Nope, I dont believe it
Replies
-
Not sure if your male/female but I'm 5-8 so only 1inch shorter and currently weigh 178lbs
I was 210lbs at my heaviest that was April 2016 I have done alot of yo-yoing since then
178 is DOWN from 210, so we're headed the right direction
All boy here, nothing undecided round here. Now to figger how to load this pic ...
2 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »SusieBanyon wrote: »https://www.mybodygallery.com/search.html?gender=female&height=175&age=any&weight=73&pantSize=any&shirtSize=any&bodytype=
You can change the weight (and height) to see different things represented. There are women who are 5'9, 120ish on there who look fine. Not skin and bones, not falling apart.
I always find it amazing how differently people look at the same height and weight.
I did check more n a couple pics. Dont k ow if there were any pics of the boys, but not sure.i would have noticed much anyway 😏
NOT seeing how yo load a pic here though?0 -
1 -
Exercise and fitness not at all possible when under that med treatment causing the weight gain.
After starting back working out, some of the vascularity beginning to return.
2 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »Nope. But I'd tjerws pics if somebody 5-9 and under 170 who didnt die, I'll take a look 😏
Not sure if your male/female but I'm 5-8 so only 1inch shorter and currently weigh 178lbs at my lightest I weighed 158lbs and could have still lost more. Pic is me 2 weeks ago at about 180lbs ish
Great pic Angel!!! You look lighter than 180.4 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »Nope. But I'd tjerws pics if somebody 5-9 and under 170 who didnt die, I'll take a look 😏
Not sure if your male/female but I'm 5-8 so only 1inch shorter and currently weigh 178lbs at my lightest I weighed 158lbs and could have still lost more. Pic is me 2 weeks ago at about 180lbs ish
Hey, thanks - somebody willing to talk about themself rather than others 😎
I'm 213 this morning - scale is pretty reliable. All bundled up to go out push so ice n snow off the patio, maybe kin git a pic later.
I was 210lbs at my heaviest that was April 2016 I have done alot of yo-yoing since then
Angel. You look GREAT GIRL! Don t let body tell you different!1 -
js1leather!?! Your right arm is so gooorrreejuus!8
-
Sounds like my issue with doctors swearing by the BMI. According to BMI I should weigh 60 Kilos or "132 Pounds" Really now. I don't think I would have enough energy to stir my coffee with a spoon if I weighed 132 pounds. I stopped hopping on the scales and just measure now. As of now I have lost 3 inches (almost 4) in my waist but the scales say I have not lost 1 Kilo (2 pounds). I have come to the conclusion that I may actually be from another solar system and not from Earth LOL..9
-
lleeann2001 wrote: »js1leather!?! Your right arm is so gooorrreejuus!
Well, that's a start then, thanks 😎 The one hanging is the.left, took th pics in the mirror with phone in right hand.1 -
rhunwelshbowman wrote: »Sounds like my issue with doctors swearing by the BMI. According to BMI I should weigh 60 Kilos or "132 Pounds" Really now. I don't think I would have enough energy to stir my coffee with a spoon if I weighed 132 pounds. I stopped hopping on the scales and just measure now. As of now I have lost 3 inches (almost 4) in my waist but the scales say I have not lost 1 Kilo (2 pounds). I have come to the conclusion that I may actually be from another solar system and not from Earth LOL..
BMI is not a concrete number of pounds you “should” weigh, it’s a range of weights that applies to most people. You might fall anywhere within that range whether it be on the higher end, lower end or somewhere in between or you could be a statistical outlier which although rare, is possible.11 -
I'm male, 6'2" 180 lbs (down from 220). I don't have a gut but I don't have visible abs, nor am I super muscular. I thought I wanted to get down to about 195 but then decided to drop another 5 pounds, then another 5, then another 5, then I was happy with my weight.
My point here is you won't know what you will look like until you get there, so set intermediate goals. Get under 200 and see how you look. Then re-evaluate. The more muscle you have the better you will look at a higher weight, but where your weight is stored (gut was the last to go for me) varies from person to person, so don't be a slave to BMI or ideal weight calculators, etc. you will probably know when to stop.
If you aren't losing get a digital food scale to weigh your foods to calculate the calories, its SO MUCH EASIER than using measuring cups or trying to eyeball things. A step tracker app can be very useful as well.7 -
Yup, kinda what I decided -- get under 200 and see how that goes.
