 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2004A decision re goal weight
I've decided that it doesn't make sense for me to base my weight goal on staying in a particularly competitive weight class. So, though Ahmed will not like it, I've decided I would like to lose a little more weight after the Nationals (April 2). I'm not what anyone would consider overweight now, but I think I'd feel a little better at a slightly lower weight. My goal isn't really a single number but a range of 145-150. Tom wants me to be prepared to gain a few pounds as I increase my calories slightly and increase my training intensity. So I plan to attempt to reach 145 and then allow a "float" of up to 150, but not over that. I might change this plan if I find that I can't continue losing at a calorie level that still gives me adequate energy for my workouts. But this is the plan for now. I'm in no particular hurry to get there, though. Slower is better. And I don't want to lose any more until after the meet. Chris 262/157/ (145-150) > I've decided that it doesn't make sense for me to base my weight goal > on staying in a particularly competitive weight class. So, though [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Chris > 262/157/ (145-150) I think this sounds great. You should have no problem getting to this weight range. Good luck at the Nationals. Beverly > I've decided that it doesn't make sense for me to base my weight goal > on staying in a particularly competitive weight class. So, though [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Chris > 262/157/ (145-150) This sounds extremely reasonable. You need to do what will make you happy, not necessarily Ahmed :) Since your diet is such a part of your WOE, continuing on probably isn't that much of a stretch for you. You have been able to patiently lose at your own pace without being deprived of the foods you enjoy and even get that occasional splurge. You have been such a great role model so far! Jenn >This sounds extremely reasonable. You need to do what will make you happy, >not necessarily Ahmed :) Since your diet is such a part of your WOE, >continuing on probably isn't that much of a stretch for you. You have been >able to patiently lose at your own pace without being deprived of the foods >you enjoy and even get that occasional splurge. You have been such a great >role model so far! Thanks for the compliment :-). Somehow I don't feel I've done much to deserve it, but it's appreciated nonetheless :-). It's been interesting attending this conference the last few days. I've run into people who haven't seen me for a few years, and they don't recognize me until I speak to them; then they read my nametag and do a double-take. Even people who have seen me more recently -- say 6 months ago -- still seem to see a big difference. I actually find this sort of disconcerting, since in my mind I still look much the same. If I look at myself in the mirror I can see a difference, of course, but I tend to be focusing on a particular thing (like, do these shoes go with this skirt) and not on the general impression. But if I catch a glimpse of myself walking past a mirror I find myself surprised by my appearance. I guess it takes time for one's self-image to adjust to the reality. (I don't think that my self-image was ever as fat as I really was when I was fat, either -- so maybe it never really does.) Which brings to mind a question, which I will post separately. Chris 262/157/ (145-150) It sounds like a reasonable plan! You have shown so much success, I have no doubt that you will accomplish this. How tall were you again? What is your fat %? "Chris Braun" > I've decided that it doesn't make sense for me to base my weight goal > on staying in a particularly competitive weight class. So, though [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Chris > 262/157/ (145-150) > How tall were you again? What is your fat %? I'm 5'6". While is a pretty meaningless concept, as it pays no attention to lean tissue vs. fat, I looked at one of the calculator sites the other day and it says mine is 25.3. According to the site, I am 3 lbs. overweight :-). It also says -- which I thought was surprising -- that I am in the 31st for women of my age and height. That is, 69% of women my age and height weigh more than I do. I have not had my bodyfat % measured in a long time. However, I have no doubt that it is in a healthy range, as I have a larger than average frame as well as way more muscle than the average woman. I something of a sceptic about the measurement methods available (apart from immersion, which sounds like it would be accurate but complicated), but I will probably get Tom to measure me again sometime for fun. He did it once, around a year ago, when I weighed around 210; at that time it was right about 30%. Had the 57 lbs. I've lost since then been all fat -- unfortunately not possible -- I'd be at 11% right now. I'm sure I'm not, but I'm sure I'm at a reasonable level. A chart I've seen says that women my age should stay in the 24% - 35% range. That seems a little higher than necessary to me, actually. Chris >> How tall were you again? What is your fat %? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >surprising -- that I am in the 31st for women of my age and height. >That is, 69% of women my age and height weigh more than I do. In your case, it is pretty meaningless, to an extent. I realize you must be one lean ball of muscle, so at 157 and 5'6" you are probably pretty thin, but svelt looking. :-) Whereas, if your BF% is not 30% or even 27%... like the average woman your height/weight probably is. The concept of height/weight and bodyfat% gives people a good mental picture of what you might look like. >I have not had my bodyfat % measured in a long time. However, I have >no doubt that it is in a healthy range, as I have a larger than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Chris > I realize you >must be one lean ball of muscle, so at 157 and 5'6" you are probably >pretty thin, but svelt looking. :-) I don't really think I look thin, because I'm fairly large-boned -- hence sort of wide. But I'm pretty much wearing a size 10 now, which seems fairly small for someone who weighs what I do. Chris Aren't you curious to see what your body fat will measure to be? Although I think it would be difficult for a person with loose skin to