How do you choose a goal weight?

Options
2

Replies

  • AlexandraFindsHerself1971
    Options
    I really have two goal weights, myself. I'm a tall, very curvaceous and large-framed woman. I have my family's build, and even when we're 16 and playing sports all year we still have CURVES. So I sort of have to allow for that, and my goal weight is 180. Now, I know at 5'7" that still is technically overweight, and I really want to get a tummy tuck done. I carry my weight evenly over my body, but it's clear I have a lot of sagging skin on my front and I know a have a muscle separation underneath, it's two inches apart and you can feel it easily. That won't fix via weight loss. But to get that all repaired, I need to be down far enough that I don't read so much as fat as I do as thick and curved, and I need to maintain at that point for six months. I'm not worried about maintaining. With the help of this website, it's no problem. I have no idea what that maintenance point will be, sitting up here at 296. At 180, I may be able to be clearer about that, but I won't know til then whether it's around 180 or closer to the 150 that I've seen posted. (I don't plan to go below 150. I like being strong and big that way.)
  • Jennikitten
    Jennikitten Posts: 142 Member
    Options
    Set the goal to where it feels good for you then you can always look at it again when you get there and change it
  • mim619
    mim619 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    I am 5'10" also and have not been less than 158 since I was a freshman in highschool... Currently at 172-176 depending on the day and I'm the size I was 6 years ago at 158. Muscle mass is a complicating factor. I originally thought 160 would be my goal but honestly I feel pretty good where I am.
  • hipari
    hipari Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    I chose the highest weight I felt like I’d be happy with: 79.9kg. The upper limit of my normal weight BMI would be something around 75kg, so still 10lbs lower, but I don’t care. I have a lot of muscle mass, a lot of curves, and I’m quite tall, so I’ll re-evaluate the situation once my weight starts with the 7.
  • threewins
    threewins Posts: 1,455 Member
    Options
    I chose my goal weight when I was there. I didn't know how much I wanted to lose, I just kept losing until my "reference jeans" fit.
  • misscagal
    misscagal Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    Sorry if I missed this on the read through, but if you are settling weight based on BMI, you should also factor age in. It does matter and you don’t want to pick a BMI that’s suitable for a 22 yo versus a 52 yo.
  • Anya_000
    Anya_000 Posts: 725 Member
    Options
    Great advice from everyone.

    For me, I need little goals, so I've been setting them in 5 lb increments. Then the goal is achievable, and not so far off and seemingly insurmountable. After reaching the goal, I reevaluate, and pick the next goal and so on. I'm a 59 yo woman, and there's no way I'll get back to my 122lbs, so I'm seeing how I look and feel as I reach each mini goal.
  • BuffaloChixSalad
    BuffaloChixSalad Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    That's the one thing I don't like about numbers. I go for how I feel. How my clothes fit and what the mirror reflects back at me. Muscles outweigh fat. As long as you're comfortable, nothing else matters
  • Kathi7501
    Kathi7501 Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    You guys are all so awesome. I figured I'd get a good range of rational advice and no one disappointed. I'll definitely set a short goal -- I'm thinking 209 to start, since that'll be a 25-pound loss. Then maybe I'll try another 25 and see how that feels at 184. And I'm going to definitely look into the body frame calculation to get a better idea of where I land.

    Thank you everyone!
  • Luke_rabbit
    Luke_rabbit Posts: 1,031 Member
    Options
    misscagal wrote: »
    Sorry if I missed this on the read through, but if you are settling weight based on BMI, you should also factor age in. It does matter and you don’t want to pick a BMI that’s suitable for a 22 yo versus a 52 yo.

    What would be your calculation?

    I'd assume that a younger person would perhaps select a higher weight due to more muscle and heavier bones, while an older person would select a lower weight.

