Is my goal weight too little?
Replies
-
I’m 5’4” and 116 personally wouldn’t consider myself anywhere near too skinny. If it’s still within healthy guidelines it’s really just preference.3
-
I’m 5’5 and 122 lbs, I’m thinking about 115, so I don’t have to loose too much, but is that too little since it’s almost underweight?
What will going to 115 do? Have you been losing weight to reach 122 or have you been maintaining this weight and decided you are at a higher body fat than desired?
If 115 is some sort of magical number in which you think 7 pounds 'weight' loss is going to help you reach desired body shape I would rethink this and consider recomp (already stated in previous posts). You are at an already healthy weight so I presume you want to enhance your shape.
If you lose 7 pounds without doing any type of strength training you will lose a little muscle (you can minimize that) and body fat but your shape will not be better, you will just be a little more under muscled. Recomp will help you build some muscle and lose the body fat and help you shape your body while maintaining your current weight.4 -
I’m 5’4” and 116 personally wouldn’t consider myself anywhere near too skinny. If it’s still within healthy guidelines it’s really just preference.
Body shape, body fat%, bone structure all play a part as well.
At 120lbs I’m a 0-2. Losing another 10lbs would still be “healthy” weight according to BMI, but I doubt it would actually be healthy for my body type.
2 -
I agree with some of the others who are questioning why 115 and what do you hope to achieve. Redefining your goal will likely result you being better able to define the plan needed to reach that goal. If the goal is simply a number on the scale, you may want to dig a little deeper. I suspect that you (as well as all of us) have a specific body shape issue you are trying to resolve and would be happier with the results of recomp.3
-
As mentioned above, a lot of it will depend on the reason you want to lose the weight and how you will maintain it. I'm at the very bottom of a healthy BMI specifically because I do a lot of longer distance cycling and this weight is an ideal balance of mass to muscle for me. It's not hard to maintain because I blow through calories like mad when I'm training. If/when I find I'm not as active, I will most likely put on ten pounds intentionally, since this low weight would be very difficult to maintain and with fewer calories to work with nutrition would be a problem.
If you just want to change your body shape I'd go with the recomp suggestions. If you want to see what you look like at a lower weight, sure, try it (make sure you lose very slowly to maintain your health), but do it with the mindset that it's most likely not maintainable, and regaining some weight is normal, not a fail.1 -
I'm not even quite 5"5 and I couldn't maintain 140, so yeah... (I do have a medium/large frame).3
-
-
I’m 5’4- 5’5 and 115 lbs, my maintance range was 120-125 . Back in high school I was 100 but competed on an Olympic swim team. Now that I’m an adult anything under 115 starts looking seriously scary, and my family thinks 115 is much too thin. I’m this way because of how much I exercise now. If you are lean because you’re very active I don’t think it’s a bad weight. I wouldn’t lose more just because though. You’re a very healthy weight right now.2
-
I think some of you who "can't imagine" need a better imagination, at least when it comes to others. :flowerforyou: I think I might be able to help. Body configuration and composition really matter. Also, I think OP needs to realize that this few pounds won't be a huge difference . . . maybe not even a noticeable one.
At 5'5", 121.2 pounds, my midsection looked like this (not emaciated, not waif-like, but also not ideal (looking ideal isn't part of my motivation, BTW)).
Now, maybe you're thinking "skinny fat". I don't really think so. At 5'5", 116 pounds (when I overshot goal), I looked like the photo below (no hips, no breasts, not completely devoid of muscle, and you can see the freakishly large hands/wrists - size 10 ring finger! - that confuse the frame-size calculators despite the narrow torso).
OP, you'll have to take my word that my midsection didn't look significantly different, because it didn't. The difference would be pretty close to invisible. Working on body composition (more muscle) will give you better results, though slowly.
For others, this may be thinner than you'd prefer for yourself, possibly a lot thinner; it would cerainly be a too-thin weight for someone with woman-hips, not 14-y/o-boy hips, and who has breasts. But I don't think I look so emaciated I'm likely to die in the next 15 minutes; certainly not "Kate Moss heroin chic era" thin. WIth a couple of bad knees, and a cancer history, I'd prefer to be on the light side of healthy. (American Cancer Society, for people like me, has recommended "Be as lean as possible throughout life without being underweight"**. I got a late start.
)
** https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/cancer-control/en/booklets-flyers/nutrition-and-cancer-fact-sheet.pdf
16 -
For those who want to know what people look like at any particular weight, people have submitted photos of themselves at https://www.mybodygallery.com at various weights and heights.0
-
Yes it is probably too little. I wear a size 2 at 5 feet and 115 lbs. I cant imagine being 5 inches taller at that weight.7
-
I think some of you who "can't imagine" need a better imagination, at least when it comes to others. :flowerforyou: I think I might be able to help. Body configuration and composition really matter. Also, I think OP needs to realize that this few pounds won't be a huge difference . . . maybe not even a noticeable one.
