Maintenance Weekly 19th June 2006 - Picking a Goal Weight

[Mitra]

A lot of people pick a goal weight at the start of their weight loss, but if you have a lot to lose, if you gain muscle along the way by exercising, or if it's been a long time since you were slim, you may well have to revise your goals (up or down) along the way. We can be torn between giving up too soon, and keeping too much fat, getting carried away and going too far, or never being happy because we pick a number that's too hard to get to, or too hard to stay at.

Was this stuff difficult for you? Did you just end up at a weight your body likes to stay at, or did you pick a number (whether size, weight or BF) and then work to stay close to it? Even if you think you'll never get there, is there a point you wouldn't want to go below?

Fashion sets one kind of goal for us, with an endless parade of skinny 20-something's, or muscular gym-rats. BMI gives a number - but a lot of people have perfectly healthy levels of fat, and don't come within the magic range. Measuring body fat gives a better indication, but it's not always easy to get an accurate reading.

My experience:
I used the 22%-28% BF range (from PPLP) in my early days to calculate a weight range from 118 to 129 (8 st 7 to 9 st 3). That was based on a 93 lb LBM, which decreased a bit in the first month, to about 90, where it's stayed ever since, so the range was adjusted to 116-126. Then I found another page that said 20-25% (113-121). BMI 20-25 gives 110-140.

After reaching 118, stabilising, then correcting for some creeping upwards, I drifted down to 110, at which point I (or was it Shadow? ;)) had to actually choose not to allow my weight down any further. I'm currently around 112/113, with BF in the low 20s. I know that's at the low end of the various ranges, and most of the time I'm perfectly happy - but there are still days when I just "feel" fat and heavy. They don't correspond with days when my weight is up a pound or two - it's just a question of feeling differently.

I don't have to watch every mouthful, but I'm conscious that my weight could go either up or down if I don't keep a bit of an eye on things. In my 20s I never thought about my weight. I'm now at about the same weight, but it does take some awareness and minor corrective tweaks to stay there. It's not just automatic (and it doesn't include the quantities of chocolate and toast that featured in my 20 year-old regimen).

[Gaelen]

Mitra, I'm actually much more a fan of the higher areas of the BF% range of healthy body weights...I've been doing quite a bit of reading in the area of mature women and body fat percentage, and some of the information is particularly disturbing regarding low body fat percentage (not abnormally low, just the very low end of the range) and bone/muscle health as we age.

Unfortunately, I do think that the 20-somethings perception of what we should be able to eat, and the endless media focus on waif-like women DOES contribute to our own perceptions of what is a healthy body weight, and body fat percentage, and that may be to our detriment as we get older and are less able to maintain skin, muscle and bone health because our hormone levels are also changing. The fact is that the incidences of osteoporosis, aging skin and low lean body mass is greater in people built like Sally Field (who is now doing commercials in the US for osteoporosis awareness) than for people built like Ricki Lake. I'm not sure I'm willing to lose bone density just to fit into a size 5 (which I could wear when I was 20...)

At 145-150 (my 26% BF based goal weight) I actually dropped weight from one of the areas where I thought I'd never lose--I needed to buy smaller bras. But while mammary tissue is often an area where there's lots of fatty tissue, I'm not sure I'd have ever gotten back to my college 34B...even at 145, I was still a solid 38C.

I look at my mom...osteoporsis, week bones, some muscle wasting even though she walks and swims regularly, all because she's insisted on dieting down to her wedding weight of around 100 lbs...shes taking all kinds of supplements, but doesn't have enough fat in her diet or enough body fat to metabolize and use them. I'm not so sure that's healthy, even if lower body fat is supposed to contribute to longevity. She's living longer...and in fear of breaking a bone, and with skin that looks older by the day. Life is full of trade-offs, but it seems there has to be a better balance than that.

