Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry folks, but all the excuses and rationalizations for being just plain fat do not wash. A 140 5'4" woman is a fat little butterball, she should weigh 115-120. At 165 she is grossly obese and looks like a huge bowling ball. I love curvy women, but when her waistline is larger than mine and she has a butt the size of a large microwave oven that is way, way overdoing it. A guy 195 at 5'9" is a puss gut lard ass. Being old is supposed to be an excuse for being fat, but it is not. I am an old guy, medium build not slender. I'm 5'11" and 175, and am now dieting because that is too heavy, 160-165 is optimal, and that is where I will go. Disiplined eating and exercise still works, and am not sympathetic for those that allow themselves to become badly overweight and then complain that they cannot lose pounds.
I was 5'11" and 165 pounds a couple of years ago. After I started weight training I went up to 185 pounds. I still wear the same clothes and my waist is a little smaller. I also train in various martial arts 2-3 times per week. My body fat is probably around 12% right now. My strength level has greatly increased along with my stamina. 165 pounds is not the optimal weight for everyone at 5'11".
I think hip-waist ratio is a better indicator than weight by itself.
Really? Wow. That means I'm in shape. I mean, my ratio hasn't changed much since I weighed in at a whopping 105 lbs at my short 5'1". Note: I'm overweight. When you have an hourglass shape, weight typically gets evenly distributed. Lucky for me, because it also means people can't usually tell how overweight I am, they just know I am. My hip/waist ratio is usually under .80, which is considered healthy. Me being overweight with that same ratio, isn't good, but I still have it. Healthy women with a ruler type body wouldn't ever have that ratio and would be seen as overweight according to the charts.
There's got to be a better way to figure out who's really overweight and not. And in reality, we should be worried more about how healthy we are versus our weight. There are lots of "healthy" slightly overweight people and many "unhealthy" weight appropriate people.
And please, for the people comparing women's weight/height to men, just stop. Unless a woman can get her body fat to as low as his and get as muscular as him, the numbers mean nothing. And physically, most women can't do that.
I would consider 5'4" 140lbs to be slightly overweight, but not terribly by any means. I think a better indication of height and weight should be body fat.
My girlfriend is healthy at 5' 120lbs. However she works out a ton and eats a lot of super healthy food so she definitely has more muscle than the average female. I.e. she can squat 185lbs 6x. When we met, she was 5' and 110lbs and did not exercise, and then also looked very healthy.
Is 5'4" and 140lbs unhealthy? No, I don't think so, not if they have a healthy diet and do some exercise still. But I think most people at 5'4" would probably be a bit healthier on their joints and such if they were closer to 130lbs.
I think anymore that sooooo many people are really overweight and obese, even people that may only be 10-30 lbs overweight (depending on height and body type) might feel "normal" or even "thin" when comparing themselves to everyone else.
FYI, my past 2 girlfriends were both 5'8" and 125lbs, and ate a lot, exercised regularly, and were HEALTHY. they had visible abdominal muscles, and ate when they were hungry! That was just their body type, and they were HEALTHY looking.
I get pretty sick of people judging women who are naturally thin, or exercise a lot, and automatically think they have eating disorders. I lived with both of these girls, I knew their routines. Heaven forbid people eat healthy and exercise without being judged for having an eating disorder nowadays.
Yay! For the first time in my life, I'm mighty pleased to be "below average" ..at least according to the average-sized American woman. I work really hard to say fit and healthy--never knew, though, that I was below average. I'm not exactly skinny or a size 0...and yet...below average.
5'4 and 140 is a range that could mean doughy or normal, depending on the frame. Mybodygallery.com is a good example. I'm 5'4 and doughy at 140 - I look good at 120-125. I was 145 after my kids post-partum and it didn't feel good. Anything over 130 isn't pleasant for me. I also don't live in the USA, being 140 at that height is really pushing it here.
Really? Wow. That means I'm in shape. I mean, my ratio hasn't changed much since I weighed in at a whopping 105 lbs at my short 5'1". Note: I'm overweight. When you have an hourglass shape, weight typically gets evenly distributed. Lucky for me, because it also means people can't usually tell how overweight I am, they just know I am. My hip/waist ratio is usually under .80, which is considered healthy. Me being overweight with that same ratio, isn't good, but I still have it. Healthy women with a ruler type body wouldn't ever have that ratio and would be seen as overweight according to the charts.
There's got to be a better way to figure out who's really overweight and not. And in reality, we should be worried more about how healthy we are versus our weight. There are lots of "healthy" slightly overweight people and many "unhealthy" weight appropriate people.
And please, for the people comparing women's weight/height to men, just stop. Unless a woman can get her body fat to as low as his and get as muscular as him, the numbers mean nothing. And physically, most women can't do that.
I didn't say it was the only indicator. I said that hip-waist plus weight was a better indicator.
That is why there's a healthy range of weights... to accommodate different body types.
Some women are stick-shaped. They won't meet hip-waist ratios, but obviously they will look quite large if they're at the top end of the weight range because they won't have any sort of defined waist.
A woman who is actually curvy (with an hourglass, not as a euphemism for "fat") will find it easier look better at the higher end of the spectrum or even a bit above it, because she can maintain a healthy hip-waist ratio.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
5'4 and 140 is a range that could mean doughy or normal, depending on the frame. Mybodygallery.com is a good example. I'm 5'4 and doughy at 140 - I look good at 120-125. I was 145 after my kids post-partum and it didn't feel good. Anything over 130 isn't pleasant for me. I also don't live in the USA, being 140 at that height is really pushing it here.
I look really gaunt at 120. I didn't when I was younger, so much, though I certainly looked quite thin. I assume this was due to the extra fat younger women have in their faces.
In my 40s, I really do look better with just a little more weight on me, because it keeps my face smoother and not so drawn... and if I'm still within a reasonable weight range, no biggie.
It is alarming to me to see my friends who are in their 40s who diet like crazy to get to the size they were at 21 and look like bobbleheads with chicken necks.
I mean, not all of them look that way, because some people carry weight in such a way that they can be a bit thinner past 40 and they keep a round face. Others, like, me drop weight out of their faces almost immediately.... it's not a good look to keep the face too thin when you have an oval, longer face.
Certainly not an excuse to let yourself get huge or anything, but hardly makes sense to diet yourself down to the lower end of the weight range just so people won't accuse you of being fat on the internet.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I didn't say it was the only indicator. I said that hip-waist plus weight was a better indicator.
That is why there's a healthy range of weights... to accommodate different body types.
Some women are stick-shaped. They won't meet hip-waist ratios, but obviously they will look quite large if they're at the top end of the weight range because they won't have any sort of defined waist.
A woman who is actually curvy (with an hourglass, not as a euphemism for "fat") will find it easier look better at the higher end of the spectrum or even a bit above it, because she can maintain a healthy hip-waist ratio.
I agree. And that's why I said, there has got to be a better way to determine healthy vs unhealthy. Weight alone means nothing. As does shape of the body. Even together they don't mean too much. Oh well. Maybe the only way to determine is if we go back to those High School Standardized fitness tests.
I think 5'4 and 140 would be in the "large frame" category. I would think 120 would be a much better top weight for someone 5'4 - muscular or not. I was just reading an article in the paper today about the link between ovarian cancer and obesity. The article also listed about 6 other death-causing maladies tied to obesity. When your weight category reaches the upper "normal" limits, obesity isn't too far away....better to keep the weight well below "large frame" territory.
I agree. And that's why I said, there has got to be a better way to determine healthy vs unhealthy. Weight alone means nothing. As does shape of the body. Even together they don't mean too much. Oh well. Maybe the only way to determine is if we go back to those High School Standardized fitness tests.
You heart will tell you whether you are healthy or not. People need to start using heart rate monitors and throw away their scales.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
