What is your weight at 5 foot 2 inches?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you gotten a physical done recently? How are you feeling health-wise? It honestly seems like you’re not focused enough on your health.

Generally speaking, cardiovascular exercise does not cause weight loss. Your body needs a certain number of calories to stay at your current weight so your body reacts to higher energy expenditures with hunger. Also, 30 minutes of cardio burns what, 200 calories? You make that up and more by eating an apple and a banana. But cardio is vital for long-term health. So is weight training, which it doesn’t seem like you’re doing. You are at risk for osteoporosis if you don’t do it. You say you eat relatively healthy but what does that mean? Are you eating enough omega 3s and other healthy fats? Enough protein? Enough fiber? At your age I really think you should consider what your quality of life will be like in 20 years rather than how good you look now.

I was much more focused on health when I was working remotely and ran for an hour at lunchtime.

Between our strict office policy, commuting and two children to get dinner for and ready for bed, I have very little time for myself to exercise.

That’s why I’m saying time=more exercise for health.

There are very few remote/hybrid jobs left. I’ve looked.

I’m not denying that it’s easier to be healthy when you have a more flexible job. I’m just saying that most of your comments are focused on how you look and not your health.

I definitely want to look cute-like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

At 44, I'm at 121/122, which is less than pre-kids at 128. At that weight, I'm definitely still skinny fat and hoping to gain muscle before menopause hits in a few years. I started Peloton strength training in the fall and have continued about 3x per week for 30 minutes in addition to to an equal amount of cardio/stretching. I can lose weight at 1,200 calories, but need about 1,380 calories with 90g of protein to build muscle (my New Year resolution).

[Anonymous]

106. I’m 36 with three kids. It takes a medium amount of effort. I can have dessert or a drink most days but I can’t snack all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Currently at around 108-110 and it feels great, but it's not sustainable. I work out four days/week for 50-60 minutes and walk six or seven days/week twice/day to get 9-10,000 steps. If I drop back to one walk/day, I'll go up to around 115 unless I cut food intake which I am unlikely to do. Most of my adult life I've been closer to 125.

OP here. Thanks so much for these responses! It sounds like there are a range of healthy and attractive weights at this particular height.

One of my barriers is that I sit in an office five days a week and only fit in a 25-30 minute run three days a week, often when it’s dark outside. Peloton never helped me, just made me hungrier.

For the folks hovering around 110-115, do you work from home or are you a SAHM?

It seems like you really need a lot of time to maintain a weight like 110-115.

I work from home and have flexibility in my hours. Yes, it does take time and is very challenging when you have to be in the office. And it's worse when it's dark in the morning and at night.

[Anonymous]

I'm a hair under 5'2" and am 53. When I was in college/grad school I was around 104-106 but even then was a size 4 due to my frame (maybe also sizes were less inflated) and I had an eating/exercise disorder (several hours a day of exercise and extremely limited diet). I wasn't technically overweight, many women are healthy at that weight, but I was not healthy--no periods for years, heart rate in the 40s, hair loss, etc. I slowly recovered to a set point of around 118, and I was very very fit at that weight, then had kids and it went up to 122-124 and definitely jigglier.

To stay at this weight I could not eat whatever I wanted but I also didn't have to worry too much, as I had a lot of go to meals. I maintained on probably an average of 1400/cal/day, 3-4 workouts/week plus general attempt to be active (walk the dog, take stairs, etc). I could have occasional splurge without scale moving up or down too much, but of course stayed away from stupid calories (starbucks drinks, processed foods, baked goods) . As part of a fitness program at my gym, I did a dexa fit scan a couple years ago which was eye opening--my BMR was 980 the first time measured and 995 the second (I put on more muscle I guess). It was considered low for my stats-- I do wonder whether years of caloric restriction damaged my metabolism. I actually still eat less than my 83 year old, inactive mother and she is only about 10 lbs more than me.

I recently got down to 112-114, but a lot of it was muscle as well as fat and it was due to inactivity post-surgery (when I dont move I actually really dont eat much) and stress and eating very little, mostly under 1k calories a day for several months--i just felt sick a lot of the time and only really tolerated smoothies and very easy foods. I'd take a few bites of dinner and be done. I also had bad stomach issues so eating more than a little at a time made me bloat and burp horribly. I am moving back up to eating 1200-1400 cal a diet, focusing more on protein and hoping I can put on muscle without too much fat. I also have some other vitamin and mineral deficiencies so am trying to really get nutrition without too many calories. I know gaining weight is not the worst thing in the world, esp to be healthy, but I'm not totally free of the mindset that thinner is better.