[Mitra]

I chose this subject because Mitch's post about getting to his goal, then losing another 10, then another made me curious about other people's experiences, so I wasn't initially thinking in terms of the various issues related to women and their hormones, though, of course I started to wonder. I've seen statements that women unavoidably gain at menopause, that they don't have to if they eat properly (defined according to the views of the various authors), that you should allow yourself to gain about 10 lbs through your menopausal decade, that low body fat is particularly unhealthy after menopause because the fat produces some of the estrogen no longer coming from the ovaries, that moderate increases in abdominal fat are helpful in this respect, that any increase in abdominal fat is an indication of insulin resistance and a bad thing, that low bf is OK if you have plenty of muscle ... So I started looking to see what I could find in the way of scientific support for any of these views, but I must admit I haven't got very far yet. If I manage to dig anything up, it could become my topic for the June Challenge for this week.

Mitra, I'm actually much more a fan of the higher areas of the BF% range of healthy body weights...I've been doing quite a bit of reading in the area of mature women and body fat percentage, and some of the information is particularly disturbing regarding low body fat percentage (not abnormally low, just the very low end of the range) and bone/muscle health as we age.

As I said, I'm looking around to see what I can find about this stuff. If you have any references, I'd be interested.

My body fat levels by various calculators agree pretty well with my Tanita scales, but the one time I had a measurement done by calipers it was about 5% higher.

Although I did make an effort to stop my weight going up above 119, and to stop it going below 110, it's not hard for me to fall into a habit of eating just a bit more, or just a bit less, which will send my weight up or down. I've not had the courage to just let it happen and find out how big the swings are - in either direction.

At 145-150 (my 26% BF based goal weight) I actually dropped weight from one of the areas where I thought I'd never lose--I needed to buy smaller bras. But while mammary tissue is often an area where there's lots of fatty tissue, I'm not sure I'd have ever gotten back to my college 34B...even at 145, I was still a solid 38C.

This is one area where my body shape has changed. In my early 20s I was a 32/34A (at about 112 lbs). Over the years I went up to about 145 lbs and 34DD. Now I'm back at 112 lbs and 32D. I think that at 110 I was starting to see some shrinkage, but I'd have to go much lower than I'm prepared to (ie well below 20%) before I could wear an A again! For reasons that aren't clear, this never seems to feature in BF calcs, but I know from sewing pattern measurements that compared to the standard (which is supposed to be based on averages) for the closest size, I'm smaller round the rib cage, (so more of my breast measurement is fat), and have bigger hips (or smaller waist if I go for the next size up).

[Mitra]

I've had a look on PubMed, and there seem to be several studies finding that before menopause bone density correlates mainly with LBM, and after, it correlates more with body fat. (eg Ijuin et al 2002 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12468131&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum); Douchi et al, 1997 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9158078&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)) Sahin et al, 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12634942&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum) found that LBM was more important in Turkish postmenopausal women, but the average ago of their group was only 55, whereas the other studies seemed to find that the effect of BF rather than LBM was increased with a longer time after menopause, and many were using women over 60.

On that basis, it sounds as if the advice to allow yourself to gain say 10 lbs over a few years around menopause may well be sound.

This research stuff could be habit-forming! :D

I also noticed in my reading, that the risk of fractures was higher in women with lower bone densities, but while drug treatment (risedronate) or Ca+Vit D supplementation increased bone density, they didn't necessarily reduce the risk of fracture.

[Gaelen]

Those are all the right references, Mitra...I was a little tied up yesterday with insurance companies and couldn't get them uploaded, but I've been going down the same paths (mainly because my mom's continuing weight loss in the face of her osteoporosis is scaring me...) She may not believe that she needs more fat in her diet and on her body, but at least I know what to be observant about. Me, OTOH...unless I go into wasting and weight loss cascade, excess BF% is not likely to be an issue. ;)

[Mitra]

I just found another one that'll keep Shadow happy: Douchi et al 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12818463&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum):"In exercising women, BMD was positively correlated with lean body mass (r=0.415, P<0.01) but not with body fat mass (r=0.155, NS). Conversely, in sedentary controls, BMD was correlated with body fat mass (r=0.251, P<0.05) and lean body mass (r=0.228, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lean body mass is a more significant determinant of postmenopausal BMD in physically exercising women than in sedentary women."

