbs, now at 127lbs she's all good.
So definitely in this instance, 115lbs is too low for her.
This makes zero sense. If she recomps at 127, she would lose her periods due to low fat mass if that were, indeed, the original cause. Periods are dependent on stress and fat mass. They don't care about fat-free mass AT ALL.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
Yep, this. People look different at the same weight depending on all sorts of things.0 -
arditarose wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
This is an important point because people do have different builds, fat mass, muscle mass, genetics. I'm 5 ft 5 and weigh 140 pounds, but anything lower would make me look too thin. However, there are other women of my height who might not look too thin at a lower weight.0 -
I don't understand why people have a problem with OP wanting a BMI of 20. It's not unhealthy. I haven't been as healthy as I am now (BMI 20) for a long time. Looking 'too skinny' is in the eye of the beholder. People are so used to people being overweight that we're told we're too thin when actually we're healthy!
We'll it might be because she's unsure, she's been told she looks much better now, she's been told she was sunken and drawn at that weight and she admitted later on that her periods only stabilised around 120lbs
Which all point to the fact that she's fine where she is and maybe needs to learn to love herself a little more
Or it could be that she has crap friend who want her chubbier so they feel better about themselves.
The idea of 115lbs looking "too thin" and losing one's curves at 5'4"...I'd like to see a frame that's SO heavy-boned! I'm betting your waist measurement was around 26, maybe 27 at that weight, with hips and bust commensurate.
If she wasn't having periods, either she was a serious body-builder, she was quite young and it took her a while for her cycles to "settle," or else she was just stressed.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »I don't understand why people have a problem with OP wanting a BMI of 20. It's not unhealthy. I haven't been as healthy as I am now (BMI 20) for a long time. Looking 'too skinny' is in the eye of the beholder. People are so used to people being overweight that we're told we're too thin when actually we're healthy!
We'll it might be because she's unsure, she's been told she looks much better now, she's been told she was sunken and drawn at that weight and she admitted later on that her periods only stabilised around 120lbs
Which all point to the fact that she's fine where she is and maybe needs to learn to love herself a little more
Or it could be that she has crap friend who want her chubbier so they feel better about themselves.
The idea of 115lbs looking "too thin" and losing one's curves at 5'4"...I'd like to see a frame that's SO heavy-boned! I'm betting your waist measurement was around 26, maybe 27 at that weight, with hips and bust commensurate.
If she wasn't having periods, either she was a serious body-builder, she was quite young and it took her a while for her cycles to "settle," or else she was just stressed.
There is so much generalization here I don't even know where to begin. Also, I'm 5'4" (the OP is 5'3") by the way, and have had a 27 inch waist since I hit 140 lbs. You don't know everyones bodies. I'm sorry.
Anyway, OP, find what's best for you. 115, 120, whatever. Just be healthy and confident.0 -
arditarose wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
Because I know the range of healthy weights and what they look like on women.
I had DDs and a rear the size of J Lo's. So clearly, I must have been TERRIBLY EMACIATED. Oh, yeah, and I actually did lift heavily at that weight. So my body fat was down in the lower levels of the "athletic" range, which means that I was small for my weight, not skinny-fat. (I'm planning on keeping my fat percentage higher this time around.)
You really think that she looked sickly thin at 115lbs? Really?
Let's look at some fitness models around that height. A fitness model has very low fat mass, so that means you're as small at that weight as you can be. If 115lbs is going to look "really thin" on someone who's 5'3", it would definitely look thin on someone who's got body fat as low as a fitness model.
113lbs at 5'3": http://www.simplyshredded.com/wbff-pro-fitness-model-meggan-clay-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
Yes, she looks so ill.
119lbs with fake boobs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/published-fitness-model-samantha-kelly-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ana-delia.html
5'4" 110lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/steph-davis.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ainsley-rodriguez.html
An inch taller and now a 17-champion powerlifter at 125lbs:
http://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/news/17-time-world-champion-powerlifter-barbie-barbell
You think she should recomp to that extent??? Actually, MORE, since she's shorter???
I simply don't believe that 115lbs looks "too thin" on any 5'3" woman--nor is it "too thin" by any objective measure.
I know a LOT of people who think they personally look "too thin" at a size 8 or 10 (current sizing, with size inflation). They're all wrong. They just don't know what a fit body looks like, so they freak out when they lose the padding of fat they're used to covering everything. They also react the most viciously about completely healthy and normal-weight women looking "too thin" because of some trait or other that they hyper-focus on that is, again, entirely normal in normal-weight people--things like visible collarbones, visible backbones when you bend over, etc.0 -
^^I never said 115 was too thin for 5'3"? I don't know why the post was directed to me. Except for your response about how you just know how all women look at different weights.
Your posts are very long winded.0 -
Also--I don't think the OP is a pro-fitness model. Or are you, OP?0
-
I was, for the majority of my life, 115 at about 5'2/5'3. Prior to kids (now 70 lbs above that). I have to say that 115 was not underweight at all. I had a tummy ponch, curvy hips and legs and definite fat on those areas. My arms, wrists, and neck however looked thinner. I don't think weight guides are definite and should be used as a guide.
If you don't feel you "must" lose some weight for whatever reason (personal, outward attention, etc) then don't. Be happy, enjoy life and maintain where you are content I would say stay at the weight you are at then. 0 -
arditarose wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
Truth. I'm 5'6" and at 128 I was told I looked emaciated (BMI 20.7). 135 (BMI 21.8) is where I look best, or at least I did before kids. My own MIL who has known me for a decade guessed my weight yesterday at 135 and I'm 155 (BMI 25). I'm aiming for 145 (BMI 23.4).0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »arditarose wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
Because I know the range of healthy weights and what they look like on women.
I had DDs and a rear the size of J Lo's. So clearly, I must have been TERRIBLY EMACIATED. Oh, yeah, and I actually did lift heavily at that weight. So my body fat was down in the lower levels of the "athletic" range, which means that I was small for my weight, not skinny-fat. (I'm planning on keeping my fat percentage higher this time around.)
You really think that she looked sickly thin at 115lbs? Really?
Let's look at some fitness models around that height. A fitness model has very low fat mass, so that means you're as small at that weight as you can be. If 115lbs is going to look "really thin" on someone who's 5'3", it would definitely look thin on someone who's got body fat as low as a fitness model.
113lbs at 5'3": http://www.simplyshredded.com/wbff-pro-fitness-model-meggan-clay-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
Yes, she looks so ill.
119lbs with fake boobs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/published-fitness-model-samantha-kelly-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ana-delia.html
5'4" 110lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/steph-davis.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ainsley-rodriguez.html
An inch taller and now a 17-champion powerlifter at 125lbs:
http://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/news/17-time-world-champion-powerlifter-barbie-barbell
You think she should recomp to that extent??? Actually, MORE, since she's shorter???
I simply don't believe that 115lbs looks "too thin" on any 5'3" woman--nor is it "too thin" by any objective measure.
I know a LOT of people who think they personally look "too thin" at a size 8 or 10 (current sizing, with size inflation). They're all wrong. They just don't know what a fit body looks like, so they freak out when they lose the padding of fat they're used to covering everything. They also react the most viciously about completely healthy and normal-weight women looking "too thin" because of some trait or other that they hyper-focus on that is, again, entirely normal in normal-weight people--things like visible collarbones, visible backbones when you bend over, etc.
I by far did not look like that model and I was around the same weight. Weights on women of certain heights look different person to person. I guess it makes me realize more that if it wasn't underweight for me at that size, it may look underweight for another person of the same height...hard to lump everyone in the same pot so to speak.
0 -
fallprincess wrote: »I am also same height as you. I think 120 pound is best for our height.
Don't be daft
There is no correct weight for height ..it depends on frame size, musculature, where you carry weight
The most you can say is you think 120lb is best for you
That's not quite true. No matter how or where you carry your weight there is a certain range that is considered healthy. I would definitely recommend talking to a doctor about it. If you want to be smaller you could compromise and go for 120.
But seriously. Talk to your doctor. Especially since it's a vanity thing you run the risk of caring more about what you see and what the scale says than what's actually healthy.
LOL the poster I was replying to said 120 is a good weight for that height
The BMI range is a totally different discussion altogether, designed to be used on populations only and erroneously applied to individuals...however it has an accuracy for about 70% ...there are 30% outliers that it's irrelevant for although the majority are on the overweight side
I'm pretty sure more MFP posters believe they are outliers than is true though
I agree, which is why I really think you should ask your doctor. Your doctor is really the only person who can tell you whether being 115 is healthy for YOU. All of these people on MFP can give you advice all they want, but none of us actually know you and most of us don't have as much of a knowledge base of the human body (and specifically your body) to be worth listening to on something like this. I know that 115 is within your healthy weight range because I'm 5'4" and I could weigh as little as 114 and still be considered a "healthy weight". It also really depends on how much muscle you have (as most of us know, muscle weighs more than fat).0 -
I vote for split the diff.
12 pounds just doesn't seem like much to worry about. If both are in a healthy weight range etc then just go for either one. Seems both have advantages.
Attention from men or happiness with your self.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
Definitely this. I'm 5'4" and when I wasn't working out at all weighed 115-118. I once dropped to 112 unhealthily due to stress and poor eating habits and my cheeks did sink in a bit, enough for my mother to comment on it. I'm now over 10lbs more than that with the same waist size and much more muscle. Point being, as all of those lovely fitness models in those links prove, it's not really about the number on the scale because that same weight can look vastly different on different people. Body composition and general overall health are more important factors as is feeling good about how you look.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »arditarose wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
Because I know the range of healthy weights and what they look like on women.
I had DDs and a rear the size of J Lo's. So clearly, I must have been TERRIBLY EMACIATED. Oh, yeah, and I actually did lift heavily at that weight. So my body fat was down in the lower levels of the "athletic" range, which means that I was small for my weight, not skinny-fat. (I'm planning on keeping my fat percentage higher this time around.)
You really think that she looked sickly thin at 115lbs? Really?
Let's look at some fitness models around that height. A fitness model has very low fat mass, so that means you're as small at that weight as you can be. If 115lbs is going to look "really thin" on someone who's 5'3", it would definitely look thin on someone who's got body fat as low as a fitness model.
113lbs at 5'3": http://www.simplyshredded.com/wbff-pro-fitness-model-meggan-clay-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
Yes, she looks so ill.
119lbs with fake boobs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/published-fitness-model-samantha-kelly-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ana-delia.html
5'4" 110lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/steph-davis.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ainsley-rodriguez.html
An inch taller and now a 17-champion powerlifter at 125lbs:
http://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/news/17-time-world-champion-powerlifter-barbie-barbell
You think she should recomp to that extent??? Actually, MORE, since she's shorter???
I simply don't believe that 115lbs looks "too thin" on any 5'3" woman--nor is it "too thin" by any objective measure.
I know a LOT of people who think they personally look "too thin" at a size 8 or 10 (current sizing, with size inflation). They're all wrong. They just don't know what a fit body looks like, so they freak out when they lose the padding of fat they're used to covering everything. They also react the most viciously about completely healthy and normal-weight women looking "too thin" because of some trait or other that they hyper-focus on that is, again, entirely normal in normal-weight people--things like visible collarbones, visible backbones when you bend over, etc.
Thanks for the links.
Some good food ideas and exercise regimes there.
0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »arditarose wrote: »MamaBirdBoss wrote: »At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better.
Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't.
THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods due to low fat mass at 115lbs.
Because there are a lot of people here who have been obese much of their lives, there's a prejudice against the entire bottom have of healthy BMI...despite the fact that MOST women at the top of BMI are over-fat and often have poor waist-hip ratios and often poor belly circumferences. Personally, I don't hit all health markers until I'm below 140lbs, and I'm 5'6",
How do you know what she would look like at 115? Just because you "looked great" (congrats) at barely a healthy weight, does not mean anything to the OP.
Because I know the range of healthy weights and what they look like on women.
I had DDs and a rear the size of J Lo's. So clearly, I must have been TERRIBLY EMACIATED. Oh, yeah, and I actually did lift heavily at that weight. So my body fat was down in the lower levels of the "athletic" range, which means that I was small for my weight, not skinny-fat. (I'm planning on keeping my fat percentage higher this time around.)
You really think that she looked sickly thin at 115lbs? Really?
Let's look at some fitness models around that height. A fitness model has very low fat mass, so that means you're as small at that weight as you can be. If 115lbs is going to look "really thin" on someone who's 5'3", it would definitely look thin on someone who's got body fat as low as a fitness model.
113lbs at 5'3": http://www.simplyshredded.com/wbff-pro-fitness-model-meggan-clay-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
Yes, she looks so ill.
119lbs with fake boobs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/published-fitness-model-samantha-kelly-talks-with-simplyshredded-com.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ana-delia.html
5'4" 110lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/steph-davis.html
5'4" 117lbs: http://www.simplyshredded.com/ainsley-rodriguez.html
An inch taller and now a 17-champion powerlifter at 125lbs:
http://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/news/17-time-world-champion-powerlifter-barbie-barbell
You think she should recomp to that extent??? Actually, MORE, since she's shorter???
I simply don't believe that 115lbs looks "too thin" on any 5'3" woman--nor is it "too thin" by any objective measure.
I know a LOT of people who think they personally look "too thin" at a size 8 or 10 (current sizing, with size inflation). They're all wrong. They just don't know what a fit body looks like, so they freak out when they lose the padding of fat they're used to covering everything. They also react the most viciously about completely healthy and normal-weight women looking "too thin" because of some trait or other that they hyper-focus on that is, again, entirely normal in normal-weight people--things like visible collarbones, visible backbones when you bend over, etc.
These women look wonderful. Why the body shaming?? Or are you jealous. 0 -
I would start to explore with yourself why you are so focused on a particular number? It sounds like you look and feel reasonably good at 115 and 127. I would focus on eating in a healthy, balanced, and sane manner and getting regular exercise. If you are naturally thinner doing so will probably result in some weight loss. However, you may find that you just maintain where you are, which seems like a great weight for you as well.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions