have I reached my 'happy' weight???

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
babyprrr
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:53 pm

have I reached my 'happy' weight???

Post by babyprrr » Thu May 29, 2008 4:39 pm

This is my story and it's rather long...

I started NoS in March 07 and loved it because it gave me freedom from worrying about food and I had a history of not eating at all/eating a LOT. But even staying within the limits of NoS, I've yo-yo-ed a lot. First I lost about five pounds to go from 120 lbs to 115 ( I'm 5'3"). Then I went on vacation and gained back six ( everyday was an S day on vacation). Then I came home and exercised regularly so lost about six/seven again down to 113 lbs.

Then after summer break I went back to college, where I kinda abused NoS by eating LARGE meals, not exercising and drinking a fair bit on the weekends. I gained right up to 121 lbs my highest being at Christmas. Since then I've lost a bit back due to less alcohol and more exercising and now I'm at around 119 lbs.

It's disheartened me a bit to see people who've been on NoS as long as I have lose ten pounds or more. I'm pretty much back where I started. What if this is my 'happy' weight? My ideal weight is around 110 lbs but what if I never reach that through sensible eating???

User avatar
fkwan
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: middle of nowhere, Texas

Re: have I reached my 'happy' weight???

Post by fkwan » Thu May 29, 2008 4:55 pm

babyprrr wrote:This is my story and it's rather long...

I started NoS in March 07 and loved it because it gave me freedom from worrying about food and I had a history of not eating at all/eating a LOT. But even staying within the limits of NoS, I've yo-yo-ed a lot. First I lost about five pounds to go from 120 lbs to 115 ( I'm 5'3"). Then I went on vacation and gained back six ( everyday was an S day on vacation). Then I came home and exercised regularly so lost about six/seven again down to 113 lbs.

Then after summer break I went back to college, where I kinda abused NoS by eating LARGE meals, not exercising and drinking a fair bit on the weekends. I gained right up to 121 lbs my highest being at Christmas. Since then I've lost a bit back due to less alcohol and more exercising and now I'm at around 119 lbs.

It's disheartened me a bit to see people who've been on NoS as long as I have lose ten pounds or more. I'm pretty much back where I started. What if this is my 'happy' weight? My ideal weight is around 110 lbs but what if I never reach that through sensible eating???
My "happy weight" was 113 pounds. :) Now I'm at 105.

People who have lost a lot of weight have wonderful metabolism.

Most people don't.

119 pounds is only 9 little pounds. If you exercise normally and don't abuse S days the weight will come off. The thing is when you reach your ideal weight you still have to watch yourself or else you will gain it back. That means, no more bingeing at Christmas or scarfing at college. :(

This is also why I want to lose 5 more pounds than I should in order to have a "cushion" and not have to worry about regaining so much. :)

f
One must know his limitations. -- John Milius
Beginning weight: 115
Currently: Haven't a clue

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Thu May 29, 2008 4:57 pm

Bummer, Babyprrr,
but you know, bottom line is you have to eat less to weigh less.
Three meals a day is fine, and sweets on weekends and special days is fine,
but if you eat the same or more calories than you burn,
you're not going to lose weight.

For a woman 5'3", over 135 is overweight, and below 105 is underweight.

Unless you are very small-boned,
you will probably have to continually restrict calories
and exercise a great deal to get to 110 lbs and stay there.

You can do that with No S, by eating small amounts of low-calorie foods,
or you can do it with some other diet, by eating small amounts of low-calorie foods.

My opinion is based on what I know about calories and exercise,
my experience with others, and my own experience.

I am a medium boned 63 year old woman 5'0",
and for me over 128 is overweight, and below 95 is underweight.

For the past two years,
I've been exercising for about an hour every day,
and have been eating approx 1400 average daily calories,
and I still have not been able to drop my weight down to 105
and keep it there for more than a couple of days at at time.
At this point, I'd also love to get to 110 and stay there.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

User avatar
fkwan
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: middle of nowhere, Texas

Post by fkwan » Thu May 29, 2008 5:07 pm

BrightAngel wrote:For the past two years,
I've been exercising for about an hour every day,
and have been eating approx 1400 average daily calories,
and I still have not been able to drop my weight down to 105
and keep it there for more than a couple of days at at time.
At this point, I'd also love to get to 110 and stay there.[/color]
Now it's my turn to trade depressing diet facts. :)

I can't lose weight unless I'm 1200 calories or below. Conventional wisdom says ideal calorie intake is add a zero to your ideal weight, thus mine would be between 950-1000 and yours would be 1050-1100, allowing for a depressing 250 calorie or so loss via exercise.

I forgot to mention that I'm hypothyroid. If you haven't had your thyroid checked, it's worth looking into.

f
One must know his limitations. -- John Milius
Beginning weight: 115
Currently: Haven't a clue

babyprrr
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:53 pm

Post by babyprrr » Thu May 29, 2008 5:17 pm

fkwan wrote:
BrightAngel wrote:For the past two years,
I've been exercising for about an hour every day,
and have been eating approx 1400 average daily calories,
and I still have not been able to drop my weight down to 105
and keep it there for more than a couple of days at at time.
At this point, I'd also love to get to 110 and stay there.[/color]
Now it's my turn to trade depressing diet facts. :)

I can't lose weight unless I'm 1200 calories or below. Conventional wisdom says ideal calorie intake is add a zero to your ideal weight, thus mine would be between 950-1000 and yours would be 1050-1100, allowing for a depressing 250 calorie or so loss via exercise.

I forgot to mention that I'm hypothyroid. If you haven't had your thyroid checked, it's worth looking into.

f
if you don't mind me asking...how tall are you??? I would LOVE to be 105! Broken my toe recently as well so exercise is off limits for the time being
:(

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Thu May 29, 2008 5:23 pm

so what is "happy weight" is this a "good" weight you don't have to struggle and be obssesive, rigid, or self-hating, to maintain :D?

Is this a weight where you can be happy, carefree and ENJOY life :D ?

Just wondering.

Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

CatholicCajun
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:32 pm
Location: along the beautiful bayous of south Louisiana

Post by CatholicCajun » Thu May 29, 2008 5:40 pm

My happy weight? To weigh what babyprrr and fkwan weighs, heck I would not even mind weighing in at my preganancy weight (30 years ago!) :lol:
Je'sus, j'Ai Confiance dans Vous

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Thu May 29, 2008 5:47 pm

babyprrr wrote:
fkwan wrote: Now it's my turn to trade depressing diet facts. :)

I can't lose weight unless I'm 1200 calories or below. Conventional wisdom says ideal calorie intake is add a zero to your ideal weight, thus mine would be between 950-1000 and yours would be 1050-1100, allowing for a depressing 250 calorie or so loss via exercise.

I forgot to mention that I'm hypothyroid. If you haven't had your thyroid checked, it's worth looking into.

f
if you don't mind me asking...how tall are you??? I would LOVE to be 105!
Broken my toe recently as well so exercise is off limits for the time being
:(
Taking the liberty for answering for fkwan,
though she will probably do her own answering.
I believe she is 5'0", the same as me...
except I think she said that she's small boned, while I am medium boned
.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

wirerat123
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 1:30 am

Post by wirerat123 » Thu May 29, 2008 5:54 pm

Hey, Ignore all those charts and such that say you should be at this weight, this body fat percentage, etc etc etc. Those things are created on an average. and that weight may not be exactly what is ideal for your body.

I bet at 5'3" 115 lbs you look fantastic. Maybe not what the tv commercials and magazines show as "Beautiful". But I'd be willing to bet you are. My physical therapist is 5'3" and about 125 and I think she is a serious hottie.

Just stick to the plan and stay healthy. Everyone is going to yoyo, there is nothing that anyone can do to keep from it. Just keep doing what you are doing and maintain a good healthy weight. Don't stray except on very special occasions such as Thanksgiving and Christmas, and be sensible the rest of the time, and I bet you'll stay pretty close to where you are at. Don't be overly critical. I don't know your body type, but I bet you look great at your current weight.
SW = 205
CW = 178
TW = 165

NoS is working for me!

User avatar
fkwan
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: middle of nowhere, Texas

Post by fkwan » Thu May 29, 2008 5:54 pm

Yup, BP, I'm 5'0", just like Bright Angel.

I also got run over 17 years ago and spent about a year and a half in a wheelchair, so I know what it's like to break something.

