Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Goal weight question

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.