    For myself at 55, I am larger at 125 lbs than I was just 6 short years ago (pre-menopause). I'm hoping that this year, besides getting down to 122 lbs, that I can build a little muscle and perhaps get back into all the clothes that fit then at the same weight range (122-127 lbs).
  • RelCanonical
    RelCanonical Posts: 3,882 Member
    Options
    misscagal wrote: »
    Sorry if I missed this on the read through, but if you are settling weight based on BMI, you should also factor age in. It does matter and you don’t want to pick a BMI that’s suitable for a 22 yo versus a 52 yo.

    What would be your calculation?

    I'd assume that a younger person would perhaps select a higher weight due to more muscle and heavier bones, while an older person would select a lower weight.

    For myself at 55, I am larger at 125 lbs than I was just 6 short years ago (pre-menopause). I'm hoping that this year, besides getting down to 122 lbs, that I can build a little muscle and perhaps get back into all the clothes that fit then at the same weight range (122-127 lbs).

    I think an older person would lean towards a higher weight to protect against disease (as in, have a little extra to lose when disease occurs).
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Kathi7501 wrote: »
    So here's the deal: I'm 52, 5'10" and currently weigh 220. I have lost weight before (from an all-time high of 274) and stopped when I hit 170. I was unable to maintain that and settled more into a comfortable 180-190 area. (I followed a meal-replacement plan and never went through a formal maintenance program, so it's no surprise I couldn't maintain it.) Fortunately, I'm working with both a personal trainer and a nutritionist this time around so I won't be left on the curb to fend for myself whenever I reach a good weight.

    Originally I thought I'd like to get back to 190, since that's attainable and I felt good there. However, that's still not a good BMI at 27.3 - still overweight.

    Ideally, I should be between 130-170 to hit a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9, but I haven't weighed 150 or less since I was 17. If I aimed for the middle - 150 - I'd need to lose 70 pounds. Is this realistic?

    Fortunately, I have no personal health problems other than typical age-related aches and pains. I don't take medication for anything but there are some familial issues with various cancers and diabetes. Not quite sedentary, but not super active either, just averaging 3-5 days a week of 30 minutes of cardio and adding some body weight resistance exercises.

    So what do you think? Is it just the number that's scaring me and I should go for 150? Go until my body seems to be happy and stop? Not worry about a final goal yet and just see what happens?

    Thanks!

    If you have access to a reliable body fat measurement, that would be the ideal starting place. You can get a sense of muscle and lean mass and then just add in a desired/sustainable body fat percentage. Unfortunately, most clubs don't have quality equipment available--they either have hand-held or single-limb models. Plus they don't know how to tell you to prepare for the test.

    Another benchmark I have used in the past is to ask someone their lowest scale weight as an adult. That works 60-70% of the time.

    Otherwise I would shoot for the 190 and see how you feel and look and go from there, and not worry about BMI. 190 would be a pretty substantial loss and achievement. From where you are now, I don't think you have to put a high priority on setting a goal weight.



  • tnphelps13
    tnphelps13 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Don't get to freaked out about BMI. BMI is a flawed measure, especially if you do weight lifting. BMI is an inaccurate measure of body fat content and does not take into account muscle mass, bone density, overall body composition, and racial and sex differences. BMI calcs do not consider if that extra mass you have is fat or muscle or bone. You can assure using the BMI calculation that the last 20 Mr. and Ms. Olympia's had high BMI's because of their muscle mass yet you wouldn't tell them they are fat. Likely 5% body fat or less. Now if you just want to be skinny and not particularly healthy then BMI would probably be a good parameter to use.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,166 Member
    Options
    Kathi7501 wrote: »
    You guys are all so awesome. I figured I'd get a good range of rational advice and no one disappointed. I'll definitely set a short goal -- I'm thinking 209 to start, since that'll be a 25-pound loss. Then maybe I'll try another 25 and see how that feels at 184. And I'm going to definitely look into the body frame calculation to get a better idea of where I land.

    Thank you everyone!

    While it's useful and interesting, the frame calculations based off things like wrist/elbow, can be misleading. They are body parts that usually have a thinner fat layer, even when we're overweight, so easier to measure . . . but body configurations are very individualistic.

