Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Exercise and Fitness
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-14-2014, 05:57 AM
 
692 posts, read 956,780 times
Reputation: 941

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj View Post
That is UNDERweight. Also, the "ideal" weight needs to take into account how muscular you are. Two women who are the same height - the one who weighs 140 lbs with a good (not excessive) layer of muscle is much better off than one who weighs 115 lbs. In fact, the one who weighs 140 lbs but is not particularly well-defined muscularly is STILL better off than the underweight woman at 115 lbs.

"Ideal" should be based only on issues of health, not on unrealistic Barbie-proportions. You're right about one thing - bony isn't pretty.
What are you talking about? 5'3'' and 115 lbs for a woman is very much normal. Hell, for a MAN at 5'3'' 115 lbs is normal



This boxer is 5'4 and 112 lbs. Hardly underweight or malnourished and very muscular.


This just shows how the obesity epidemic has caused people to really have a skewed view of what normal weight looks like. 5'3'' and 140 on a woman is still healthy, but it's not necessarily "better" than 115, and to say that weight 140 while not being muscular than weighing 115 is absolutely RIDICULOUS.

Furthermore, while muscle mass is important in considering whether a person is healthy or not, the majority of overweight women (and overweight men for that matter) don't have high BMI's because they are muscular, they have high BMI's because they have high amounts of body fat. The average woman doesn't lift weights or do any kind of manual labour that would cause her to be muscular at 140, so lets stop kidding ourselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2014, 06:31 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
14,785 posts, read 24,073,706 times
Reputation: 27092
Im 5'10 and 138 and my female dr tells me Im over weight all the time and I dont understand this because she is tiny maybe she wants all her patients to be tiny ...she is 5'2 and maybe 115 and I tower over her maybe she thinks all women should be tiny and petite like her , well no thanks . I think 5'10 and 138 is just fine for me and I have learned how to maintain that so I dont know what the big deal is .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
3,727 posts, read 6,221,555 times
Reputation: 4257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman View Post
The average American woman is 5'4 and 165lbs, which is pretty big. Average American male is 5'9 and 195lbs, also overweight.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Wine Country
6,103 posts, read 8,813,688 times
Reputation: 12324
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe View Post
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 am 52 and fit. I am 5'4 and spent most of my adult weight at 114lbs. I gained weight in my 40's and lost it and got down to 118 lbs and I looked really thin. I settled at 125 which for me was a size 2/4. Now I am hovering around 130 because I like my wine dammit! But also as women age we lose a lot of elasticity and being thin can add years to a face. I will probably go in between 125 and 130 and that is fine by me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Backwoods of Maine
7,488 posts, read 10,483,397 times
Reputation: 21470
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe View Post
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.
No, she does NOT look like a "bowling ball" at 165 lbs. I have seen obese women, and they are well over 200 lbs at anywhere from 5'4" to 5'7". It is incredible how many women, ages 35 to 55, weigh in excess of 200 lbs and these are the ladies that look like "a fat little butterball". 165 may not be ideal, but I have known women who were there...a bit overweight, but not obese (nor unattractive, may I add).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe View Post
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.
I agree with you here. But such a woman will invariably weigh over 200 lbs. A butt like you speak of ("large microwave oven") is simply not found on a 165 lb woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackShoe View Post
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.
I am a male, 66 years old, 6'2" and weigh 212. I do not look, feel, or otherwise qualify as overweight. My muscle tone is still quite good. My doctor is happy with my weight. I don't have a "belly". YMMV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 09:36 AM
 
255 posts, read 407,104 times
Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexdiamondz1902 View Post
What are you talking about? 5'3'' and 115 lbs for a woman is very much normal. Hell, for a MAN at 5'3'' 115 lbs is normal



This boxer is 5'4 and 112 lbs. Hardly underweight or malnourished and very muscular.


This just shows how the obesity epidemic has caused people to really have a skewed view of what normal weight looks like. 5'3'' and 140 on a woman is still healthy, but it's not necessarily "better" than 115, and to say that weight 140 while not being muscular than weighing 115 is absolutely RIDICULOUS.

Furthermore, while muscle mass is important in considering whether a person is healthy or not, the majority of overweight women (and overweight men for that matter) don't have high BMI's because they are muscular, they have high BMI's because they have high amounts of body fat. The average woman doesn't lift weights or do any kind of manual labour that would cause her to be muscular at 140, so lets stop kidding ourselves.
This is definitely true. I'm 5'4 and 115 and I just had a complete physical on Monday at my doctors office, and everything about me is healthy. My doctor had no issue with my weight whatsoever. If I was underweight, he would probably be the first to say something. I have to have regular visits now just because of a medical condition I had this time last year, so I know for sure he would bring up anything that worries him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 09:44 AM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 7,749,740 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterseat View Post
HbH you lolo

The rule of thumb for women is 100 pound for the first 5 feet and 5 pounds for every inch over. I'm 5'9" and 145 isn't bad for me. I try to stay w/in 5 pounds of that and I'm happy. That doesn't work for everyone and gym rats will weigh more with all that solid muscle.

Bony ain't pretty.
Lol in more ways then one. Im just a lover of the wahines lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 11:31 AM
 
17,533 posts, read 39,109,818 times
Reputation: 24287
Age plays a lot into this as well. I am female, over 5'8", when I was younger, consistently weighed in the 130s (very active)

I am now 64, past menopause and weigh in the 150s. My doctor says this is healthy for my age and actually preferable to being too thin. Older people need a few extra, emphasis on a FEW. But then I also am very active, do strength training and a lot of bike riding so I have a good bit of muscle tone and do NOT look overweight at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Virginia
2,765 posts, read 3,628,208 times
Reputation: 2355
I have a friend who's ex wife was 5'4" and 150lbs and was in the navy, she shocked me when she told me what she weighted. I would have never guessed it. She had a very nice figure, curvy and shapely and a pair of nice legs. We used to joke with him about how sexy his wife was, the truth is that it was hard for us to be around them when we had gatherings because she would wear shorts and we as men wanted to look but out of respect could not. As far as doctors go, I dont't think I would take a doctor's word on weather my weight is healthy or not especially if he looks like he could lose a few pounds himself, like my doctor who did the physical on me several years ago and later that week I saw him on the treadmill next to me huffing and puffing because he was overweight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 01:02 PM
 
50,721 posts, read 36,424,154 times
Reputation: 76531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerrunner View Post
Jazzcat, the fact that some women are slimmer will not solve the health problems of those who are fatter! So I don't see your point about the average.
Wutitiz, you comment that this may be an "all ages" average. I do not think children would be included in the average, just adults.

According to the scale used by the Center for Disease Control a weight of 140 lbs for a women 5' 4" in height gives a BMI of 24, just inside the normal range but overweight for women who do not have a muscular build.
Wikipaedia shows the World Health Organization calculates an average BMI of 27 for American women.
Since being overweight increases the risk of diabetes, stroke, heart attacks and some types of cancer I would say that is a serious matter.

I would consider a women of that height and weight fat, but then I am a runner, most people look fat to me!
You probably would never guess I weigh that much. I always win at those carnival games where the guy guesses your weight, again because I don't think most guys have a realistic view of what women weigh. I am also a runner, and look great in a bikini for that matter, with a stomach flat enough to serve drinks on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Exercise and Fitness

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top