Sigh......

I wanted to weigh 130.

But I think that will never happen for my frame lean muscle mass.

I had a talk with my trainer today and he thinks 130 is unrealistic for the amount of lean body mass I have

I know I'm suppose to accept my body, this is so hard! I really really really want to weigh 130 but then I don't want to be unhealthy.

We sat down today and worked out my body fat percentage at goal to be 18% which I'm happy with. Right now it's at 37% at 192lbs.

The calculations workout like this:

192 x 0.37 = 71.04 Body fat
192 - 71.04 = 120.96 This is my lean body mass

to be at 18% body fat:

192 x 0.18 = 34.56 body fat

take the lean muscle mass: 120.96 and add the 18% body fat number 34.56
Giving me a final goal weight of 155.52

For BMI, that's still overweight. He told me not to worry about that, I have lots of lean muscle. He said I could go down to 14% body fat but that's pushing it, but to keep it in the range of 15-20%

But I'm really really bumbed!

Does this sound right to you guys? I know when I was a size 5 I was 160lbs...I'm wondering if I need to change my goal. I guess I'm just having a really hard time accepting that I will never be a small framed "skinny" girl, but a large framed muscular girl....with big boobs.

Should I just change my goal weight? Do these calculations seem right?

Thanks!

A few questions first:

1. How did he measure body fat %? Calipers are going to be more accurate than a machine (which I would take with a huge grain of salt) and even then it depends on the skill of the person doing it.

2. Unfortunately, even with lifting there's a decent chance that you will lose at least some muscle mass with weight loss. So your lean muscle mass might not be the same as what it is now.

3. Were there any different circumstances when your body fat was measured (TOM, water retention etc)?

As for BMI. Well, Just decide once you get down closer to 155lbs. I had a caliper test done when I was about your weight (and was pregnant at the time so it had to be inaccurate) BUT it told me similar results. Basically that it would be impossible for me to get down to a healthy BMI. Yeah.. well, now I'm 14lbs away from a healthy BMI and I can guarantee you I'm in no danger of being too low on body fat and it's certainly not from lack of lifting! But i definitely have weight to lose in my stomach/arms/chest.

I think part of the problem with calipers too is that they weren't measuring where I had a lot of fat (lower belly, breasts, butt) so I think it probably underestimated my body fat from that too. I also wonder how accurate it is on individuals who still have a decent amount of visceral fat because that tends to harden up your stomach so I imagine pinching it and measuring would be more difficult (just speculating here).

Point is. I like to try to figure out my ideal weight sometimes too but it's almost pointless until you get closer. It's nice to have a goal in mind but at best it can just be an estimate because our bodies change so much during weight loss. Even for someone like me who has been at my goal weight before in my life I can't say for sure I'll go all the way there because my body has changed so much over the years (between lifting, pregnancies, nursing, weight gain/loss etc). I'd say still shoot for 130lbs right now but maybe put in a range from 130-155lbs. You can always reevaluate at 155lbs and see how you look feel. If you have a trainer I'm sure he/she will be happy to give you input too so you're not in danger of pushing yourself too far, you know? It's good to have that accountability too.

Also... about your last comment re: not being the skinny girl/having big boobs.

That's one reason I started blogging about bras/bra fitting/clothes for curvy women. It helped SO MUCH to find other women like me and also learning how to dress. Once I started buying bras that fit (well, almost, I have to order from abroad, combined with weight loss, I still don't have a perfect fit but WAY better) and clothes that were specifically made for large busted women it made a HUGE difference when it came to my body image issues.

One of my favorites is Thin & Curvy because it address the topic of being both thin but also with a large bust. Another thing that I started doing too was noticing celebrities who were gorgeous and had bodies that mine could look like at goal. There ARE other women who are goregous with large frames and are curvy. Sure, we might never look like waify models but, honestly, if you're wearing a size 5 you're going to look great (especially with all that weight training!). Right now I'm a size 6/8 and am pretty freaking happy with that. I still have some more to lose and am guessing I might end up in a 4? So even with a large frame+boobs+butt I'll still look great.

Hey Runningfromfat

Thank you so much. To answer your questions the fat assessment was done with calipers, no TOM or water retention.

You brought up some great points, I think I have to change my perception and maybe change my goal weight as well. See how I feel once I hit 150lbs and take it from there. I guess the realization of my assessment crashed my illusion or dream in my head of what I wanted the scale to say. I might just get to 130 and to a healthy BMI but your right, I won't know until I get down some more.

