5'6 females: what do you consider to be a healthy weight, and what is your personal goal weight?
Options
Replies
-
5'6 and my goal is 150. I'm medium frame but I've been working out most of my life and I have some muscles on me. I feel and look the best at 150. Currently I'm 184. I've got a lot of work ahead of me.1
-
mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think once you're in a healthy range you should probably go more by body composition than a scale weight. As you can see they're all over the place. I'm perfectly comfortable being 160 but others at the same height would probably cringe lol. 25%bf is where I'm comfortable
In order to keep my glucose number normal I need to be at the lower end of the healthy bmi range. My glucose number was still high when I was at the higher end of the healthy bmi range. Body composition isn't a factor, weight is, in my case. So it really will just vary between individuals.
2 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think once you're in a healthy range you should probably go more by body composition than a scale weight. As you can see they're all over the place. I'm perfectly comfortable being 160 but others at the same height would probably cringe lol. 25%bf is where I'm comfortable
No one is obligated to be at the top of the normal BMI range if they prefer to be closer to the bottom of it. I prefer for myself to be a bit lower than the midpoint, and definitely am not interested in being at the top end regardless of composition.
No one is obligated to be in it at all, just pointing out that scale weight isn't the be all end all way to select your goal once you're close to it.
Your use of "should" indicated to me that you think it is preferable for everyone to be at the top of the normal BMI range than to have a goal that is at the lower end. Perhaps "could" would be more accurate?
Maybe we could split hairs further and amend my op to say "should consider"
And of course deciding not to is then a very valid outcome of consideration. It seems you have a definite preference for being higher in BMI, and as well yours is still >25, but that in no way means it's applicable to everyone else.
It would be just as valid for me to say that anyone who wants to lose weight should consider being slightly lower than the midpoint of the normal BMI range because being leaner and smaller overall provides advantages for many endurance sports such as distance running and cycling.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think once you're in a healthy range you should probably go more by body composition than a scale weight. As you can see they're all over the place. I'm perfectly comfortable being 160 but others at the same height would probably cringe lol. 25%bf is where I'm comfortable
No one is obligated to be at the top of the normal BMI range if they prefer to be closer to the bottom of it. I prefer for myself to be a bit lower than the midpoint, and definitely am not interested in being at the top end regardless of composition.
No one is obligated to be in it at all, just pointing out that scale weight isn't the be all end all way to select your goal once you're close to it.
Your use of "should" indicated to me that you think it is preferable for everyone to be at the top of the normal BMI range than to have a goal that is at the lower end. Perhaps "could" would be more accurate?
Maybe we could split hairs further and amend my op to say "should consider"
And of course deciding not to is then a very valid outcome of consideration. It seems you have a definite preference for being higher in BMI, and as well yours is still >25, but that in no way means it's applicable to everyone else.
It would be just as valid for me to say that anyone who wants to lose weight should consider being slightly lower than the midpoint of the normal BMI range because being leaner and smaller overall provides advantages for many endurance sports such as distance running and cycling.
I said within a healthy range it might be more useful to go by body composition. Of course no one is obligated to do anything so whether they want to be above or below is their business. Have a great day!
4 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think once you're in a healthy range you should probably go more by body composition than a scale weight. As you can see they're all over the place. I'm perfectly comfortable being 160 but others at the same height would probably cringe lol. 25%bf is where I'm comfortable
No one is obligated to be at the top of the normal BMI range if they prefer to be closer to the bottom of it. I prefer for myself to be a bit lower than the midpoint, and definitely am not interested in being at the top end regardless of composition.
No one is obligated to be in it at all, just pointing out that scale weight isn't the be all end all way to select your goal once you're close to it.
Your use of "should" indicated to me that you think it is preferable for everyone to be at the top of the normal BMI range than to have a goal that is at the lower end. Perhaps "could" would be more accurate?
Maybe we could split hairs further and amend my op to say "should consider"
And of course deciding not to is then a very valid outcome of consideration. It seems you have a definite preference for being higher in BMI, and as well yours is still >25, but that in no way means it's applicable to everyone else.
It would be just as valid for me to say that anyone who wants to lose weight should consider being slightly lower than the midpoint of the normal BMI range because being leaner and smaller overall provides advantages for many endurance sports such as distance running and cycling.
I said within a healthy range it might be more useful to go by body composition. Of course no one is obligated to do anything so whether they want to be above or below is their business. Have a great day!
