I just read a great post about how one of our fellow members got back into their size 16 pants after reaching their mini-goal. (Congratulations are in order, by the way ) ...but it brought up reoccurring questions I have about the "numbers".

I know height has to be considered when youre dealing with finding your "goal" weight - for the example I mentioned above, she is currently at or around my Goal Weight, but is wearing the same size as I currently wear. I checked out the height, and she is about 6 inches shorter than me. Does it really make that much of a difference??

I'm 5'11" and currently around 230 in a size 16.
People are always shocked when (and if) I actually tell them my weight. Then I always hear "Well you carry it well..." So does that mean I need to adjust my Goal Weight? Am I going to look sickly thin when I get to my goal of 160 (which I determined from those "How much should I weigh?" charts)?

Any thoughts?

Goal weights aren't set in stone. My original goal weight was 150, I revised my goal weight during my journey. The best thing to do is just continue on your journey and continually evaluate your goal based how you feel as you lose weight.

I'm 5'8" and when I started losing, everyone said "you don't need to lose weight--you look good." A year later and they see me again and they're so full of compliments "Wow, you look great, how did you do it?" Sure, I did carry it well, but I didn't like the way I carried it. I wanted to be smaller.

How did I set my goal? I had been down to 128 and was skinny and knew I didn't look healthy because everyone said so. I was able to maintain at around 135 pretty easily, so I decided at first to go for a goal of 135. I've changed it to 133 so I will maintain between 133 and 135 (once I get there!). As for the weight charts, for my height, weighing between 118-158 is "normal". Well, that's a pretty big difference!! You kind of have to play with it as you continue to lose. Don't go below what is considered healthy, but if you're comfortable, stop.

I think the weight is less important than the size as far as getting your goal. Mostly because muscle can vary your weight and size so much, I've barely lost a pound in the last month but I've lost a pants size, I guess from all the exercise, I must have gained muscle as I lost fat. Anyway, I set myself tentatively for 140 pounds (my weight in college) but if at 150 I fit into my skinny clothes, I'm not going to sweat it.

I think once you get closer to goal you will have to access how you look and feel. We are all such individuals, even if we are the same exact height. Different body types and all. You can't really judge or guess what you will look like by comparing yourself to others.

I would just work on losing the weight for now and now worry at all about your final number on the scale. No one's pressing you for a number. Be flexible and open-minded.

I have 135 as my goal weight. If I'm still losing when I get there great, I certainly wouldn't mind being less. If not, well then it's 135 for me. Or 138 or 127, who knows for sure? Certainly not me. Only time will tell.

Your goal is probably fine if you have a medium to light frame...generally I'd suggest looking at your BMI range and picking something from the high end of the range if you've got a larger frame or have more muscle mass, and moving lower if you have a smaller frame or aren't strength training.

I'm two inches shorter than you (and no one ever correctly guesses my weight...not at 135, and not at 200) and I think I looked my best at around 145-150, but that was before I started lifting, and muscle is dense. Unless you've got a particularly large frame you'll probably look fine at 160.

it depends on your body shape as well. My pants are about two sizes larger than my top.

You should also take into account the amount of muscle mass one has.

You know - I agree than goal weights aren't written in stone. And everyone is different.
I carry most of my weight around my midriff and chest and consequently the size I was wearing at 170-175 was a size 16, and there was no getting around that one. With very little muscle mass in my legs (which are freakishly skinny) and nothing to speak of in the butt, I didn't weigh as much as someone with an actual waist. (I'm always so jealous of the hourglasses) Anyways I have to make a conscious effort to not worry too much about numbers, but I hope that might help.
Tammy

I have chosen 160 as my ultimate goal weight because I remember when I was that weight and how good I felt. I didn't think I needed to loose anymore back then. That's how I came up w/my number. As far as sizes go that definately depends on shape not weight. I have a friend who weighs ALMOST the same as me but she is 4 sizes smaller. I'm currently in an 18 and she wears a 14 and we are the same height. Go figure....

Sizes are confusing. I can't make any sense out of them.

Tell you what, msnewbooty, wait until you're "sickly thin" and then worry about it.

Jay

Body frame size is one thing. My mom was petite, with small feet & hands. My dad was not tall, but his parents & siblings were. Like my dad, I like to say I'm "on the tall end of short, or the short end of medium (5' 3-1/2")", with long hands & feet. Even when I was in eighth grade & weighed 118#(and was slim), I still looked bigger than my mom. I think that's what's legitimately meant as "big bones". (Not the euphemism for "fat"!)
Frame size is something to be honestly considered when figuring out what is right for you--but you must tell yourself the truth. Look at hand & wrist size; also what your family musculature is like. Even when not fat, my family members have heavy-looking thighs (sigh!). That's just how it is; heredity is something that cannot be changed. But that can give you a clue if you look at younger/thinner members & see whether they're "fine" "medium" or "large"-boned.

As to clothing sizes--Hah!! Those are so arbitrary, it isn't even funny. Or wait--no, that's ALL it is, is funny! So many manufacturers have a different spin on the same cut that it's just not reliable as a steady guide. I bought a coat 12 years ago not just because it fit & I liked the color & style, but it said it was a "12", when I already hadn't been a real 12 for seven years!

Haha, all good points, you guys.

I guess its those differences in sizes and not weight that throws me for a loop - like the post where you are the same weight as someone, but 4 sizes bigger than them. Crazy!

Luckily my figure is VERY hourglass and when I lose weight, my middle is the first thing to go. I'm so thankful that when the pounds come off they come off all over my body, not just one area. So, like some of you have said, even when I lose a pound or two, that's a huge difference in my clothes.


Which is a whole 'nother post all together...some of my FAVORITE clothes dont fit already - and its just bittersweet because I'll miss those comfy jeans and now I have to come up with the $$$ for a new wardrobe!
...a problem I'll gladly have, though.

My stepmother is also 5'11" and I am 5'7"-a 4 inch difference. At 160, she is about a size 12, and when I am at 160, I am about a size 14. So, yes, it makes a big difference.

Also, other things that make a difference are:

~Fitness level
~Body type (hourglass, apple, or pear shaped body)
~Frame size

All of these things, including your height, will make a difference in what size you wear. 5 women can wear a size 12, and all of them can be different heights, weights, and levels of fitness.

I know that at 5'11, the average sickly thin models are nothing but muscle and 140 lbs....

I guess 160 would make you healthy and slim!

I agree with this- clothing sizes are so relative to the manufacturer's standard that i wear a whole spectrum of sizes!