Even so, I joined a "gimp gym" for wheelchair athletes and did weight training and laps every day in the chair. :) I weighed about 132 pounds then. I didn't lose the weight until after my rehab was over.

Recovering from an injury is NOT a time to diet. :)

f
One must know his limitations. -- John Milius
Beginning weight: 115
Currently: Haven't a clue

Dawn
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: So Cal

Post by Dawn » Thu May 29, 2008 7:10 pm

I think what you are talking about is more of a fluctuation rather than yo-yoing. I don't know if it’s realistic to think that once you get to your "happy" weight that there will be no fluctuating. Maybe you should give yourself a "happy" range. That way you have the freedom of going a bit crazy now and then, but not so much that you can't undo the damage in a short amount of time. For your size maybe like 4 pounds. I am 5'9" and currently 160ish (crappy scale!) and I would love to see 150 as my average weight, so I think I will set my "happy" range at 148-153.
Dawn

CatholicCajun
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:32 pm
Location: along the beautiful bayous of south Louisiana

Post by CatholicCajun » Thu May 29, 2008 9:34 pm

Dawn wrote:I think what you are talking about is more of a fluctuation rather than yo-yoing. I don't know if it’s realistic to think that once you get to your "happy" weight that there will be no fluctuating. Maybe you should give yourself a "happy" range. That way you have the freedom of going a bit crazy now and then, but not so much that you can't undo the damage in a short amount of time. For your size maybe like 4 pounds. I am 5'9" and currently 160ish (crappy scale!) and I would love to see 150 as my average weight, so I think I will set my "happy" range at 148-153.
Great idea Dawn! When I was in TOPS and you reached your goal and made KOPS you were allowed a 7 pound lee-way, gain no more than 7 and lose no more than 7! God Bless.
Je'sus, j'Ai Confiance dans Vous

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Thu May 29, 2008 10:11 pm

If you look at the little graphic in my signature
you can see that I have a 10 lb acceptable maintenance range,
and my goal is to keep my weight inside those blue and green areas.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

kccc
Posts: 3956
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Thu May 29, 2008 11:37 pm

A range is much smarter. You have natural fluctuations. Reinhard's scale story demonstrates that!

And "happy weight" is as much an attitude as a number. From an earlier post of mine...
But it is important to accept "where you are." I was thinking about that just this morning... I have spent most of my adult life in a healthy BMI range, with the exception of the early 20's wake-up call that I was heading into obesity and the period immediately following pregnancy (and that's excused). Within that range, my weight has been within a 10 pound range 80% of the time, I'd say.

And I've never been happy with it. My "ideal weight," in my head, has always been "five pounds less than I am now" - NO MATTER WHAT I WEIGHED. Even for a few months when I was well below the usual 10 pound range.

What woke me up to that is looking at pictures recently. There were a couple taken about a year ago where I was about 5 lbs less than I am now, and I thought "Man, I look great in those! I wish I weighed that now." And then I remembered how I felt when they were taken... which was "If I could only lose 5 lbs, I'd look pretty good!"

Sheesh.
I've been thinking about that of late... it strikes me as very self-defeating.

Noel said, on another post, something to the effect that she was going to exercise and follow No-S, and accept over time that her body would find it's ideal weight. I think that's tremendously wise.

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Fri May 30, 2008 2:31 am

Noel said, on another post, something to the effect that she was going to exercise and follow No-S, and accept over time that her body would find it's ideal weight.
KCCC,

that is my plan too. People have asked me what my ideal weight is... to be truthful I don't reallly know.

I suspect if I continue with NO S and my workouts my body will find it's own equilibrium and fortunately I am at a point in life where I will be glad to accept WHATEVER that is.

Sometimes when I was binging I would tell my husband, you know it is not so much the weight as it is this crazy out of control feeling. If I didn't have that I would be ok.

That is pretty much what I am finding as I continue on NO S. I am so releived to be free of all the gnarly emotions that go with binging I don't really care where my body settles. I mean I am curious but I don't really know where it should be or will be,

Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5814
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Fri May 30, 2008 3:56 am

Eat moderately. Move moderately. See what happens.

That's your "ideal" weight.

My guess is that most people will actually wind up weighing a lot less following this rule than by striving for some semi-arbitrary number based on crude metrics like BMI. And they'll certainly wind up feeling a lot better about themselves.