[banshee]

When I started, I sort of had a goal weight in mind, but at the same time, my real goal was to get down to 21% body fat. (This has changed to 24%, since as you get older, apparently the amount of body fat that is healthy for a woman increases.)

However, I also had a size goal - I wanted to fit into a pair of size 10 pants. When I hit my size goal, I decided that I had reached maintenance, even though I still had a few percentage points to go to reach the body fat goal. I never came close to my "weight" goal, but since I had decided from the start that the scale weight wasn't important, that really hasn't bothered me.

Of course, recently my "few percentage points" has gone up to about 15%, since I wasn't getting an accurate reading from the measurements calculator, and I finally admitted that the number I was getting from the electrical impedence was closer to the truth, but I'm still in a size 10 pant, so I figure I'm still in "maintenance". I'm just in an "actively losing body fat" stage of maintenance! :p

But I'm happy that I "maintained" where I am for two years. If nothing else, it's shown me that I can maintain my weight without gaining, so when I do finally get rid of the last few stubborn pounds of fat, I'll know what to do to keep it there. (Of course by that time I'll probably hit menopause and all of it's problems! :rolleyes:)

[realruth]

Well for me I picked a lowish goal weight..... because I'd never been that small in all my adult life.

I did get to it and stayed there for a few months ...until menopause started to hit.........now I've gained about 10-15 lbs depending on the week.

I have noticed a size gain and if I eat soy stuff (like on holiday eating protein bars) an extra fullness in the breast for a week or two (sometimes with tenderness and pain).

But for me mainly it's the size not the number on the scale but i would like to be back down that size as I really felt better then

[cmcole]

I haven't a clue what to set for a goal weight, as all the charts still tell me that I'm overweight for my age/height.

I don't even know my percentage of body fat. I'm obviously not a good person to ask about these types of things.

Certainly, I know there are areas where I would rather have my body fat repositioned to other areas that seem to have lost it nearly completely, but I can't seem to figure out how to move it, and "spot reducing" does not work, from all the accounts I've read.

So, I'll just keep on exercising and eating right, and try not to obsess about the numbers.

[Shadow]

Was this stuff difficult for you? Did you just end up at a weight your body likes to stay at, or did you pick a number (whether size, weight or BF) and then work to stay close to it? Even if you think you'll never get there, is there a point you wouldn't want to go below?
I randomly picked 127 as I recalled feeling good at that weight. I managed to get below that by about 10 pounds and maintain it - until, like Ruth, I hit menopause :rolleyes:. Now all bets are off :p. Anyway, as I remember, my "ideal" weight, as calculated in PP was in the low 130's - 143. I figured 127 gave me a little leeway.

After reaching 118, stabilising, then correcting for some creeping upwards, I drifted down to 110, at which point I (or was it Shadow? ;)) had to actually choose not to allow my weight down any further.
Well, I'd like to think you made the decision and I was just standing by with encouragement :lol:!

I know that's at the low end of the various ranges, and most of the time I'm perfectly happy - but there are still days when I just "feel" fat and heavy.
Actually, this sort of thing has presented quite a conundrum for me :rolleyes:. I remember feeling good at 127 and being thrilled to be there. I even, for the first time ever, began to think I looked good too. Then when I got lower, I thought it was great :thumbsup:. However, now I feel "fat and frumpy" constantly - and feel worse at a lower weight than I did at a higher weight. How can that be :eek:?

And now off to catch up on all this other information here :)!

[Shadow]

But while mammary tissue is often an area where there's lots of fatty tissue, I'm not sure I'd have ever gotten back to my college 34B...even at 145, I was still a solid 38C.
It's funny you should mention that, Gaelen! I have always been small (we're talking training bra size for a cup) and was told at my last mamogram that it was so painful for me because my breasts were not composed of fatty tissue as most breasts are. Sure, the one are of my body with little fat is where I could use it the most :lol:!

She's living longer...and in fear of breaking a bone, and with skin that looks older by the day. Life is full of trade-offs, but it seems there has to be a better balance than that.
Doesn't sound like a good trade off at all, IMHO :eek:!

[Shadow]

I've seen statements that women unavoidably gain at menopause, that they don't have to if they eat properly (defined according to the views of the various authors), that you should allow yourself to gain about 10 lbs through your menopausal decade,
So, which is it :lol:? Is there no need to gain if you eat correctly or allow for a 10# gain :rolleyes:?

... that moderate increases in abdominal fat are helpful in this respect ...
Well, then I have no worries ;)!

that any increase in abdominal fat is an indication of insulin resistance and a bad thing
This is a dilemma! Am I becoming more insulin resistance - or is it just Mother Nature doing her thing?

[Shadow]

But for me mainly it's the size not the number on the scale but i would like to be back down that size as I really felt better then
I'm with you on that! While my weight (so far, knock wood, and pray it continues!!!) hasn't changed as drastically as yours has, my shape certainly has - and it does not make me happy in the least :mad:!

[Shadow]

So, I'll just keep on exercising and eating right, and try not to obsess about the numbers.
Wow, cmcole, that's an awesome outlook and one I need to take to heart!

[Mitra]

So, which is it :lol:? Is there no need to gain if you eat correctly or allow for a 10# gain :rolleyes:?

I haven't found any studies that say whether a gain can be avoided or not. Just anecdotally, some people don't seem to gain anything - there were lots of very thin, rather leathery looking, very well-dressed older women in Rome! But if Shadow, Ruth and Relief all struggle, three of the most disciplined eaters I can think of, then I'm not sure it's avoidable for everybody.

On the question of whether it's healthy, gaining a few pounds seems to be beneficial, especially if you can maintain your waist/hip ratio (not sure how you do that, if keeping control of your blood sugar & insulin isn't enough). But I'm not sure the gain is necessary for bone health if you do plenty of exercise and have a good LBM.

I don't think I'm far enough into the menopausal stuff to know how it's going to affect my weight, but for me the decision as to where I keep my weight/size is a cost-benefit sort of thing. I'm not prepared to starve myself, so if it becomes very difficult to maintain where I am, I'd accept a few more pounds without too much struggle, but would try quite hard not to go more than say 10 lbs higher (unless it was LBM of course - I mean that I'd try not to gain more than 10 lbs of extra fat). Not that I'd be happy about regaining 10 lb of course :paranoid: .

[LisaS]

mitra wrote: gaining a few pounds seems to be beneficial, especially if you can maintain your waist/hip ratio

is it gaining a few pounds or gaining a few pounds of adipose tissue/fat
because I can think of how to gain a few pounds of LBM <G>

[Mitra]

It might be both.

In postmenopausal women, YSM, lean mass amount, total fat mass amount, and height were significant determinants of BMD.

I suppose it's a bit late for me to get extra height, and YSM (Years Since Menopause) is a bit out of my control, so lean mass fat mass are what's left!

Another one said:Although LBM still influences BMD up to 10 years after menopause, the body fat mass initially influences BMD after 60 years of age.

And a third:In exercising women, BMD was positively correlated with lean body mass but not with body fat mass. Conversely, in sedentary controls, BMD was correlated with body fat mass and lean body mass.