Until that med treatment stuff, I had never weighed 200 in my life.5 -
lleeann2001 wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »Nope. But I'd tjerws pics if somebody 5-9 and under 170 who didnt die, I'll take a look 😏
Not sure if your male/female but I'm 5-8 so only 1inch shorter and currently weigh 178lbs at my lightest I weighed 158lbs and could have still lost more. Pic is me 2 weeks ago at about 180lbs ish
Great pic Angel!!! You look lighter than 180.lleeann2001 wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »Nope. But I'd tjerws pics if somebody 5-9 and under 170 who didnt die, I'll take a look 😏
Not sure if your male/female but I'm 5-8 so only 1inch shorter and currently weigh 178lbs at my lightest I weighed 158lbs and could have still lost more. Pic is me 2 weeks ago at about 180lbs ish
Hey, thanks - somebody willing to talk about themself rather than others 😎
I'm 213 this morning - scale is pretty reliable. All bundled up to go out push so ice n snow off the patio, maybe kin git a pic later.
I was 210lbs at my heaviest that was April 2016 I have done alot of yo-yoing since then
Angel. You look GREAT GIRL! Don t let body tell you different!
Wow thank you both so much the trainer at the gym said I didn't look as heavy as Iam but I just thought well she works here she's just telling me what I want to hear LOL nice to hear it from strangers just wish I could see myself through other people's eyes sometimes1 -
monkeefan1974 wrote: »rhunwelshbowman wrote: »Sounds like my issue with doctors swearing by the BMI. According to BMI I should weigh 60 Kilos or "132 Pounds" Really now. I don't think I would have enough energy to stir my coffee with a spoon if I weighed 132 pounds. I stopped hopping on the scales and just measure now. As of now I have lost 3 inches (almost 4) in my waist but the scales say I have not lost 1 Kilo (2 pounds). I have come to the conclusion that I may actually be from another solar system and not from Earth LOL..
BMI is not a concrete number of pounds you “should” weigh, it’s a range of weights that applies to most people. You might fall anywhere within that range whether it be on the higher end, lower end or somewhere in between or you could be a statistical outlier which although rare, is possible.
She's right. BMI was created as a population metric. It's not supposed to be applied to individuals. Most physicians mistakenly do.
If people knew how ridiculously simplified the BMI equation was, they'd see that it offers little other than an easy way to compare population groups in order to look for patterns.
BMI is your mass divided by the square of your height (in metric system). That's it.
Does that really sound like a ratio each of us should be obsessing about?
11 -
When I started out and until fairly recently I was always poo-pooing my indicated healthy height/weight ratio as ridiculous, no way does that apply to me, if I was that weight I'd be sickly, it's just a generalisation anyway and not realistic for me. Now I realise I was kidding myself.
The fact was that I dismissed the goal not because it was unrealistic or wrong but because It seemed too hard, too far and I doubted that I could ever achieve it. So it was easier for me to pull the wool over my own eyes and tell myself that it wasn't achievable because it was wrong and therefore when I couldn't get there I had a convenient excuse outside of my control. Not my fault I couldn't get to a healthy weight range it doesn't apply to me.
Forget that rubbish. One of the key changes I've made this time round is taking personal responsibility for everything in my life. I'm done with blaming everything and everyone except me so I had to give myself an uppercut for looking for an excuse and trying to give myself an out.
I've now reduced my goal weight down from my 'I think this is the best I can do' overweight range target to a goal weight that's within the healthy h/w ratio range.11 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »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%
MFP doesn't tell you to lose 2 lbs / wk. It asks you how much you want to lose per week, and you tell it. You can choose a slower rate of weight loss.12 -
InsertFunnyUsernameHere wrote: »monkeefan1974 wrote: »rhunwelshbowman wrote: »Sounds like my issue with doctors swearing by the BMI. According to BMI I should weigh 60 Kilos or "132 Pounds" Really now. I don't think I would have enough energy to stir my coffee with a spoon if I weighed 132 pounds. I stopped hopping on the scales and just measure now. As of now I have lost 3 inches (almost 4) in my waist but the scales say I have not lost 1 Kilo (2 pounds). I have come to the conclusion that I may actually be from another solar system and not from Earth LOL..
BMI is not a concrete number of pounds you “should” weigh, it’s a range of weights that applies to most people. You might fall anywhere within that range whether it be on the higher end, lower end or somewhere in between or you could be a statistical outlier which although rare, is possible.
She's right. BMI was created as a population metric. It's not supposed to be applied to individuals. Most physicians mistakenly do.
If people knew how ridiculously simplified the BMI equation was, they'd see that it offers little other than an easy way to compare population groups in order to look for patterns.
BMI is your mass divided by the square of your height (in metric system). That's it.
Does that really sound like a ratio each of us should be obsessing about?
It is true that BMI is created as a general population metric. But it is also accurate for a broad majority of people. That's why it is a range. Sure, some people will be outliers, as there's no such thing as a metric that will apply to everyone. But the reason why people hate on BMI so much is not because it's inaccurate, but because they don't like what BMI is telling them, which is usually that they would benefit from losing more weight than they think they need. But as many have testified here, as they progress in their weight loss, the realize that BMI is actually more realistic than it first seemed.12 -
Yup. People often use the argument that 'athletes' can be labelled obese due to their level of muscularity so BMI is useless. However, one day curiosity got the better of me. I worked out the BMI of a range of female athletes in various sports. Surprise, surprise, the ones I randomly checked were all in the healthy range. This included Ronda Rousey, a UFC fighter, Jessica Ennis-Hill, Olympic gold Heptathlete and owner of the most defined abs in the business, Simone Biles, gymnast, Nicola Adams the boxer- all of whom muscular was/is definitely a way to describe them. Even Sophie Hitchon and Holly Bradshaw who are throwers and look 'bigger' and less toned than these were still within a healthy BMI. Icing on the cake was Usain Bolt! I'd never have guessed his BMI was healthy given his level of muscle.
Unless you want to compare yourself to a heavy weight judoka, rugby player or American footballer, BMI is pretty good. Also, if the judoka, rugby player or American footballer kept their weight on after they finish competing, their body is going to be just as pummeled through the extra weight as any other mortal.11 -
Roudy Rhonda is hot - I like a gal with drive like that.
But I dont discount ppl outside the "acceptable" weight. My buddy ted is about 5'6", maybe 180? I thought he was gonna thump that doctor a few years back when the bonehead told him he was considered obese and needed to lose weight. Ted has MAYBE 10-12% body fat, and pec muscle about 3" thick, looks like somebody put a book on his sternum and open ed it in the middle
But the doctor doing work physicals had his little chart ...6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »Enter.my age, height, weight, this thing says I should lose 2 lbs per week at 1500.
MFP doesn't tell you to lose 2 lbs / wk. It asks you how much you want to lose per week, and you tell it. You can choose a slower rate of weight loss.
Read it again. Not even close to what I said. Clearly says that given my info, MFP SAYS I should lose 2 lbs per week IF I go with the RECOMMENDED (by mfp) 1500 calories daily.
A little more reading, it actually calculates 2250, subtracts 1000 for the 2lb loss, resulting in 1250, which IT then bumps up to pump the myth that.men must never drop below 1500 per day.
No wonder the internet so polluted with misinformation -- one person didnt read what I said, and 6 people liked a 'response' to something I didnt say
14 -
. Now I realise I was kidding myself.
I dismissed the goal ... because It seemed too hard, ... so it was easier for me to ... I had a convenient excuse ...
taking personal responsibility for everything in my life. I'm done with blaming ...I've now reduced my goal weight ... within the healthy h/w ratio range.
So you've stopped blaming others for
.. whatever ... and now want to be "within the healthy h/w ratio range" according to someone else?@!
Hey, each his/her own.
But I dont think ANYBODY would see those pics of me and say 'that guy is outside the range we decided is acceptable and needs to drop 45 lbs" . I mean, NOBODY.
[edited by MFP Mods]13 -
There's a BMI thread floating around the debate forum. It's a little bit of a dumpster fire, but I think most folks would agree that if a person likes how they look and feel, most other things are kind of irrelevant.jls1leather9497 wrote: ». Now I realise I was kidding myself.
I dismissed the goal ... because It seemed too hard, ... so it was easier for me to ... I had a convenient excuse ...
taking personal responsibility for everything in my life. I'm done with blaming ...I've now reduced my goal weight ... within the healthy h/w ratio range.
So you've stopped blaming others for
.. whatever ... and now want to be "within the healthy h/w ratio range" according to someone else?@!
Hey, each his/her own.
But I dont think ANYBODY would see those pics of me and say 'that guy is outside the range we decided is acceptable and needs to drop 45 lbs" . I mean, NOBODY.
[edited by MFP Mods]
Pick a weight loss number and run with it. If it doesn't work change it. I quit worrying about BMI a long time ago because, while it might have some use as a general population guide, it's fairly worthless for some individuals.
1 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: ». Now I realise I was kidding myself.
I dismissed the goal ... because It seemed too hard, ... so it was easier for me to ... I had a convenient excuse ...
taking personal responsibility for everything in my life. I'm done with blaming ...I've now reduced my goal weight ... within the healthy h/w ratio range.
So you've stopped blaming others for
.. whatever ... and now want to be "within the healthy h/w ratio range" according to someone else?@!
Hey, each his/her own.
But I dont think ANYBODY would see those pics of me and say 'that guy is outside the range we decided is acceptable and needs to drop 45 lbs" . I mean, NOBODY.
[edited by MFP Mods]
It's hard to really tell from your pics but I agree, my first thought when seeing your pics was not "45 pounds overweight". However on the flip side I didn't look at your pictures and think "this guy has a much higher muscle mass than normal, BMI doesn't apply to him". Your frame looks like one that you could get down to 170 and still support it on your frame. So I'm not exactly sure where the extra weight is just from your pictures, but it's somewhere.
