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.
I'm also 5' 4" and my doc tells me I should be around 145. 110 is way too thin, IMHO.
You probably misunderstood what your doctor says. 145 is the very upper limit of what a 5'4" person should weigh before they become officially "overweight".
I've seen my 5'2" wife down around that weight and it's not healthy looking or attractive at all. I think 125-130 would be Much better. Besides, you'll absolutely freeze to death. I'm 10 pounds below my max and it has to be in the 90s outside before I even feel comfortable. I can't even harldly break a sweat while running until I go at least a mile.
I've seen my 5'2" wife down around that weight and it's not healthy looking or attractive at all. I think 125-130 would be Much better. Besides, you'll absolutely freeze to death. I'm 10 pounds below my max and it has to be in the 90s outside before I even feel comfortable. I can't even harldly break a sweat while running until I go at least a mile.
Your wife should have been fine at 110 if she is small boned. I don't believe in this chart anyways. I think it is too generous. I'd feel flabby and sick, get joint pains, if I was even at the lowest range of weight on the chart. I feel best when I'm about 5-10 pounds below the lowest weight on the chart. But then again I'm not very muscular.
your chart listed the absolute minimum for a small-framed woman as 114.. and I was looking at a picture of my wife from back then and it's not nice at all. There is absolutely nothing attractive about her when she was that small.
and the charts I chose were from good sources like the U.S. Army and a hospital. Maybe you should consult a doctor and see what they say; although I'm pretty sure you won't agree with them either. Hopefully you get some help for that..
your chart listed the absolute minimum for a small-framed woman as 114.. and I was looking at a picture of my wife from back then and it's not nice at all. There is absolutely nothing attractive about her when she was that small.
and the charts I chose were from good sources like the U.S. Army and a hospital. Maybe you should consult a doctor and see what they say; although I'm pretty sure you won't agree with them either. Hopefully you get some help for that..
The absolute minimum is 114 if you're 5'4" with a small frame. For 5'2" with a small frame, the absolute minimum is 110.
I'd still rather be at the mid-range or higher end of normal. Skinny is so 5 minutes ago. I'd rather be shaped like a woman, than a string-bean.
Mine was IRT post #22, which is talking about a 5'4" person. My wife is the one that is 5'2" and was down around 110. So if 110 looked that bad on 5'2", I can just imagine how bad it looks on 5'4".
and I like women to look like women too. Us guys like curves and other things...
I've seen my 5'2" wife down around that weight and it's not healthy looking or attractive at all. I think 125-130 would be Much better. Besides, you'll absolutely freeze to death. I'm 10 pounds below my max and it has to be in the 90s outside before I even feel comfortable. I can't even harldly break a sweat while running until I go at least a mile.
I think it depends on the body frame/build as well. Some women have a tiny frame and 130 would look chubby on them at that weight.
I have more of a thicker/curvy build and on me, anything less than 130 looks a bit sickly.
oops, guess I'm so used to being a guy that I didn't notice I was looking at the guy's in that one. It's still on the very tail end, though, and that was the chart that came from the least reliable source. I would still side with the Army or a medical school..
and I'm far from the low end for my height and people are getting concerned about my weight loss, so I think it's best to stay closer to the middle or the upper end instead of trying to get to the very bottom or lower.
No fruit is filled with sugar & is often processed by the body as such. Limit your intake to 1 piece a day.
110-115 is fine. Consider Atkins or Dukan Diet for more info on high protein approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Sux
Im suprised about fruit. I eat quite a bit...usually an orange for breakfast, and either an apple or pear for lunch and after dinner. Seems like fruit should be a healthy choice for eating (but in moderation)?
That's interesting. I always thought running was more efficient than walking since your working harder and thus burning up more calories, but in a shorter time since you're moving faster. I don't run, being more into walking (walk 3 miles/day min.), but I see these folks doing cross country running while I am doing my walks and was thinking that might be the more effective use of time, if the goal is to burn calories?
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.