[Shadow]

I haven't found any studies that say whether a gain can be avoided or not. Just anecdotally, some people don't seem to gain anything - there were lots of very thin, rather leathery looking, very well-dressed older women in Rome! But if Shadow, Ruth and Relief all struggle, three of the most disciplined eaters I can think of, then I'm not sure it's avoidable for everybody.
Well, I certainly don't want to look rather leathery - that's pretty scary a thought :lol:! And I do so hope you're right! I'm not as disciplined as Ruth but by golly I'm not too shabby about it, either ;).

On the question of whether it's healthy, gaining a few pounds seems to be beneficial, especially if you can maintain your waist/hip ratio (not sure how you do that, if keeping control of your blood sugar & insulin isn't enough). But I'm not sure the gain is necessary for bone health if you do plenty of exercise and have a good LBM.
My problem is that even if I'm not gaining, my WHR is getting worse simply because my shape is changing. So how in heaven's name does one prevent that?

I don't think I'm far enough into the menopausal stuff to know how it's going to affect my weight, but for me the decision as to where I keep my weight/size is a cost-benefit sort of thing. I'm not prepared to starve myself, so if it becomes very difficult to maintain where I am, I'd accept a few more pounds without too much struggle, but would try quite hard not to go more than say 10 lbs higher (unless it was LBM of course - I mean that I'd try not to gain more than 10 lbs of extra fat). Not that I'd be happy about regaining 10 lb of course :paranoid: .
Well shoot, I'm not happy about 1 or 2 pounds, I can't imagine 10! Unless it were LBM, of course :p. But with a shifting shape, what are the odds of that happening :razz:?

[Mitra]

I'm not sure what to put into a PubMed search to find out about shape-shifting :lol:.

Here's one to make you snarl:

Postgrad Med. 2000 Sep 1;108(3):47-50, 53-6.
Weight gain during menopause. Is it inevitable or can it be prevented?

Simkin-Silverman LR, Wing RR.

Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. lrs+@pitt.edu

The years surrounding the menopause are associated with weight gain, increased central adiposity, and decreased physical activity. While weight change occurs independent of menopausal status, adverse changes in body fat distribution and body composition may be due to hormonal changes occurring during the menopausal transition. The one factor most consistently related to weight gain is physical activity. To avoid weight gain, women should make regular physical activity a priority. Although HRT use is widely believed to cause weight gain, data from the PEPI trial do not support this belief. Moreover, HRT may have a protective effect in reducing central adiposity, although more long-term studies using CT or MRI to measure visceral fat are needed to confirm this hypothesis. Data from the Women's Healthy Lifestyle Project provide clear evidence that weight gain and increased waist circumference, along with elevations in lipid levels and other CHD risk factors, are preventable through use of lifestyle intervention in healthy menopausal-aged women. Given the prevalence and chronic course of obesity, weight gain prevention should be recognized as an important health goal for women before they approach menopause.

Publication Types:
* Review

PMID: 11004935 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Bet you hadn't thought of exercise, had you? And how about some "lifestyle intervention" :p .

I find it interesting that there are lots of studies that measure fat distribution in various populations, but I can't find anything that looks at any ways of changing it! There do seem to be several that link WHR with various symptoms of insulin resistance, so I don't know if keeping very tight control over your blood sugar would help - but I get the impression you do that already, since you don't eat many carbs, or do anything to cause spikes. Do you know anything about your blood sugar levels?

One study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15598680&query_hl=30&itool=pubmed_DocSum) showed improvement using growth hormone - for most of us, I imagine that resistance exercise is the way to get the best out of our own GH, and of course, you already do that!

Sorry, but one thing I've found from my researches is that the studies rarely give nice clear answers :(. There are hints and associations, but lots of different ways to join the dots.

[Mitra]

I have just remembered that in the Swedish study, the difference in risk between the group with the best waist/hip ratio and the group with the worst ratio was 0.1%. So, since you're already doing all the right things, it's probably best to just stop worrying about it.

I found one wonderful paper that was looking at the role of visceral fat in the metabolic syndrome, and suggesting that there was a critical threshold of abdominal fat above which problems would start. But that obviously didn't quite work, because they next suggested that the threshold was different in each individual, since some people had lots of abdominal fat and normal metabolisms, and some people had very little fat and metabolic problems. Not the most useful way to assess someone's risk, then :rolleyes: .

[LisaS]

was it by the same author that we were discussing here a few weeks back?
http://proteinpower.com/forum/showthread.php?t=533
that seems to be his area of investigation

[Mitra]

That's the one. I remember reading the discussion, but I don't think I followed the link.

[Shadow]

I have just remembered that in the Swedish study, the difference in risk between the group with the best waist/hip ratio and the group with the worst ratio was 0.1%. So, since you're already doing all the right things, it's probably best to just stop worrying about it.
Now that sounds like a plan :p! Actually, I have been communicating with Gabe and he's pretty well calmed my hysteria ;). So on to obsessing over something else for a while :rolleyes:....

I found one wonderful paper that was looking at the role of visceral fat in the metabolic syndrome, and suggesting that there was a critical threshold of abdominal fat above which problems would start. But that obviously didn't quite work, because they next suggested that the threshold was different in each individual, since some people had lots of abdominal fat and normal metabolisms, and some people had very little fat and metabolic problems. Not the most useful way to assess someone's risk, then :rolleyes: .
I actually read that one :D! But even if there was no "punch line" so to speak, at least it was encouraging that there are different thresholds and we're not all just lumped into a "one size fits all" category :).

[Mitra]

Actually, I have been communicating with Gabe and he's pretty well calmed my hysteria ;).

I'm pleased to hear it :)

So on to obsessing over something else for a while :rolleyes:....

Do you have any promising possibilities in mind? I could share some of mine if you're short of ideas :paranoid: .

[Shadow]

Well, Mitra, I'm pretty sure I can find something :lol:! I do believe that is something we definitely have in common ;). But should I run short on ideas, I'll be sure to let you know :p!

[miralin]

OK here's my kind of weird perspective.

I don't know anything other than fat. I was a fat kid, a fat teenager, and crossed into the 200# zone somewhere around 16 or 17. If it wasn't the end of high school (16) it was early college (17.) I think I have a picture of myself about 4 years old, and I didn't look too pudgy. Go fig. That was 30 years ago, and I think it's the only time in my life I wasn't fat.

Additionally, because I'm now doing the no-grains deal to try to alleviate an autoimmune disorder, I figure that's more important than what the scale says. I've fought too long and too hard with my body image issues to get hung up on the scale now, but that's me. (Heh. I even got a tattoo (http://xfe.xanga.com/9d38425455c326862973/w5593294.jpg)of the Venus of Willendorf .... )

Anyway. I figure if I eat the right things and exercise appropriately, my body will find its own comfort zone. I think at the high end of the body fat percentage, I am around 175, but I have purposely forgotten the exact numbers. I'm pretty beefy, and as I do my slow burn and stuff I'm sure a certain amount of the beefiness will stay with me. I'm just hoping the disproportionate amount of belly fat goes away. I've already lost any extra I might have had in the bust area :p

M

[Shadow]

Miralin - How right you are that it is about far more than a number! Having been a fat kid (I think 5 was the last time I was a "regular" kid), I know what you mean by that being the only way you know yourself :). In fact, one of my hardest challenges now that I'm not fat is to accept the fact - and see it in the mirror - the "fat kid" still lives inside me :rolleyes:. One day you'll be in the same exact place I am :D and then we can swap "mirror-horror" stories :lol:!

[cmcole]

I know what you mean by that being the only way you know yourself :). In fact, one of my hardest challenges now that I'm not fat is to accept the fact - and see it in the mirror - the "fat kid" still lives inside me

How many of us are in that position?
I would guess - many.

I still see myself as "fat"
I still see/feel the spare tire around the middle, even though there are other parts of myself that I am very pleased with (appearance-wise).

I could go on with the "if only" all day, but it won't change things. I just need to focus on the important, and leave all these nagging things behind, where they belong.

[Mitra]

In fact, one of my hardest challenges now that I'm not fat is to accept the fact - and see it in the mirror - the "fat kid" still lives inside me :rolleyes:.

It always surprises me when you say something like this, because we "met" when we were both working on the last few pounds, and more or less arrived together, so I have a hard time thinking of you as a "fat person," or even as a "formerly fat person." I always think of you as someone who's slim and very fit. I think my view is a better one ;) .

But I'm still surprised sometimes by reflections of myself looking different from the way I imagine, and these days it's usually thinner than I thought (and older, of course!), even though I've been about my current size for probably something like 20 years in total, so you'd think I'd be used to it :rolleyes: .

[Shadow]

It always surprises me when you say something like this, because we "met" when we were both working on the last few pounds, and more or less arrived together, so I have a hard time thinking of you as a "fat person," or even as a "formerly fat person." I always think of you as someone who's slim and very fit. I think my view is a better one ;) .
I love your view, Mitra :D! Actually, everyone who knows me now says that they find it hard to believe I ever had a weight problem :rolleyes:...

But I'm still surprised sometimes by reflections of myself looking different from the way I imagine, and these days it's usually thinner than I thought (and older, of course!), even though I've been about my current size for probably something like 20 years in total, so you'd think I'd be used to it :rolleyes: .
Amazing how long adaptation can take :tongue:! As for thinner than you thought - I am sure you do look that way! Especially since you sometimes need a kick in the keister to not let your weight fall any more :p. Ah - that older person in the mirror.... I am not sure who it is that I see in the mirror - because I know I'm a lot younger than the image is :lol:!


I could go on with the "if only" all day, but it won't change things. I just need to focus on the important, and leave all these nagging things behind, where they belong.
I totally agree with the concept. It's just that sometimes it's far easier said than done ;).

[miralin]

How many of us are in that position?
I would guess - many.

I still see myself as "fat"
I still see/feel the spare tire around the middle, even though there are other parts of myself that I am very pleased with (appearance-wise).

I'm the opposite. I look in the mirror and I go "hey, there's a fat girl in my mirror! I'll be doggoned."

I HATE looking at piccies of myself for the same reason -- I don't *feel* fat, I don't have any problem getting around, doing what I enjoy doing, etc. But there is the evidence, sure as can be, and well you can't refute that. Oh yeah, and this belly that hangs around, that has something to do with it too .....

[realruth]

Miralin the differnece comes when you reach a level below what your mind tells you, you are in reality.

I always thought I was about a size 14 (was 24) but had to face the mirror daily and be honest and see I wasn't.
Once I got below a size 14 (currently 10-12) I still think I'm bigger and when I look in a mirror now I cannot for the life of me *see* that smaller person.

I keep thinking I'll have to get someone of a regular 10 size to stand beside me in a photo to really appreciate the smaller me mentally

[miralin]

Hmm that's a good point, Ruth. I hadn't thought about it that way.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm not delusional. I know I'm fat, and I know those are size 20-22 pants I put on every morning, etc. But for knowing that, I don't connect it to my appearance somehow.

[Shadow]

Once I got below a size 14 (currently 10-12) I still think I'm bigger and when I look in a mirror now I cannot for the life of me *see* that smaller person.
Exactly!

I keep thinking I'll have to get someone of a regular 10 size to stand beside me in a photo to really appreciate the smaller me mentally
Hey, that's a great idea :D!

[cmcole]

But pictures of me have the effect of making me feel that I look absolutely huge!!

