5'6...What is your goal weight?

gallicinvasion wrote: »

Thanks so much for all your responses! I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one that sees 125 as a little skinny for their frame. Nothing wrong with some padding to keep me warm 😂

Both personal preference and body configuration are really important in this.

I'm 5'5". I adjusted goal downward a few times while losing, as I got close to the previous goal, recognizing that I just wasn't there yet. Finally, I decided I'd prefer the 120-125 area, but overshot to 116. I let my weight come up from there, and maintained around 120 for about 6 months, but then started drifing upward. That was a couple of years ago, and I'm sitting around 135 +/-, which is OK, but I really want to inch back down a bit again. (Knees would be happier with a little less weight.)

I completely understand and respect that my goal weight preference would be lighter than many would prefer (people think my upper body looks bony, and my face looks better a little heavier). But my knees (torn meniscus, minor osteoarthritis) are better behaved if I'm lighter, and the American Cancer Society, for breast cancer survivors like me, encourages the lowest healthy weight we can readily maintain without being underweight. As a 63-year-old widow, I'm not remotely appearance motivated.

Despite the previous paragraph, I'd add that even at 120, I have more than sufficient padding from my ribcage down to support good health. I can "pinch an inch", and more.

Here's the thing: On the body configuration side, I have a pelvis like a 14-year-old boy ( ), and no breasts (post mastectomy). Those, to me, suggest that a lower BMI is appropriate for me, compared to someone with a wider pelvis and breasts (let alone large breasts). I'm not completely devoid of muscle, but I'm not carrying lots of muscle mass, either (more than average for my age, I think - profile pic is me at age 60, weight about 120).

Now, I'm going to get a little cranky: I respect others' views of their bodies, and their preferences (at least unless and until there are serious signs of body dysmorphia or disordered thinking about food).

It's irritating to me to read people questioning others' (lighter BMI) goals, saying/implying that their preferred weight range must be "emaciated", "skeletal", etc. (I don't think the post quoted above does this, BTW.)

Bodies differ, and (healthy) preferences differ. It's one thing to say that one would be or was too thin oneself at X weight, but sometimes the "oh so crazy" rhetoric goes a little far IMO. I'm not going to say "OMG, I was so fat at 5'5" and 150 - how can people want to be so heavy?!" . . . not just because that would be rude (it would), but because it would be objectively dumb. (Even though I personally was, in fact, still quite a bit too fat at 150: But that's me, not you. Many women my height feel and look fabulous at much heavier weights than I do: Yay, them!).

Can we find a way to support each other, in our diversity?

msalicia07 wrote: »

117-119. Bone structure and muscle mass being the reason.

118 is in the healthy BMI range. Americans generally freak out when someone is lean, even when it’s perfectly healthy. I should know- I’m American.