Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 se, I don't have a picture to attach, but I'm 5'8 and bouncing in the 160's so I'll say I'm at 165 for a good average, I've been as low as 160 but have regained a few pounds due to poor eating habits on my part. At 165, I wear a size 12 jeans comfortably and can fit in a 10. At 160 I fit in a 10 nicely and can even get on an 8 but I can't breathe or move LOL! so maybe that will help? I carry my weight in my apron area. I have scrawny legs and no butt at all (oh Mother I am so ready for my Butt-be-back to kick in LOL!). If I was more evenly distributed or could afford to have the apron removed I could probably fit an 8 jeans right now. I personally would like to see 150 but if I can maintain where I'm at, I'm happy. Throw in some plastic surgery for the tummy, arms and thighs and give me some boobs and I'd be ecstatc LOL! Take care, e VBG 9/30/97 RNY 5/22/00 > My original goal was 145 (I am 5'7 " , 36). I have been working toward that > goal since my surgery (and before that when I tried every single diet out > there this was always my goal). Well, my surgeon says that my goal should be > 170! He has mentioned this before but I ignored him -- but this time, he > seemed pretty adamant that 170 would be the right number for me. But how can > that be? 170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave me > " prone to health risks! " I do not want to be prone to health risks -- not > after all this! > > But... of course, on the other hand, the thought of just being 26 pounds from > my goal weight is well positively alluring. What do you guys think? And, > not to be rude, but if you are at 170 and 5'7 " would you send me your picture > -- cause not to be an idiot, but I don't have the foggiest clue what that > looks like on a person! Is that " fat " looking? Normal looking? Chubby?? > > > > se > Open RNY 11/22/99 > Dr. Sweet > Reading, PA > Now living in Baltimore, land > > 11/22/99 324, BMI 51 > 12/6/99 301, BMI 47 > 1/27/00 280, BMI 44 > 2/22/00 270, BMI 42 > 3/16/00 262, BMI 41 > 5/31/00 244, BMI 38 (no longer extremely obese... just plain obese) > 7/22/00 224, BMI 35 > 9/23/00 220, BMI 34 (and still obese) > 10/16/00 216, BMI 34 > 11/7/00 210, BMI 33 (65 pounds from goal!!!) > 5/8/01 196, BMI 31 (how can this still be obese?) > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 I'd send you my pic, but you'd have to imagine on an extra 6 " of legs. Would that help? Thanks, www.vitalady.com https://secure.paypal.com/affil/pal=vitalady%40bigfoot.com Goal Weight Question > My original goal was 145 (I am 5'7 " , 36). I have been working toward that > goal since my surgery (and before that when I tried every single diet out > there this was always my goal). Well, my surgeon says that my goal should be > 170! He has mentioned this before but I ignored him -- but this time, he > seemed pretty adamant that 170 would be the right number for me. But how can > that be? 170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave me > " prone to health risks! " I do not want to be prone to health risks -- not > after all this! > > But... of course, on the other hand, the thought of just being 26 pounds from > my goal weight is well positively alluring. What do you guys think? And, > not to be rude, but if you are at 170 and 5'7 " would you send me your picture > -- cause not to be an idiot, but I don't have the foggiest clue what that > looks like on a person! Is that " fat " looking? Normal looking? Chubby?? > > > > se > Open RNY 11/22/99 > Dr. Sweet > Reading, PA > Now living in Baltimore, land > > 11/22/99 324, BMI 51 > 12/6/99 301, BMI 47 > 1/27/00 280, BMI 44 > 2/22/00 270, BMI 42 > 3/16/00 262, BMI 41 > 5/31/00 244, BMI 38 (no longer extremely obese... just plain obese) > 7/22/00 224, BMI 35 > 9/23/00 220, BMI 34 (and still obese) > 10/16/00 216, BMI 34 > 11/7/00 210, BMI 33 (65 pounds from goal!!!) > 5/8/01 196, BMI 31 (how can this still be obese?) > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 <<170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave me " prone to health risks! " I do not want to be prone to health risks -- not after all this!>> se- I've heard that because of carrying so much extra weight for a long time, our bones are denser than most. Therefore, we naturally will weigh a bit more than someone the exact same size as us. Also factor in extra weight if you have been building muscle, but without being any larger. So it would seem that the BMI chart is not completely accurate in determining our risk level. I would think that a 27 would be a safe bet for most of us. What needs to be determined is if you will be happy at that weight. Only time will tell! I'm aiming for 150 and I'm 5' 5 " . Before ever gaining weight I was about a size 14-16 at that weight. I'm estimating that this time around I'll be a size 12 or less at that weight! I'm already in a 16 and weigh 167 now. So it is different! A. in Indy SRVG on 4-11-00 Dr. Huse St. 's Carmel, IN Pre-op BMI 47, Pre-op Weight 278 lbs. As of 4-30-01, -111 lbs. and weighing in at 167! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 In a message dated 5/8/01 10:51:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, auntyb123@... writes: > > > > > > <<170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave > me " prone to health risks! " I do not want to be prone to health risks -- > not after all this!>> > > > se- I've heard that because of carrying so much extra weight for a > long > time, our bones are denser than most. Therefore, we naturally will weigh a > bit more than someone the exact same size as us. Also factor in extra > weight > if you have been building muscle, but without being any larger. So it would > seem that the BMI chart is not completely accurate in determining our risk > level. I would think that a 27 would be a safe bet for most of us. What > needs to be determined is if you will be happy at that weight. Only time > will tell! I'm aiming for 150 and I'm 5' 5 " . Before ever gaining weight I > was about a size 14-16 at that weight. I'm estimating that this time around > I'll be a size 12 or less at that weight! I'm already in a 16 and weigh 167 > now. So it is different! > > A. in Indy > SRVG on 4-11-00 > Dr. Huse > St. 's Carmel, IN > Pre-op BMI 47, Pre-op Weight 278 lbs. > As of 4-30-01, Dear , You are so lucky to have a " before " idea in your head to shoot for -- I don't. Last time I weighed under 200, I was in middle school! And I am sure I haven't been 145 since I was in elementary school. It is so difficult to know, therefore, where " right is. " I am so hoping someone out there is my height and is around 170 and can shwo me what that looks like -- I would so much like to just be 26 pounds from goal... I am sorta ready for the ride to be over... se Open RNY 11/22/99 Dr. Sweet Reading, PA Now living in Baltimore, land 11/22/99 324, BMI 51 12/6/99 301, BMI 47 1/27/00 280, BMI 44 2/22/00 270, BMI 42 3/16/00 262, BMI 41 5/31/00 244, BMI 38 (no longer extremely obese... just plain obese) 7/22/00 224, BMI 35 9/23/00 220, BMI 34 (and still obese) 10/16/00 216, BMI 34 11/7/00 210, BMI 33 (65 pounds from goal!!!) 5/8/01 196, BMI 31 (how can this still be obese?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 Our bones WERE denser. After WLS and lots of weight loss, we have definitely lost bone mass. The question is whether we've lost just a little or WAY too much. Thanks, www.vitalady.com https://secure.paypal.com/affil/pal=vitalady%40bigfoot.com > In a message dated 5/8/01 10:51:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > auntyb123@... writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave > > me " prone to health risks! " I do not want to be prone to health risks -- > > not after all this!>> > > > > > > se- I've heard that because of carrying so much extra weight for a > > long > > time, our bones are denser than most. Therefore, we naturally will weigh a > > bit more than someone the exact same size as us. Also factor in extra > > weight > > if you have been building muscle, but without being any larger. So it would > > seem that the BMI chart is not completely accurate in determining our risk > > level. I would think that a 27 would be a safe bet for most of us. What > > needs to be determined is if you will be happy at that weight. Only time > > will tell! I'm aiming for 150 and I'm 5' 5 " . Before ever gaining weight I > > was about a size 14-16 at that weight. I'm estimating that this time around > > I'll be a size 12 or less at that weight! I'm already in a 16 and weigh 167 > > now. So it is different! > > > > A. in Indy > > SRVG on 4-11-00 > > Dr. Huse > > St. 's Carmel, IN > > Pre-op BMI 47, Pre-op Weight 278 lbs. > > As of 4-30-01, > > > Dear , > > You are so lucky to have a " before " idea in your head to shoot for -- I > don't. Last time I weighed under 200, I was in middle school! And I am sure > I haven't been 145 since I was in elementary school. It is so difficult to > know, therefore, where " right is. " I am so hoping someone out there is my > height and is around 170 and can shwo me what that looks like -- I would so > much like to just be 26 pounds from goal... I am sorta ready for the ride to > be over... > > > > se > Open RNY 11/22/99 > Dr. Sweet > Reading, PA > Now living in Baltimore, land > > 11/22/99 324, BMI 51 > 12/6/99 301, BMI 47 > 1/27/00 280, BMI 44 > 2/22/00 270, BMI 42 > 3/16/00 262, BMI 41 > 5/31/00 244, BMI 38 (no longer extremely obese... just plain obese) > 7/22/00 224, BMI 35 > 9/23/00 220, BMI 34 (and still obese) > 10/16/00 216, BMI 34 > 11/7/00 210, BMI 33 (65 pounds from goal!!!) > 5/8/01 196, BMI 31 (how can this still be obese?) > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 ******************* > > <<170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave > > me " prone to health risks! " I do not want to be prone to health risks -- > > not after all this!>> ******************* se, I am 5'6 " and weigh 195. I wear a size 16/18 (depending on make) of jeans. When I asked my doc about goal weights he told me that I needed to get down to between 170 to 180 and that he would be just as happy at 190! I was suprised to say the least! I (of course) asked why? He said " Well, you REALLY do have BIG BONES. And you have a good bit of muscle on top of them. " He told me that if I got down to 160 that I would look ill and at 140 I would look like the walking dead. The charts say I should be at about 130 to 140, so I quit worrying about the charts and started looking at myself and listening to my doc. Yes, I still need to lose another 20 lbs in my estimation, but I'm not to darned bad right now. Now, I wear a size 9 WW shoe and a size 8 1/2 ring. My hands are large and my bones don't EVEN look like my petite friends. They just look so dinky compared to mine. I feel like an Amazon sometimes, but it's not anything that I can change, so why let it bother me? We are not all created equal....some are dinky and some are like an old raw boned bloodhound like me (including all the hanging extra skin!!!). So, I guess what I'm saying to you is that you don't have to believe all those charts. Listen to your doc. That's what you pay him for. Good luck and email me if you want to talk about this privately. Live, Laugh, & Love, Reba in Auburn, AL Open RNY - 1/10/00 Dr. Henry Laws - B'ham, AL 169 lbs lost! _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 se It is so difficult to know, therefore, where " right is. " I am so hoping someone out there is my height and is around 170 and can show me what that looks like -- I would so much like to just be 26 pounds from goal... I am sorta ready for the ride to be over...se se As I read your post, I am trying to understand what it is like to have never been thin, as I had thinner days before the fat days came around and now I am pretty much at goal. I am 5'8 " and I currently weigh 153. I wear a size 12, size 10 sometimes. What bothers me, however, is that you say you don't know where " right " is. se, " right " is anywhere you are, where you feel good about yourself. And a weight that looks good on me, may not be right for you. Our weight distributes differently on each of us. People think I weigh 130 pounds and I weight 153. If you saw a picture of me at 153, it would not even be a gauge of what that weight would look on you. What is important is for you to enjoy what you have accomplished so far and to forget about the numbers. That is all they are - numbers. Yes, it is a good indicator of whether or not you are losing or gaining, but the end number is just that - a number. Being as close to goal as you are - 26 pounds - and this is just my opinion, I would like to see you begin to look on the " inside " of yourself and start appreciating the qualities that you have developed as a result of being overweight for so long. Start focusing on the inside and make sure that your head is healthy - and I promise you, if you feel good about se on the inside - you will know when you are at the " right " weight. On the other hand, if you are empty, sad or depressed on the inside - you will never look good to yourself when you look into the mirror. This may be a little dramatic, but I got the feeling that you may think that those numbers " validate " us and I have not found that to be the case. We have to like what we are as a person and then the rest seems to fall into place. So, the point of this is - enjoy where you are, and look to your goal, but make it a goal where YOU feel comfortable and not exactly what the scale says you are. Congratulations on being so close - Love Janelle __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 >My original goal was 145 (I am 5'7 " , 36.......... >he seemed pretty adamant that 170 would be the right number for me. But how can that be? 170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave me " prone to health risks! " >>>>>>> what chart? who's chart? forget the chart!! at 5'4 " and 130 with a cholesterol of 135 some health quiz on AOL told me I needed to lose 15pounds and take cholesterol lowering medication!!!!!!!! in who's world? not mine!! and not even the doctors I see. when you get to 170 see how you look, how you feel and if your body is still easily losing. when it gets to be a struggle to lose many of us become quickly satisfied with where we have ended up at. as if our body knows better than we do. as for health risks - you are at risk for all sorts of health conditions whether you like that idea or not - having been obese, age, family history, genetics, environment - we have no control over all those conditions and we are at risk for all sorts of health conditions. many of us have been fed the line that we have these dense bones from carrying around our weight and yet we really never had them or quickly lost them with our rapid weight loss since a higher than norm percent have osteopenia and osteoporosis. just enjoy your new thinner body and new found health and keep striving for the best you can be - forget the charts and the quackery on the net. Sue [swVA] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2001 Report Share Posted May 9, 2001 <<After WLS and lots of weight loss, we have definitely lost bone mass. The question is whether we've lost just a little or WAY too much.