I think, somehow, it's a self esteem problem, as well as a problem with image or imagined image.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=393045&in_page_id=1879

[Mitra]

I've been reading a study that made me think of this thread. It reported that for women between 45 and 56, those who had reached menopause were nearly twice as likely to have asthma as those who hadn't, but for those who had a BMI less than 23 as well as reaching menopause it was four times as likely. As I have a BMI that's a bit under 23 (about 21-22 generally), and have recently started getting asthma, I consider the whole thing grossly unfair.

I also notice that these days my weight is in the 115-120 range, not the 110 that I was at three years ago, when we had this discussion. In spite of all the accumulating evidence that not being too thin is healthier, part of me would still like to be a fashionable weight. I can't imagine why, because I'm not fashionable in any other area of my life :).

[SandyHanson]

This brings up something I've been thinking about recently. I have no idea what my "goal" weight is - I've been overweight and downright obese for so long. My plan is to keep on following PPLP and exercising, and when I feel that I'm getting close (clothing size, measurements, etc) I'll calculate my % of body fat and use that to determine where I'm at and how far I need to go. But that brings me to another question I've been meaning to ask. In the PP book, if I remember correctly, it shows a goal body fat % for older women (I just turned 60 - OMG!) as high as 27! That seems so high. And I don't understand why we should be fatter just because we're older. I've tried to look online, and although I find many recommendations, most sites also suggest a higher % for older people, but I've never seen the reason. Do any of you know?

**Edited** I have to admit, I posted after reading the most recent post, but without reading the rest of the thread. It has some possible answers. I'm nowhere near having to make that decision yet, so I'll just keep on keeping on for now. BTW, I'm pretty sure my weight will end up higher than when I was 20 - I'm doing resistance exercises now and building muscles; back then I did very little of that sort of thing.

[Shadow]

I've been reading a study that made me think of this thread. It reported that for women between 45 and 56, those who had reached menopause were nearly twice as likely to have asthma as those who hadn't, but for those who had a BMI less than 23 as well as reaching menopause it was four times as likely. As I have a BMI that's a bit under 23 (about 21-22 generally), and have recently started getting asthma, I consider the whole thing grossly unfair.
Good heavens, that does seem opposite of how it should be, doesn't it :eek: :mad:?! Work hard to get healthy and at a good weight and BAM comes Mother Nature to slap you upside the head :rolleyes:.

I also notice that these days my weight is in the 115-120 range, not the 110 that I was at three years ago, when we had this discussion. In spite of all the accumulating evidence that not being too thin is healthier, part of me would still like to be a fashionable weight. I can't imagine why, because I'm not fashionable in any other area of my life :).
I'm with you there. I don't give a hoot about being fashionable - but by golly, I want that pre-menopause weight back because it's a more "acceptable" number...

[Shadow]

I'm nowhere near having to make that decision yet, so I'll just keep on keeping on for now.
Believe me, Sandy, even after hitting maintenance it's still pretty much a case of "keeping on keeping on." ;)

[Mitra]

In the PP book, if I remember correctly, it shows a goal body fat % for older women (I just turned 60 - OMG!) as high as 27! That seems so high. And I don't understand why we should be fatter just because we're older. I've tried to look online, and although I find many recommendations, most sites also suggest a higher % for older people, but I've never seen the reason. Do any of you know?

I don't know why the number changes as you get older. As you say, there are some hints - such as speculation that body fat substitutes for some of the missing estrogen - but nothing concrete. I think there's less known about how our bodies work than we sometimes think.

In PP the fat range for women over 60 is 22 - 31%. The WHO numbers go even higher. There's a page on the subject at about (http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/library/blbodyfatcharts.htm) (written by Laura Dolson).

It's hard to shake off the "thinner is better" mindset. Most of us probably think that being emaciated isn't healthy, but there really doesn't seem to be a health advantage and may be some disadvantages in being at the lower end of normal.

Shadow, I agree - the principal difference between maintenance and weight loss is that maintenance goes on for longer ;). Oh, and you don't have the "reward" of watching the numbers go down, and having to buy new clothes :lol:.