Reinhard

Betty
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:58 pm
Location: London

Post by Betty » Fri May 30, 2008 7:30 am

I want to echo what other people have already said. I an 5'3 and when I was in college I ate whatever I wanted and "yo-yoed" between 120 and 113 pounds and I was never satisfied. I wanted to be 110 too! I looked in the mirror and saw myself as a blimp.

When I look back at photos of those days, the 120 lb girl I see is so fit, so beautiful, that I want to shake her and say: Enjoy! Live! Accept yourself!

Now, at 46, I'm heavier than I've ever been (almost 140, eeks). And I *still* think of myself as a blimp. The good news is, however, that sometimes I see myself in the mirror and I say "hey, you look pretty good." Funny, huh?

So please, for the ghost of my youth: keep up with No S, exercise, and Enjoy! Live! Accept yourself!

Betty

CatholicCajun
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:32 pm
Location: along the beautiful bayous of south Louisiana

Post by CatholicCajun » Fri May 30, 2008 2:44 pm

[quote="Betty"
Now, at 46, I'm heavier than I've ever been (almost 140, eeks). And I *still* think of myself as a blimp.

Betty[/quote]

What you wrote rang a note with me, when I was in TOPS I lost over 90 pounds, and managed over the years to put all of back plus more, but what was strange is that when I was at my goal I would still walk into clothing stores and automatically go to the plus size clothes, I just neve saw myself for the new size I was, in my mind I was still big. When I am at goal once again in my life, I will be conscious of my weight and size and not try to think of myself as bigger nor wish I was smaller. God bless.
Je'sus, j'Ai Confiance dans Vous

User avatar
bonnieUK
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:37 pm
Location: Near London, UK

Post by bonnieUK » Fri May 30, 2008 4:04 pm

wow, there are certainly some light ladies doing NO S :)

I'm 5'6 and while not at all scientific or organised about weighing myself, have a fancy scale that keeps track of things for me.

Yesterday I discovered that since doing No S I've gone from 58kgs to 54kgs, or 127lbs to 119lbs if you prefer. I'm almost at my "happy weight" which I think is around 53 kgs (116lbs), or the weight I was quite happily for several years until the office job lifestyle caught up with me :)

But as Reinhard says, it's better to focus on good habits rather than a specific goal weight, so I'm just going to keep No S ing and see what happens :)

p.s. today was a bit of a failure though LOL mainly due to a social buffet lunch in which the only vegan option for me to eat were sweet cakey things, not the healthiest of lunches, but at least I didn't snack too I guess :D

CatholicCajun
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:32 pm
Location: along the beautiful bayous of south Louisiana

Post by CatholicCajun » Fri May 30, 2008 4:31 pm

Hello Bonnie! My happy weight would be to weigh what you way!!! :wink:
Je'sus, j'Ai Confiance dans Vous

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Fri May 30, 2008 4:43 pm

bonnieUK wrote:wow, there are certainly some light ladies doing NO S :)
I'm 5'6' - 119 lbs.
I'm almost at my "happy weight" which I think is around 116 lbs
Now, I say WOW.

119 lbs, going for 116 lbs at 5'6' tall, is VERY light.
You appear to be doing really, really well.
According to the charts,
for a person 5'6" tall,
overweight starts above 150 lbs,
and underweight starts below 115 lbs.

For me, at 5'0" for my size to be the equivalent of your current size,
I'd need to weigh 99 lbs,
and at my size, my equivalent of your 116 lb goal
would be for me to weigh 96 lbs.

Based on those numbers,
it looks like you and fkwan have almost exactly the same equivalent goal.

Although I want a lower weight than 116,
my equivalent weight goal is actually higher than yours.
I'd be happy at 110 lbs, but would like to weigh 107.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

kccc
Posts: 3956
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Fri May 30, 2008 6:01 pm

blueskighs wrote:
Noel said, on another post, something to the effect that she was going to exercise and follow No-S, and accept over time that her body would find it's ideal weight.
KCCC,

that is my plan too. People have asked me what my ideal weight is... to be truthful I don't reallly know.

I suspect if I continue with NO S and my workouts my body will find it's own equilibrium and fortunately I am at a point in life where I will be glad to accept WHATEVER that is.