>> I'm assuming you mean due to malabsorption. If not, please explain! I don't have any malabsorption....I'm VRG. And I do weight bearing exercise and take plenty of calcium citrate. A. in Indy SRVG on 4-11-00 Dr. Huse St. 's Carmel, IN Pre-op BMI 47, Pre-op Weight 278 lbs. As of 4-30-01, -111 lbs. and weighing in at 167! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2001 Report Share Posted May 10, 2001 I am 5'7 and weigh between 165-172 depending on how much water I have been drinking. I have my picture on www.obesityhelp.com if you put " Jan Carey " in the search I should come up. I wear a size 14 and everyone says I look OK, but I know I have at least 10 lbs of skin hanging. I seem to be stuck at this weight, and as long as my diabetes is gone, I am happy.... Jan C.3-11-98 RNY Goal Weight Question > " ORBSSRC HEADER [This may be spam] " >My original goal was 145 (I am 5'7 " , 36). I have been working toward that >goal since my surgery (and before that when I tried every single diet out >there this was always my goal). Well, my surgeon says that my goal should be >170! He has mentioned this before but I ignored him -- but this time, he >seemed pretty adamant that 170 would be the right number for me. But how can >that be? 170 gives me a BMI of 27 but the chart says that would leave me > " prone to health risks! " I do not want to be prone to health risks -- not >after all this! > >But... of course, on the other hand, the thought of just being 26 pounds from >my goal weight is well positively alluring. What do you guys think? And, >not to be rude, but if you are at 170 and 5'7 " would you send me your picture >-- cause not to be an idiot, but I don't have the foggiest clue what that >looks like on a person! Is that " fat " looking? Normal looking? Chubby?? > > > >se >Open RNY 11/22/99 >Dr. Sweet >Reading, PA >Now living in Baltimore, land > >11/22/99 324, BMI 51 >12/6/99 301, BMI 47 >1/27/00 280, BMI 44 >2/22/00 270, BMI 42 >3/16/00 262, BMI 41 >5/31/00 244, BMI 38 (no longer extremely obese... just plain obese) >7/22/00 224, BMI 35 >9/23/00 220, BMI 34 (and still obese) >10/16/00 216, BMI 34 >11/7/00 210, BMI 33 (65 pounds from goal!!!) >5/8/01 196, BMI 31 (how can this still be obese?) > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2001 Report Share Posted May 11, 2001 In a message dated 05/11/2001 4:57:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, auntyb123@... writes: > I'm assuming you mean due to malabsorption. If not, please explain! I don't > have any malabsorption....I'm VRG. And I do weight bearing exercise and take > > plenty of calcium citrate. > > A. in Indy I can't speak for , but yes mirco malabsorption is a factor in the case of a RNY or other bariatric surgery that bypasses the duodenum . . . BUT anyone that loses a huge amount of their daily weight bearing load is going to lose both bone and muscle mass. Exercise cannot prevent that from occurring, it can minimize, just not completely prevent. The fact is at lower weights our bodies don't need the same muscles or bones just to function. ) Vicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2001 Report Share Posted May 11, 2001 Vicki covered it. Even if you still have all the necessary equipment in working order, " vat of acid " , full intestine, you're still losing bone mass with the fat & muscle. I WISH the wt loss was really specific, you know, in my case 100# off the tummy, take the 50# evenly everywhere else? But no, it takes fat, bone, muscle and in the order it decides. So, our job is to pump the protein into the muscles, pump the calcium into the bones and HOPE that it is the FATTY tissue that we lose. Thanks, www.vitalady.com https://secure.paypal.com/affil/pal=vitalady%40bigfoot.com Re: Goal Weight Question > <<After WLS and lots of weight loss, we have > definitely lost bone mass. The question is whether we've lost just a > little or WAY too much.>> > > I'm assuming you mean due to malabsorption. If not, please explain! I don't > have any malabsorption....I'm VRG. And I do weight bearing exercise and take > plenty of calcium citrate. > > A. in Indy > SRVG on 4-11-00 > Dr. Huse > St. 's Carmel, IN > Pre-op BMI 47, Pre-op Weight 278 lbs. > As of 4-30-01, -111 lbs. and weighing in at 167! > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > 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.