5'6 women- at what weight did you think you looked best?
Options
Replies
-
165.
I have a large frame http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp and the only time I've had a BMI as low as 24 was after 6 weeks of undereating and overexercising during boot camp. (When I first arrived there, I had to get boots and hats from the Men's side of the uniforms room because there weren't any big enough in Women's. At 5'6.5", I'm not especially tall. I've always had a hard time buying bracelets. I wear men's shoes as often as I can get away with it.)
My goal is to get back into my skinny jeans from when I was a full time yoga teacher, which will have me at a Low Overweight BMI, and I'm ok with that.8 -
130-1330
-
148-1524
-
Right around 5'6"-5'7", and probably about 137-140 is my happy place. Because of how my body fat distributes, if I go any lower than 137, pretty much every bone on the top half of my body is clearly visible and people start asking if I am sick. But of course, the fat on the hips and thighs still hangs on.
This is me,,5'6 136 and I had a customer ask if I was sick,I still have chubs on the thighs and belly tho so I'm going for around 133,that was a good place for me,was 125 a few years ago and I looked gross!0 -
I tend to think I looked best at my lowest adult weight of 135-140 in college, but I have to say I looked pretty damn good at 160 when I was getting regular cardio and lifting weights.6
-
5'6 here, age 47. Currently 115 lbs and disliking my arms and rear end. Working towards 126 lbs as I've been there before and that looks good on me. I'm 'blessed' with a larger than average chest but a small frame otherwise.0
-
Probably around 130. I'm currently 123, which is a good weight for running, but I'm very bony on top (you can count all my ribs). When I was young, my best weight was 120 and I wasn't bony at all. Gravity does bad things as you get older. All my fat (and I still have some) slid down to my thighs.4
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I have never been a low weight, but my mom is 5'6 and I think she looks phenomenal at 160. That's my goal. I don't think I would like my look if I get any thinner than that and would definitely want to gain.
160 is overweight though
I know, by less than 1 BMI point. I just like that look. Going lower just because BMI says so is not something I'm willing to do unless I have to. Not only will I be going for a look I don't like for myself, but I would also have to eat less to sustain it. To be perfectly honest, I could stop at a weight that's higher than that if I feel I'm where I want to be, as long as it's out of the obese range.
BMI also doesn't take into account muscle mass. Many phenomenal looking (and very fit) lifters are obese by BMI standards. That should not be the only metric used.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/bmi-stop-measuring-weight-height-health-measure-fitness-fat-a7894951.html4 -
I've always felt best around 130-134, but I also feel like my body doesn't want to get lower in weight than there either. Currently 149 and working my way back down.1
-
I am at the same height and my doctor said 170, so I am going for that ! Although add into the mix that I am mid fifties, going through menopause and it's much harder to lose weight when you age because your metabolism slows way down. I'm hopeful to reach 170 good luck on your journey, please feel free to friend me!!! Thanks, Jeanne12
-
It's interesting how all the higher weights got wood. Is it now a taboo to aim for a look that's different from the popular ideal? Don't get me wrong, I'm not really that bothered by woos, I just thought it was an interesting observation.21
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »It's interesting how all the higher weights got wood. Is it now a taboo to aim for a look that's different from the popular ideal? Don't get me wrong, I'm not really that bothered by woos, I just thought it was an interesting observation.
Don't forget... Half the people don't know what woo means, and the other half are wrong.13 -
I started out as 5'6", but am now 5'5" (age 62). I look best, IMO, about 120-125. (While the frame size calculators that use wrist or elbow say medium frame, I have a narrow pelvis and no breasts - built like a 14-year-old-boy, really, not a 62-year-old woman ).
Over my adult life, I've weighed everything from 113-190s. I'm currently in the low 130s, which is a little too heavy for my preference, but not worrisome. At age 59-60, I lost from the low 180s to around 116, then regained a bit on purpose, then a bit more not so on purpose. I've been holding around this weight for a couple of years now.7 -
My smallest was in college when I was crazy active and I have a doctor's appointment record that said I was 139. I think I remember a bathroom scale weight roughly in that same time frame reading 133. I was tiny and don't know that I need to be "tiny" again and I am currently 146. I'd like to lose down to the 130's to start a little recomp knowing that the muscle will add weight. I basically never want to be over 150 again.4
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »It's interesting how all the higher weights got wood. Is it now a taboo to aim for a look that's different from the popular ideal? Don't get me wrong, I'm not really that bothered by woos, I just thought it was an interesting observation.
Don't forget... Half the people don't know what woo means, and the other half are wrong.
There are a lot of people who believe healthy BMI range should be a universal goal, in my experience on these forums. While I do agree it is a good guide for most it isn't universal and we should each work with our doctors to set personal health goals.
For me (I'm 5'8" female almost 40 and in early perimenopause) my doctor gave me a weight range of 145-165. The BMI range for my height is 125-163 so they are a little different. I think my doctor knows my body better so I use that one and aim for 150-160. I also work out 5-6 days a week and that includes 2-3 heavy lifting sessions, plus have a broad frame structure. These things make a different in how people look at certain weights.
If your doctor is happy with your goal and you feel good there it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks.
3 -
I am just under 5'7, I think I look best now, I am around 133lbs. But I have been this weight many times without the muscle base and body composition I have now, so to me weight alone is irrelevant.
I'm 5'7" and this is where I like to be, too--I feel strong enough to workout, light enough to run easily, my clothes fit well, maintaining here isn't too bad, and I don't mind how I look in photographs. I do hear from my mom that I'm "too skinny" though.
165 lb I like to be thick in all the right places and I feel stronger, I looked good at 140 lbs but it's to small for my liking.3 -
When I was young, and 5'6", I looked best at around 125. Now that I'm old and an inch shorter, I look best at around 135-140. That's what I'm working to get back to. Older women seem to look healthier with a little more weight. To keep my weight "in context" , I do have a large bone structure (and man-size hands and feet to prove it).3
-
Just for context... even at the same height and weight, people can look very different. People carry their weight differently, have different body composition, etc.
^^ THIS. Age also matters. A question like this is just a set up for feeling horrible about yourself.
Plus you don't even know if people are accurate about the numbers they are throwing out.
Comparison is the thief of joy. That's what a random "curiosity" survey is, and there are lots of them on here!3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »It's interesting how all the higher weights got wood. Is it now a taboo to aim for a look that's different from the popular ideal? Don't get me wrong, I'm not really that bothered by woos, I just thought it was an interesting observation.
165 is my goal weight. I was surprised you got woos at all. But like someone mentioned, not all know what it's supposed to mean. But it's personal preference, not everyone has to be a perfect size 0. In my perspective, I'd look sick and unhealthy at what is "appropriate" for my height. So I will be just fine with being clinically overweight but societal standards.
((May or may not have been triggered by those responses! lol))9 -
I think it's definitely different for everyone. Especially different ages and different muscle types. 160 can look pretty freaking phenomenal when really fit.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions