Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004
Goal weight question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Luna - 18 Mar 2004 06:34 GMT I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most people really that specific with their goals? My goal is 130-ish. I really don't think I would be noticably different, looks-wise or health-wise if I were at 132 or 133 as opposed to 130. I usually weigh a couple pounds more in the evening than in the morning anyway, and then that couple of pounds is gone the next day (sometimes taking a buddy or two with it, on a good day) So why does the last pound or two matter so much? Just curious.
 Signature Michelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Roger Zoul - 18 Mar 2004 07:34 GMT :: I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 :: pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: (sometimes taking a buddy or two with it, on a good day) So why :: does the last pound or two matter so much? Just curious. Some people fixate on a number. I weighed XXX when I was 20....so they seek to get back to that weight. Me, I can't since I've been big so long I have no memory of when I weighed even 200 lbs.
curt - 18 Mar 2004 07:45 GMT Hi Luna.
My goal weight used to be 190 then 185 and now 180. I am a firm believer not to change goal until you reach your first number. That way you did what you set out to do and then when you are done, you can change your goal to a lower weight. So yes, the one or two pounds can be a big deal. Why not do what you set out to do? The only time I feel a person shouldn't worry about getting to their goal, is if they set the goal too thin.
JMHO, Curt
 Signature Started low carb May '03 211/183/180 . . 6'2" 15.78% BF Age 38 Highest weight 250 5+ years ago
> I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it, on a good day) So why does the last pound or two matter so much? Just > curious. JJ - 18 Mar 2004 14:50 GMT > Hi Luna. > > My goal weight used to be 190 then 185 and now 180. I am a firm > believer not to change goal until you reach your first number. That
> way you did what you set out to do and then when you are done, you
> can change your goal to a lower weight. So yes, the one or two
> pounds can be a big deal. Why not do what you set out to do? The
> only time I feel a person shouldn't worry about getting to their
> goal, is if they set the goal too thin. > > JMHO, > Curt I would tend to land in the same place as Curt. I think that I might more accurately express my weight objectives as more of a set of milestones rather than a goal, once I reach one objective I will determine what the next one will need to be. I can't attribute the following quote to anybody in particular (and it is a rough approximation, if anybody knows who to attribute this to please let me know) but it is one I have lived by for much of my life. It is "One seldom hits that at which one does not aim."
Some will likely say that I am obsessed with numbers. Well, gee, I'm an engineer paid to be obsessed with numbers and details. The difference between your view of a target of 130'ish and my current target of 183 is nothing but how we choose to use and see significant digits.
So far as the numbers I have posted. I've stated this before but I will reiterate here; I really don't know what I will end up with as a final weight. My goal is to end on a maintainable and healthy weight, with emphasis on both. For my height the standard charts all say I should weight 160 something. For me to reach that weight I would have to take off muscle mass, which I am not too interested in doing. In my early 20's I weighed about 210-220 pounds and, while this was certainly heavy, I was carrying a lot of muscle in my upper body and legs...sort of came along with the very physical work I did for all of youth. Because I no longer do that type of physical labor I have, over the years, lost much of that mass. How much? I don't really know exactly but it appears to be on the order of about 20 pounds. My first objective was never to weigh what I did in my twenties, but I do use my knowledge of my physique then, and the clothes I still own from then, as an estimate of what weight I needed to reach to not be over fat. My first objective of 195 left me with still too much fat, my next objective of 185 seems closer to where I need to be and my current objective of 183 is somewhat arbitrary. Remember, I just wanted to state that "I am 2/3's the man I used to be." Is 183 my goal? Not really. If, after I get there, I determine that 183 is the weight I consider to be optimal (healthy and maintainable) my real goal will be to maintain that weight for the rest of my life. Is 183 the number? I don't know and I won't know until I get there.
