5'6 women- at what weight did you think you looked best?

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.

mitch16 wrote: »

sardelsa wrote: »

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.

jjpptt2 wrote: »

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!

130. I still had the curves I liked but not the extra fluff that I have now at 151 pounds. Also at 130 I was in the best shape of my life (for me at least). Right now my goal is to get to 140 and see if 130 is still my absolute goal weight or if just getting to the point where my clothes fit well and back into an exercise routine is truly my ultimate goal instead of hitting some number I have decided is the end all be all.

amusedmonkey wrote: »

corysmithsmail wrote: »

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))

I don't think I would look sick or unhealthy if I lost more, I'm sure I could handle to lose more if I wanted to, but that's not the look I'm going for. Being an hourglass gives me the luxury of maintaining outside of the healthy range since I don't have as much visceral fat as someone who has a different shape. So basically I can handle a little bit of extra weight (unless my blood sugar starts acting up, in which case I will have to make the unpleasant choice of going lower.)

jjpptt2 wrote: »

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.

I suspect (and I could be WAY off base), that at least some of these are a knee-jerk reaction to ideas like HAES or see it as a skewed view of reality and promoting being fat.

Or they don't believe that some women have larger frames and more muscle mass than others.

Heck, I have wider shoulders than most guys my height. But I have a big head, so I look proportional. Our family joke is about our "fat heads."

OP, hopefully you see how ambiguous your question is. The general range of "normal" is pretty wide. I'm 5'7" and have weighed between 155-182. Right now, I'm about 165 and pretty happy with it. I've been 155 at a size 12. I'm between an 8-10 now. Remember that it's not only the scale. I can swim 2 miles, run a 10K if I feel like it, hike 10-15 miles if someone asks, etc. For me, it's really more about my clothes fitting well and being able to get out and do the things I want to do with ease and without injury.

Asking for a weight is like asking someone how long their hair should be... Just my two cents.

kshama2001 wrote: »

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.

This was interesting, I've always thought I was "big boned" but figured it was just because I've always been heavy, doing this just proved that I do really have a large frame....

Thanks for posting it.

147

I am 5'6" tall and maintain between 110 and 115 lbs. That is first thing in the morning with no clothes on. I have a small frame and relate to the lady who compared herself to a 14 year old boy. My hips and chest are small. I know I am at the low end of the healthy weight range, but I feel healthy, have lots of energy & endurance for a 64 yo woman and I feel I look pretty good, too

35 years ago when I was around 150 I looked pretty good. Quite honestly, at this point in my life I am going for strength, good balance, reasonable endurance, and as little back-hip fluff as I can get away with. What is it with post-menopause body-fat repositories, anyhow lol I think somewhere between 145-150 (age 67) would be about right.

I'm an inch shorter at 5'5, my lowest was 140. I had a 25 inch waist, but still wore size 9/10 in jeans because I have always had a big butt and thighs. Always had at least a C cup too. I would like to try and see myself at lower tho.

kshama2001 wrote: »

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.

I am 5'7" and have four sisters who are as well. It's interesting to see our differing shapes, weights, body compositions. I think that's where OP got it accurately. I am and always have been the biggest of all of us. Growing up, I was given the excuse that I was "big boned." Looking back, I was a healthy weight. My sisters were all underweight. Being skinny was a value of my mother and her female relatives. Now, even though my frame is bigger (nobody can wear my watch, for example) and I am still probably the heaviest, I can fit in much smaller clothes, and two of my sisters wear a bigger size than I do.

My first reaction to your post, OP was that you were asking what weight you should weigh, based on what weight other people of the same height are. After reading replies, I can see that it's a much more general question.

kgeyser wrote: »

Mexicangreensalsa wrote: »

I am honestly very surprised how many people prefer to be at the high end of the BMI and even overweight. Very interesting to see. Especially the people who say they feel best at an overweight weight when they have never been below it to know if they will feel better at a healthier BMI. They always talk about too many being being overweight is such an issue, but it seems as though a lot of Americans might just prefer being at the high end or even overweight. I have heard some studies actually show being slightly overweight has health benefits, but not sure how accurate it is.

I thought I would be "too small" at a low healthy BMI, but once I got there I felt 10x better than ever before. I could run faster, farther, and had more energy than when I was slightly overweight.

If you feel great on the lower end, then that's great for you. The question did ask about looks, not how people felt at a certain weight. Yes, people might feel better physically at a slightly lower weight. But for a lot of people, feeling good is also about how one feels mentally at a certain weight. I've gotten down lower than the weight I listed, and yes, there were nice physical benefits.

Mentally, it was awful. I knew how hard I had to work to get there and it wasn't sustainable for my life to keep working that hard to maintain it. I like food a lot, and liking food a lot means I need to keep up a certain activity level to lose or maintain. If I couldn't keep up that activity level due to life, that meant I would have to eat less food....did I mention I like food a lot? So it was a choice between feeling like I was constantly fighting to be at that lower weight, or being a few pounds heavier, feeling good about how I looked, and having a diet and exercise routine I could maintain.

I'm sure my experience contributes to my view of what looks best on me, but that doesn't mean that people who prefer a lower weight have the same struggle I did.

That's a good insight - that the question was purely phrased in terms of appearance.

But even that isn't simple/straightforward, even ignoring that people have different ideas of what looks good (preferences): At the weight where I like the way my body looks, my face probably doesn't look as good. But I don't care (I'm behind my face, so I only have to look at it a few times a day ). Others here have said similar things (maybe placing different priorities on different aspects of appearance).

There are lots of different possible aspects of appearance that a person could put at a higher priority, but I'd just about guarantee that it's a fairly rare person who can find a weight at which they'll feel everything is just perfect.

I wouldn't be surprised if this effect were more extreme the more important appearance is to a person. (Someone like me, who is not very appearance-focused, is not going to be as much lamenting when one thing has to be traded off against another - keeping the breasts firm vs. losing the thigh width, for example, for some people; or getting visible abs without having bony ribs; or in my case, not caring that my face looks a little saggy if my quads make me happy. I'm not saying those specific tradeoffs occur for everyone, I'm saying that they occur for some, and that most people have some kind of tradeoffs to make, because complete perfection isn't often an option).

Really, I think it'd be easier just to work on the mental/emotional side, and develop the self-confidence and self-acceptance to like yourself as a total package (even while working on continuing improvements). Which is not to say that that's easy.