Is my goal weight too little?
Replies
-
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 -
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).
I think Ann looks great and she's always inspiring. I want to be just like her when I grow up!
But I think her ribs above the breast may look more prominent because she has had a double mastectomy.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).
I think Ann looks great and she's always inspiring. I want to be just like her when I grow up!
But I think her ribs above the breast may look more prominent because she has had a double mastectomy.
Yes, that makes sense. I was thinking that too. I apologize if it sounded offensive.2 -
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).
That, ribs above the breasts, is all down to how and where one carries fat, and a bit of bone structure, and for a woman, sometimes, whether one is pre or post menopausal.
I am the middle of 3 sisters, only a year apart and similar weights (98-105lbs) In our premenopausal days I was the only one that didn’t have my upper ribs showing, nice little fat padding, the other 2 had since pre puberty.
Post menopause, my fat storage, because of hormone changes, has changed, now, at the same weight, my upper ribs are visible.
I liked it better when they weren’t visible, but I’m not willing to put on extra fat because of it.
It just isn’t something that can be controlled. A lot of women that are more pear shaped, I’m apple, lose on the upper body much sooner than the lower and their upper ribs can be visible even when overweight.
Said while respecting your view and personal body ideal.
Cheers, h.
Sorry. While typing other posts happened so this may be a bit out of context.6 -
lucerorojo 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).
I think Ann looks great and she's always inspiring. I want to be just like her when I grow up!
But I think her ribs above the breast may look more prominent because she has had a double mastectomy.
Yes, that makes sense. I was thinking that too. I apologize if it sounded offensive.
We're not in contention here. No worries. I'm not at all personally offended. :drinker:
My point was not that I look perfect or beautiful or ideal: That's not even on my radar. My point was that I don't look like I'm sickly . . . as far as I know. I know I am healthy . . . and that's not imaginary. My fat-weight is carried lower body, not upper. You can see a tiny bit of lower-waist bulge in the 2nd photo still. <shrug> (I do look like I should get on with some pec work, for muscle-development balance if not appearance: Lazy and hedonistic soul that I am, I'm all row and no bench-press.)
My concern here is that - to me - seeing a large number of "I can't imagine . . . I would be sick-looking at that weight" on a thread like this troubles me, in the abstract, when we have no idea at all about the OP or her goals. No photos, no nothing. She could be narrowly-built and able to lose a bit more, while genuinely healthy; she could be seriously out of touch with how thin she actually is already and risking undernourishment.
We just don't know. I don't see how we can judge.
I wouldn't dream of implying that someone must be fat or flabby at my height and (pulling a number out of the air) 145, even though I personally would be (was). Those are two unrelated concepts. When multiple people on a thread imply that an unseen OP must be striving for an unhealthy weight, while still aiming inside the normal BMI range, it makes me uncomfortable (and not particularly on my own behalf, BTW - I know I'm healthy). I feel like collectively we come across as more judgemental about unseen women at low-normal BMIs (implying that they're unhealthy or out of touch with reality) than about women with high-normal BMIs. One can point at the influence of the culture pushing too-thin ideals as a source of this worry . . . but it would be equally possible to point at the influence of the culture accepting too-fat norms. When we don't see the person, we don't know: It's that individual.
But I think I've derailed the thread, and we have no indication OP has been back, so I'll drop the issue at this point.
Cheers, all! 10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions