That's kind of how I picked my goal weight. My mom weighs 175 and she's pretty healthy looking, so I figure it's a good weight to aim for. When I get there, I'll re-evaluate.
I understand what they are talking about with the "shoot for a 2" thing - I've kind of been doing that anyway (not a size 2 but my goal weight) I'm pretty sure I'll be perfectly happy about 10 lbs higher than what I have on my ticker but I'm leaving it where it is just to keep myself focused when I get to a point where I want to transition to maintenance. I know from past experience that I have a tendency to reach goal then sort of go "whew, I'm done. Now I can eat" (kind of like not holding your stomach in any more after the cute guy has gone past ). So I'm using that lower "goal" to trick myself into thinking I'm still working on losing.
But, I agree that this info was compiled and interpreted by a statistition who never struggled with their weight. I'm shooting for a lower goal because I am aware I may never really get there. Someone who is either trying to lose for the first time or has "failed" in the past (especially if they lean toward disordered eating) could really push themselves off the edge if they were to set an unattainable goal.
Other than that, looks like I"m doing most other things right - maybe I do need to go ahead and add that chocolate to my plan though
Yes, I agree with Schmoodle and Thin4Good. My goal weight is 150... and then I will re-evaluate and see how I feel at said weight. If I feel too heavy still at that weight, I'll lose more until I feel healthy. If I feel too thin at 150, I'll adjust accordingly.
I think they are saying that people that shoot for the small goals usually don't succeed so you must shoot for bigger to accomplish more. Of course that is my opinion of what it is saying... Anyway, I don't believe that at all, and I agree, I bet a skinny person did write the article.
I also question what their measurement of success is. How long are they "following" people (there's not alot of hard evidence on what "studies" they are using to support their claims). Most research doesn't follow people very long, so it very well may be that initially those with unrealistic goals lose faster (because they've got that "I must be thin, or I'm worthless" type of motivation) whereas people with modest goals may lose more slowly, or even may lose less weight overall, but may keep it off longer.
There's no evidence that this writer knows what he/she is talking about at all. So "evidence shows," especially in these "fluff" pieces has to be taken with a huge grain (boulder) of salt.
Detour: If you try the diet-only approach, you need a clear idea of how much you should be eating. Multiply your weight by 10, then add your weight again to that sum: That gives you the number of calories you need to maintain your current weight without activity. For example, 135 pounds x 10 = 1,350 + 135 = 1,485 calories.
Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!
Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!
Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!
OMG! Apparently I am just that dumb because I never saw it until you said it
Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!
). So I'm using that lower "goal" to trick myself into thinking I'm still working on losing. 