Sometimes when I was binging I would tell my husband, you know it is not so much the weight as it is this crazy out of control feeling. If I didn't have that I would be ok.

That is pretty much what I am finding as I continue on NO S. I am so releived to be free of all the gnarly emotions that go with binging I don't really care where my body settles. I mean I am curious but I don't really know where it should be or will be,

Blueskighs
Yes, I feel that way too. I am so relieved by how SANE this feels that the numbers really are becoming secondary. Like Reinhard says, "see what happens." At this point, I DO trust that staying on habit will allow my body to be the size that's right - even if it's not what exactly I'd envisioned for myself over the years ("just 5 more pounds...").

And like a new convert, I zealously want to encourage everyone else to stop obsessing about numbers too... but of course, it's not my job to direct other people's journeys. :) It certainly took me long enough to figure that much out for myself, long past when I thought I already had.

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Fri May 30, 2008 9:07 pm

There seem to be two "happy" weights: one where your body is happy; another where your brain is.

I'm more than happy to let my body decide where my "happy" weight is. By the way, I'm also 5'3" and my body is happy between 120-125. Definitely no lower than 120.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

User avatar
bonnieUK
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:37 pm
Location: Near London, UK

Post by bonnieUK » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:41 am

BrightAngel wrote:119 lbs, going for 116 lbs at 5'6' tall, is VERY light.
You appear to be doing really, really well.
According to the charts,
for a person 5'6" tall,
overweight starts above 150 lbs,
and underweight starts below 115 lbs.
[/color]
Thanks for that info, quite encouraging :) I'm quite light framed (tiny hands and feet etc.) so what's right for me weight wise may differ from someone of a stronger build.

I think my next step is to build strength and muscle, so I plan to fit in some extra exercise (and stick with No S so I can lose a little more fat and generally start maintaining).

I wouldn't want to get to the underweight stage though and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, that happened to me when I was 21 after an illness and I went down to about 100lbs. I lost muscle, felt weak, had heart palpitations, bruised easily, but the worst thing was being very sensitive to cold. I regained very quickly though and was back to a "happy weight" of around 116lbs within about 6 weeks (I ate a lot of cookies & peanut butter to celebrate my regained health :lol: ).

Remy
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:31 am

Post by Remy » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:44 pm

I find the idea of a "happy weight" to be practical but also variable. My happy weight before children was 132 lbs. I am 5 ft 6 and I used to be very active pre-child, lots of high impact, high energy sports etc.

I am a very muscular build and used to have six pack abs that some of male friends envied. Now I am not nearly as active and probably should aim for less than 132 but at 50 yo I would be happy with that weight. I think my wrinkles look less wrinkly with a bit of natural fat filler!

What I find interesting is that I have tiny wrists and ankles in relation to hand and foot size. On the wrist/frame charts I am considered to have a small frame but if you saw the width of my shoulders you would think I had a large frame. I can overlap all my thumb/finger combinations around my wrist easily - even my little finger and thumb. I can also wrap my middle finger/thumb around my ankle.

Why do I mention all this. Really in response to bonnieUK. If I weighed 116 lbs I would look very, very skinny. I have never been that weight as an adult. But that's okay. It just proves, yet again, that we are all different.

I think that sometimes we get hung up on a number and base our worth as a person on that number. It may or may not be the right number for us. I think a range like some people have mentioned is a great idea, as is the "happy weight". I have decided my 'happy range" is going to be 130 to 136 and I will be very happy at any of those numbers. And actually not that unhappy at something a bit above!

User avatar
FarmerHal
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:54 pm

Post by FarmerHal » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:58 pm

reinhard wrote:Eat moderately. Move moderately. See what happens.

That's your "ideal" weight.

My guess is that most people will actually wind up weighing a lot less following this rule than by striving for some semi-arbitrary number based on crude metrics like BMI. And they'll certainly wind up feeling a lot better about themselves.

Reinhard
Do we have a heart smiley?? Mmmmwaah! The sensible voice of Reinhard arrives.

Although I do watch the scale, I use the mirror to guage whether or not I should keep worrying about losing weight. At the moment it's more than obvious that I need to keep losing. Scale says 214 lbs. I really need to tighten up now and drop 15 so I can get to 199. And then hopefully never see the 2's again!! (noser for life!)

It is hard not to obsess about a number. The "healthy range" for my height, I think the highest number is 169 and that's a LONG way off. Long way. But my ultimate goal at this point is 180 and from there, anythings a bonus.
:)
{FarmerHal} ...previously Shamrockmommy...
Vanilla NoS... Making good habits.
Restart 12/2015, size 22
3/2016 size 18
1/2018 size 18

MissyMoo
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 2:41 pm

Post by MissyMoo » Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:14 pm

Remy wrote:I think my wrinkles look less wrinkly with a bit of natural fat filler!

Amen to that. Have you seen some of these actresses who get into their forties and still try to keep the same low, low weight (Courteney Cox comes to mind). Their faces can get positively gaunt. My brother-in-law likes to say, "After a certain age, you have to choose between your face and your ass." (excuse the potty mouth).

:lol:

User avatar
bonnieUK
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:37 pm
Location: Near London, UK

Post by bonnieUK » Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:12 pm

Remy wrote:I have never been that weight as an adult. But that's okay. It just proves, yet again, that we are all different
Definitely true! Not only do people have different types of body frames, but also different people distribute their weight differently around their bodies, I never gain any weight on my arms and legs, much to my annoyance, it all goes around the middle. I have a friend who is the opposite, we often joke that we'd like to swap. But I'd trade in my skinny legs for her flat belly any day! I guess the grass is often greener :)

User avatar
Mavilu
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: California

Post by Mavilu » Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:40 am

MissyMoo wrote: My brother-in-law likes to say, "After a certain age, you have to choose between your face and your ass." (excuse the potty mouth).

:lol:
That is a great quote.

StrawberryRoan
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:39 pm
Location: United States

Post by StrawberryRoan » Tue May 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Don't even know if this old thread will pull up or not but I have been reading the archives.

I am 5 foot 4 or five and charts say I should weigh 120/125 or so.

I am small/medium boned but I have exercised my entire life so I have quite a bit of muscle weight.

I am sixty years old and the absolute lowest I can weigh and look "healthy" is 138. I weighed that last Thanksgiving (I remember the date because of photos. In a black pantsuit, even I thought I looked a bit ill.)

As we age, weight loss is more likely to appear in our face/neck area and is very aging (as well as our hands, some I have seen look like chicken claws).

That said, the charts are nice to go by but each person needs to find their "happy" place.

Mine would be 135 as far as jeans, 140 as far as how the rest of my body looks.

Right now I am 145 so I have a little way to go (again).

:roll:

vmelo
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:54 am

Post by vmelo » Tue May 26, 2009 4:58 pm

StrawberryRoan wrote:Don't even know if this old thread will pull up or not but I have been reading the archives.

I am 5 foot 4 or five and charts say I should weigh 120/125 or so.

I am small/medium boned but I have exercised my entire life so I have quite a bit of muscle weight.

I am sixty years old and the absolute lowest I can weigh and look "healthy" is 138. I weighed that last Thanksgiving (I remember the date because of photos. In a black pantsuit, even I thought I looked a bit ill.)

As we age, weight loss is more likely to appear in our face/neck area and is very aging (as well as our hands, some I have seen look like chicken claws).

That said, the charts are nice to go by but each person needs to find their "happy" place.

Mine would be 135 as far as jeans, 140 as far as how the rest of my body looks.

Right now I am 145 so I have a little way to go (again).

:roll:

Boy, am I glad you posted. I'm seeing all the numbers in the teens and twenties and thinking that I'm a whale by comparison. I'm 5 ft 3 and weigh 168. Obviously, that's unacceptable. However, I'd be MORE than satisfied if I could get to 135. That seems to be a weight that, in the past, I could still look good at and enjoy life. Anything below 135, and I feel I really have to struggle and deprive myself, and that's self-defeating in the end.

Honestly, though, I plan to do what KCCC mentioned: Stay on plan and just see what happens with my body. Of course, if I found that this was not putting me below 150, I'd probably have to rethink that since I think 150 is a bit much for my height.

To the OP: I agree with what one of the other women on this thread said about appreciating where you are right now. I know it seems impossible, but believe me, you'll look back on your pictures from today one day and realize how gorgeous you are!

Post Reply