    What matters most, frame-wise, to a "good" goal weight, is the big body parts (pelvic bones, shoulders, ribcage). Those are the areas where large people are going to need geometrically more "lean meat" to wrap around the bigger bone frame, and that wrapper stuff has weight. The issue is not the weight or size of the bones themselves, but rather how much space is enclosed by them, and needs to be filled with "body stuff". And those parts are difficult to measure, when we're still overweight.

    For women, breasts add a complication. A large breasted woman will weigh more, several pounds more, than an otherwise similar-sized, similarly-muscled woman of the same height and body fat in other spots. Some women have fattier breasts, and lose more weight there, while others don't change size all that much with weight loss because their breasts have relatively more non-fatty breast tissue. (You may have an idea which you are.)

    As a personal example, for some reason I have pretty giant hands for a 5'5" woman (size 10 ring finger, even when I was BMI 20, around 120 pounds). My wrists match that proportion. Elbows aren't quite as dramatic, but still big. They suggest I have a medium/large frame. I don't. I have narrow hips, and no breasts (post-mastectomy, but they were always small, even when I was obese I was an A cup). Even with kind of wide shoulders - built like a 14-year-old boy, I swear, not a 64-year-old woman! :lol: - what I actually have is a small frame.

    Unless you have a severely distorted body image, you will know your "good" goal weight with more certainty as you approach it. If in doubt, discuss it with your doctor (and not with people who are used to looking at a heavier you, some of whom will be kind of freaked out by your loss, which is a thing ;) ).

    Best wishes!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,166 Member
    Options
    misscagal wrote: »
    Sorry if I missed this on the read through, but if you are settling weight based on BMI, you should also factor age in. It does matter and you don’t want to pick a BMI that’s suitable for a 22 yo versus a 52 yo.

    Y'know, I sorta believed that when I started, so I set a higher goal weight, about 10 pounds more than the weight that was good at 22. For me, that was wrong. The age 22 weight was just fine. (Pretty sure muscle mass is at least close at age 64 to what it was at age 22 - muscle depends on situation/habits for a long, long time.)

    And if the issue is health, that's very person-specific. Certain joint issues might suggest a lower weight (if maintainable comfortably), and last I looked, the American Cancer Society was suggesting "the lowest healthy weight you can maintain comfortably" (or words to that effect) for people in my situation.
  • mtsprout
    mtsprout Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    I started last February at 220 and am now at 170. I basically went to maintenance for the holidays so I could still enjoy feels and relaxing with my family, and this next year I want to lose another 20lbs to ultimately reach 150. When I started my goal was 160 because I was thinking in terms of BMI, but now that I've lost this much weight I realize I want to be under 160 and I feel more capable. I'd recommend not worrying too much now about where you'll end up, but just work on losing 1lb per week and get in that groove. You can always reassess later or stop when you feel comfortable.
  • helen_goldthorpe
    helen_goldthorpe Posts: 340 Member
    Options
    The first time I lost weight (in 2004) I started at 260lb and 160lb was the top end of healthy BMI for me so I set that as my target. I went down to maybe 148 but felt too thin so drifted back up to 160ish.

    After a while I changed my routine/habits a bit and started maintaining at a slight higher weight - around 175-180 for quite a while, but over the last couple of years my weight drifted up to 190ish. When I started using mfp I initially set my target at 176 but now I'm there (give or take some Christmas weight gain) I've adjusted it down a bit more but I'm taking it 5-10lb at a time to see how I feel.
  • MercuryForce
    MercuryForce Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    I definitely do better with the smaller goals. Losing 50 lbs feels like a lot, losing 10 isn't a big deal. So, I break it down.

    For example, I'm 5'7" and was at 189. My first goal was just to get to my driver's license weight of 175, right now I'm about 1.5 lbs away from that (I've hit that weight on the scales a couple times, but not consistently enough to call it "my weight"). After that, the goal will be to fit into the pants I wore at my lowest adult weight (though reaching it in a healthy way this time, the first time was due to depression), which should be somewhere around ~160-165.

    After that, we'll see what's next. At that point I'll be on that normal/overweight edge and will have to see how I look and feel.