get as good a reading. I know you know better about going by BMI charts! As you've said, you have more muscle and bone structure then most women!! "Chris Braun" > I'm 5'6". While is a pretty meaningless concept, as it pays no > attention to lean tissue vs. fat, I looked at one of the calculator [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Chris >Aren't you curious to see what your body fat will measure to be? Although I >think it would be difficult for a person with loose skin to get as good a >reading. I am a bit curious, but the caliper test just doesn't have much credibility with me, so I don't feel like the result would mean much. Sometime I may look into getting the immersion thing done if the opportunity arises. (And I may let Tom do the caliper thing again, but I do think loose skin would skew the reading and make it even less credible.) Chris What about using one of those fat % scales? "Chris Braun" > I am a bit curious, but the caliper test just doesn't have much > credibility with me, so I don't feel like the result would mean much. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Chris >What about using one of those fat % scales? I've heard pretty bad things about their reliability as well. I have the impression they give a repeatable result, so that if you use one regularly you can track progress. But I'm not sure how accurate the numbers are in an absolute sense. For one thing, I have the impression (though I could be wrong about this), that they work by passing a current through your lower body, so that they measure only the fat % of your lower body. I'm not sure how well this would correlate with overall fat %. I sort of feel like if I'm going to bother I might as well do something I'd believe. At least the caliper thing, if I have Tom do it, is something I can compare to the one time we did it a year ago. My interest in this is primarily intellectual curiousity. I can't see it affecting any decisions I make about my weight. Chris > > How tall were you again? What is your fat %? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Chris If you want to get a ballpark estimate of your body fat percentage via a few simple circumference measurements, check out this web page: http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html It uses a formula developed by the US Navy, and later adopted by the Defense Department, as part of their physical fitness assessment programs. I've compared the results to both skinfold and Tanita body fat scale readings, and it correlates well to those. Note: use a cloth tape measure...I used a metal carpenter's tape the first time....brrrrr! GG http://www.shastasoftware.com - Shasta Software - Consulting, Design, and Programming Services http://www.CycliStats.com - CycliStats - Software for Cyclists http://www.StrideWare.com - StrideWare - Software for Runners and Walkers >If you want to get a ballpark estimate of your body fat percentage via a few >simple circumference measurements, check out this web page: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >GG Thanks. I've heard of this type of measurement but haven't tried it. I will sometime, but not tonight -- too sleepy :-). And I definitely won't try a metal tape! Chris > If you want to get a ballpark estimate of your body fat percentage via a few > simple circumference measurements, check out this web page: > > http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html I tried it and it gave me a BF% nearly 10 points higher than my caliper tests and my own tape measure method. I think we have to find a method that makes sense for us. That link didn't ask activity level or age, even. I like the one at > http://www.biofitness.com/bodyfat.html for me. Dally > > If you want to get a ballpark estimate of your body fat percentage via a few > > simple circumference measurements, check out this web page: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dally I also got 10 points higher than what my tanita and trainer have put me at on that first site. I like your site because it puts me at a lower number than my tanita :) Of course if I followed their weight maintenance calories recommendation, I'd be gaining about 5 pounds a day :P Jenn > > If you want to get a ballpark estimate of your body fat percentage via a few > > simple circumference measurements, check out this web page: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dally Interesting...and, thanks for the link. In my case, it gave me a result that was 5% higher (20% vs. 15%) than both my Tanita, and the Navy body fat test. Unfortunately, that site does not indicate what their formula is based on. I've done quite a bit of research recently on this subject (for a weight management software program I'm developing), and haven't seen anything similar in the literature. Perhaps I'll have to schedule a dunk tank test for myself to see which method comes the closest (I could deduct it as a business expense as part of my software development project!). BTW - I've reviewed the research history behind the Navy body fat test, and find it pretty compelling. They studied a bunch of different circumference measurement techniques, and compared them against other methods across gender, race & ethnicity, and age. Of course, their research group was composed primarily of people in the military, so the test results are probably most appropriate for adults of that age, and a certain level of physical fitness. If you're interested in the science behind the Navy method, it is documented here: http://www.mwr.navy.mil/mwrprgms/fitness/devbodycomp.pdf Thanks again for the link. GG http://www.shastasoftware.com - Shasta Software - Consulting, Design, and Programming Services http://www.CycliStats.com - CycliStats - Software for Cyclists http://www.StrideWare.com - StrideWare - Software for Runners and Walkers >I've decided that it doesn't make sense for me to base my weight goal >on staying in a particularly competitive weight class. So, though [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Chris >262/157/ (145-150) I was a bit confused when first reading. Ahmed likes you in the upper 150's to stay in a particular weight class. But if you lose weight, then you go down to the next weight class - right? What are the cuttoffs? On one hand, if you go down to the next weight class, doesn't that mean you'll be at the higher end of the range and therefore, have a slight weight competitive average over those competing that weight at the lower range? Or, is the 145 - 150 range put you between weight classes? Short question, why does Ahmed want you to stay at that weight for that weight class? Anyhow, your goals and plan sound totally reasonable. > Or, is the 145 - 150 range put you between weight classes? Short > question, why does Ahmed want you to stay at that weight for that > weight class? > > Anyhow, your goals and plan sound totally reasonable. Chris, something I'm curious about is are there more women for you to compete against at the lower weights, or higher?  SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > > Or, is the 145 - 150 range put you between weight classes? Short > > question, why does Ahmed want you to stay at that weight for that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Chris, something I'm curious about is are there more women for you to > compete against at the lower weights, or higher? At the lower weights, would most of the competitors be a lot younger than you? How much fun it is going to be when you win over them! On the other hand, . . . I guess it depends on how much winning for the sake of winning means to you to make it worth doing what you can to optimize your chances. Tonia 221/190/130 >At the lower weights, would most of the competitors be a lot younger than >you? How much fun it is going to be when you win over them! On the other >hand, . . . I guess it depends on how much winning for the sake of winning >means to you to make it worth doing what you can to optimize your chances. It doesn't really work that way, as Masters lifters compete in age classes as well as weight classes. So I compete against women who are in the 152-165 lb. range and the 55-59 age range. I wouldn't do very well against much younger women anyway. In contrast to power lifting, which is pretty much raw strength, this sport takes a huge amount of speed, flexibility, and fast reaction time. Younger lifters do far more weight than older ones. The drop-off in amounts lifted is really pretty amazing. I'm just glad to be doing it at all at my age, honestly. Chris >> Or, is the 145 - 150 range put you between weight classes? Short >> question, why does Ahmed want you to stay at that weight for that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Chris, something I'm curious about is are there more women for you to >compete against at the lower weights, or higher? Olympic weightlifting has a really stupid weight class arrangement for women. All women over 165 pounds fall into the superheavyweight class, so that someone who weighs 166 has to compete against women weighing 250 and more. Since this is a pretty average weight for an athletic woman, about half of the women who compete are in the superheavyweight class -- particularly among Masters lifters (age 35+). Each of the other weight classes is unlikely to have more than one or two people in any given competition. So it doesn't really make much difference with respect to number of competitors. Chris >I was a bit confused when first reading. Ahmed likes you in the >upper 150's to stay in a particular weight class. But if you lose [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Anyhow, your goals and plan sound totally reasonable. Sorry -- I wasn't too clear, I think. The weight class I'm in now ranges from 152-165. The next one down is 139-151. So yes, at 145-150 I'd be higher in the weight class, which is good. There are two reasons why Ahmed would like me to stay in this one: 1) He'd rather that I not lose any more weight. In fact, he'd like me to gain a few pounds. Losing weight -- once you get past the newbie lifter stage -- is inconsistent with building strength, so I can't really start building a lot more strength until I stop losing. This is a valid reason but I'm willing to accept the tradeoffs. 2) The world records are lower in my current weight class than in the next one down, and I would have an easier shot at breaking them. (Since there are relatively few older women doing this stuff, this is pretty much based on just a handful of people, and there's one quite good woman who used to compete in the next lower class. She's older now and wouldn't be competing against me, but the records are there.) I have decided that this is not a good reason to determine what I want to weigh :-). Chris 262/157/ (145-150) > >I was a bit confused when first reading. Ahmed likes you in the > >upper 150's to stay in a particular weight class. But if you lose [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Chris > 262/157/ (145-150) Well, your 2nd reason could be a good motivator... If, say, you WANT to set a world record, then you would be better off focusing on that goal, achieve it, then lose the weight if you want to. On the other hand - if winning the world record isn't a priority, then losing now could be your goal. > Sorry -- I wasn't too clear, I think. The weight class I'm in now > ranges from 152-165. The next one down is 139-151. So yes, at [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Chris > 262/157/ (145-150) It's certainly complex, isn't it? I'm going for a caliper test tomorrow and I'm a bit worried about what it will say. I've been actively trying to build muscle for the past three months and I just don't know how much I've succeeded as I've also been steadily losing weight and I'm no newbie anymore. But I bought size 14 jeans yesterday and that was fun. (I started out in a tight size 22.) Dally 244/178/170? > > Sorry -- I wasn't too clear, I think. The weight class I'm in now > > ranges from 152-165. The next one down is 139-151. So yes, at [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Dally > 244/178/170? WOW.. Dally, Did you know the "average" woman wears a size 14. One thing to take into consideration at this point for you - as you lose these last few pounds, and you continue to work out the way you do, you will probably find that you are still decreasing body fat, but you will have to lose a bit of muscle in order to get down to the weight you want to get to. But, you know that, so it should be something you worry about. The goal is to lose the lease amount of muscle in comparison to fat loss. Please post or email these results - I'd love to know. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.