As for you, OP, there is a huge range of weight that is "healthy" at this height, and a huge range of what people need to do to stay there.

[Anonymous]

Now 145, started Semaglutide a week ago and down from 150. It was the highest I have ever been. I have not been able to get below 130 in about a decade and would love to ideally go down to 115. We will see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a hair under 5'2" and am 53. When I was in college/grad school I was around 104-106 but even then was a size 4 due to my frame (maybe also sizes were less inflated) and I had an eating/exercise disorder (several hours a day of exercise and extremely limited diet). I wasn't technically overweight, many women are healthy at that weight, but I was not healthy--no periods for years, heart rate in the 40s, hair loss, etc. I slowly recovered to a set point of around 118, and I was very very fit at that weight, then had kids and it went up to 122-124 and definitely jigglier.

To stay at this weight I could not eat whatever I wanted but I also didn't have to worry too much, as I had a lot of go to meals. I maintained on probably an average of 1400/cal/day, 3-4 workouts/week plus general attempt to be active (walk the dog, take stairs, etc). I could have occasional splurge without scale moving up or down too much, but of course stayed away from stupid calories (starbucks drinks, processed foods, baked goods) . As part of a fitness program at my gym, I did a dexa fit scan a couple years ago which was eye opening--my BMR was 980 the first time measured and 995 the second (I put on more muscle I guess). It was considered low for my stats-- I do wonder whether years of caloric restriction damaged my metabolism. I actually still eat less than my 83 year old, inactive mother and she is only about 10 lbs more than me.

I recently got down to 112-114, but a lot of it was muscle as well as fat and it was due to inactivity post-surgery (when I dont move I actually really dont eat much) and stress and eating very little, mostly under 1k calories a day for several months--i just felt sick a lot of the time and only really tolerated smoothies and very easy foods. I'd take a few bites of dinner and be done. I also had bad stomach issues so eating more than a little at a time made me bloat and burp horribly. I am moving back up to eating 1200-1400 cal a diet, focusing more on protein and hoping I can put on muscle without too much fat. I also have some other vitamin and mineral deficiencies so am trying to really get nutrition without too many calories. I know gaining weight is not the worst thing in the world, esp to be healthy, but I'm not totally free of the mindset that thinner is better.

As for you, OP, there is a huge range of weight that is "healthy" at this height, and a huge range of what people need to do to stay there.

A speech isn't really required.

[Anonymous]

I am 5-2 and weighed 104 of solid muscle until age 44 when i went into peri-menopause. I gained 20 pounds in 2 years and have never been able to lose it. At this point (age 62) my goal is simply not to gain. My eating habits are the best they they have ever been but my exercise now is only moderate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hover between 106-109 but I have quite the belly. I love anything sugary and cant get off carbs so don't know how that will go away.

Same here with a little pooch at age 40. If I can maintain my body this way, I'll be okay with it, but I know it gets harder later on in your 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you gotten a physical done recently? How are you feeling health-wise? It honestly seems like you’re not focused enough on your health.

Generally speaking, cardiovascular exercise does not cause weight loss. Your body needs a certain number of calories to stay at your current weight so your body reacts to higher energy expenditures with hunger. Also, 30 minutes of cardio burns what, 200 calories? You make that up and more by eating an apple and a banana. But cardio is vital for long-term health. So is weight training, which it doesn’t seem like you’re doing. You are at risk for osteoporosis if you don’t do it. You say you eat relatively healthy but what does that mean? Are you eating enough omega 3s and other healthy fats? Enough protein? Enough fiber? At your age I really think you should consider what your quality of life will be like in 20 years rather than how good you look now.

I was much more focused on health when I was working remotely and ran for an hour at lunchtime.

Between our strict office policy, commuting and two children to get dinner for and ready for bed, I have very little time for myself to exercise.

That’s why I’m saying time=more exercise for health.

There are very few remote/hybrid jobs left. I’ve looked.

I’m not denying that it’s easier to be healthy when you have a more flexible job. I’m just saying that most of your comments are focused on how you look and not your health.

I definitely want to look cute-like everyone else.

Sure but some of us prioritize health rather than a single-minded focus on weight, and particularly health choices that are going to lead to a better quality of life down the road. And let’s face it: you’re in your mid 40s, you aren’t going to be able to look “cute” for much longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't everyone be focused on their fat to muscle ratio, and not the number on the scale?

This is a good point. Also, I think your overall build can affect the ideal weight.

I am a petite person (wear a size 5 shoe), have small A cups, etc. 105-110 looks very healthy on me (I still have enough meat at that weight not to look sickly), but I am sure there are other women who would look awful at that weight and need more pounds.

Yeah same. Your frame has a huge impact on what the weight looks like. I’m also a 5.5 shoe, A cup, small framed 5’2. Also lean and muscular from weight training. I weigh 104-105 and and look thin but healthy- I’d look awful at 120 (did look awful when I was 120 in college because I ate like garbage) but on other women, they look great at this height with 120 on their frame. Depends on the person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you gotten a physical done recently? How are you feeling health-wise? It honestly seems like you’re not focused enough on your health.

Generally speaking, cardiovascular exercise does not cause weight loss. Your body needs a certain number of calories to stay at your current weight so your body reacts to higher energy expenditures with hunger. Also, 30 minutes of cardio burns what, 200 calories? You make that up and more by eating an apple and a banana. But cardio is vital for long-term health. So is weight training, which it doesn’t seem like you’re doing. You are at risk for osteoporosis if you don’t do it. You say you eat relatively healthy but what does that mean? Are you eating enough omega 3s and other healthy fats? Enough protein? Enough fiber? At your age I really think you should consider what your quality of life will be like in 20 years rather than how good you look now.

I was much more focused on health when I was working remotely and ran for an hour at lunchtime.

Between our strict office policy, commuting and two children to get dinner for and ready for bed, I have very little time for myself to exercise.

That’s why I’m saying time=more exercise for health.

There are very few remote/hybrid jobs left. I’ve looked.

I’m not denying that it’s easier to be healthy when you have a more flexible job. I’m just saying that most of your comments are focused on how you look and not your health.

I definitely want to look cute-like everyone else.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are millions upon millions of people who don't give a hoot about looking cute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you gotten a physical done recently? How are you feeling health-wise? It honestly seems like you’re not focused enough on your health.

Generally speaking, cardiovascular exercise does not cause weight loss. Your body needs a certain number of calories to stay at your current weight so your body reacts to higher energy expenditures with hunger. Also, 30 minutes of cardio burns what, 200 calories? You make that up and more by eating an apple and a banana. But cardio is vital for long-term health. So is weight training, which it doesn’t seem like you’re doing. You are at risk for osteoporosis if you don’t do it. You say you eat relatively healthy but what does that mean? Are you eating enough omega 3s and other healthy fats? Enough protein? Enough fiber? At your age I really think you should consider what your quality of life will be like in 20 years rather than how good you look now.

I was much more focused on health when I was working remotely and ran for an hour at lunchtime.

Between our strict office policy, commuting and two children to get dinner for and ready for bed, I have very little time for myself to exercise.

That’s why I’m saying time=more exercise for health.

There are very few remote/hybrid jobs left. I’ve looked.

I’m not denying that it’s easier to be healthy when you have a more flexible job. I’m just saying that most of your comments are focused on how you look and not your health.

I definitely want to look cute-like everyone else.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are millions upon millions of people who don't give a hoot about looking cute.

Actually probably billions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't everyone be focused on their fat to muscle ratio, and not the number on the scale?

This is a good point. Also, I think your overall build can affect the ideal weight.

I am a petite person (wear a size 5 shoe), have small A cups, etc. 105-110 looks very healthy on me (I still have enough meat at that weight not to look sickly), but I am sure there are other women who would look awful at that weight and need more pounds.

Yeah same. Your frame has a huge impact on what the weight looks like. I’m also a 5.5 shoe, A cup, small framed 5’2. Also lean and muscular from weight training. I weigh 104-105 and and look thin but healthy- I’d look awful at 120 (did look awful when I was 120 in college because I ate like garbage) but on other women, they look great at this height with 120 on their frame. Depends on the person.

Yeah, I'm 5'2" and 112 but a DD cup, and I think each breast is a couple of pounds!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't everyone be focused on their fat to muscle ratio, and not the number on the scale?

This is a good point. Also, I think your overall build can affect the ideal weight.

I am a petite person (wear a size 5 shoe), have small A cups, etc. 105-110 looks very healthy on me (I still have enough meat at that weight not to look sickly), but I am sure there are other women who would look awful at that weight and need more pounds.

Yeah same. Your frame has a huge impact on what the weight looks like. I’m also a 5.5 shoe, A cup, small framed 5’2. Also lean and muscular from weight training. I weigh 104-105 and and look thin but healthy- I’d look awful at 120 (did look awful when I was 120 in college because I ate like garbage) but on other women, they look great at this height with 120 on their frame. Depends on the person.

Yeah, I'm 5'2" and 112 but a DD cup, and I think each breast is a couple of pounds!

Yep, I’m 106 at 5’2” but have an E cup. I also have size 5 feet, but a round face. I’m thin and have a thigh gap, but definitely look fine, even a little thick in certain clothes. Build matters for short women.