Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My doctor says being as lean as possible with as little body fat as possible is the healthiest overall.

to a point, though. if you become anorexic and your heart fails, or if you don't have strong bones and any padding and fracture a hip, that's not healthy.

My doc says very, very few people are too thin to be healthy whereas lots and lots of people are too overweight to be healthy.

There's no need to go to a size 6 unless that's what you want. If you don't want it, like how people don't care about having a luxury car or luxury handbag, then don't bother going through the effort for it.

I would much rather be size 10 and fit than a smaller body that is less strong and fit. Enjoy your good health.

Anonymous wrote:I’m late thirties, three kids, very fit (do circuit workouts 3-4 times a week) but still slightly overweight. Originally I wanted to get back down to a size six before my 40th birthday at the end of this year but now am questioning my motivation. Is there any reason - aside from vanity - why it’s better to be a size 6 than a size 10? Bloodwork is perfect and as mentioned I’m in great shape: can run and lift with the best of them, I have a ton of energy and I’m very active.

You seem to be in great health. My opinion: Don’t borrow trouble, and enjoy life as you are!

I'm a likely much shorter you (because I am a 6 and overweight) I don't enjoy looking bigger and my joints do hurt. In the process of losing.

OP, yes, the only reason to lose weight to be a size 6 is vanity. That matters more to some people than others. But you sound very fit so from a health perspective I doubt you need to worry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind, it will be much harder to lose the weight in 5 years than now. Late 30s, I was a bit smaller than your size and didn’t do much about it. I felt fit enough, ate a balanced but not restrictive diet, exercised, etc. 10 years later, I’m 20 pounds heavier even though I eat better and exercise more. It’s impossible for me to drop any weight.

If I could, I’d go back to 38 and work on my fitness and lose that bit of baby weight (last kid at 37).

I am 5 years older than OP and losing weight now (just 10lbs worth of vanity pounds). It is coming off the same way it always was. Calories in vs calories out will always work, before, during and after menopause.

Not necessarily true. I am 55 and trying to lose 15 lbs via weight watchers and the weight is coming off at a snail’s pace. Vs 6 years ago I lost 15 lbs via WW (so ate exactly the same as I am now to lose weight) and I lost 1-2 lbs a week on average.

With WW you are not tracking calories so you do not really have an exact comparison. You might be moving less and your body composition might have deteriorated if you were not lifting during the last six years. So while it might be harder now it is not just because you got older.

I’m the WW poster and I hear you on the calorie piece but per WW’s calculations I should be losing weight so long as I stick to their point calculations, and I am, but I’m barely losing. I’ve never lifted weights, and I exercise the same as I always have for probably 10 years - walking 3 miles 5 days/week and yoga 2/week. I mentioned this to my doctor and she chalked it up to aging metabolism.

If you never lift and only ever do cardio you will have for sure lost muscle with age, so your body composition is less favorable than it was for weight loss. I would also not count on WW calculations to tell you how much you need to eat to lose. Calorie tracking is the most reliable way to lose fat and to know what is actually happening.

At my fittest - size 4 I was 135 at 5’ 2”. It’s all in body composition. If I’d lost anymore I would have been too lean and had less energy for my heavy workouts and physical job.

You sound perfect and happy. Continue your great program and if weight creeps up try a metabolic reset and add another weight training day and def mobility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't tell you anything based on your dress size, OP. Share your height and weight.

I am 5’3 and 165 pounds. At my smallest (prekids) I was 138-140 and a size 4/6. I wear an 8/10 depending on brand. I am firm, not flabby, and very muscular.

You're like me. I'm 5'2" and 145 is my happy weight while 165 is slightly overweight but healthy. I am currently aiming for 165 as my target weight, so I get this. I think you're fine, as long as your doctor says you're fine and your numbers are good, you're good.

Anonymous wrote:My doctor says being as lean as possible with as little body fat as possible is the healthiest overall.

to a point, though. if you become anorexic and your heart fails, or if you don't have strong bones and any padding and fracture a hip, that's not healthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something doesn’t add up. I am a size 10, 5’10 and 145. I’m not thin, I’m a healthy weight but you aren’t a size 10 just because you can force yourself into clothing. It should fit nicely.

People are built different. I am 5’6” 147lbs and size 2-4 in non-stretchy clothes. How you are shaped and how much fat vs muscle you carry will affect the size of your clothes. We can’t really judge whether OP should lose weight without seeing how she looks and knowing her body fat %.

How are you a 2-4 at 147lbs? I am 5'6 also, weigh 125lbs. and wear a 2-4. I don't see how you and I wear the same size, with a 22 lbs. difference.

I am very muscular and fairly lean. Just my lean mass weighs almost as much as you do (DEXA measured). Size 2 pants start hanging on me when I drop below 140 and I would look extremely unhealthy and would have to lose muscle to drop below 130. How you are shaped also works into the size you wear. A woman with larger hips and much skinnier otherwise might need the same size pants as me even if she is 20lbs lighter, but on my legs the pants will be more fitted than on hers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overweight is hard on joints and also contributes to avoidance of certain exercises. For instance, if I'm overweight, I may feel like I'm running and lifting fine, but I probably avoid pullups, handstand holds, etc. I therefore miss out on a whole range of movement and it becomes a vicious circle.

Also, your reference group ("the best of them") might not really be what you want it to be.

I’m a size 2 and never do handstand holds. It’s not necessary for optimal health. What a strange thing to focus on.

We know nothing about your muscles. Being a size 2 means nothing here and if anything I would not think you’d have strength.

That’s dumb. You can be strong at any size.

You came on here and didn’t talk about your strength or shoulder presses. You wanted us to be impressed with your size 2. Dumb.

I am 5’4 and was 6 at 145. I am curvey and muscular. At 165 I was an 8. Now at 200 and size 14/16. Early menopause but Stronger now than I have ever been. Perfect labs but weight won’t budge. I eat too much but unless I literally stop eating I will never be a 6 again. Oh well. I still try every day and hope to get back to 8/10. My genetics are kicking in- i look like my mom and my grandmas… and I am a working mom so I am out of time to add more workouts unless I never want to see my child or sleep. I can do pushups, handstands, backbends, deadlifts and squats. I don’t do pull-ups never been able to do them. I can do a split though lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't tell you anything based on your dress size, OP. Share your height and weight.

I am 5’3 and 165 pounds. At my smallest (prekids) I was 138-140 and a size 4/6. I wear an 8/10 depending on brand. I am firm, not flabby, and very muscular.

Your body must be very dense / muscular. I am also 5’3” , hourglass shaped and I am size 8-10 at 135. I’d need to get to 120 to fit into 4-6. This is why BMI is not a good measure. I think you are in a great shape physically.

Just rest. Don’t try so hard.