Nope, I dont believe it
Options
jls1leather9497
Posts: 90 Member
Just checked the "optimal" weight on this app for my height. WAY over generalized, and I dont buy it.
According to mfp, at 69" I should optimally weigh 155, top end of 170.
PUH LEEZE. I could lose some pounds, which is the reason for.my curiosity. After logging for over a month, I haven't shed really any weight. That's eating the recommended and working out harder than most at the gym 4 days/wk.
Current weight at 214, wearing 34 Jean's. Only way I'm going to weigh 160-ish would be stop working out and stop eating, or just have one.leg.removed at the thigh.
Oh, well, still be good for the encyclopedia of calorie / macro listings.
According to mfp, at 69" I should optimally weigh 155, top end of 170.
PUH LEEZE. I could lose some pounds, which is the reason for.my curiosity. After logging for over a month, I haven't shed really any weight. That's eating the recommended and working out harder than most at the gym 4 days/wk.
Current weight at 214, wearing 34 Jean's. Only way I'm going to weigh 160-ish would be stop working out and stop eating, or just have one.leg.removed at the thigh.
Oh, well, still be good for the encyclopedia of calorie / macro listings.
39
Replies
-
Have you read any of the posts on the Success Boards? Very inspirational.9
-
Nope. But I'd tjerws pics if somebody 5-9 and under 170 who didnt die, I'll take a look 😏16
-
Haven't really? So you've lost a bit. How much?
Hate to disillusion you but we have a really warped sense of what a healthy weight looks like nowadays... You certainly won't look too thin at the upper end of healthy bmi. You can achieve it without too much hassle if you want it. But don't make excuses. Buckle in and push forward. It's fundamentally just calories in vs calories out. You don't even need to exercise. I rarely can for health reasons but I've still lost 7lbs in 5 weeks.
Just input your stats into mfp, stick to the calorie goal either daily or taking it weekly for more flexibility. Try to average out right on it. Not too low, not too high.
Folk here really recommend using a food scale. I'm not yet but I might when I hit my first plateau. If you're exercising harder than 'most', really? at competitive sport level? Then you're simply eating more than you need for your activity level and/or burning way fewer calories during your exercise than you think.
The people here are really nice and supportive if you reach out. Check out the motivation board to see what's possible. But don't give up at the first hurdle. You're not a magic weight hoarding unicorn. It'll be a bumpy journey but keep your eyes on the prize and you'll succeed.
27 -
Lots of people who start out in the obese range don't believe it would be possible or even positive to get as low as the healthy weight range seems to suggest, but for many of them, once they get to the weight they think would be optimal for them, they realize they now want to go further.
If you are very muscular, it's possible your optimal weight is in fact higher than the generalized range would suggest. All the calculators out there can do is work in averages and generalities, there will always be people who fall a bit higher or lower than the averages lay out.
Having said all that, even if your goal weight leaves you at a higher than optimal weight, everyone has to find a balance in their own lives where their lifestyle, diet, and preferences make them most comfortable. Losing weight to the point that you feel is right for you will make you healthier even if it isn't in the optimal range.
If you didn't lose weight for a month, it's possible your logging is a little off, many of us needed to learn how to pick correct database entries and accurately measure our portions. Check out the Most Helpful Posts threads pinned to the top of each forum, ,lots of great tips and info there. Good luck!18 -
I'm 5'9 and my best weight currently is 168lbs.
Not dead yet.45 -
Haven't really? So you've lost a bit. How much?
By.my scale at the house and the one at the gym.for comparison, about 3 lbs
Just input your stats into mfp, stick to the calorie goal either daily or taking it weekly for more flexibility. Try to average out right on it. Not too low, not too high.
I'm pretty close. Usually just under. So I was a bit surprised that I hadnt lost more
Folk here really recommend using a food scale
GOT IT
If you're exercising harder than 'most', really? at competitive sport level?
nope, not.competitive level, whatever that means. But I'm squatting, deadlifting, bench pressing, barbell rowing all at about 70% of bodyweight for sets of 6, and overhead press, bicep and triceps for less weight but.more reps, all with 45 second rest between. Dips n chin ups n 15 min incline.walk after. 4 days in 7.
Dont see how many calories that.supposed.to burn
5 -
-
Gio Aplon - South African international rugby player who is 5'9 & 172lbs, in pretty good shape I think you would agree. He will have a decent amount of muscle at that weight.
Question for you OP, have you ever been in the BMI healthy weight range as an adult as I'm really surprised you think my weight is unusually low for our height?
If I could be bothered I could be leaner and lighter, a drop of 7 or 8 lbs would be probably required to get to six pack levels if that were an ambition of mine.
16 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »
Chest about 43 - 44", waist about 34" but I wear 32" jeans as vanity sizing means jeans are bigger than they used to be.
In my 20's I wore 28" waist jeans and best weight was around 162lbs.7 -
Chest about 43 - 44", waist about 34" but I wear 32" jeans as vanity sizing means jeans are bigger than they used to be.
In my 20's I wore 28" waist jeans and best weight was around 162lbs.[/quote]
Not drastically differnt, i think. Should check when i got somebody here to help. though I think some of my 34 Jean's must have stretched.. I have 34s that i can hardly wear and i have 34 that droop without a belt
I weighed 185-190 for YEARS until illness demanded meds and forced diet (high fat for treatments). Now that the meds and treatment are done, i want the extra weight gone. Should be able to drop 25, certainly (current 214).2 -
Log the duration of your weight training (under the cardio section of the exercise diary) as "strength training" - it's a surprisingly low calorie burner.
15 minute walk is also a very small calorie number.
Unfortunately it's not the fun part (exercise) that is the most effective for weight loss. Being accurate with your food intake will make the biggest difference (boring but effective).
The actual chances of you being a genuine BMI outlier that can't fit in the wide range are extremely low unless you have been training seriously for quite a few years and it doesn't sound like it.
If your ultimate goal seems too far away or too low right now just lose in stages and reassess as you hit each intermediate goal.10 -
Well, I'm confused about how to use the thing maybe.
Enter.my age, height, weight, this thing says I should lose 2 lbs per week at 1500. So even if strength training burned NO calories, and I skipped the walk (treadmill at good incline), then I should have.lost 8-10 lbs just by logging 1400-ish daily ( I did have one day went over). Protein calories at 35-40%
0 -
This is not some sort of special MFP proprietary formula that is telling you that. MFP is using BMI (body mass index), which is the internationally accepted definition of general wait ranges, to give you that information. You can go to the NIH BMI calculator and plug in your information and get the same results. When I plugged in 5'9, 170, it gave me a BMI of 25.1, which is just on the border of healthy/overweight.
It is important to note that this measurement is a GENERAL measurement used to assess the majority of the population. If you are very muscular, then the measure may not apply to you. But it is a pretty accurate guide for most people, including many people who don't like what it tells them about their weight.
I'm 5'11", and my top range of healthy is considered to be about 180. When I was 235, that number seemed crazy. Now at 212, it is starting to make some more sense. I also know it is possible because back when I first gave this a go about 8 or 9 years ago, I got down to around 165. And I still had weight I could have dropped. I'm not sure that I can get that low again now, but I know with dedication, I can get myself down to under 180. And be significantly stronger than I was at 235.
Ultimately, body fat percentage is a better personalized measure than BMI, but it's also harder to measure accurately. When you get closer to what you think is a good weight for yourself, I'd recommend going to get your body fat professionally measured by either a Dexa scan or a Bod Pod. That will tell you a more personalized analysis than an online calculator ever could.
But that range may be more attainable than you think as you get further along in this.7 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »Nope. But I'd tjerws pics if somebody 5-9 and under 170 who didnt die, I'll take a look 😏
I'm 5'7. Current weight 120-123. The most I've ever weighed was 130. Typing this while alive. Some people (like me) have a slimmer build, and the weight on the lower end of the bmi is fine on them. I also have a small chest, so obviously that is not weighing much compared to women who have a bigger chest.5 -
Okay, so I reentered the info, make sure it was correct. In guessing that the 1500 calories is 2250 recommended at 'maintenance' minus 1000 for 2 lbs loss, with a mi imum of 1500 kicking that back up a tad due to the.minimum. right?
Setting protein at 40%, or 625 cal, result in 130g, which is doable since the 8 oz chicken breast is 40g by itself.
So what is it I'm missing here? I know I have room to lose weight, carrying.too mu h body fat for comfort or common sense. No site 170 is right, but I K OW I should be under 200.0 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »Okay, so I reentered the info, make sure it was correct. In guessing that the 1500 calories is 2250 recommended at 'maintenance' minus 1000 for 2 lbs loss, with a mi imum of 1500 kicking that back up a tad due to the.minimum. right?
Setting protein at 40%, or 625 cal, result in 130g, which is doable since the 8 oz chicken breast is 40g by itself.
So what is it I'm missing here? I know I have room to lose weight, carrying.too mu h body fat for comfort or common sense. No site 170 is right, but I K OW I should be under 200.
I’m going out on a limb and saying patience, and a good attitude?
I’m not sure why you are so combative about this. Is it that you think the healthy weight recommendation for your height is unreasonable? Unachievable without being miserable? Are you under the impression you have been in a calorie deficit and should have lost more weight than you have?
It’s also important to have realistic expectations. With under 50 lbs to lose you shouldn’t be aiming for 2 lbs/week but 1 lb/week is reasonable. You aren’t far from that now. Adjust the expectations, keep an open mind, and be patient.
26 -
Reduce carbs43
-
tracieknits wrote: »Reduce carbs
Why on earth?23 -
Oh well, maybe the cutting off of the leg is the solution....I kid of course. Sometimes exercise can make out progress as muscle weighs more than fat I'm sure you've been told. Be patient love16
-
I meant MASK OUR PROGRESS. I'm sorry0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions