I have noticed that often when a person who's around 5' 6" or 5'7", with a starting weight of, oh let's say 195, announces their intention of losing down to 130 or 135 pounds nobody ever tells them that would be too low,or that they would have an unhealthy bmi.

Yet when posters around 5' and 5'1", with starting weights in the 140's, indicate that they would like to lose to 100 or 105 pounds ( which by the old style weight calculation charts is the equivalent of the taller person weighing 130 to 135 pounds) they are almost always told that would be too low and they should aim for a higher weight.

I'm confused.

130 is not too low. For a person of 5ft 6/7ins, you only hit *underweight* when you get to 118lbs, which is BMI 18.5.

I'm not sure I've noticed what people say about 5ft / 5ft 1in people losing, but I'd personally use the BMI system, ie choose where you want to be on the 18.5-25 spectrum (or 19-25, opinion varies) and then see what weight that'd be, and aim for that.

Hi marlu. I'm a little confused as to what you mean. I'm 5'. I needed to lose over 150 lbs. No one's ever told me that I would be going too low and should aim for a higher weight. It all depends on where that 5' or 5'1" person STARTS from. Obviously if you're starting weight is higher to begin with, well then yeah, you need to lose more weight to be at optimal health.

But then again, goal weights are also just approximates. They're not written in stone. We're all different even if we're the same height. We will all look and feel differently at differnt weights. It's very individual. And when you start out so high, as I did, you just don't know how you're going to look and feel - till you get there.

You don't mention your own starting weight, so it's kinda hard to give you more specific adivce.

The old way of calculating weight (before bmi charts were thought up) was to take 100 pounds for the first five feet of height and then add five pounds for each additional inch.

Under that system 135 pounds on a 5'7" individual ( 5x7 +100) is the equivalent of the five footer weighing 100 .

I'm not saying that 130 is too low for the 5'6" person. I AM saying that other people have often said that 100 pounds is too low for the five footer.

Okay marlu. I think I misunderstood you the first time. You mean not losing 100 or 105 lbs but having your goal weight as 100 or 105 lbs. Gotcha. I missed that the first time.

Well being 100 lbs at 5 feet tall is on the lower side of a healthy weight. But not UNhealthy. Again it IS individual and should be taken on an individual basis. But I really haven't noticed anyone telling anyone else that that is too low for a five footer.

Hey again,

We are not doctors on this site, first of all. Second of all, people do express their opinions, and some people going by BMI charts or other statistics do think that 100 pounds for someone 5 feet tall would be low.

But, there are many things that contribute other than BMI, such as body build, age, and so forth. Someone who is 18, has a delicate body structure, and is 5 ft 5 in. could in fact be healthy while weighing just under 100 pounds. Someone who has a heavy bone structure obviously would not be healthy at that weight.

So all folks are going by are statistics. And it's all just opinion. The best way to find out would be to see a doctor who specializes in weight issues and/or a nutritionist.

I take it that you've been visiting 3FC prior to becoming a member?

Jay

JayEll said

I take it that you've been visiting 3FC prior to becoming a member?

I've been lurking and reading for the past year and a half.

I'm not sure we should comment on others' goals at all. It can be discouraging ... for one thing. I try not to.

There's an interesting discussion about goal weights in the Maintainers Forum wrt that chapter in Rethinking Thin.

Jillybean720 said

I'm not saying that's the case here with you, marlu, as I don't know your current nor your goal weight--this is just meant as an observation in general.

To answer your question I am five foot one and weigh 140 pounds. Sizewise I'm an 8. But clothing size, aside, 140 pounds is entirely too much for my frame. I would like to weigh 120, would be ecstatic to weigh 110. I have a lot of muscle (probably from all the physical jobs) and know that there is no way I would ever get any lower than that.

I think there's also something a little "mystical" about weighing 100lbs. Especially for someone who realistically can't get there. A very good friend of mine in college weighed 100 lbs and every time she's mention it I'd always get a little shock. But she was 4'10" so that was totally a health weight for her. But that didn't matter to some strange primal side of me, I was still shocked at an adult at 100 lbs who wasn't emaciated.

It has a similar intangible quality to turning 40. Obviously you're no different than you were when you were 39, but "something" has happened. If a small woman says "I weigh 115 lbs" I wouldn't think twice about it, but if a similarly small woman says "I weigh 100 lbs" I'd have to do a double take.

Maybe 100 is just some sort of alien number designed to strike fear into the hearts of humans. Or maybe not. Maybe it's just the inability of someone to understand another's goals at a gut level, as opposed to an intellectual level.

Hi Jilly! It's good to talk to you again!

I'm going to steal a little from Jilly and a little from Margaret ...

feel great and can wear normal clothing sizes, then who cares what the scale says

there's also something a little "mystical" .... about fill in the blank pounds.

There's an interesting discussion about goal weights in the Maintainers Forum wrt that chapter in Rethinking Thin.

I think most people don't have a realistic understanding of the normal height/weight variations. Carmen Manheim writes of it in her book, when she was auditioning for "fat" rolls. I beleive she said that she was around 225 lbs at the time, and was told she was not heavy enough because the script called for a REALLY fat actress "over 200 lbs." When she told them she WAS over 200 lbs, their jaws just dropped.

So the average person thinks in very unreal terms, under 100 lbs for any woman seems like anorexia, and over 200 lbs seems gigantically fat.

I worked with a GORGEOUS woman who weighted 190 lbs, and was over 6 foot tall. Her goal weight was 150, which seemed a little low to me considering how great she looked, she certainly didn't seem like she needed to lose 40 lbs, but I realized I was thinking of what a 40 lbs weight loss would be on my frame not on hers. Maybe 40 lbs was fine, how would I know without consulting a height/weight table?

It was hard for me not to say "OMG, you do not have to lose any weight," because she was so strikingly beautiful exactly as she was - IN MY EYES.

But that's all anyone can use, their own eyes. I think we need to acknowledge that we're going to get a lot of bad advice mixed in with the good. If we've done our research, we don't have to feel swayed by the comments of people who just don't know any better.

People carry their weight differently, too. I'm 5'8" and at my highest weighed 173. Everyone said I looked great, but I carried it well. It was all evenly distributed--and thankfully when I lost, it came off pretty evenly also. Once I lost 20 or so pounds people noticed I had lost and asked how much and they were amazed to hear how much I had lost because no one thought I weighed even close to 173!

Hey again!

Everyone who hasn't done so, please read the "Agree to Disagree" policy, which is a Sticky at the top of the Support Forum. This policy is fairly recent, and basically it says that the admins would prefer that members on 3FC not offer unasked-for advice on another member's plan or goals. If someone posts ASKING for help or advice, then that's a different matter.

To sum it up, this is the Support Forum, not the Debate Forum. Not that anyone here is debating--just so y'all know the policy.

Jay