Low in the healthy range is still within it.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think once you're in a healthy range you should probably go more by body composition than a scale weight. As you can see they're all over the place. I'm perfectly comfortable being 160 but others at the same height would probably cringe lol. 25%bf is where I'm comfortable
No one is obligated to be at the top of the normal BMI range if they prefer to be closer to the bottom of it. I prefer for myself to be a bit lower than the midpoint, and definitely am not interested in being at the top end regardless of composition.
No one is obligated to be in it at all, just pointing out that scale weight isn't the be all end all way to select your goal once you're close to it.
Your use of "should" indicated to me that you think it is preferable for everyone to be at the top of the normal BMI range than to have a goal that is at the lower end. Perhaps "could" would be more accurate?
Maybe we could split hairs further and amend my op to say "should consider"
And of course deciding not to is then a very valid outcome of consideration. It seems you have a definite preference for being higher in BMI, and as well yours is still >25, but that in no way means it's applicable to everyone else.
It would be just as valid for me to say that anyone who wants to lose weight should consider being slightly lower than the midpoint of the normal BMI range because being leaner and smaller overall provides advantages for many endurance sports such as distance running and cycling.
I said within a healthy range it might be more useful to go by body composition. Of course no one is obligated to do anything so whether they want to be above or below is their business. Have a great day!
Low in the healthy range is still within it.
I hit the top of my healthy range and from that point have gone by body composition. That is taking me to the midpoint or slightly lower but will vary by person. That is what I took her to mean. I believe you are misunderstanding her post4 -
There's no definitive answer. Most people will be at a healthy weight somewhere in the standard BMI range, but far from all would, and the range is wide to start with. Talk with your doctor or other qualified medical professional about what's healthy for you, and consider blood test results and health conditions.
Beyond that, body composition (muscularity), overall inherent body shape, cultural factors and personal preference all count.
At 61, 5'5" (5'6" when young, before cancer treatment caused some osteopenia), I'm best in the low/mid 120s. I'm built like a 14-year-old boy
: Wide shoulders, narrow pelvis, no booty, literally no breasts (post mastectomies), athletic. A woman with a more "womanly" shape, but similar musculature, might be too thin at the same weight. 2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think once you're in a healthy range you should probably go more by body composition than a scale weight. As you can see they're all over the place. I'm perfectly comfortable being 160 but others at the same height would probably cringe lol. 25%bf is where I'm comfortable
No one is obligated to be at the top of the normal BMI range if they prefer to be closer to the bottom of it. I prefer for myself to be a bit lower than the midpoint, and definitely am not interested in being at the top end regardless of composition.
No one is obligated to be in it at all, just pointing out that scale weight isn't the be all end all way to select your goal once you're close to it.
Your use of "should" indicated to me that you think it is preferable for everyone to be at the top of the normal BMI range than to have a goal that is at the lower end. Perhaps "could" would be more accurate?
Maybe we could split hairs further and amend my op to say "should consider"
And of course deciding not to is then a very valid outcome of consideration. It seems you have a definite preference for being higher in BMI, and as well yours is still >25, but that in no way means it's applicable to everyone else.
It would be just as valid for me to say that anyone who wants to lose weight should consider being slightly lower than the midpoint of the normal BMI range because being leaner and smaller overall provides advantages for many endurance sports such as distance running and cycling.
I said within a healthy range it might be more useful to go by body composition. Of course no one is obligated to do anything so whether they want to be above or below is their business. Have a great day!
Low in the healthy range is still within it.
I hit the top of my healthy range and from that point have gone by body composition. That is taking me to the midpoint or slightly lower but will vary by person. That is what I took her to mean. I believe you are misunderstanding her post
I don't think so, especially since her BMI is still over 25.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I think once you're in a healthy range you should probably go more by body composition than a scale weight. As you can see they're all over the place. I'm perfectly comfortable being 160 but others at the same height would probably cringe lol. 25%bf is where I'm comfortable
No one is obligated to be at the top of the normal BMI range if they prefer to be closer to the bottom of it. I prefer for myself to be a bit lower than the midpoint, and definitely am not interested in being at the top end regardless of composition.
No one is obligated to be in it at all, just pointing out that scale weight isn't the be all end all way to select your goal once you're close to it.
