Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
"Unrealistic" body goals
Replies
-
I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.0
-
“Close to underweight “0
-
Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.6
-
Whatsthemotive wrote: »Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.Whatsthemotive wrote: »I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.
As someone who is overweight now (in my 50's) but spent many of my younger years in that very BMI range, I guess I am probably a little offended by the descriptors used for it. I was perfectly healthy, probably healthier than I am now at a 28 BMI, when I was in that weight range.
I mean no one would be all up in arms about it if his goal was 1 lb from the maximum healthy range. Many people here actually have goal weights in the overweight range.
I honestly don't get all the disagrees about it - so people are disagreeing with the CDC guidelines that that weight is healthy? I think that is perhaps because most people here are on the opposite side - maybe they can't imagine being that thin? I've been on both sides, it's just not all that outrageous to me.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »IronIsMyTherapy wrote: »In the last few days I've seen a girl in her 20s be told that wanting a flat belly is unrealistic and a guy be told that sub 10% bf was largely genetics.
When I started my journey, I was obese and from Day 1 I had a "unrealistic" goal physique. It took me over a decade but I achieved that goal and so have hundreds of thousands of other people so why call it unrealistic? It's only so if you believe it.
Instead of discouraging someone looking to achieve something remarkable, why not just say "go for it!"?
Thoughts?
The best way to win the argument is not to announce the goal, but achieve it like you did.
Now I try (with mitigated success) to keep them for myself. >90% would judge my body goal "unrealistic". Male 54yo 5'10", has been near 240lbs, now low-150 and I want 130 or less. IDK the BF%, probably around 10%. I think that I heard it all... "Unhealthy" is the one that came most often.... majority assumes that it is just ok to gain weight with age. It is not rare to see 25yo men at 125-130 5'10"....in Asia, people don't gain as much weight along with age like in our Western world. And gaining all this weight is exactly "unhealthy", in my opinion.
5'10" and below 130 is unhealthy...it's clinically underweight. You would be not only have to be lacking in body fat, but substantially lacking in muscle as well.
FWIW I am 5'10" (female) and was between 125-135 all through my 20's and early 30's (when I wasn't pregnant).
At 5'10" and 130 it is an 18.7 BMI - not clinically underweight and still within the healthy range. And while I agree that you aren't going to be muscular at that weight - it's not like someone will be wasting away either.
It's not the body type that most men probably aspire to, but I don't think that it is particularly "unhealthy" either.
He also mentioned weighing 130 or less. Less then 130 is clinically underweight...
Yeah he said 130 or less - so I assumed he would be happy with 130.
I mean - maybe we are using different calculators - the one I am using says it is a BMI of 18.7 - and normal BMI bottoms out at 18.5.
Despite what some of the people here feel about how they think he would look, I'm not sure why someone who is within the CDC guidelines for a normal BMI would automatically be considered unhealthy.
I assume they give you a range for a reason. It's not like someone is going to drop dead of malnutrition if they are a pound under the "healthy" range, any more than they are going to have a heart attack the minute they go above the "healthy" range.
Aesthetics aside, for a 5'10" fully grown adult male who was overweight to get down to 130 Lbs would require burning a significant amount of muscle mass in addition to fat mass. I've never heard of purposefully putting your body into atrophy being a healthy endeavor. Quite different from being a young man who hasn't fully developed into his body being that low...it wasn't a health issue for me when I was at that weight...but I was also 17 and still developing. Yes, the BMI range is a range for a reason...not sure that a grown man dropping down to the weight of a 17 year old boy who's not fully developed yet is one of them. Being a certain weight, even if it is in the range also doesn't mean you're necessarily healthy. I mean, muscle atrophy is one of the more significant signs of malnutrition. I know quite a few people well within a healthy weight range who are unhealthy AF.
Is the weight itself unhealthy? I personally think so, but regardless...what is necessary to achieve that weight can't be particularly healthy.6 -
Whatsthemotive wrote: »Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.Whatsthemotive wrote: »I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.
As someone who is overweight now (in my 50's) but spent many of my younger years in that very BMI range, I guess I am probably a little offended by the descriptors used for it. I was perfectly healthy, probably healthier than I am now at a 28 BMI, when I was in that weight range.
I mean no one would be all up in arms about it if his goal was 1 lb from the maximum healthy range. Many people here actually have goal weights in the overweight range.
I honestly don't get all the disagrees about it - so people are disagreeing with the CDC guidelines that that weight is healthy? I think that is perhaps because most people here are on the opposite side - maybe they can't imagine being that thin? I've been on both sides, it's just not all that outrageous to me.
I'm assuming (I could be wrong) that when you were at the low end of a normal healthy weight range, it wasn't deliberate action on your part, it was just where you happened to settle at that point in your life. I personally perceive a difference between someone whose activity and eating combine to have them at the lower end of normal (especially when they're younger, as that seems to be common) and someone who is at a healthy weight and is actively striving to be underweight.
Regardless of whether or not he actually gets there, the goal to be underweight or on the verge of underweight can indicate some disordered thinking (or it could reveal someone who doesn't yet have a realistic idea of what they would actually LOOK like at that weight). That's not to say that everyone who has that particular goal is disordered, it's just that it will often prompt more concern than someone who is younger and just happens to be at the lower end of the weight range without a degree of conscious effort, especially if reaching that goal weight will require the older person to eliminate muscle weight.9 -
Whatsthemotive wrote: »Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.Whatsthemotive wrote: »I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.
As someone who is overweight now (in my 50's) but spent many of my younger years in that very BMI range, I guess I am probably a little offended by the descriptors used for it. I was perfectly healthy, probably healthier than I am now at a 28 BMI, when I was in that weight range.
I mean no one would be all up in arms about it if his goal was 1 lb from the maximum healthy range. Many people here actually have goal weights in the overweight range.
I honestly don't get all the disagrees about it - so people are disagreeing with the CDC guidelines that that weight is healthy? I think that is perhaps because most people here are on the opposite side - maybe they can't imagine being that thin? I've been on both sides, it's just not all that outrageous to me.
I agree with the responses above about younger people and would also like to point out that the low end of BMI is more appropriate for most women, who tend to be lighter-boned and carry less muscle, than it is for most men.
Also would Iike to point out that poster is Asian and Asians are often lighter boned to the point that some doctors use different BMI charts for them. So 130 may be less extreme for his body type than people are assuming.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Whatsthemotive wrote: »Sure, being one pound under the healthy range isn’t going to kill you. If it occurs naturally, like it did with my brother, it’s smart to monitor and adjust diet so you don’t lose more. The issue here is that the poster set this very low weight as the goal. What possible mentally healthy reason can there be to believing that you must weigh the least you possibly can without slipping into the underweight range? It’s an unhealthy goal, even if the low weight doesn’t result in death or illness.Whatsthemotive wrote: »I have a brother who has always tended to be underweight. He’s 5’ 11” and has ranged from 135 to 145 most of his life. He worked a corporate job where he worked 60-70 hours a week. His doctor expressed concern and he was under instructions to increase his calorie intake. He’s now retired and works out regularly. He didn’t get fat. He mostly doesn’t look cadaverous anymore.
As someone who is overweight now (in my 50's) but spent many of my younger years in that very BMI range, I guess I am probably a little offended by the descriptors used for it. I was perfectly healthy, probably healthier than I am now at a 28 BMI, when I was in that weight range.
I mean no one would be all up in arms about it if his goal was 1 lb from the maximum healthy range. Many people here actually have goal weights in the overweight range.
I honestly don't get all the disagrees about it - so people are disagreeing with the CDC guidelines that that weight is healthy? I think that is perhaps because most people here are on the opposite side - maybe they can't imagine being that thin? I've been on both sides, it's just not all that outrageous to me.
I agree with the responses above about younger people and would also like to point out that the low end of BMI is more appropriate for most women, who tend to be lighter-boned and carry less muscle, than it is for most men.
Also would Iike to point out that poster is Asian and Asians are often lighter boned to the point that some doctors use different BMI charts for them. So 130 may be less extreme for his body type than people are assuming.
How do you know the poster is Asian? I thought he was just using Asian men as an example to justify going so low.0 -
The whole BMI range is valid.
So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'
Or so I would assume.1 -
I'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. 0 -
Less then 130 and you are clinically underweight. What is your endgame?
The real lower BMI figure is 18.5 (not 19 likely just rounded) and this matches129lbs for 5'10". Millions of adult men in the world prove that it is nowhere underweight. Again BMI is an empiric shortcut to discuss % bodyfat.
The endgame is to conform to wcrf/aicr #1 recommendation for cancer prevention (and other diseases). This was the result of large meta-study made in 2007.WCRF International/AICR commissioned 9 systematic literature review (SLR) teams comprising 22 panelists to summarize the literature on nutrition, physical activity, and cancer. The teams examined 7,000 articles, reviews, and meta-analyses in all languages. Team findings went to an international panel that synthesized information for many different cancers to come up with the report’s main recommendations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2199302/
It was originally worded as "Be as lean as possible without being underweight".... too drastic for some then doctored up to
https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/recommendations/be-healthy-weight
"Be a healthy weight - Keep your weight as low as you can within the healthy range throughout life (BMI of 18.5–24.9)"
which is just another way to say it.
3 -
According to the cited article, the healthy BMI range is 21 to 23. The low end of that range is right at 145 pounds for someone who is 5’10”. In any event, none of us can make decisions for another. I think people were expressing legitimate concerns that someone might be setting a goal which was not healthy. People do harm themselves by trying to be too thin. 130 is underweight, according to the sources available to us, but it’s not starvation underweight. The decision about whether it is an appropriate goal belongs to the poster and to his medical provider. If his doctor is discouraging the goal, he would be well served to listen. If it’s some random person without medical expertise, the poster should probably recognize that the statement is well intended and then consult with his doctor to see what the medical recommendation is.2
-
Less then 130 and you are clinically underweight. What is your endgame?
The real lower BMI figure is 18.5 (not 19 likely just rounded) and this matches129lbs for 5'10". Millions of adult men in the world prove that it is nowhere underweight. Again BMI is an empiric shortcut to discuss % bodyfat.
The endgame is to conform to wcrf/aicr #1 recommendation for cancer prevention (and other diseases). This was the result of large meta-study made in 2007.WCRF International/AICR commissioned 9 systematic literature review (SLR) teams comprising 22 panelists to summarize the literature on nutrition, physical activity, and cancer. The teams examined 7,000 articles, reviews, and meta-analyses in all languages. Team findings went to an international panel that synthesized information for many different cancers to come up with the report’s main recommendations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2199302/
It was originally worded as "Be as lean as possible without being underweight".... too drastic for some then doctored up to
https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/recommendations/be-healthy-weight
"Be a healthy weight - Keep your weight as low as you can within the healthy range throughout life (BMI of 18.5–24.9)"
which is just another way to say it.
Well if this is your reason--cancer and disease prevention-- I hope you are successful, because if you do get something serious you may not have the fat reserves to get you through a cure. A little "padding" can sometimes save your life.3 -
Whatsthemotive wrote: »130 is underweight,
No it is not. All those offiicial sources says 18.5 (not 21 like a vague article)
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/a-healthy-lifestyle/body-mass-index-bmi?source=post_page
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/diet-physical-activity/body-weight-and-cancer-risk/adult-bmi.html
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-identifies-ideal-body-mass-index
For those who have a problem with this, I kindly invite you to re-read the very first post in this thread. The OP did % bodyfat probably lower to an equivalent of 18.5.
1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »The whole BMI range is valid.
So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'
Or so I would assume.
My personal experience: I prefer to maintain on the lower end of the "healthy" BMI range for my height and I'm open about that. I've never felt like I've had to defend or justify that here, overall I'd say this group is pretty accepting of those of us for whom vanity or athletic performance are driving a desire to be at a lower weight.
The only time I see anyone mention it, really, is in the context of threads where someone is trying to get to their lower range and it seems to be making them unhappy or prompting unhealthy behaviors. In those threads you'll sometimes see people challenge the goal and whether it's truly appropriate for that person or whether they could adjust their goals and be happier.5 -
The endgame is to conform to wcrf/aicr #1 recommendation for cancer prevention (and other diseases). This was the result of large meta-study made in 2007.
I can get down with that. Not my personal choice but I respect that it is yours.
Question for you. Do you have a slight frame? That would explain the low end of normal weight. For me, at 170lbs I start to look like a chronic "dieter". My frame is large and boxy. I am built like my Dad (God rest his soul), like a refrigerator...
1 -
I was just referring to the article you linked, which stated that the panelists recommended a BMI of 21 to 23. Again, this is the source you provided. And again, the decision has to be that of the individual and his medical provider.1
-
My hope for all in the community is that they achieve goals that support their health. Including me. I have considerable work to do on myself. I only spoke up because I have known people who ended up harming their health through excessive food control and exercise, through a desire to be a very low weight, and on the other side from overeating and failing or refusing to exercise. Either can hurt your health or be fatal. Either can cause an imbalance in life in which the weight loss goal or food obsession interferes with other parts of life in an unhealthy way. If the individual has determined, after consulting with medical professionals, that a weight on the lower end is right for him and pursuing that goal does not damage him in any way, good for him. It is fair to encourage one to consult a professional and it is fair to acknowledge that a perfect physical condition is not the only factor in overall health.3
-
While (being autistic) I am prone to all-or-nothing thinking, I already know that I have a diastasis recti (short-waisted and 3 9 pound babies will do that) and a lot of loose skin on the front. So to get the figure and the results that I want overall, I'm going to need surgery . I may be surprised and a lot of the loose skin may shrink when I get the fat out from underneath it. Or not. At this point I'm also preparing to have a breast reduction when I do. I wouldn't be the first woman in my family to make that decision, for the health of our back, and given that I lost six inches in band but none in cup at all...well, I don't plan to live the rest of my life in a 30J bra. And that may be the last ten pounds, based on what others have said here, and I won't need it.
However, I do know that I have the family figure and it is large breasted, big hipped, and powerful legs. And that's just that. My biosib got the tall and mostly flat body, not me.
I have between 80-100 pounds more to lose. I am not at all sure whether the last 20 of this will be lost via scalpel versus in a pair of walking shoes. I'm willing to wait and see when I get there where it settles out.
But in the interim, I'm still visibly overweight, and the loose skin means I'm not carrying the weight in a conventially attractive fashion. So I appreciate the fact that our society makes clothes big enough to fit me as I am not, and chairs big enough. After all, I can't take it off overnight, unlike the smoker who quits.
Was there food addiction? Oh, yes. Food never makes fun of you when you're socially awkward. It never gets angry at you because you are weird and didn't hide it well enough in public. And, well, food is tasty! I like pleasure and I am a good cook, from a family of good cooks, and it's easy to overeat really good food, especially when you are young.
But I am working hard not to eat in patterns that trigger addictive and binge behavior, and it has worked. Fifty pounds gone says it has worked. It's just a slow process, and I'm glad, because it's a change in many ways and slow gives me time to adjust and deal with the psychological things that I threw food at and buried in my fat. And some of them I never knew about until I lost some weight. I'm sure there are more waiting to ambush me further down the line. I suspect this is true of many people who lose significant weight; there's stuff buried in our minds that we may not know about, and our denial that psychological issues are playing into our weight is honest. As far as we know.6 -
wunderkindking wrote: »The whole BMI range is valid.
So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'
Or so I would assume.
My response is probably being pedantic, but this is the debate forum so why not
I might be misunderstanding your first sentence, but if you were saying that the whole healthy bmi range is valid for everyone, that is not true. The idea of the healthy range is that the vast majority of individuals at that height will be at a healthy weight "somewhere" within that range. It does NOT say that everyone of that height can be a healthy weight at every weight within that range. If the healthy weight range for someone's height is 130-170, it doesn't mean everyone will be a healthy weight at 130 and 170 and everywhere in between. Some will be underweight at 130, others will be overweight at 170 once all their other metrics are taken into account. And there are always a few outliers.
*
No one can tell a man who is aiming for 5'10 130lbs that it is definitely an unhealthy weight for him, just by looking at his BMI. All you can say is that statistically, it is highly likely that 130 would be underweight for him. Even if one considers the alternate Asian chart, 130 would be the lowest number in the range, and generally the lowest part of the range is allowing for the lower muscle weight more typical in women.
Only a medical pro taking into consideration his BF%, waist, blood work, family history, overall health, etc can make that determination. BMI is a general indicator, suggesting he be careful and make sure he isn't aiming too low.5 -
wunderkindking wrote: »The whole BMI range is valid.
So too is the fact that most people, if questioned on a weight loss forum, are not likely to get defensive and upset if the reason is 'my frame is tiny/light and that's where I will be healthiest'
Or so I would assume.
My response is probably being pedantic, but this is the debate forum so why not
I might be misunderstanding your first sentence, but if you were saying that the whole healthy bmi range is valid for everyone, that is not true. The idea of the healthy range is that the vast majority of individuals at that height will be at a healthy weight "somewhere" within that range. It does NOT say that everyone of that height can be a healthy weight at every weight within that range. If the healthy weight range for someone's height is 130-170, it doesn't mean everyone will be a healthy weight at 130 and 170 and everywhere in between. Some will be underweight at 130, others will be overweight at 170 once all their other metrics are taken into account. And there are always a few outliers.
*
No one can tell a man who is aiming for 5'10 130lbs that it is definitely an unhealthy weight for him, just by looking at his BMI. All you can say is that statistically, it is highly likely that 130 would be underweight for him. Even if one considers the alternate Asian chart, 130 would be the lowest number in the range, and generally the lowest part of the range is allowing for the lower muscle weight more typical in women.
Only a medical pro taking into consideration his BF%, waist, blood work, family history, overall health, etc can make that determination. BMI is a general indicator, suggesting he be careful and make sure he isn't aiming too low.
Oh yeah, absolutely not what I meant, but it IS a debate forum.
Truthfully, though, I just mean that on a population scale there are going to be individuals who are healthiest along the entire spectrum of BMI.
The top end of healthy BMI for me is 150, per charts. Reality? I wear a size 4 ring. I can wear a 7" bracelet around my ankle, comfortably. I'm at 152 right now. And it is perfectly obvious that I am still just... fat. I'm still stopping at 150ish (or whatever I make it to by June 1) and maintaining June/July/August. Where my ideal weight would be on the line, scale wise depends on how much recomp I do/muscle I preserve, but overall 150 ain't it.
My husband? Top end of BMI is it for him. He wears a size 14 ring. He has LARGE bones. More lean mass and lean weight on the scale that I don't have.1 -
Question for you. Do you have a slight frame? That would explain the low end of normal weight. For me, at 170lbs I start to look like a chronic "dieter". My frame is large and boxy. I am built like my Dad (God rest his soul), like a refrigerator...
I was big most of my life, was 176lbs at 16, got near 240lbs and I always considered that I had a large frame. Until the useless fat came off to realize that I have only a medium frame, not large (or small). A good clue is the size of the hands. I never had large hands even at my max. weight.
0 -
I think what really matters about frame size, when it comes to weight, is the spacing of the big stuff: Width of shoulders, hips. It takes geometrically more meat to wrap around that broader structure, so implies a larger minimum healthy lean mass. The actual weight or thickness of bones (as opposed to length/gross geometry) is less important.
It's easier to assess fingers, hands, wrists, elbows when still overweight (vs. hips/shoulders/breasts) but it can mislead. Personally, I have big fingers, hands, wrists, elbows. While still just over the line into class 1 obese (5'5", 183 pounds, BMI 30.4) , my ring size was 13-14 (and I'm female). I required *men's* size large gloves, in non-stretchy styles. Even at 125 pounds (BMI 20.8), my ring size is 10 - most women's rings don't come that large, so I usually wear carefully-selected men's rings. The "frame size calculators" said (still say) I have a large frame, based on those things. Still, BMI 20ish is a fine weight for me, because I have narrow hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts (post-mastectomy). (I also care about that cancer-related advice mentioned by a PP, since I have quite a cancer history, though I do understand that being underweight increases other health risks, is in some respects worse than being a little bit overweight, statistically.)
