"Perfect Weight vs Proper Weight
rtlenton
Posts: 41 Member
Greetings,
I'm looking for some advice regarding my "goal" weight. I am currently 186lbs, but heavily muscled. Unfortunately, I also have a lot of fat. According to many charts I've seen, given my height of only 5,6', I should really be under 160lbs and that is currently my goal.
That said, I have been reading that most people's goal weight likely isn't what their body "wants", i.e., I may have a goal of 160lbs, but my body, all other things being equal, may prefer 170 or 155.
Has anyone here simply kept eating healthy over the land-haul and simply landed at a good weight for their particular body? In other words, has anyone reached a point where they eat well and then all weight loss stops because you've reached the body's perfect weight, not your mind's? I hope that makes sense.
Cheers,
Roger
I'm looking for some advice regarding my "goal" weight. I am currently 186lbs, but heavily muscled. Unfortunately, I also have a lot of fat. According to many charts I've seen, given my height of only 5,6', I should really be under 160lbs and that is currently my goal.
That said, I have been reading that most people's goal weight likely isn't what their body "wants", i.e., I may have a goal of 160lbs, but my body, all other things being equal, may prefer 170 or 155.
Has anyone here simply kept eating healthy over the land-haul and simply landed at a good weight for their particular body? In other words, has anyone reached a point where they eat well and then all weight loss stops because you've reached the body's perfect weight, not your mind's? I hope that makes sense.
Cheers,
Roger
0
Replies
-
In other words, has anyone reached a point where they eat well and then all weight loss stops because you've reached the body's perfect weight, not your mind's?
If you were in jail, and you lost all control of the food you ate. Every day you were given a healthy diverse nutrition and precise 2000 calorie a day portion of food. You had the ability to move around and walk and do some light activity. Your body would stabilize at some weight.
Same thing at 1800 calories
Same thing at 2400 calories
It would be three different weights, but all of them pretty close. There is a small range where you body easily adapts, outside of that range you get sick....ie 1200 calories a day would lead to bad outcomes and 3000 calories a day would lead to bad outcomes (starvation and obesity.)
Humans start mixing in the preferred appearance (ie dudes want to get swole and women want what they want) and our ego overrides our biology. That's not wrong, just sort of what is.
You want to be jacked? Go ahead, a lot of people here do. You want to be healthy and not think about your appearance too much, that's the staying in range. You want to be gaunt, and agile, and lithe, folks here are shooting for that too.7 -
I think there is a point where the body sort of wants to land. Part of it depends on bone structure and how active you are, and how much your body really needs to live well. When I started my weight loss fourney I was 5'3" and 245. I thought I would look slim and healthy in the 150 range. I've gotten to the 150 range and I still had a LOT of fat to lose mostly in the stomach. It's plain that my body "wants" to be in the 130s, maybe even lower. That weight will go up a little if you are active or lift weights, or course, because muscle is denser than fat. In my case I also had to come to terms with the fact that due to my short stature and small bones my calorie needs will likely be 1400-1700 calores even at maintenance, unless I suddenly start exercising a lot.5
-
Don't worry about the BMI... it's notoriously wrong, especially for people who like to lift heavy things. I am 6'3", 235# and considered overweight/obese. I don't have a six pack or anything, but I'm in pretty good shape (17% BF), especially for being 54. The doctor's charts say I should be around 180#, but there's no way in hell I'm ever weighing that much. Bone structure, muscle mass, etc.
I've also been over 300# and on my weight loss journey, I would hit sticking points every so often, no matter what I ate, my weight would stay fairly stable. So I had to change my intake or up my exercise to shock my body out of its "perfect weight".7 -
Cheers, that helps.
0 -
Good to know. Thanks.
1 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »1
-
Just one further comment. OK, two. Or three.
* Unless you have a seriously distorted body image (which is not all that rare), you'll recognize what's a happy weight for you appearance-wise and functionally when you start to get close to it. You'll learn whether the associated calorie needs are workable for you when you test-drive them for a while after you get there.
* You don't have to have a goal weight to start. Yes, MFP asks you for one, but what you input has zero impact on the calorie goal it will give you. It just uses that information for some supposedly encouraging messages about your progress along the way. Set it to any weight that seems dimly plausible to you now as a goal, and adjust as necessary when you get closer. I adjusted my goal weight several times.
* If you're not sure, ask your doctor's opinion, but wait until you get somewhat close. If you ask while you still have a good bit of fat to lose, higher odds docs will just quote BMI ranges.
Not one of the 3 points, but my body was perfectly willing to keep losing weight below what I thought was a good weight for me (I overshot goal on the low side, IOW). For me, the calorie differences between maintaining up or down 10-15 pounds aren't that meaningful subjectively. (I've been maintaining for 7+ years now, after losing from class 1 obese.)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the question, because that idea that my body wants some thing, and my brain wants some other thing - that doesn't match how I think about things. To me, I'm all one thing. It's sometimes a kind of a complicated and confusing thing
, but it's still just one experience, not some kind of battleground. 🤷♀️ 7 -
I look more at BF% than I do weight. At a maintenance weight of 180ish, that put me at around 13% BF. I maintained that for quite some time when I was racing bikes, but I really had to be pretty diligent with my training regimen as well as diet. I've maintained below that at around 175ish and I felt like I pretty much had to make it my life's mission and it just wasn't fun. My sweet spot is around 185-190 and around 15-17% BF...it is where I tend to fall more naturally with a relatively good nutritional profile and exercise that is geared more to active recreation than "workouts" or training.
In my experience, the lower BF% you want to have and maintain, the more work you have to put in and for me, it's only worth it to a point. For myself, trying to keep up a regimen that left me around 13% or lower became unsustainable due to increased family obligations, work promotions, and other things going on in life...and it turned into burn out trying to juggle everything. My ultimate objective is to be healthy and happy and enjoy my life and at one point I was so deep into training for cycling events and whatnot that I think I forgot that. My diet is pretty good overall, but I have indulgences regularly these days...my exercise these days revolves primarily around active recreation like walking my dog, weekend hikes or a trail ride on my MTB, the occasional road ride...kayaking here and there, etc.2 -
Agreed with cwolfman13 - I look at body fat percentage as probably my most important metric, the one I care about the most. I can't afford to have DEXA scans all the time and I know my scale is inaccurate but I sure know if there's a bigger or smaller pooch around my abdominal region! And I know how my clothes feel. So to answer the original question I think my ideal weight, the good one for my body, is one that has maybe 15-20% body fat. At the simplest level, to be fit and strong and have a minimal belly. I don't give a crap what magazines or websites say I SHOULD look like, I just want to be functional and not have lots of bulgy squishy bits. My body doesn't shore fat on hips or up top, it's all in the stomach, so I need to lose that much more fat before I get rid of that belly.1
-
BMI is a load of crap. It is a very vague indication. Once you start getting near your goal you can tell if you need to loose more or not. If you really want to be precise about it, at that point you can get a dexa test. Based on where you live it might not be cheap. To answer your question, your body doesn't 'want' anything, only you might be tempted to eat more or less of a certain food that will make you either loose, maintain or gain based on how much you endulge / avoid it. If you are asking about ideal fat %, it is probably around 15% for men.1
-
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the question, because that idea that my body wants some thing, and my brain wants some other thing - that doesn't match how I think about things. To me, I'm all one thing. It's sometimes a kind of a complicated and confusing thing , but it's still just one experience, not some kind of battleground. 🤷♀️
Those are some good points. To be clear by asking about mind vs body. I mean my mind may think I should look a certain way, but this is only so much my body is realistically able to do.
Thanks for your points.
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »My ultimate objective is to be healthy and happy and enjoy my life and at one point I was so deep into training for cycling events and whatnot that I think I forgot that.
Good point.
Yes, BF% may be a better measure. I think I'll wait until I'm feeling pretty good/healthy and then go get a body scan to get an accurate BF%. Hopefully, then I will have a good idea about what a healthy weight is for me, give or take a couple of pounds.
Cheers.
0 -
Sand_TIger wrote: ». At the simplest level, to be fit and strong and have a minimal belly. I don't give a crap what magazines or websites say I SHOULD look like, I just want to be functional and not have lots of bulgy squishy bits.
Good outlook, thanks!
0 -
Here's a way to figure out your goal weight regardless of height or muscle because it's based on bodyfat percentage.
Find your lean mass. Then figure out what body fat percentage you want to be. Then apply the following formula:
Lean mass divided by 1 minus desired body fat percentage.
So say your lean mass is 150lbs and you want to be 15% body fat
150 divided by (1-.15) or .85 which equals 176lbs
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Pretty much what I did. Thought I'd land around 174 since that had been a weight I'd maintained in the past. When I got there I kept eating the way I was and moving and kept losing weight. Ended up around 145 and have stuck there for years.1
-
Everyone should read the Wikipedia entry on BMI (weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared). It is a very simplistic metric. There are lots of healthy people with a BMI above 25!
And, there is no objective way to select a goal weight! You really have to feel it out. It's harder for some people to stay lighter (me included), so one thing to consider is how hard you are willing to work to maintain it.
Best of luck!2 -
-
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
I'm thinking reasonable estimates are going to work fine for this. I've never had a DEXA for body comp, but I figure when BIA, "Navy Fat Calculator", visuals vs. online BF% photos are all suggesting similar numbers, it's plenty close enough to guide this sort of thing, as well as for estimating protein/fat needs. YMMV.1 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
I have had a DEXA scan before and it was very telling, i.e., I was carrying way more fat than I thought. Although expensive, I think I'll wait until I'm feeling "fit" and have another one. Cheers!
0 -
I started at 230 lbs 21 months ago and now I weigh 157. I have been stuck within 2 lbs of this weight since May. Seems like once I dropped below 160 lbs my body started fighting hard to retain it's existing fat. I currently wear U.S. size 8 or 10, depending on style and brand. Based on my wrist size I am medium frame.
Most charts tell me that the "ideal" weight for my height is 118 lbs. (HA HA!!) I have never weighed that little during my entire adult life. Even when I was 18 years old I weighed 125 and at that time everyone told me I was much too thin. I was pretty active but not would anyone would consider athletic.
I set my goal at 145, if I ever start losing again. I think that will be just about as low as I would want to go, as long as I lose a couple more inches from my waist to lower the weight related health risks.2 -
I started at 230 lbs 21 months ago and now I weigh 157. I have been stuck within 2 lbs of this weight since May. Seems like once I dropped below 160 lbs my body started fighting hard to retain it's existing fat. I currently wear U.S. size 8 or 10, depending on style and brand. Based on my wrist size I am medium frame.
Most charts tell me that the "ideal" weight for my height is 118 lbs. (HA HA!!) I have never weighed that little during my entire adult life. Even when I was 18 years old I weighed 125 and at that time everyone told me I was much too thin. I was pretty active but not would anyone would consider athletic.
I set my goal at 145, if I ever start losing again. I think that will be just about as low as I would want to go, as long as I lose a couple more inches from my waist to lower the weight related health risks.
Where are these charts that give you an "ideal" weight? The only charts I've ever seen are BMI, and they're a pretty wide range of weights. I don't know how any chart could give anyone an "ideal" weight. Bone structure, muscle mass, etc all come into play which is why BMI is such a broad range. My wife is 5'2"-5'3"...low end of BMI is around 110 Lbs...that doesn't mean it's the "ideal" weight...it's just the lowest in the range. She is a former collegiate athlete and she still trains and hits the weight room. The lowest I've seen her is around 120-125 and she looks ripped (like too hard/chiseled for my aesthetic taste)...aesthetically she looks the best at around 130-135 (fit and muscular with softer edges). To get to 110 Lbs she would have to torch quite a bit of muscle mass, not just fat.2 -
@GinLee61: What a fantastic effort! You must feel light as a feather!
Any chart that presents an ideal weight should explain "ideal for WHAT?" Only you know how your bodyweight is affecting your life and pursuit of your goals. From a health point of view, body weight is just one useful metric. Perhaps more important are your lipids, blood pressure, diabetes indicators, etc. These are affected by body weight and also lifestyle, such as exercise, alcohol consumption, etc.
It seems like larger weight loss must be done in phases, plateauing and waiting for your body to equilibrate. I have plateaued myself. (just search on my posts!) Weight control is a long game!
Best of luck!2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
Where are these charts that give you an "ideal" weight?
(snip good sense)
Not a chart, but there are things like this (and many charts that present similar data from research):
https://www.calculator.net/ideal-weight-calculator.html
I haven't read the underlying research, partly because I think the whole concept of some abstract ideal weight is complete nonsense. (I think it's way dumber than BMI.)
That's true even though the outputs of that silly "calculator" are in fact close to the weight I prefer for myself based on how I feel, how my health markers respond, and how I look. (I've had others here of similar height tell me that those ideal weights are too thin for them. Body configuration, body composition, personal preference and cultural factors make a difference, so I'm not questioning others' views.)
I will say that my wrist/elbow measurements are medium to large according to standard charts, but that I think those are pretty silly, too, as a universal guide to sensible body weight. Remember where I said body configuration matters? I have huge hands and wrists; elbows a little less huge. At those "ideal weight" numbers, i.e., slim, my ring finger's ring size is 10. It's unusual to even be able to find women's rings that big - they usually top out at 9. When I was obese, it was more like 13. That matters way less to my personal "ideal weight" than the fact that I have a narrow pelvis for a woman, and literally no breasts (post-mastectomies).
There is, IMO, no way to define a helpful, universal "ideal weight".1 -
@cwolfman13 - this particular "ideal" weight was from a chart based on the Devine formula. There are a bunch of different formulas. I'm not saying I agree with it. I believe it's complete hogwash because it's based solely on gender and height.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions