End Weight Question
Options
Replies
-
Using a couple of different calculators it says your maintenance calories would be around 1900-2000 if you did regular exercise 1- 3 times a week or were more fidgety than others at 160 lbs.
Question, are you saying you would be starving or miserable eating 2,000 to maintain at 160 lbs? This may be an issue of what you’re eating. It sounds like the calories you consume don’t have you feeling satiated and energized. The first thing I learned when losing weight was, sure, I can eat whatever I want, but am I going to feel hungry all day everyday if I don’t prioritize those calories? Once I’ve consumed enough of what I need the rest of the calories are for what I want. Fortunately those mostly overlap for me now. When I started though, I had no idea what I was doing so there was a lot of trial and error there. It gets much much easier and I don’t feel like I’m dieting. We learn, evolve, make choices, and our priorities change.
Also, my maintenance calories working out 1-3 days a week is 1400-1600 calories so I have to be smart with what I choose. That’s why it’s important I eat things that I not only nutritionally need but truly enjoy as well. I think the psychological impact of food can’t be ignored but you can have the best of both worlds. If you find that you still need more than 2000 calories (and don’t want to work out/move more) there might be something more emotional going on there and food can’t fix that.
Oh, and I’ve always been cold, even when I was overweight. It is what it is. I’m not going to carry around more than extra fat just because I’m cold though. Your health should trump all other things and like everyone else said you’ll know when you get there. Go with your BF % and find a way of eating that maximizes your calories and use recipes that you can enjoy as a lifestyle. No one says you have to be skinny, thin, or even the standard BMI. But there is a balance that needs to be considered for your overall health and I wouldn’t compromise that.5 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Another way to approach what weight you want to end at is to play with MFP goals and see how many calories you get at different weights and activity levels.
(I’m a sloth but figured it isn’t too bad to add an hour of exercise 6 days a week)
Talk your goals over with your doctor and move towards them at your pace.
Even if you end up at the top of overweight, but can maintain it, it is in general a healthier place to be than keep yoyoing. And you never know after a couple of years maintaining at that weight you may find you can drop a few more pounds.
As you have a way to go, take pauses/break at maintenance so you can adjust to lower calorie levels for a while rather than having a constant deficit. Good for your body and mind.
Cheers, h.
My doctor won't help with weight loss beyond a photo coped portion guide ...
I'm a veteran. The VA has lots of resources: we have access to dietitians, the MOVE program, etc. I've actually found the forums here more helpful.0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »Another way to approach what weight you want to end at is to play with MFP goals and see how many calories you get at different weights and activity levels.
(I’m a sloth but figured it isn’t too bad to add an hour of exercise 6 days a week)
Talk your goals over with your doctor and move towards them at your pace.
Even if you end up at the top of overweight, but can maintain it, it is in general a healthier place to be than keep yoyoing. And you never know after a couple of years maintaining at that weight you may find you can drop a few more pounds.
As you have a way to go, take pauses/break at maintenance so you can adjust to lower calorie levels for a while rather than having a constant deficit. Good for your body and mind.
Cheers, h.
My doctor won't help with weight loss beyond a photo coped portion guide ...
Doctors for the most part have very limited knowlege of diet and training and fatloss. People see them as the be all end all source of knowledge on these things and that is generally not the case. Even some nutritionists and trainers are lacking.0 -
Using a couple of different calculators it says your maintenance calories would be around 1900-2000 if you did regular exercise 1- 3 times a week or were more fidgety than others at 160 lbs.
Question, are you saying you would be starving or miserable eating 2,000 to maintain at 160 lbs? This may be an issue of what you’re eating. It sounds like the calories you consume don’t have you feeling satiated and energized. The first thing I learned when losing weight was, sure, I can eat whatever I want, but am I going to feel hungry all day everyday if I don’t prioritize those calories? Once I’ve consumed enough of what I need the rest of the calories are for what I want. Fortunately those mostly overlap for me now. When I started though, I had no idea what I was doing so there was a lot of trial and error there. It gets much much easier and I don’t feel like I’m dieting. We learn, evolve, make choices, and our priorities change.
Also, my maintenance calories working out 1-3 days a week is 1400-1600 calories so I have to be smart with what I choose. That’s why it’s important I eat things that I not only nutritionally need but truly enjoy as well. I think the psychological impact of food can’t be ignored but you can have the best of both worlds. If you find that you still need more than 2000 calories (and don’t want to work out/move more) there might be something more emotional going on there and food can’t fix that.
Oh, and I’ve always been cold, even when I was overweight. It is what it is. I’m not going to carry around more than extra fat just because I’m cold though. Your health should trump all other things and like everyone else said you’ll know when you get there. Go with your BF % and find a way of eating that maximizes your calories and use recipes that you can enjoy as a lifestyle. No one says you have to be skinny, thin, or even the standard BMI. But there is a balance that needs to be considered for your overall health and I wouldn’t compromise that.
No, what I'm saying is at 145--I can't eat 2,000 calories a day and maintain that weight. I have to work out six days a week for an hour + so I can eat about 1,500-1700 calories a day (with exercise). My body fights 145 pounds. And it feels bad. I have never felt less healthy or attractive than when I was 145 pounds. I'm fine up to 160 pounds. I just can't stand going below 160.
But even if I could maintain 145 easily (and it is not easy)--I don't feel good at that weight. I feel ugly and lop-sided. I don't think I would ever choose to be that weight again.
I think I'm going to just ignore the charts and stick with my original idea of staying in the 160-180 range that is comfortable to me.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »Another way to approach what weight you want to end at is to play with MFP goals and see how many calories you get at different weights and activity levels.
(I’m a sloth but figured it isn’t too bad to add an hour of exercise 6 days a week)
Talk your goals over with your doctor and move towards them at your pace.
Even if you end up at the top of overweight, but can maintain it, it is in general a healthier place to be than keep yoyoing. And you never know after a couple of years maintaining at that weight you may find you can drop a few more pounds.
As you have a way to go, take pauses/break at maintenance so you can adjust to lower calorie levels for a while rather than having a constant deficit. Good for your body and mind.
Cheers, h.
My doctor won't help with weight loss beyond a photo coped portion guide ...
I'm a veteran. The VA has lots of resources: we have access to dietitians, the MOVE program, etc. I've actually found the forums here more helpful.
As a non-veteran, my doctor gave me a mimeograph portion guide and a pamphlet and that is it. If you bring up weight, you get the same two pieces of paper. No other help. I did hire a nutritionist out of pocket the 2nd time I lost the weight. I give her a 2 out of a 5.
No worries. I used to go to the gym a lot but they now require your bank account number which I won't do--so I am back to just walking the dogs.
I think I'm going to just ignore the guide and shoot for my original thought 160 to 180 pounds. That range is livable to me.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »Another way to approach what weight you want to end at is to play with MFP goals and see how many calories you get at different weights and activity levels.
(I’m a sloth but figured it isn’t too bad to add an hour of exercise 6 days a week)
Talk your goals over with your doctor and move towards them at your pace.
Even if you end up at the top of overweight, but can maintain it, it is in general a healthier place to be than keep yoyoing. And you never know after a couple of years maintaining at that weight you may find you can drop a few more pounds.
As you have a way to go, take pauses/break at maintenance so you can adjust to lower calorie levels for a while rather than having a constant deficit. Good for your body and mind.
Cheers, h.
My doctor won't help with weight loss beyond a photo coped portion guide ...
I'm a veteran. The VA has lots of resources: we have access to dietitians, the MOVE program, etc. I've actually found the forums here more helpful.
As a non-veteran, my doctor gave me a mimeograph portion guide and a pamphlet and that is it. If you bring up weight, you get the same two pieces of paper. No other help. I did hire a nutritionist out of pocket the 2nd time I lost the weight. I give her a 2 out of a 5.
No worries. I used to go to the gym a lot but they now require your bank account number which I won't do--so I am back to just walking the dogs.
I think I'm going to just ignore the guide and shoot for my original thought 160 to 180 pounds. That range is livable to me.
That seems entirely sensible to me, FWIW.0 -
Using a couple of different calculators it says your maintenance calories would be around 1900-2000 if you did regular exercise 1- 3 times a week or were more fidgety than others at 160 lbs.
Question, are you saying you would be starving or miserable eating 2,000 to maintain at 160 lbs? This may be an issue of what you’re eating. It sounds like the calories you consume don’t have you feeling satiated and energized. The first thing I learned when losing weight was, sure, I can eat whatever I want, but am I going to feel hungry all day everyday if I don’t prioritize those calories? Once I’ve consumed enough of what I need the rest of the calories are for what I want. Fortunately those mostly overlap for me now. When I started though, I had no idea what I was doing so there was a lot of trial and error there. It gets much much easier and I don’t feel like I’m dieting. We learn, evolve, make choices, and our priorities change.
Also, my maintenance calories working out 1-3 days a week is 1400-1600 calories so I have to be smart with what I choose. That’s why it’s important I eat things that I not only nutritionally need but truly enjoy as well. I think the psychological impact of food can’t be ignored but you can have the best of both worlds. If you find that you still need more than 2000 calories (and don’t want to work out/move more) there might be something more emotional going on there and food can’t fix that.
Oh, and I’ve always been cold, even when I was overweight. It is what it is. I’m not going to carry around more than extra fat just because I’m cold though. Your health should trump all other things and like everyone else said you’ll know when you get there. Go with your BF % and find a way of eating that maximizes your calories and use recipes that you can enjoy as a lifestyle. No one says you have to be skinny, thin, or even the standard BMI. But there is a balance that needs to be considered for your overall health and I wouldn’t compromise that.
No, what I'm saying is at 145--I can't eat 2,000 calories a day and maintain that weight. I have to work out six days a week for an hour + so I can eat about 1,500-1700 calories a day (with exercise). My body fights 145 pounds. And it feels bad. I have never felt less healthy or attractive than when I was 145 pounds. I'm fine up to 160 pounds. I just can't stand going below 160.
But even if I could maintain 145 easily (and it is not easy)--I don't feel good at that weight. I feel ugly and lop-sided. I don't think I would ever choose to be that weight again.
I think I'm going to just ignore the charts and stick with my original idea of staying in the 160-180 range that is comfortable to me.
I see what you’re saying. Although the only difference between 145 and 160 is changing exercise from 1-3 days to 3-5 days, or reducing calories by 100-150 a day, closer to 1800-2000 calories. Surprising how few calories can make that much of a difference. That didn’t sink in for me until this year and I’m in my 40’s.
Considering your muscle mass, 160 lbs seems fine. I think 180 would be putting too much pressure on your body as it’s still considered obese and that comes with its own set of complications, statistically speaking. Take it a day at a time and you’ll get there, there’s no trophy for getting there fast. You might find a slower pace will give you time to adjust to the new calorie limit as you continue to reduce. Good luck!
1 -
Hey,
Not using BMI, how do I figure out a livable weight for myself?
WHY NOT BMI FOR ME?
The recommended MAX BMI weight for my height is miserable to me. I've lost this weight a few times over the last 30 years. I am 5FT 4IN tall. The BMI says my max weight is 145. But the 145 weight is miserable.
Why is it miserable to me? First, I'm constantly cold at that weight. Wearing a sweater in summer cold. I hate freezing all the time. I don't look good. I have very muscular calves and thighs. To get to 145, I have to emaciate my top half. I look like a flat-chested bony chicken from the waist up and a bodybuilder from the waist down. I look mis-proportioned. I can also feel all my ribs at 145. I do not like that feeling.
Maybe it is because it is my body build. I have broad shoulders, broad hips, a bubble butt, big thighs, and muscular calves. I am built just like my grandmother. I am basically built like a 1930's farm wife. I'm 'sturdy'.
I also don't like that to maintain 145, I have to stick to a very strict diet and work out six days a week. It is not sustainable--as I found out the last two times I made it to that weight. Plus, I get tired of people asking me if I am getting 'too thin'. Yeah, 145 doesn't look or feel good on me.
I set a goal of weighing between 160 and 180. I picked this range because I look good and feel good in that range. But is it a good range for health? I don't know. It's better than where I am now. And I am hoping it will be more sustainable than 145. But technically, 180 is still obese and 160 is still 'overweight' by BMI standards.
I've lost 23 pounds so far. I still have a very long way to go to see 180. Is there to calculate a health weight where I can put in my frame size?
Or some other way to calculate it? Anything below 160 is not fun for me.
Any ideas?
Do you exercise extensively or have a very active job? If not you most likely aren't muscular. Not trying to be mean, just the way things are.3 -
I am also short ( barely 5’2”) and a good weight for me is between 135-145. I am evenly distributed, a bit muscular. I think you have to find what works for you - and you already have! Don’t worry about the charts.0
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Hey,
Not using BMI, how do I figure out a livable weight for myself?
WHY NOT BMI FOR ME?
The recommended MAX BMI weight for my height is miserable to me. I've lost this weight a few times over the last 30 years. I am 5FT 4IN tall. The BMI says my max weight is 145. But the 145 weight is miserable.
Why is it miserable to me? First, I'm constantly cold at that weight. Wearing a sweater in summer cold. I hate freezing all the time. I don't look good. I have very muscular calves and thighs. To get to 145, I have to emaciate my top half. I look like a flat-chested bony chicken from the waist up and a bodybuilder from the waist down. I look mis-proportioned. I can also feel all my ribs at 145. I do not like that feeling.
Maybe it is because it is my body build. I have broad shoulders, broad hips, a bubble butt, big thighs, and muscular calves. I am built just like my grandmother. I am basically built like a 1930's farm wife. I'm 'sturdy'.
I also don't like that to maintain 145, I have to stick to a very strict diet and work out six days a week. It is not sustainable--as I found out the last two times I made it to that weight. Plus, I get tired of people asking me if I am getting 'too thin'. Yeah, 145 doesn't look or feel good on me.
I set a goal of weighing between 160 and 180. I picked this range because I look good and feel good in that range. But is it a good range for health? I don't know. It's better than where I am now. And I am hoping it will be more sustainable than 145. But technically, 180 is still obese and 160 is still 'overweight' by BMI standards.
I've lost 23 pounds so far. I still have a very long way to go to see 180. Is there to calculate a health weight where I can put in my frame size?
Or some other way to calculate it? Anything below 160 is not fun for me.
Any ideas?
Do you exercise extensively or have a very active job? If not you most likely aren't muscular. Not trying to be mean, just the way things are.
I used to work out alot but I don't anymore. My upper body reflects that lack of working out. My upper body could use with some toning--hah.
My legs--are genetic. They run in the family. I can reduce them some--and have in previous weight loss journeys. But at a certain point, they don't reduce anymore. On the other hand, I can make them more muscular if I work out--but their default is big calves, bigger thights, wide hips, big butt, small ankles. People in my family are often asked if we are runners due to the calves. It's a genetic quirk. The good news is that we often look 10 pounds lighter than we are because of our legs. The bad news is they can't be thinned down past a certain point. Even when I worked out six days a week with a trainer (many years ago), my legs, butt, thighs got tighter and harder. But after losing weight to a certain point, they stopped getting smaller. Upper body reduced but bottom did not after 160 pounds. Skinny jeans are not my jam. Bubble butt and big calves/thighs. Even the super athlethic 'skinny' family members have the family legs. They only reduce so far--and that's it.
It's just a genetic quirk. Not standard.0 -
I am also short ( barely 5’2”) and a good weight for me is between 135-145. I am evenly distributed, a bit muscular. I think you have to find what works for you - and you already have! Don’t worry about the charts.
Yeah, I'm 51 years old and 5 foot 4. I'm not looking for perfection. I just am trying to find the most livable weight for me that I can maintain. I think part of it is aesthetics, I hate how I look at 145 pounds It doesn't feel good or look good.
I'm glad you found what works for you as well. The charts can make one feel like we aren't doing 'quite enough'. I'm trying to listen to my body this time.
But well see, I could change my mind. Unlikely, but weirder things have happened.0 -
The number on the scale is just one measure and BMI is a population figure, not an individual one. The mirror is a tools as well...so are clothes...so is BF%. I can look in the mirror and see if/when I'm over fat. At my very best I was around 180 Lbs which is about 6 Lbs over the high end of BMI, but I was also sitting at around 12% BF which is pretty lean, particularly for my age. It was somewhat difficult to maintain as I really had to be pretty on point with my nutrition and my exercise (which was a lot because I was very into endurance road racing).
My exercise has become much more recreational in nature over the last few years and 190 seems to be where I can pretty easily maintain from a lifestyle standpoint which puts me at around 16 Lbs overweight by BMI, but still at a healthy BF% though a bit fluffier...but still looking fit and healthy aesthetically.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »The number on the scale is just one measure and BMI is a population figure, not an individual one. The mirror is a tools as well...so are clothes...so is BF%. I can look in the mirror and see if/when I'm over fat. At my very best I was around 180 Lbs which is about 6 Lbs over the high end of BMI, but I was also sitting at around 12% BF which is pretty lean, particularly for my age. It was somewhat difficult to maintain as I really had to be pretty on point with my nutrition and my exercise (which was a lot because I was very into endurance road racing).
My exercise has become much more recreational in nature over the last few years and 190 seems to be where I can pretty easily maintain from a lifestyle standpoint which puts me at around 16 Lbs overweight by BMI, but still at a healthy BF% though a bit fluffier...but still looking fit and healthy aesthetically.
Yep, I'll go along with this. nice post.1 -
You will probably not be able to figure out what a "livable weight" is for yourself until you actually get there.Hey,
Not using BMI, how do I figure out a livable weight for myself?
No one is going to twist your arm and require you to achieve or maintain a particular weight. If you don't want to go below a certain weight, you don't have to.I set a goal of weighing between 160 and 180. I picked this range because I look good and feel good in that range. But is it a good range for health? I don't know. It's better than where I am now. And I am hoping it will be more sustainable than 145. But technically, 180 is still obese and 160 is still 'overweight' by BMI standards.
I wouldn't worry so much about the labels.
Whether or not a particular weight is "healthy" is dependent on your particular circumstances: your genetics, your diet/nutritional status, your visceral fat level, your glucose regulation/insulin sensitivity, your cholesterol/triglyceride status, your blood pressure, your inflammation levels, your thyroid health, your hormonal status, your bone density, your muscle mass level, etc. Many of these things are likely to improve with weight loss from your present weight. But, it is impossible to know now how much they will improve and whether or not your suggested target of 160 to 180 will result in "healthy" levels of these biomarkers.I have to stick to a very strict diet and work out six days a week. It is not sustainable--as I found out the last two times I made it to that weight.
Your perspective may change as you lose weight this time.Anything below 160 is not fun for me.
The reality is, you may need to stick to a strict diet and work out frequently even at your target weight range of 160 to 180. Losing and regaining weight multiple times can have unfavorable effects on metabolism. Unfortunately, when losing weight, it is very possible to lose muscle, as well as fat. We also lose muscle progressively as we age, and women experience changes in metabolism with menopause. It is impossible to know now how much exercise activity will be required and what number of calories you can consume to maintain your weight at your chosen weight range. You can certainly run numbers through calculators, but everybody and every body is different and you really won't know until you get there.
Whether or not a given lifestyle (activity level/calorie intake) is sustainable depends on your circumstances at the time. You may come to enjoy exercise and want to do more than you ever thought you would. I'm sure that you can find plenty of examples in the MFP forums of people who were never "exercisers", who hated working out, etc. but who now see exercise as an essential part of their life that they look forward to every day.
Also, your perspective about what is "not fun" may change. Arguably, it is "not fun" to have health conditions associated with excess weight and unfavorable biomarkers.I've lost 23 pounds so far. I still have a very long way to go to see 180.
I think that making small changes that you can live with is a great plan. Enjoy your successes as they come and continue to make additional small changes that make sense for you as you go along.This time, I'm only making small changes I can live with. No giant exercise plans. No complete rewriting of my lifestyle.
I'm losing and it's easy because it already fits how I live overall. Yeah, I'll hit bumps I'm sure. I'm just trying to make this time--last forever.
I don't think that you need to get ahead of yourself and worry about your final target weight, whether that is between 160 and 180, or lower than that range. You can decide that when you get there.
The future you will know what is livable/sustainable. Don't make decisions for her ahead of time.
I think is wise. Focus on achievable goals. One step at a time.My first goal is to get to 240. I'm down to 243 right now. I've lost 20+ pounds so far.
My second goal is to get below 220.
Third goal--below 200.
Congratulations on your weight loss so far!
2 -
@loulee997
I just wanted to say when I used the calculator for you before I guessed your age somewhere between 134-138… you have amazing genetics 😳🤭.0 -
@loulee997
I just wanted to say when I used the calculator for you before I guessed your age somewhere between 134-138… you have amazing genetics 😳🤭.
I'm 51. On a very good day, I can pass for early to mid-40s. Alas, I think appearing to be in my 30s is out, but that's okay.
Physically, my only real health problem is my blood pressure. I had BP issues at 145 pounds and I have BP issues now. Also, genetics. But I control my BP (mostly) with medication.
Genes are funny things. They give you both blessings and curses.
L
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions