LA Weight Loss - Are some people just not meant to be thin???




LittleMoonRabbit
02-13-2008, 05:00 PM
I have always been "curvy." There was a point when I was much younger that I would have classified myself as being "fat" but I don't think I am fat now. I know I need to lose weight- I have a little too much extra. But, when I look at myself in the mirror, and I suck in my stomach and pinch my hips (lol, I am assuming other people do this, right??) and try to see how I will look... part of me thinks I'll look weird. In general, I have kind of a big bone structure. My rib cage (not to be confused with my tatas) is so big that I can't fit into a lot of dresses made for my waist size. I also have very big hips. This has been an advantage to me up to this point- I carry my weight well because of it. According to BMI, most people my height should be an average of 120 lbs... but I think that's way too thin for me- I am sure at that point my ribs would be poking out- and I don't want to look like a skeletor.

Is it possible that I am just built to have a little extra weight? My goal is 130-135, even though it's on the high end of the BMI "normal" range.

How am I supposed to know what a healthy weight is? What, other than numbers, is a healthy indicator? I have a scale that measures body fat... what's the percentage I should be shooting for? Should I be able to poke somewhere and know that I am at the right weight for me?? What do you guys think?


Schmoodle
02-13-2008, 05:24 PM
Hi LittleMoonRabbit, check your facebook, by the way, I just sent you a message.
I think the answer to your question is yes (IMHO). Sounds like I am kind of built like you. Widish rib cage, broad shoulders, what used to be called "big boned". I've never minded because I think you look better in clothes when you have shoulders, and it does help you to hide a little extra weight. I have no idea how to figure out when you are at the right weight, but I think it might be a natural set point, where you don't feel like you have to starve yourself to maintain it, but you are healthy. I do hope to find out one day!

StillTryin
02-13-2008, 05:28 PM
I agree also, for my height and build, I should weigh about 130-135, well I have weighed 135 before and I looked ANOREXIC (no offense to anyone who is suffering with this disease). I didnt look good at all. So my goal is actually to be about 150-155, that is where I feel healthy, and good.


polkadotfever
02-13-2008, 05:30 PM
i believe that i fall into that category too. i'm very solid and put on muscle very easy. for me to be in the lower end of "normal" according to the charts is nothing short of a full time job for me. am i at a healthy weight now? no, no way. and i am losing and intend to lose more. but i'm not stressing about fitting into the chart. even at my anorexic (literally) lowest weight...105 pounds...i still was a size 6-7. go figure.

scgirl32
02-13-2008, 05:37 PM
I've read more than one article lately where the authors argued that waist measurement (instead of BMI) is a much better indicator of health issue risks. For women, a waist measurement under 33" is considered good. I would think that body fat percentage should also come into play.

LittleMoonRabbit
02-13-2008, 05:45 PM
wow, Polkadot, 105 and a size 5/6??? that's crazy... I have never been that light, but I can imagine that could be me too

pamatga
02-13-2008, 06:09 PM
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-ca...dict-equation/

As for the waist measurement size, 35 inches is the benchmark for determining heart health. Over and you are increasing your chances of heart disease.

After figuring these two measurements. The link above will help you determine what your normal range should be. And, that is what it is: a range-mine is 125-155 lbs for 5' 6". I averaged 135-140 during my later teens and early 20s. It seems to be the weight I gravitate towards.

I have been told that there really are very few people who are large boned. I would say that if you have large boned features in your face or larger hands than your friends that is a better indication than whether you have broad shoulders. I have broad shoulders but I have very small hands and thin feet. I have wide broad hips and a full bust. I definitely have a waist too. Real women do have curves!! It's okay to have an hour glass figure.

I know that I won't be a size 2 or 4 when I am 140 lbs but as long as I am healthy and I can maintain that weight, I won't mind at all. It is only a number.......

polkadotfever
02-13-2008, 06:16 PM
littlemoonrabbit. yep. sad but true. i have the widest hips on earth.

nelie
02-13-2008, 07:35 PM
The real true measure would be your body fat. Yes some people have a petite bone structure and others have bigger but your body fat percentage would be a true measure if you are overfat or not.

Genesis
02-13-2008, 07:40 PM
I agree that an accurate body fat measurement would be a good indicator for you. For a woman, body fat in the high teens to low twenties indicates a healthy, fit body.

kaplods
02-13-2008, 10:24 PM
I don't think anyone has a specific weight "destiny," but when it comes to weight loss efforts, there comes a point of diminshing returns that is different for every person. Not everyone wants to become an olympic quality athlete, even if it were possible.

My ticker weight goal is 150 lbs, and my TOPS weight goal given to me by my doctor is 250 lbs. I had to have a goal slip signed by my doctor, and when I suggested 200 lbs, he said I should rething that. I thought he meant it was too high, so I suggested my "real" goal of 150 lbs, and he said no, he meant the other direction. Now, it isn't that he thought 250 lbs is my "ideal" weight by any means, it's just losing almost 150 lbs would be quite an accomplishment and he didn't want me to become discouraged and depressed if I couldn't lose every pound I wanted to.

I've decided that 135, 150, even 250 are not my "real" goals. My real goal is to find a balance of eating and exercise that gives me maximum quality of life. When I come to a point that eating less and exercising more no longer seems realistic for my life - THAT will be my maintenance level, until (or unless) I reach a point where I'm ready to make more changes.

In a sense, I think anything is possible, but the question sometimes becomes "at what cost?" If you're not going to be happy until you can run a marathon, then train for a marathon. My goals are more modest, to improve some of my health issues, hopefully enough to go back to work, and if at all possible, fit into standard sizes (or at least barely into plus-sizes) so I can buy "off the rack". Once I get there, I will decide whether to move the finish line further down the track.

perclady
02-14-2008, 02:13 AM
I agree with the posters here. My "ideal" weight is around 125lbs. I cannot for the life of me even imagine being that small. As it is, I carry my weight quite well and am very strong - much stronger physically that any of my female freinds. It also helps that I play the drums professionally and know how to/have to carry large amounts of heavy equipment. I realistically see myself around 150-160lbs. Maybe I'll feel differently when I'm there.

aphil
02-14-2008, 09:01 AM
Your bone structure will determine what goal weight would be good for you, as well as your height. I am taller (5'7") but I have small bone structure. Even at my highest weight ever, the largest ring I have ever worn is the standard size at the jewelry store. (I think that is around a 7?) When I am thin, it is down to around a 5.

My SIL and MIL are both very large framed/boned, even though I tower over them both heightwise. (They are both around 5'2".) They have broad backs, broad hipbones, large necks, wrists, and hands. My shoulder width is literally inches smaller across when I stand back to back with one of them. My MIL is overweight, but my SIL is thinner. However, she never looks "skinny" because of her bone structure. Don't get me wrong, she looks good-her waistline is defined, etc. she just doesn't get that "beanpole" look.

HiHoHiHo
02-14-2008, 11:56 AM
Keep in mind that as you are bigger (taller and/or heavier) your body adjusts to your frame. It has to. So when you are well over the recommended healthly weight for your height, your bones must grow bigger to support your frame. Your heart is bigger so it can pump blood to the increased area. Your ribcage expands to allow space for the larger organs and fat inside.

That, with the fact that people come in all sizes, determines what your measurements are. There is the curvy / non curvy person your genes define, and the influence you put on yourself with how+what you eat and your excersize.

if you lose weight, your ribcage circumference WILL decrease. If you are pre-designed to be curvy then you'll still have a bigger than average circumference,

I agree that the body fat measurement is probably a better way to measure your body health, but I don't think the body fat scales can accurately measure body fat. I think the most accuratge way to measure body fat is to be totally submerged in water and measure the water displacement - Not something I'm prepared to do on a daily or weekly basis!

The regular weight scale and the BMI chart is accesible to everyone.