 Signature JJ. 275/189/183, BMI 27.1 - as of Mar 17, 2004 Atkins since Sep 1, 2003 http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jjsmythe/my_photos 68.7% of the man I used to be.
jpatti - 18 Mar 2004 20:26 GMT > I can't attribute the following quote to anybody in > particular (and it is a rough approximation, if anybody > knows who to attribute this to please let me know) but it is > one I have lived by for much of my life. It is "One seldom > hits that at which one does not aim." I heard something sort of like that, "If you aim at the stars, you might not make it and just hit the moon. But if you aim at nothing, you're sure to hit it."
This version is also an unattributed, rough approximation.
Angie - 18 Mar 2004 21:30 GMT my original goal weight was 125lbs. i reached that in spt of last yrs. but since then i have put on a few pounds am currently up just over 130lbs i am setting a goal for this month to get under 130lbs by the end of the month. then in april i will aim to get back to my original goal weight. but as for my final goal weight i am trying to get to 117lbs. but if i get below 120lbs and stay there than i will be happy. it's always important to set goals that way u have something to reward urself with when u get to where u want to be. i awlays set smaller atainable goals along the way to help keep me encourgaed in going on. it's kind of like a reward for doing something good for your body.
Angie weight watchers start weight 152.5 goal 125lbs sept 11 /03 low carb March 17 /04 so far lost 5 lbs current weight 132lbs. 2lbs left to reach first mini goal of the month. and there is two weeks left in the month.
> Hi Luna. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Just > > curious. DG511 - 18 Mar 2004 21:59 GMT >> > I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 >> > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> with >> > it, on a good day) So why does the last pound or two matter so much? I had 4 goals when I started: eat a healthier diet and feel better (done), fit into my pants again (done), get below 150 (done), and get down to the weight I perceive as my best (not done). If I stall out permanently at 143 or thereabouts, it won't be the end of the world. Where I think it makes a lot of sense to have a specific number is where there's a problem with the BMI. It might be important to some people to get into the normal range, though I can't recall anyone actually saying that, so I could be wrong.
Daria 166/148/140 sugar-free since 2/1/04 low-carb since 2/17/04
metta - 18 Mar 2004 07:51 GMT > I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it, on a good day) So why does the last pound or two matter so much? Just > curious. because they're obsessed?
i dunno, myself, i've set a goal dress size, rather than a goal weight. you're right, a pound or five doesn't really make any difference in how you look or feel, unless you fixate on it.
-kelly
Ignoramus21235 - 18 Mar 2004 15:02 GMT > because they're obsessed? > > i dunno, myself, i've set a goal dress size, rather than a goal weight. what's the difference?
i
> you're right, a pound or five doesn't really make any difference in how you > look or feel, unless you fixate on it. > > -kelly LCer09 - 18 Mar 2004 22:55 GMT >> i dunno, myself, i've set a goal dress size, rather than a goal weight. > >what's the difference? It depends where you shop. Spend a little more and you can squeeze into that goal size and keep some extra pounds on at the same time. A goal size is silly, since the clothing industry is not standardized by any stretch of the imagination. Goal measurements would be realistic though.
LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/220/140 & hubby- 310/239/180
metta - 19 Mar 2004 04:11 GMT > It depends where you shop. Spend a little more and you can squeeze into that > goal size and keep some extra pounds on at the same time. A goal size is silly, > since the clothing industry is not standardized by any stretch of the > imagination. Goal measurements would be realistic though. actually, i've found the opposite to be true. the more you spend, the smaller the clothes for that size. take the Gap conglomerate for example. at Old Navy, the cheap store, i'm a size 14. at the Gap, i'm somewhere between a 14 and a 16. at Banana Repblic, the expensive store, they don't carry anything bigger than a 14, and their 14 is an Old Navy 12.
-kelly
LCer09 - 19 Mar 2004 04:23 GMT >actually, i've found the opposite to be true. the more you spend, the >smaller the clothes for that size. That's exactly what I said. Spend more, get smaller clothes with the same tag #.
LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 5'7" 265/220/140 & hubby- 6' 310/239/180
metta - 19 Mar 2004 04:25 GMT > >actually, i've found the opposite to be true. the more you spend, the > >smaller the clothes for that size. > > That's exactly what I said. Spend more, get smaller clothes with the same tag > #. huh?
weird, i completely interpreted your statement to mean spend more and the size will be more forgiving of a few pounds.
Spend a little more and you can squeeze into that goal size and keep some extra pounds on at the same time
sorry about that.
-kelly
metta - 18 Mar 2004 23:16 GMT > what's the difference? the difference is that most women's weight will fluctuate by several pounds, per day in some cases, and depending on the time of the month. clothing, OTOH, is a bit more forgiving to premenstrual bloat.
that, and i'm just not a numbers kind of gal.
-kelly
Ignoramus21235 - 19 Mar 2004 04:43 GMT >> what's the difference? > > the difference is that most women's weight will fluctuate by several pounds, > per day in some cases, and depending on the time of the month. clothing, > OTOH, is a bit more forgiving to premenstrual bloat. you could just make a mental correction for that bloat...
i
> that, and i'm just not a numbers kind of gal. > > -kelly metta - 19 Mar 2004 04:55 GMT > you could just make a mental correction for that bloat... or i could just not weigh myself.
HTH!!!
-kelly
curt - 18 Mar 2004 15:09 GMT > because they're obsessed? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -kelly Five pounds is a big difference when you are at my body fat %. I don't think it is obsession to try to get to a certain bodyfat. I am going to be doing a 150 mile bike ride in June and will be doing some triathlons this summer as well. 5 pounds is quite a bit to haul around if you don't need it.
To each his own. When I set a goal, I complete it.
Curt
 Signature Started low carb May '03 211/183/180 . . 6'2" 15.78% BF Age 38 Highest weight 250 5+ years ago
metta - 18 Mar 2004 23:19 GMT > Five pounds is a big difference when you are at my body fat %. I don't > think it is obsession to try to get to a certain bodyfat. I am going to be > doing a 150 mile bike ride in June and will be doing some triathlons this > summer as well. 5 pounds is quite a bit to haul around if you don't need > it. i take it you don't plan on building any muscle?
i was at my perfect weight when i was in the army, i'm 5'5 or so and weighed 160. way more than the stupid BMI charts suggest. but my body fat was at 16%, which is extremely fit.
*shrug*
weight is misleading. i'd much rather base my goals on how hot i look in a sundress.
-kelly
Cate - 19 Mar 2004 00:59 GMT > i was at my perfect weight when i was in the army, i'm 5'5 or so and > weighed 160. way more than the stupid BMI charts suggest. but my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > weight is misleading. i'd much rather base my goals on how hot i look > in a sundress. ITA. I'm 5'2" and was 118 or so at age 18. Although I was a size 6, I wasn't that fit; I was 118 due to a bout with mono. My fittest time was when I was 140 and working out like a fiend. I had lots of curves, and I was very confident of my body.
Didn't hurt when one night I emerged from my apartment building dressed to kill, and one of my male neighbors made a big show of howling like a wolf and pretending to pass out from the sight of hot little me.
Cate
Doug Lerner - 19 Mar 2004 02:00 GMT On 3/19/04 8:59 AM, in article Xns94B0C12165E82orson14850@130.133.1.4,
> Didn't hurt when one night I emerged from my apartment building dressed to > kill, and one of my male neighbors made a big show of howling like a wolf > and pretending to pass out from the sight of hot little me. I've never had a similar experience. :)
doug
Cate - 19 Mar 2004 04:04 GMT > I've never had a similar experience. :) That sucks. You should get someone to do it for you sometime. It was obviously memorable for me. <g>
Cate
Sunshyne - 18 Mar 2004 15:45 GMT > > I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -kelly It was tricky for me to figure out a goal weight. It says in the Atkins book, to think back to when you were a weight you felt comfortable and healthy with. For me, I am 5'5, and when I weighed 150, I felt healthy. If I weigh less than that, like 135 I do not feel healthy, I am pale and anemic feeling. So when I get to 150, see what happens then. My weight too fluctuates from morning to night. So I just weigh in the morning, go with that.
Marcusj - 18 Mar 2004 16:48 GMT Michelle, I set a goal of 155 because it is reasonable, and at 5'9" it is a good weight, and not one that would be considered overweight. In all likelihood, I will go lower than that. Before alcoholism grabbed hold of my life, I ran several miles every day and participated in half-marathons, triathlons, and a lot of other races. I participated, but was never a serious contender, just did it for fun really. I REALLY want to get back to that, and that is more a part of my goal than any numeric weight could ever be. When I was doing those things, my weight was never over 150, and was usually in the low 140s. Right now, the closest I can come to running is going on long hikes, so I try to do that every other day or so. I'm not even going to attempt running again until I get down below 200; I would be putting way too much stress on my knees and hips otherwise. Goals are many and varied. When I get to 235.5 I will have lost half the weight to 155, so that is a goal. Getting under 200 is a milestone, so of course that is a goal. Being able to run again is a BIG goal.
Heck, 155 is just a number. But, it represents a target that is quite doable and that I know that I will achieve. So sure, it is a goal. For now it is the weight goal that I'm targetting, but with the knowledge that it won't be my ultimate weight and there probably will never be an actual "ultimate weight".
 Signature Mark S. J. 316/249.5/155 --Pull the weeds to reply by email-- --
> I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it, on a good day) So why does the last pound or two matter so much? Just > curious. Archon - 18 Mar 2004 18:39 GMT > I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most > people really that specific with their goals? My goal is 130-ish. I In my estimation (to JC-K) I also assumed a good weight of 130, and that you are 160 now, so I said 30 more to go. Are you 160 or 150 now?
Luna - 18 Mar 2004 19:50 GMT > > I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most > > people really that specific with their goals? My goal is 130-ish. I > > In my estimation (to JC-K) I also assumed a good weight of 130, and that > you are 160 now, so I said 30 more to go. Are you 160 or 150 now? 156. :o) I say 130-ish because it might be that as I increase my strength training, I may put on enough muscle to look just fine at 135. I'll have to see when I get there.
 Signature Michelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Archon - 18 Mar 2004 19:59 GMT > 156. :o) I say 130-ish because it might be that as I increase my strength > training, I may put on enough muscle to look just fine at 135. I'll have > to see when I get there. Yes, muscle is the key. Just watch Alias :)
Martin Golding - 18 Mar 2004 18:59 GMT > I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most > people really that specific with their goals? It's good to have a goal. Without a goal, you can't reach your goal; with a fuzzy goal, you reach it in little, hard-to-celebrate, fuzzy bits.
> My goal is 130-ish. I > really don't think I would be noticably different, looks-wise or > health-wise if I were at 132 or 133 as opposed to 130. Or 135 as opposed to 133, 137, etc. etc. etc. If you're going to stop, you have to pick somewhere to BE stopped, and you have to be able to tell when you're drifting back up. I picked a nice round number well above my ideal body weight (165 at 5'5") because I was stable there for years, it's a pants size (32 x 28) that I can buy off the rack, and I can hold that weight while maintaining my indolent and self indulgent lifestyle (even us fat f.cks have _some_ standards).
> I usually weigh a > couple pounds more in the evening than in the morning anyway, and then > that couple of pounds is gone the next day (sometimes taking a buddy or > two with it, on a good day) So why does the last pound or two matter so > much? Just curious. I'm cranking up the carbs (mmmmm, beer (Pilsner Urquel, Terminator Stout)) while I coast down the last few pounds. I intend to hold my weight to 165 at _peak_, which puts my minimum weight at around 162. With a nice solid number to check in the evenings I'll avoid permissive creep; if I didn't have a hard line, it'd be too easy to let it go for a few extra pounds then diet them off, over and over, and weight cycling like that makes me nervous.
I've set a fixed specific number so I can maintain my weight, and so that I _know_, week by week if not day by day, that I _am_ maintaining it.
I may happen to stabilize at a lower weight even after resuming my disgusting drinking and eating habits (apples and lemons and carrots, oh my), in which case I'll readjust my peak down to whatever seems sustainable. I don't expect that, and I won't be disappointed if not.
Yeah, it helps that I'm a guy. No, life is NOT fair, but it's not MY fault.
Martin (215/164.5/165 since 4/2003)
 Signature Martin Golding | Studies indicate that undernutrition increases lifespan. DoD #236 | Eat good, die young. Leave a big corpse.
Roger Zoul - 18 Mar 2004 19:10 GMT :: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:34:23 +0000, Luna wrote: ::: I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: with :: a fuzzy goal, you reach it in little, hard-to-celebrate, fuzzy bits. So? I think the best goal weight-loss wise is to look good naked...and for that goal, you have to get there in fuzzy little, hard-to-celebrate, bits. Worth it still the same.
::: My goal is 130-ish. I ::: really don't think I would be noticably different, looks-wise or [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] :: Martin Golding | Studies indicate that undernutrition increases :: lifespan. DoD #236 | Eat good, die young. Leave a big corpse. JC Der Koenig - 18 Mar 2004 19:22 GMT There have been recent studies that show weight cycling might be good for you.
 Signature Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :)
Becky P.
> > I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 > > pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Martin (215/164.5/165 since 4/2003) Roger Zoul - 18 Mar 2004 19:25 GMT :: There have been recent studies that show weight cycling might be :: good for you. got one of those handy?
JC Der Koenig - 18 Mar 2004 19:40 GMT > :: There have been recent studies that show weight cycling might be > :: good for you. > > got one of those handy? It was something out of Harvard, but I don't remember where I saw it. I'm sure the topic will be revisited though.
DigitalVinyl - 18 Mar 2004 20:02 GMT I agree with Roger, people just pick numbers because they are round or they have some fond memory that 30 years ago they weighed that and want to be just like that out-of-reach youth.
For me, I was 300+ my entire adult life(i'm 38 this year). For my height/frame i should be 178-199. I laugh at that. I don't know what that is, what it looks like. I was probably 13-14 when I weighed that little. I long ago accepted that I was overweight. WHen I read the book I figured I would shoot for 250-275. then I read the part of the book where Atkins says people set goals that they think they can reach (based upon a history of failed dieting) rather than a goal of what is actually healthy. I was doing exactly that. So I picked 200. High, a nice round number, but reasonable for my size. Maybe I should be around 190. I'll know better when I'm there, because right now I can't imagine it at all.
I do think people invest way too much in a number. And I think it takes away from their satisfaction with what they accompilshed. Today I puled out a pair of dickers I haven't worn in 5-8 years. They fit, a bit too snug for what I like, but they FIT!? I also found the XL shirts form many years ago could be buttoned. Too tight to wear, but I could put them on. I've been a 2XL/3XLT guy. I've coming down to XL--I haven't shopped in a regular clothing store in about 10 years. This is more than enough progress for me. I'd be happy at being an XL with about 300 lbs--that's more than I thought was possible.
Truth is those last pounds don't matter at all. It is perfectly natural to gain and lose weight annually. The entire animal kingdom does this and we would too if we weren't surrounded by excess 24/365. But people freak themselves out over it. I think it is also a bigger thing for women because of the way you dress. Women's fashion tend to be tight fitting much more than men's so small weight variation will show/be more uncomfortable.
>I've noticed a few people now and then posting that they are within 5 >pounds of their goal weight. Sometimes it's like, 1 or 2 pounds. Are most [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it, on a good day) So why does the last pound or two matter so much? Just >curious. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/316/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
|
|
|