But I also think you are over thinking it by getting so lost in the forest that you can't see the trees. You are not being told to get down to 170 pounds tomorrow. It's not as if you are going to be 214 one day, and 170 the next. Focus on starting your weight loss. Get to under 200 and then see how you feel and where you go from there. You could easily lose 15 pounds and not notice a difference in yourself and still feel like you need to lose that "few extra pounds" you originally thought. I can tell you that 25 pounds for me does not feel as drastic as I thought it would. Or you may feel like you are exactly where you need to be and don't need to lose anymore. You'll know that when you get there, so no need to worry about it ahead of time.9 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »Enter.my age, height, weight, this thing says I should lose 2 lbs per week at 1500.
MFP doesn't tell you to lose 2 lbs / wk. It asks you how much you want to lose per week, and you tell it. You can choose a slower rate of weight loss.
Read it again. Not even close to what I said. Clearly says that given my info, MFP SAYS I should lose 2 lbs per week IF I go with the RECOMMENDED (by mfp) 1500 calories daily.
A little more reading, it actually calculates 2250, subtracts 1000 for the 2lb loss, resulting in 1250, which IT then bumps up to pump the myth that.men must never drop below 1500 per day.
No wonder the internet so polluted with misinformation -- one person didnt read what I said, and 6 people liked a 'response' to something I didnt say
If everybody is misunderstanding what you write, you might want to consider whether the problem is with what you're actually writing.10 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »Enter.my age, height, weight, this thing says I should lose 2 lbs per week at 1500.
MFP doesn't tell you to lose 2 lbs / wk. It asks you how much you want to lose per week, and you tell it. You can choose a slower rate of weight loss.
Read it again. Not even close to what I said. Clearly says that given my info, MFP SAYS I should lose 2 lbs per week IF I go with the RECOMMENDED (by mfp) 1500 calories daily.
If everybody is misunderstanding what you write, you might want to consider whether the problem is with what you're actually writing.
Wait... you think that
"mfp says I should.lose 2lb per week if I eat 1500 calories"
is confusing?@!8 -
Actually, MFP will not give you under 1500 calories, no matter what. To lose 2lbs per week, you need to eat 1000 calories below your daily maintenance. BUT, if your daily maintenance is 2300 calories and you tell MFP you want to lose 2lbs per week? It's not going to tell you to eat 1300. It's going to go to the default minimum for men of 1500. Even though that's really going to be setting you up to lose 1.8/week.
I don't know what your daily maintenance is, just to be clear. But I do know that MFP will not give a man less than 1500 calories/day (or a woman 1200).12 -
jls1leather9497 wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »jls1leather9497 wrote: »Enter.my age, height, weight, this thing says I should lose 2 lbs per week at 1500.
MFP doesn't tell you to lose 2 lbs / wk. It asks you how much you want to lose per week, and you tell it. You can choose a slower rate of weight loss.
Read it again. Not even close to what I said. Clearly says that given my info, MFP SAYS I should lose 2 lbs per week IF I go with the RECOMMENDED (by mfp) 1500 calories daily.
If everybody is misunderstanding what you write, you might want to consider whether the problem is with what you're actually writing.
Wait... you think that
"mfp says I should.lose 2lb per week if I eat 1500 calories"
is confusing?@!
Read it again. Not even close to what I said.5 -
Just log everything to eat, and weigh it all so you know you are actually doing it right. Keep going for a month and then see where you are.0
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »Actually, MFP will not give you under 1500 calories, no matter what. To lose 2lbs per week, you need to eat 1000 calories below your daily maintenance. BUT, if your daily maintenance is 2300 calories and you tell MFP you want to lose 2lbs per week? It's not going to tell you to eat 1300. It's going to go to the default minimum for men of 1500. Even though that's really going to be setting you up to lose 1.8/week.
I don't know what your daily maintenance is, just to be clear. But I do know that MFP will not give a man less than 1500 calories/day (or a woman 1200).
Congratulations. That's exactly what I've been saying.
2 -
Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »Just log everything to eat, and weigh it all so you know you are actually doing it right. Keep going for a month and then see where you are.
Thanks, that's what I've been doing. While I really DON'T think ipl lose 40+, I was surprised to see tha following g the recommendation PLUS working out pretty hard and very regular, after day 44 I've lost a total of 3 lbs ! I would have thought I'd drop 10 at least.
It seems some here think that anybody who didnt lose by the "formula" must be giving inaccurate info or outright lying. Truth us, I dont k ow anybody I want to impress enough to lie about it
So, the menu ..
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions