What's realistic when I can't compare to the past?

ddkreimnut
ddkreimnut Posts: 11 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've slowly gained weight since I got out of high school. I think when I graduated I weighed around 120. I'm 5'4". Even then I thought my thighs were huge. Anyway.
Fast forward 15 years and I'm sitting at 155lb. Still 5'4" :wink:
I want to set a measurement goal of losing 3 inches in each thigh, hips, and belly. This goal seems realistic to me, but I also don't have any reason to believe those numbers are achievable. I'm sure my belly and probably my hips are. But I'm really not sure about my thighs.
Do you think it's silly to set such a goal?
How can I set a goal other than weight if I don't know what's realistic?

I do have other goals that aren't about how I look. But I want to have something more specific than "weigh 140" or "be a size 6"

Replies

  • kristen6350
    kristen6350 Posts: 1,094 Member
    3" loss on thighs, hips and belly is an achievable goal, especially if you start following a heavy lifting program and eating at a slight defiecent. No one will be able to tell you that, yes, you will lose exactly 3" on all the places, at the same pace. Because weight loss isn't like that.

    I had no idea what I wanted to weigh when I started (in 2011 I was 193, today, I'm usually around 150 and happy). I was ALMOST a 16. I saw almost because I could get my 14's buttoned even if I felt like a stuffed sausage. My first goal was to get to a size 10. And I did, just by eating less and moving more. Not recording, not getting down the nitty griddy. For me, that was 165lbs. I didn't know that at the time. I hadn't been a size 10 in quite some time. At 165 I noticed my "eat less, move more, but don't really know what that is" philosophy was slowing to a griding hault. If I wanted to be smaller (and I did because I knew I could be), I needed to be more accurate. Found MFP, starting using it and got to 150, which for me is a 6. I like being a 6. I had no idea what that would be like, because even in HS I was "chunky". I didn't think I could EVER be a 6, let alone a 4 (for a brief moment in 2012 I was just that).

    My advice, try it. Read up on the "newbie" stickies on this site for more advice from people who've been there.

    Welcome and good luck!
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    A little bit silly, yes - because where you lose fat from last depends on genetics. So if you pick a place you lose from easily, you can be done and still not at a good weight. If you pick a place that you lose from absolutely dead last, you might need to drop your %BF to unhealthy levels to meet your goal. Neither is good.

    If I were you, I'd shoot for a %BF range (because measuring it isn't accurate, picking a precise number is pointless).
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Eh, it's not something that I would do--make a goal that may not be realistic or possible. I don't see the point of creating a possibly unreachable goal. Not unreachable as in "I won't put in the effort" but unreachable as in "I truly have no basis on which to make this a goal."
  • cnbbnc
    cnbbnc Posts: 1,267 Member
    I don't think it's unachieveable, but it may take time to slim those legs down. I'm the same height as you and started at 157lbs. My thighs started at 24.5". They've always been the biggest part of me.....

    I've lost about 25lbs so far, and all totaled about 8.5". Only 1.5" of that has come off my thighs so far, but they were so much larger to begin with that I was prepared for that. I'm still pleased with my progress so far. Staying in a deficit and lots of lifting is paying off. And for what it's worth, although my legs are still big, strength training is making them stronger and they do look much better.

    Genetics plays a big part in all this, so all we can do is keep working at it....changing what we can and accepting that we may not achieve exactly what we want because to an extent out bodies are going to be what they're going to be. I think it's a reasonable goal though. I'm taking a shot at getting 2 more inches off mine. :smile:
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    ddkreimnut wrote: »
    I've slowly gained weight since I got out of high school. I think when I graduated I weighed around 120. I'm 5'4". Even then I thought my thighs were huge. Anyway.
    Fast forward 15 years and I'm sitting at 155lb. Still 5'4" :wink:
    I want to set a measurement goal of losing 3 inches in each thigh, hips, and belly. This goal seems realistic to me, but I also don't have any reason to believe those numbers are achievable. I'm sure my belly and probably my hips are. But I'm really not sure about my thighs.
    Do you think it's silly to set such a goal?
    How can I set a goal other than weight if I don't know what's realistic?

    I do have other goals that aren't about how I look. But I want to have something more specific than "weigh 140" or "be a size 6"

    Nobody can say that losing 3" off your thighs is realistic, without knowing what your current thigh measurement is :s

    I can see the waist goal, and belly goal, but I personally would drop the thigh goal, and just do what you need to do. Don't worry about the little stuff until the big stuff is figured out. In other words, just start losing, and see what happens. You can't spot reduce.
  • rosebarnalice
    rosebarnalice Posts: 3,488 Member
    You may need to be a little flexible. Maybe set the 3" goal, but when you've been working for a while, check and see where you are.

    For example, back in July, I set a goal of losing 30 lbs before Christmas and fitting in a particular size jeans 3 sizes smaller than the ones I was wearing back then. Well, as of today, I've lost the 30 lbs, but my butt just won't quite fit into those jeans. I estimate that I'm still at least 7 - 10 lbs away (but the next size larger is getting pretty darned lose!)

    I've still got a month to go before Christmas, so I'm still gonna try to get there, but clearly my original 30-lb goal wasn't quite enough to get me there!
  • ddkreimnut
    ddkreimnut Posts: 11 Member
    Fair enough. My thighs are currently 26". Which is up 1" from a year ago when I weighed 149. So I believe it's in the realm of possibility, but yeah probably too arbitrary. A better approach might be fat % if I had any faith in the measuring tools available...
  • daniwilford
    daniwilford Posts: 1,030 Member
    edited November 2015
    When I had lost 35 lbs, the most lost in inches from any specific body measurement was 4 inches and the least was 2 inches. Because fat comes off of different places at different rates, perhaps a more attainable goal would be to lose an average of 3 inches from all your measurements added together. To insure a maximum of inches lost per pound, eat enough protein and add strength training. I didn't do any strength training with my first 45 lbs lost after adding strength training my inches lost to pounds lost ratio went way up. I wished I had started out strength training. Because more inches in fewer pounds is totally awesome. And I feel great.
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,463 Member
    Measurement goals are a great idea, but very difficult to predict or control. You will likely lose the most inches from the sites with the largest measurements now, because in general fat loss is proportional. It's unlikely that you can lose the same amount from a leg as from your hips or belly, because those areas are bigger around to begin with. Since you've always had large thighs, it is prob due to genetics, at least in part. So it's quite possible that your thighs will always be larger than you prefer. That's the body for you!
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    I look on fat% as a guide. I know all measurements are inaccurate, including body scans, so use a tape, a couple of sites and my scale.
    The above have me between 20-22, my body looks closer to 25, but over the 7years (6 maintenance) I have been checking it, it has gone down over 11%. It is the downward trend that I follow; rather than the number being accurate.

    Count your calories, do your workouts, and work towards your goal.

    Cheers, h.
  • ddkreimnut
    ddkreimnut Posts: 11 Member
    Thanks everyone.
    It is true I was blessed with a larger bottom than top. I have grown to accept my shape, and value the strength I have in my lower half. I did aerobics and weight lifting in high school, so it's not size I'm specifically aiming for. It's more the composition of fat vs muscle. I lift 3x a week and do some sort of cardio 2x week. My goal is 1400 calories, my BMR is around 1450. Most days I don't make it to 1400 but I always make sure to have at least 1200, especially if it's a heavy work out day. My guess is I'm somewhere around 25% body fat. But, I've only been actively working on my goal for about a month. I'm trying to be patient, and know I will get there if I am just consistent.
  • cnbbnc
    cnbbnc Posts: 1,267 Member
    ddkreimnut wrote: »
    Thanks everyone.
    It is true I was blessed with a larger bottom than top. I have grown to accept my shape, and value the strength I have in my lower half. I did aerobics and weight lifting in high school, so it's not size I'm specifically aiming for. It's more the composition of fat vs muscle. I lift 3x a week and do some sort of cardio 2x week. My goal is 1400 calories, my BMR is around 1450. Most days I don't make it to 1400 but I always make sure to have at least 1200, especially if it's a heavy work out day. My guess is I'm somewhere around 25% body fat. But, I've only been actively working on my goal for about a month. I'm trying to be patient, and know I will get there if I am just consistent.

    We're pretty much one in the same as far as stats and plan of attack. LOL! Staying consistent is key, yeah. It's going to be a long road but I'm curious to see how it all plays out. :smile:
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    You might've felt like 23" thighs were too large in high school, so that goal may be reasonable. Mine were that measurement then, but they were so muscular and it still looked proportional, so I didn't dislike them at all (I'm 5'6" too).

    So I lost a little over 35 lbs and did lose close to 3 inches in my thighs. They are smaller than in high school (21.5") but that means that I don't have as much muscle now, darnit. It's not unexpected, but darnit just the same :)

    I did lose more inches elsewhere, but I felt like I gained more in those places than my thighs. If you feel like you've gained a lot in your thighs, it really might be 3 inches' worth.

    Guess Jeans has a size chart somewhere that tells thigh measurement along with the rest. If you used to wear Guess jeans comfortably, you might get an idea from that.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    It sounds very realistic. Go get it!
  • PinkPixiexox
    PinkPixiexox Posts: 4,142 Member
    You can do this :]

    I'm 5 ft 2 and I started at around 157 lbs. I've since gone from a 34 waist to a 27 waist. I forget my thigh loss as it's written down somewhere at home but it was substantial. I'm now around 123 lbs.

    I'd suggest aiming for individual milestones. I set myself 'inch loss targets' - so I aimed for half an inch off certain areas each month. It became less of a chore and more of a 'fun challenge' that way :)

Categories