As for the models or celebrities that are large framed and fit etc. Can you name a few for me so I can compare?

Thanks so much!

You're a size 10/12 right now, right? I was a little bit lighter than you (5lbs maybe) when I started hitting that area. I was lifting too (still am)

I don't think 130 is all that unrealistic, but if you're built like me (which I suspect you are) it might be a little bit on the low end. I'm having a bit of trouble finding my maintenance calories which is why I'm four pounds below goal right now and...my ribs are starting to stick out. I'm at your goal size though; I can wear a size 3 in juniors, size 2 in women's (I hit that at 135)

Runningfromfat gave you some great resources when it comes to the thin but big boobs problem. I love the blog Thin and Curvy and I'm often scouring the Internet to find new ways to flatter my new curvy but smaller shape

For right now, keep going down and reevluate your goals every 5-10lbs or so. You might find that you like the way you look at a higher weight or that 130 is perfectly attainable for you.

Hey Sontaikle, yup I'm in a 10/12 now. I'm gonna check that blog out too. Ok so you give me hope! Thank you! I'm going to change my goal to 150 then and then re-evaluate once I get there. What size were you in at that weight?

I was a 6/8 at 150lbs

Maybe I'm missing something, but the math for your goal weight doesn't work. Yes, 34.56 is 18% body fat at 192, but it is 22.2% body fat at 155.5.

155.52 (weight) - 120.96 (lean mass) = 34.56 (fat)
34.56 / 155.52 = 22.2%

To have 120.96 lb of lean body mass and 18% body fat, your total weight should be:

120.96 = .82x
120.96 / .82 = x
x = 147.5

All that said, as you continue to work out and build lean mass, those numbers will ultimately change.

First, some math/statistics- then some advice. It's free, and you get what you pay for, so be warned

BMI is a statistical heuristic metric, which means that properly it should never be used for individual diagnostics, but only for measuring the health of large populations to take into account individual variation (Wikipedia).

Even given that, it is less accurate the more your height deviates from 5'7", at 5'3" you are on the low end of the scale which will give skewed results. In a nutshell this is because BMI approximates people as all being cylinders of the same thickness - or in layman's terms, you are using a metric built for the tall, 12 oz. cola cans, while being a shorter 8 oz. cola can.

All that said, your trainer's math is also wrong. If your lean body mass is approximately 121 lbs, you don't calculate your target mass the way you did above.

If you want a certain target body fat percentage, you subtract that from 100% and then divide your lean body mass by the result, e.g.:

121/.85 = 142 lbs (15% body fat)
121/.82 = 148 lbs (18% body fat)
121/.76 = 159 lbs (24% body fat)

24% is considered, statistically, the high end of the "fitness" range but again is not a prescriptive individual diagnosis (Wikipedia).

These measures (BMI, %Fat, etc.) should always be considered, at most, rough guidelines. In reality (here starts the advice) you should always consider yourself as an individual (rather than an average of the masses) and set your goals by:

* Does your doctor consider you at a healthy weight?
* Are you able to do the physical activities that you want to do?
* Do you feel healthy?

All that said, 150lbs will put you in the middle of the "professional athlete" range of body fat. I think that probably anywhere in 150-160, which is the generic "physically fit" range, would be a good place to do a check and meet with your doctor. Unlike your trainer, your doctor is concerned with your overall body health, and doesn't stop getting money once you reach a healthy weight

Personally my goal range is 20lbs wide, from the low end of what I consider "ideal" to the high end where I'd be "comfortable". I think it'll be easier for me to maintain a weight within a range rather than a specific weight.

Christina Hendricks comes to mind. Absolutely gorgeous, curvy and she looks like she has a larger frame than her petite costar Elisabeth Moss, although it's hard to say her exact frame size in person.

Laura Prepon. Not super curvy but she definitely has a large frame and again is absolutely gorgeous!

Sophia Vergara. I'm not sure about her frame size but she's definitely curvy.

Some other too: khloe kardashian, Jessica Simpson, Marilyn Monroe I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting

Oh, and in terms of frame size just look at athletes. There are many, many gorgeous athletes out there (Hope Solo!) who have large frames and are muscular and are still beautiful.

I'm an engineer, so as somebody else mentioned, the math is wrong. Here's why.

Suppose instead of weighing 192 lb, you weigh 400 lb. Suppose your frame, height, and amt of lean body mass is still the same: 120.96 lb (in theory, it should be arounnddd there). (400-120)/400 = 70% body fat initially.

Then by his final calculation (and this is the mistake):
400 (<--current weight) x 0.18 = 72

120 (lean) + 72 = 192. So, he's saying that in order for a 400lb person to have 18% body fat, their final weight would be 192. But a 192lb person would attain 18% body fat at a weight of 155.

But that can't be because both are completely identical in frame, lean body mass, height etc etc.

Uh huh. It's okay, he just has to be good at working out, not math.

Honestly, I can't think of an accurate mathematical solution, maybe because I'm brainfried, but partly because I know that lean body mass can go up or down, and he assumed it's constant.

Basically, you don't have to be sassy and tell him he's wrong, but surprise the ksfjkfjwkj out of him when you go under 155 lb :P haha

On the other hand, (130-120)/130 ~ = 9%. But, you can lose lean body mass. I just don't think you want to. But if you it gets to 105 lb of lean body mass, then:

(130-105)/130 = 19.2% body fat

I don't recommend trying to lose lean body mass, but it is a frequent occurrence with dieting. I think your personal trainer is bad at math, but definitely on the right track in understanding that lean = good

You were a size 5 at 160? That is awesome and amazing!

I think you should listen to your trainer. Good Luck with your goals!

I've read many of your posts with a huge amount of jealousy. LOL! I'm old enough to easily be your mother, so that accounts for much of the differences in our shapes, and I have zero boobage, so that makes a difference, too. I have to assume that at 60, I also like my jeans to fit a little differently than someone your age. But . . . at any given weight, you are about 2 or 3 sizes smaller than I am, and I'm 5'7" tall. For example - I'm 162 now and we wear the same size jeans! I couldn't even squeeze into a size 8 if a gun were at my head. You must be very fit, and that in itself is an accomplishment. Your progress has been amazing and I think you have to keep an open mind until you get a bit closer to goal.

I'm not even going to try to argue the math involved with figuring body fat %, muscle mass %, etc. I'll just say this: We get fixated on a number at the start of this journey. I did. Most of us do. What else do we have to aim for? The most common judgement of "health" is a healthy number on the scale. But it isn't everything, it's a guideline. I know what I looked like when I weighed 150 -155 pounds the last time I was there. Trouble is, that was over 25 years ago and I was 35 instead of 60. It looked good then. Now I'm afraid it will just look "OLD" and I'm not ready to look old, so I stopped at 162 pounds, at least for a while. My face was going to look like Skelator (anyone remember He-Man?) so I stopped. That was hard to do, too, because I said for over 8 months I was going to lose 100 pounds. It felt like quitting to stop at 90. Don't let that happen to you. Give yourself permission to assess your looks and your overall health every 10 to 20 pounds and make the necessary adjustments. Don't focus on just one aspect.

All that said, I'm sure you'll be able to hit a goal that's lower than 150 pounds. And you'll be amazing and proud when you get there. Keep up the great work.

Lin

Awww LinJber hunny, don't be jealous of me! OMG! I HATE the scale, it has been my demon for years. I am jealous of how fast you lost your weight! I am going at a turtle's pace! Thank you for your kind words, I just have this mental problem with the number on the scale, I know I know I know that should be a guideline, I guess it's just pre conditioning my entire life since I was a child that I was always "heavy" on the scale and never looked my weight and always fit into "the right" sizes at the time.

BornToFly: Yeah I was 18 at the time when I was 160 in a size 5 I was VERY fit though was on swim team, lead aerobics and strength training, on track and field...I'm 35 now and have had 2 kids so I have no idea if I will get back there.

As for the math, haha get this my trainer was fired at my gym! Maybe it's because he can't do math? HAHA I have no idea how to figure it out I just copied what he wrote....so I meet with a new trainer today, some really buff chick!

Thanks everyone. I think moving my goal to 150 it feels like less pressure for me too right now, cause I just wanna match my weight and size to match...but that will never happen! I'm totally out of the norm, but why am I not surprised....I've always been outside of the box LOL I appreciate all the help!

InsideMe, out of curiosity, if you do an online body fat % calculator, where you plug in your measurements, how close is that to the result you got from the calipers? Just wondering how accurate (or not) that method is, and since you already know your actual bf%, I thought you could help me out with that! (I know they're not going to be very accurate, and I'm sure it could differ for different people, but just curious!)

Now, you have a VERY muscular body, and in your progress pictures, you look so much smaller than your weight! I would guess you probably 25 pounds less than you are. So don't despair, like everyone has said, the number on the scale is just one little aspect of this journey to health and fitness. You're doing fantastic!!