I came up with my goal number by instinct, more than anything.

I was about 150 in my late 40's, and looked and felt good. The shrinking had begun; I'm Irish, so the loss isn't only cartilage, it's also bone mass.

145 is just enough below that to account for less muscle mass as I age, and also gives me a cushion, so if I DO gain, I'm still going to look and feel good.

So far as I can tell, all the methods for increasing height are temporary, possibly short of losing significant weight, which can allow us to stand straighter, and also has the effect of literally lessening the effects of gravity. Lower mass = less effective pull on our bodies.

After my accident, 2 and a half years ago, I spent a LOT of time lying down, for over a year. I had debilitating headaches, and was so exhausted from just trying to get through daily life.

I gained back 1/2 inch in height.

But, with the normalization of activity, and less time spent in a horizontal position, I'm back to 5"4 1/2". Sigh.

I have been reading this thread and see that most people seem to believe that if you lose height it is better to adjust your weight goal down. Somehow I just can't buy this. What has always made sense to me is that an inch or so height loss shouldn't effect weight goals. Of course that doesn't mean I am right but then again I have never been particularly focused on weight goals or I wasn't until I joined this forum. At that point I had already lost 95 pounds. My profile needed a weight goal so I put one down. Now I think about goal weight more than I ever did before but in my heart of hearts I don't really think it's that important or at least not nearly as important as other indicators of health. The issue of "ideal" weight seems mostly unaddressed by the "experts" so we're each left to simply decide for ourselves what makes sense.

Jean

I am ambivalent about my shrinking height. I was always the tallest girl and second tallest in my grade school and wished to be shorter, and that's what I am now. It does feel weird to encounter so many people who are taller than me, though.

The original question that I posted was because I so badly wanted to be out of the obese range. I am sticking with the 5'10" height for my figures, at least until I'm down to where I want to be. I am not comfortable enough to post photos right now but once I am I will.

I will look up those books as it's been more than 20 years since I've really taken an interest in fashion. Time for an update, I guess.

I tried to do some research on this and found that the "experts" can't agree on this, either.

this is an interesting thread!

I wouldn't call myself an expert but i did study anatomy as part of my MS, and my specialty as personal trainer is in the treatment of obesity. So here is my 2 cents:

I think the answer on whether to adjust GW is in the middle- yes, you lost cartiledge and some bone mass (which is likely throughout skeleton, just most pronounced in hips or spine), so that should be taken into consideration, and your goal lowered. However your frame at 5'8 is not the same proportionally as you at 5'10, just shorter. It isn't like your shoulders or hips became less broad, etc.....
So I would split the difference.

WITH THAT SAID, i agree with the posts that say there are much indicators of health and "you will know when you get there." But i also know some people need that number, to each his own.

But know, that even doctors will tell you the scales are a good estimate but it's much more complicated. When i lost a tremendous amount of weight due to illness, my doctors never could give me definitive answer to when i was at a healthy weight again. They let my body tell THEM (my period came back after a 22 month hiatus). My bmi was in 19's at time, so very thin, but not clinically underweight according to BMI......

I hadn't thought of it but maybe now I can buy off the rack dresses--you know, where the waist will actually be at my waist and not the bottom of my rib cage!

I think the experts can't agree on anything, because progressively over the generations we've gotten fatter and fatter, not only as a nation, but in the entire developed world.

I understand what cotonpal articulated and see the reason in it, but also relate to the urgency to just "not be fat" anymore that JAnn is describing.

Like MickieSue, I feel that height going down would affect my final goal, because I would look fatter otherwise, at the same goal but different heights. 1/2 inch, not so much maybe. But if I shrink two inches, for sure that would make a difference in my goal number weight, because it would be a substantial enough height decrease, for me, that it would obviously also affect how I look - even at the same weight.

What I will say and what I have found for me personally - is that the ONLY guideline for ideal weight which I have found to be useful, is Dr. Stillman's.

Dr. Stillman's original ideal weight chart, created in the 1950s or 1960s, seemed quite reasonable to an entire population. At the time.

Somehow we've gotten SO collectively fat in the US now, that the only words I ever read in reference to Dr. Stillman's idea weight chart, are things like, "I would be an absolute skeleton, I could NEVER go that low."

For me though, his ideal weight charge is spot on, and definitely represents the only true weight range at which I am not fat or overweight, and where I not only look, but also feel my best.

The formula (if memory serves - if not, someone correct me please),... is 100 lbs for the first 5 feet of height, then a range of 3-5 lbs for every inch thereafter - depending on the size of your frame.

In other words at 5ft 11, my ideal weight would be 100 + a range of 33-55 lbs. Or more simply put, 133-155 lbs.

I can tell you that I am 154 lbs right now, and that I am definitely at the high end of what I would ever consider an acceptable, and truly "not fat" weight for my height. I look good,... but trust me, I am on the absolute cusp still. 5 more lbs and I am right back to humpty-dumpty, totally chunky, and not-in-any-way-delicate territory.

I'm just throwing this out there, because all kinds of other calculations, BMI tables, etc... only ever left me disappointed, and gave me the impression that I was thin "enough",... when I clearly wasn't. The disappointment then subsequently kicked in, because instead of having a concrete goal to work towards - exacting though it might be... I just kind of felt like I was just... still fat. Which I was.

I think there's nothing wrong with people choosing to carry 20 lbs extra or whatever, and calling it their personal "ideal" weight. This is a comment on the general population btw, not a comment on this thread.

But I do think it's weird though, when collectively, as a nation, people (we) seem to all think we're all really thin... when these days, we're just not anymore.

Anyway... in terms of "when will my belly fat be gone" and things like this... I am nowhere NEAR menopause even.

But I sure do have to go a heck of a lot lower than I would have liked to, or than that BMI tables would have indicated to me... to get to a weight that is not fat on me.

This is kind of why in my first post, I said you'll know yourself when you look and feel great, and that it may not necessarily be related to strict number on the scale.

I can tell you all too, that as a tall person here, I can probably be about 40 lbs heavier clothed, and still look "slim". But 40 lbs is A LOT of fat to be camouflaging - if we're going to call a spade, a spade.

Because Jann and I are both tall, my comment would be that as a guess, ... to be "not fat" anymore fully dressed and fully clothed, I would say you can probably use the top "normal" range of the BMI tables.

But to be "not fat" naked, with nothing to hide behind, Dr. Stillman's charts I think are the only ones that would result in a genuinely slender, naked silhouette.

It's all on a spectrum though, isn't it? For some people, "average" is good enough. Or camouflaging in clothes is fine.

But you'll definitely know, when you get to where you are genuinely happy for you.

The amazing thing is that without limiting calories but with very strictly limiting carbs, LC will definitely take you a lot lower than any other diet ever would have.

I appreciate your comments, honeypie, as I have used the 100+ rule ever since I can remember. I did try Stillman way back when but I just couldn't stay on it. My "final" goal right now is 174 since that is supposed to get me back into the "normal" range. I haven't been there since 1972 so you know it will be a challenge. My ultimate goal is 150 based on a 5'10" height, a weight I was at when I was age 12 and 5'8". I don't know if I should even shoot for that goal based on my age (70 in Jan.). Time will tell.

Amen to that!

I got to my goal of 120 lbs (5' 4" tall woman, average frame) after one year of Intermittent Fasting. Kept on fasting and 2 years later I am 5 lbs heavier. Perfectly OK with this as I am sleeping much better. And it may not all be fat.

I am old enough to remember how skinny most people were back in the 1950s but I do wonder what contribution smoking made.

I have been at 130, the supposed top of my Stillman ideal weight, exactly once in my life. When I was eating about 900 calories a day, working full-time, exercising 3 or more hours a week, including free and machine weights, and parenting, alone, four kids, the oldest of whom was 11.

And even then, that weight lasted about 2 weeks, before hopping up to 135, where I stayed for several years before the onset of perimenopause led to increasing weight.

Mind you, at 135, and not quite 5'6", I was wearing a size 6 or 8, and this was in the early 90s--so, today, it would be a 2 or a 4.

Dr Stillman's numbers seem to work well for people who are tall, and built quite proportionally. If you are a woman with hip hop hips and thighs, like me, no.way.

At my thinnest, I still had 36 inch hips, to 24 inch waist, and 34 inch bust. And always, always, substantial thighs.

THAT may be one reason why so many people scoff at that chart of his: because, for them, it IS unrealistic as either an ideal or a healthy weight.

It is absolutely unrealistic for me. I once weighed what his charts would suggest for me. I was severely depressed at the time and finding it difficult to eat almost anything. I got threatened with tube feeding if I didn't manage to put on some weight. I was in my 30's at the time. I also had an extremely anorexic teenager compliment me on how thin I was. I was not anorexic, just depressed. I am much more focused on health than looks so when I wonder about an "ideal" weight I automatically think about ideal for optimal health not looks. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Jean

I think goal weights are subjective for most of us. Mine certainly is! I just couldn't bear to choose a goal weight that was *more* than 200 pounds below my starting weight. So I chose 200 exactly, and it's pretty moot anyway as I don't expect to ever reach it, not now after being stalled for seven years. It just seemed a weight I'd be much healthier at than nearly 400! And not that far out. During my "fat" twenties my weight bounced in the 155-165 range and at that weight I hiked, biked, swam, skied, jogged, etc. So 175 as a current weight didn't freak me.

This whole shrinking thing though...It seems some of you have shrunk quite a lot! In my mid-twenties I always claimed to be 5'7" but at the doctor's office was actually 5'6 3/4". Now, 40 years later at age 64, I measure 5'6 1/2" - so have shrunk 1/4 inch over the course of 40 years. That seems pretty minor compared to the shrinkage I see reported here - yet it horrified my new (and probably 'ex' as well) GYN who seemed to feel a 1/4-inch shrinkage over 40 years seemed to imply I'm about ready to break into pieces from osteoporosis and wanted me immediately on max dosage of fosomax.Not! I would not dream of taking it from all I've read. Luckily my primary physician agreed ("absolutely not! Extremely major side effects and almost zero benefits"). But now 1/4 inch doesn't seem that bad. And certainly not enough difference to change a goal weight.

Try starting out at 5'0" and learning you've shrunk under that. Imagine being 290 pounds at that height.

I would love (and look forward to) having anywhere near the problem of wondering what is an ideal weight.

I'll be happy when I get out of the morbidly obese category, and just into obese.

Ha, that's currently the goal i would be happy with too!

That's somewhat what I was talking about...choosing a goal weight that feels utterly beyond what can be accomplished can be self defeating for so many people.

Ken, who we all know, originally had a goal weight of 220, which was 1/2 his starting weight, and took him out of the obese category into the very top of overweight.

He revised it down once he made it there. But, really, at 440, how could he be expected to believe in 190, his current weight?

Merpig, from where you started, you have made tremendous progress! And your active lifestyle shows that you have helped yourself, as well.

Kat, you, too, in a really, short time, have done so much good for both yourself and your husband, by changing the way that you eat. And, given your profession, you are setting a shining example for your students, as well!

Weight goals can change, over time. I get more concerned when I see a 5'8" young woman post a goal weight of 120, than a 5'2' woman post one of 200. I know that, if she has the mindset to get there, the never cheat one, that once she achieves 200, she will most likely revise it downward.