It's a good thing that we don't need to know a definitive goal weight at the outset of weight loss: Goal weight has no direct effect on calorie goal whether MFP or a TDEE calculator estimates it. (It can matter in figuring how fast a loss rate is sensible, of course.) It's hard to predict a good goal weight, if someone hasn't been that weight as an adult, in a lot of cases.
The risk, IMO, comes if we select an aggressively low goal weight up front, and feel very committed to it. It's common to not quite see ourselves clearly yet when we get close to goal weight, even though in theory that's the time to decide. Quite a few people still see a fat self in photos or mirrors, when the actual self isn't fat anymore (I did). Not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. Can't really rely on friends' opinions, because so often they're freaked out that we're so much smaller, so say "too skinny" when that's not actually the case.
In practice, this is kind of hard, IMO.2 -
I think what really matters about frame size, when it comes to weight, is the spacing of the big stuff: Width of shoulders, hips. It takes geometrically more meat to wrap around that broader structure, so implies a larger minimum healthy lean mass. The actual weight or thickness of bones (as opposed to length/gross geometry) is less important.
It's easier to assess fingers, hands, wrists, elbows when still overweight (vs. hips/shoulders/breasts) but it can mislead. Personally, I have big fingers, hands, wrists, elbows. While still just over the line into class 1 obese (5'5", 183 pounds, BMI 30.4) , my ring size was 13-14 (and I'm female). I required *men's* size large gloves, in non-stretchy styles. Even at 125 pounds (BMI 20.8), my ring size is 10 - most women's rings don't come that large, so I usually wear carefully-selected men's rings. The "frame size calculators" said (still say) I have a large frame, based on those things. Still, BMI 20ish is a fine weight for me, because I have narrow hips like a 14-year-old boy, and no breasts (post-mastectomy). (I also care about that cancer-related advice mentioned by a PP, since I have quite a cancer history, though I do understand that being underweight increases other health risks, is in some respects worse than being a little bit overweight, statistically.)
It's a good thing that we don't need to know a definitive goal weight at the outset of weight loss: Goal weight has no direct effect on calorie goal whether MFP or a TDEE calculator estimates it. (It can matter in figuring how fast a loss rate is sensible, of course.) It's hard to predict a good goal weight, if someone hasn't been that weight as an adult, in a lot of cases.
The risk, IMO, comes if we select an aggressively low goal weight up front, and feel very committed to it. It's common to not quite see ourselves clearly yet when we get close to goal weight, even though in theory that's the time to decide. Quite a few people still see a fat self in photos or mirrors, when the actual self isn't fat anymore (I did). Not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. Can't really rely on friends' opinions, because so often they're freaked out that we're so much smaller, so say "too skinny" when that's not actually the case.
In practice, this is kind of hard, IMO.
I think this makes a lot of sense. I have always had broad shoulders and back, even as a kid. I also have hips and a butt, and have always been built this way. Not to mention, I have a big head, so for me to get to the low end of the healthy BMI for my height looks weird on me.
Right now I'm sitting at 140 at 5'8, so I think right in the middle. I have noticed, though, that as I lose more weight at my age (44) things start to look veiny and crepey. I'm also really wanting to build muscle and get stronger, so losing much more wouldn't be doing me a ton of favors. I've been on an elimination diet for food sensitivities, so limited right now in what I can eat. I "lost" more than 5 pounds in the first 2 weeks alone, which as i know is a lot of water weight. However, I've consciously started eating a bit more so I can preserve muscle. Never, EVER thought I'd get to that point in my life! I still think some parts of me look "big," but I don't know if I'll ever be satisfied.1 -
I think that a lot of people want instant gratification and by setting more short term goals you can help the majority get more feel good boosts to inch closer to that pie in the sky long term goal. Trainers and fitness friends have seen many people give up when the 6pk isn't there by day 90. While you're point of view is valid most people are used to receiving fast rewards and need a different approach that's broken up into smaller groups. I'm very disciplined and blunt unlike most of my peers so when I set a goal I am far more likly to get there and I'm guessing you are too. I think it's easier to develop long term relationships with people like trainers and coaches where of a period of 6months you show them what type of discipline you have and then reiterate what the goal is. People treat me very different than others after dealing with me for 3-6 months because I am often the exception.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions