[lalala123]

That's depressing with the scale and the body fat.

And bummer, I was afraid that exercising alone wouldn't be enough... I just really dislike the calorie counting.

[Mudpie]

Originally Posted by ennay

My scale is utterly crap...it has said I was about 36% body fat from the get go. I was at 180 and I am at 130...so apparently I am losing HUGE amounts of muscle...NOT

lalala - most of us have had to focus on diet. Once you get to know me you'll know I am an exercise junkie. But exercise alone is not enough....because the more I exercise, the hungrier I get. I managed to gain weight training for a marathon. So here I am running and lifting(when I can) and still couting those calories.

lalala I walk dogs from 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. every day and do 1/2 hour of yoga/stretching and I still need to count calories to lose.

Dagmar

[BlueToBlue]

Lalala - Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I have to echo what ennay and Mudpie have said in terms of losing weight. I'm about your height and have about the same goal weight-wise. I have to tell you that 117 is a pretty ambitious goal. It's at the low end end of an acceptable BMI (in fact, according to some sources, it's the lowest your BMI should be). It's about what I weigh right now and it's taken a lot of disclipline and a very restricted calorie level to get here. And I exercise like a mad woman--I do some form of exercise every day of the week, usually at a very high intensity, and I work out with a trainer 3 days a week. I also try to include some interval training at least a couple of days a week (right now it is just swimming and spinning because of a knee injury but eventually I hope to get back to running intervals).

That said, if you want to let go of the scale goal and focus on just your measurements and body fat %, I think you could make a lot of progress with exercise and eating healthy foods, but not counting calories. My sister started an exercise program a year ago and has dropped from a size 10 to a size 4-6. But the kicker is that she didn't really change her eating habits, so despite the fact that she fits into a much smaller size and looks fantastic (seriously, I think she looks better than I do even though she is wearing a larger size--but that could just be my own body image issues and sibling jealously), her weight is exactly the same as when she started. But it's going to be slow going, you aren't going to see results in a month like you will if you alter your diet.

Mudpie and ennay--I have heard that those scales the supposedly tell your body fat percentage can be wildly inaccurate. I've been using the Navy method (which just uses body measurements) and it usually comes pretty close to what my trainer calculates as my body fat when he does the skin fold test. Here are a couple of websites that do the calculation for you: BBLex, www.he.net, www.freedieting.com (this one seems to be less accurate because it doesn't ask for as many measurements, but it has a bunch of other cool calculators).

Susan, Oh good. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't offended.

[lalala123]

Barbara: thanks for your long post about losing and diet. I am going by weight right now, but you do have a point, and I don't care as much about the actual numbers as about what I look like, so if I looked as thin at this weight as I did when I weighed at my goal weight, I'll be happy.
So, I don't think you're the bearer of bad news, because your sister's story does sound wonderful.

One of my fears with calorie counting is that I'd put my body in "starvation mode" and to get into that yo-yo spiral of doom. I'm more afraid of that than of being chubby, if that makes any sense.

I'm not opposed to changing my diet, I'd just rather not change is too drastically.

But I'll take all of your opinions into account, since you've been working at this weight loss thing for longer than me and you've been achieving goals. Any advice and information is appreciated.

[lalala123]

117 lb at 5'4" is equivalent to a BMI of 20.1, and according to wikipedia the normal range is from 18.5 to 25. 20 doesn't sound so close to the edge.

[Ilene]

Barbara I like those sites I've added them to my fav list ....

[ennay]

Originally Posted by BlueToBlue

Mudpie and ennay--I have heard that those scales the supposedly tell your body fat percentage can be wildly inaccurate. I've been using the Navy method (which just uses body measurements) and it usually comes pretty close to what my trainer calculates as my body fat when he does the skin fold test. Here are a couple of websites that do the calculation for you: BBLex, www.he.net, www.freedieting.com (this one seems to be less accurate because it doesn't ask for as many measurements, but it has a bunch of other cool calculators).

Susan, Oh good. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't offended.

Yeah - the navy method works fairly well for me too, tracks with what I have had measured at the gym, although they dont use calipers, just a hand held. Also seems to track with what makes sense in terms of fat vs. muscle loss. I've always used that second link, maybe I will compare. I think the first one with the naval level measurement would be more accurate for me in terms of consistancy as my waist doesnt really exist. Technically my narrowest point is my bra band.

[BlueToBlue]

Originally Posted by lalala123

117 lb at 5'4" is equivalent to a BMI of 20.1, and according to wikipedia the normal range is from 18.5 to 25. 20 doesn't sound so close to the edge.

It all depends on who you ask. Some medical/diet professionals believe you should keep your BMI above 19.5. My experience (and I've been working on these last five lbs for 2 years now) is that once your BMI is at the midpoint (which for us is about 22), it's really hard to lose more weight.

I also think that "starvation mode" happens a lot less than people think. I've eaten 1200 calories a day for extended periods and I never hit it. Once I get below 120 lbs, 1200 calories a day is pretty much the highest level at which I'm able to lose weight and I only lose about 1/2 a lb per week at that level.