At 5'5", 121.2 pounds, my midsection looked like this (not emaciated, not waif-like, but also not ideal (looking ideal isn't part of my motivation, BTW)).
Now, maybe you're thinking "skinny fat". I don't really think so. At 5'5", 116 pounds (when I overshot goal), I looked like the photo below (no hips, no breasts, not completely devoid of muscle, and you can see the freakishly large hands/wrists - size 10 ring finger! - that confuse the frame-size calculators despite the narrow torso).
OP, you'll have to take my word that my midsection didn't look significantly different, because it didn't. The difference would be pretty close to invisible. Working on body composition (more muscle) will give you better results, though slowly.
For others, this may be thinner than you'd prefer for yourself, possibly a lot thinner; it would cerainly be a too-thin weight for someone with woman-hips, not 14-y/o-boy hips, and who has breasts. But I don't think I look so emaciated I'm likely to die in the next 15 minutes; certainly not "Kate Moss heroin chic era" thin. WIth a couple of bad knees, and a cancer history, I'd prefer to be on the light side of healthy. (American Cancer Society, for people like me, has recommended "Be as lean as possible throughout life without being underweight"**. I got a late start. )
** https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/cancer-control/en/booklets-flyers/nutrition-and-cancer-fact-sheet.pdf
For me this would be too thin. In the second photo I see your ribs. The collar bone is extremely prominent, but when I see ribs below them, that looks emaciated to me. (It might not to you or others).11 -
I think @AnnPT77, as alway, has made a good case for ‘it is very individual’ and without more info, and probably pics, none of us can judge with any certainty. And even then, should we if she is within a healthy BMI.
It can also be down to where one stores fat whether that extra few lbs makes a difference.
Like Annpt77 I have slight hips, and I have small breasts. Nearly all my fat is stored between my ribs and hips, front and centre.
I sit, comfortably, at a healthy BMI of 19.3.
An extra 7lbs would probably add 3-4 inches to my waist, but little anywhere else. I would feel uncomfortable, and it wouldn’t be that healthy, anyone looking at me wouldn’t notice those few lbs, maybe.
Yes I know I could do a bulk and gain weight and muscle, but age has to be taken into consideration, and for me that means fat gains would probably be at a higher percentage than ‘normal’.
For the OP I am sticking with my initial- small deficit and recomp.
Cheers, h.6 -
And meanwhile, I look at both of Ann’a pictures as absolute goals.
Ann, you are amazing.5 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I think some of you who "can't imagine" need a better imagination, at least when it comes to others. :flowerforyou: I think I might be able to help. Body configuration and composition really matter. Also, I think OP needs to realize that this few pounds won't be a huge difference . . . maybe not even a noticeable one.
At 5'5", 121.2 pounds, my midsection looked like this (not emaciated, not waif-like, but also not ideal (looking ideal isn't part of my motivation, BTW)).
Now, maybe you're thinking "skinny fat". I don't really think so. At 5'5", 116 pounds (when I overshot goal), I looked like the photo below (no hips, no breasts, not completely devoid of muscle, and you can see the freakishly large hands/wrists - size 10 ring finger! - that confuse the frame-size calculators despite the narrow torso).
OP, you'll have to take my word that my midsection didn't look significantly different, because it didn't. The difference would be pretty close to invisible. Working on body composition (more muscle) will give you better results, though slowly.
For others, this may be thinner than you'd prefer for yourself, possibly a lot thinner; it would cerainly be a too-thin weight for someone with woman-hips, not 14-y/o-boy hips, and who has breasts. But I don't think I look so emaciated I'm likely to die in the next 15 minutes; certainly not "Kate Moss heroin chic era" thin. WIth a couple of bad knees, and a cancer history, I'd prefer to be on the light side of healthy. (American Cancer Society, for people like me, has recommended "Be as lean as possible throughout life without being underweight"**. I got a late start. )
** https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/cancer-control/en/booklets-flyers/nutrition-and-cancer-fact-sheet.pdf
For me this would be too thin. In the second photo I see your ribs. The collar bone is extremely prominent, but when I see ribs below them, that looks emaciated to me. (It might not to you or others).
Just for the record, I didn't "woo" you. I wouldn't. :flowerforyou:
". . . this may be thinner than you'd prefer for yourself, possibly a lot thinner . . . ".
4 -
collectingblues wrote: »And meanwhile, I look at both of Ann’a pictures as absolute goals.
Ann, you are amazing.
Yup, I think Annpt77 looks healthy, and at a healthy weight. Gotta say, I love your shoulders and arms.
Not criticizing luceroroho, we all have our own ideals and goals, but I’ve always been able to see my collarbone, I’d think I’d look strange if I couldn’t.
Cheers, h.2 -
middlehaitch wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »And meanwhile, I look at both of Ann’a pictures as absolute goals.
Ann, you are amazing.
Yup, I think Annpt77 looks healthy, and at a healthy weight. Gotta say, I love your shoulders and arms.
Not criticizing luceroroho, we all have our own ideals and goals, but I’ve always been able to see my collarbone, I’d think I’d look strange if I couldn’t.
Cheers, h.
I don't think that seeing the collarbone looks emaciated, but the RIBS, to me yes. I also could see my collarbone for most of my life, but ribs above the breasts, no, not even at my thinnest (103 lbs. as a woman).3 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I think some of you who "can't imagine" need a better imagination, at least when it comes to others. :flowerforyou: I think I might be able to help. Body configuration and composition really matter. Also, I think OP needs to realize that this few pounds won't be a huge difference . . . maybe not even a noticeable one.
At 5'5", 121.2 pounds, my midsection looked like this (not emaciated, not waif-like, but also not ideal (looking ideal isn't part of my motivation, BTW)).
Now, maybe you're thinking "skinny fat". I don't really think so. At 5'5", 116 pounds (when I overshot goal), I looked like the photo below (no hips, no breasts, not completely devoid of muscle, and you can see the freakishly large hands/wrists - size 10 ring finger! - that confuse the frame-size calculators despite the narrow torso).
OP, you'll have to take my word that my midsection didn't look significantly different, because it didn't. The difference would be pretty close to invisible. Working on body composition (more muscle) will give you better results, though slowly.
For others, this may be thinner than you'd prefer for yourself, possibly a lot thinner; it would cerainly be a too-thin weight for someone with woman-hips, not 14-y/o-boy hips, and who has breasts. But I don't think I look so emaciated I'm likely to die in the next 15 minutes; certainly not "Kate Moss heroin chic era" thin. WIth a couple of bad knees, and a cancer history, I'd prefer to be on the light side of healthy. (American Cancer Society, for people like me, has recommended "Be as lean as possible throughout life without being underweight"**. I got a late start. )
** https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/cancer-control/en/booklets-flyers/nutrition-and-cancer-fact-sheet.pdf
For me this would be too thin. In the second photo I see your ribs. The collar bone is extremely prominent, but when I see ribs below them, that looks emaciated to me. (It might not to you or others).
Just for the record, I didn't "woo" you. I wouldn't. :flowerforyou:
". . . this may be thinner than you'd prefer for yourself, possibly a lot thinner . . . ".
Thanks. I could care less who woos or if I get woos! This is just personal taste when it comes to body. I would not want to be able to see my ribs.7 -
lucerorojo wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »And meanwhile, I look at both of Ann’a pictures as absolute goals.
Ann, you are amazing.
Yup, I think Annpt77 looks healthy, and at a healthy weight. Gotta say, I love your shoulders and arms.
Not criticizing luceroroho, we all have our own ideals and goals, but I’ve always been able to see my collarbone, I’d think I’d look strange if I couldn’t.
Cheers, h.
I don't think that seeing the collarbone looks emaciated, but the RIBS, to me yes. I also could see my collarbone for most of my life, but ribs above the breasts, no, not even at my thinnest (103 lbs. as a woman).
It really depends on where a person holds their weight as to how emaciated they actually are. I hold very little around my top half but my stomach, hips and thighs tell a different story. Therefore, you will see my ribs when I am a healthy weight.
Your view on what is too thin and reality may be two entirely different things.8 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »And meanwhile, I look at both of Ann’a pictures as absolute goals.
Ann, you are amazing.
Yup, I think Annpt77 looks healthy, and at a healthy weight. Gotta say, I love your shoulders and arms.
Not criticizing luceroroho, we all have our own ideals and goals, but I’ve always been able to see my collarbone, I’d think I’d look strange if I couldn’t.
Cheers, h.
I don't think that seeing the collarbone looks emaciated, but the RIBS, to me yes. I also could see my collarbone for most of my life, but ribs above the breasts, no, not even at my thinnest (103 lbs. as a woman).
It really depends on where a person holds their weight as to how emaciated they actually are. I hold very little around my top half but my stomach, hips and thighs tell a different story. Therefore, you will see my ribs when I am a healthy weight.
Your view on what is too thin and reality may be two entirely different things.
From my very first post on this thread, I said "for me." It's just an opinion. I also said "it looks". That clearly is different from "she is..." and again, that's MY opinion. I never said it was HER or anybody else's reality. For ME, seeing my ribs would be emaciated--I'd probably have to weigh 80 lbs. for that to happen.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions