Guest guest Posted June 3, 2003 Report Share Posted June 3, 2003 In a message dated 6/2/03 9:09:23 PM Central Daylight Time, weightlossbuddies2 writes: > What do you guys think about " ideal weights " ? Total BS. Well, maybe not completely, but they are definitely a guideline and not a mandate. There are just so many factors involved even down to the density of your bones. I reached my " ideal " weight once. I was cold all the time and could not maintain it. I felt much better and maintained much better when I weighed 15 to 20 pounds more. " ... inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened. " Terry Pratchett My Craft Page <A HREF= " http://hometown.aol.com/taufling/index.html " >http://hometown.aol.com/taufl\ ing/index.html</A> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Barb, As I said in our " other group " :-) I know I can never be what the charts say. Same thing, I'm told my lean muscle mass is in the 130s and I believe you would add 20-30 lbs to that so I think 169 is very realistic for you. I think it is most important to look at all the numbers, cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar, waist and hip measurements and what you see in the mirror. I just want to be in normal sizes and be healthy. I don't care what something else says is " ideal " . Gena > Someone else (another list) posted that she will > probably never be the weight that is considered to be > ehr " ideal " weight due to bone structure, etc. > > > I don't think I will ever be what is considered to be > my ideal weight. I have very heavy bones and am > muscular in build. I just weigh heavy. No one can > tell I am over 200 - they all think like 175 or > something - Doctors always put the weight at 150 and > start sliding - and I sigh. Then they move it to 200 > and register surprise. It happens to me all the time. > > So that is why I am tentatively shooting for 169 - > then I will reevaluate. But I don't think I could > ever get to 120 or something. > > I was told after a body fat test that my lean body > mass weighs 137. So if you add the correct body fat > percentage to that, (I forgot what it should be for my > age) then obviously I could never weigh less than 137 > and even 137 would be unrealistic because it would > mean I would be muscle, organs and bones, with no skin > or fat. (LOL!) > > What do you guys think about " ideal weights " ? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Barb, As I said in our " other group " :-) I know I can never be what the charts say. Same thing, I'm told my lean muscle mass is in the 130s and I believe you would add 20-30 lbs to that so I think 169 is very realistic for you. I think it is most important to look at all the numbers, cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar, waist and hip measurements and what you see in the mirror. I just want to be in normal sizes and be healthy. I don't care what something else says is " ideal " . Gena > Someone else (another list) posted that she will > probably never be the weight that is considered to be > ehr " ideal " weight due to bone structure, etc. > > > I don't think I will ever be what is considered to be > my ideal weight. I have very heavy bones and am > muscular in build. I just weigh heavy. No one can > tell I am over 200 - they all think like 175 or > something - Doctors always put the weight at 150 and > start sliding - and I sigh. Then they move it to 200 > and register surprise. It happens to me all the time. > > So that is why I am tentatively shooting for 169 - > then I will reevaluate. But I don't think I could > ever get to 120 or something. > > I was told after a body fat test that my lean body > mass weighs 137. So if you add the correct body fat > percentage to that, (I forgot what it should be for my > age) then obviously I could never weigh less than 137 > and even 137 would be unrealistic because it would > mean I would be muscle, organs and bones, with no skin > or fat. (LOL!) > > What do you guys think about " ideal weights " ? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Barb, As I said in our " other group " :-) I know I can never be what the charts say. Same thing, I'm told my lean muscle mass is in the 130s and I believe you would add 20-30 lbs to that so I think 169 is very realistic for you. I think it is most important to look at all the numbers, cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar, waist and hip measurements and what you see in the mirror. I just want to be in normal sizes and be healthy. I don't care what something else says is " ideal " . Gena > Someone else (another list) posted that she will > probably never be the weight that is considered to be > ehr " ideal " weight due to bone structure, etc. > > > I don't think I will ever be what is considered to be > my ideal weight. I have very heavy bones and am > muscular in build. I just weigh heavy. No one can > tell I am over 200 - they all think like 175 or > something - Doctors always put the weight at 150 and > start sliding - and I sigh. Then they move it to 200 > and register surprise. It happens to me all the time. > > So that is why I am tentatively shooting for 169 - > then I will reevaluate. But I don't think I could > ever get to 120 or something. > > I was told after a body fat test that my lean body > mass weighs 137. So if you add the correct body fat > percentage to that, (I forgot what it should be for my > age) then obviously I could never weigh less than 137 > and even 137 would be unrealistic because it would > mean I would be muscle, organs and bones, with no skin > or fat. (LOL!) > > What do you guys think about " ideal weights " ? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.