Your use of "should" indicated to me that you think it is preferable for everyone to be at the top of the normal BMI range than to have a goal that is at the lower end. Perhaps "could" would be more accurate?
Maybe we could split hairs further and amend my op to say "should consider"
And of course deciding not to is then a very valid outcome of consideration. It seems you have a definite preference for being higher in BMI, and as well yours is still >25, but that in no way means it's applicable to everyone else.
It would be just as valid for me to say that anyone who wants to lose weight should consider being slightly lower than the midpoint of the normal BMI range because being leaner and smaller overall provides advantages for many endurance sports such as distance running and cycling.
I said within a healthy range it might be more useful to go by body composition. Of course no one is obligated to do anything so whether they want to be above or below is their business. Have a great day!
Low in the healthy range is still within it.
I hit the top of my healthy range and from that point have gone by body composition. That is taking me to the midpoint or slightly lower but will vary by person. That is what I took her to mean. I believe you are misunderstanding her post
I don't think so, especially since her BMI is still over 25.
Not sure what her bmi has to do with it. It's a much repeated statement around here and not usually taken the way you are taking it.3 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »5'6" and 165 but leanish
Could probably go to 150 and it would still be legit. I like to look thicc lol
That is serious #goals. I would wear that 165# all day long. Nice work!2 -
This has been an interesting thread and really drives home the point that healthy weight and personal weight are just that - very personal. So much gores into this - body composition, genetics, overall build, etc. At 48 years young, post menopausal and 5'6", my goal weight is 140, which I have just hit. I *may* try to drop to 135, but any lower than that and I look way too thin. I am more interested in doing a recomp and adding muscle and lowering my body fat percentage.0
-
I've never been able to get under 200lbs. Started at 257lbs in 2013, lost 55lbs in 2014, reaching 203 lb. Fast forward to 2016 gained weight after other health complications of metabolism when ceasing diet supplements, February was diagnosed with paralyzed vocal cord, and still managing 18+ years with type 2 diabetes. Today, i'm 227, trying to reach 180 by end of summer. Long road traveled with many UPs & Down's...Feel best, beautiful and natural between 180-185...0
-
I'm 5'6" and a half, and my realistic goal weight is 140-145. I've gotten lower than that, but it takes serious dedication for me to be able to do it, and I don't love the way I look at under 140. Because of how my body fat distributes, I end up looking somewhat emaciated on the top half beofre the fat really starts to budge on the bottom half. So I've had to accept that the thighs are just going to be something that I'm going to have to live with.0
-
I'm 5'4" and 67 years old. My highest weight as an adult was 330+ and lowest was 115. I weigh 142 now which puts me at a normal BMI. I've set my goal weight at 128, but I'm not sure if I want to go that low or if I could maintain it if I did. We'll see. I do know I don't want to go down to my lowest weight as that would not be a healthy weight for me at my age.1
-
I'm close to 5'8" so I'll chime in.
My "I'm 45 and I love to eat and this is a weight I can manage" weight is 155.
My "OMG, I would look amazing at this weight even though I might have to work at it!" weight is 150.
My "Holy crap, I haven't weighed this much since high school...can I even make it there again" weight is 145.
So, I'm aiming for 150-155,3 -
I'm 5'5 and aiming for 148lbs which would at least put me in a healthy range at which point I can assess what would be a good goal weight. I've always thought 130 would be ideal. In the end its not the scale number I'm after just a much healthier lifestyle and a strong healthy body.
Have you been to mybodygallery.com ? It's very interesting to see the variation in body shapes. Sadly, I realized what I consider thin is actually underweight.
i think mybodygallery.com has a lot of inaccuracies in height/weight on the pictures.
I have wondered about that, though it's hard to say.
It's definitely interesting to see the ranges though. I noticed that a lot of people my height and weight wear clothing 1-2 sizes smaller than I do, I think b/c mine is disproportionately in my belly.1 -
I'm 5'7. My original goal is 140 lbs. I might go down to 135 or 130 depending on how I feel at 140. I think 130 would look quite slim on me but I like how i feel when I'm on the thinner side. That's just me. Other people think I look great at 1600
-
I'm 5'6 and my weight hovers around 155 or so. Ideally I would like 135 but would be happy with 140-142.1
-
I am 5'6 currently 224 pounds. My UGW is 123-130 but I would be happy at 140!0
-
5'7. 135-138. No higher. Used to weigh 183.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions