No announcement yet.

Looking good vs feeling good

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I don't know if I would even have a goal weight. I mean, I know our culture says we're supposed to have one, but I don't think you really have to. At 5'6" and age 47, I actually do have a "sort of" goal (somewhere between 145 and 150) but that's only because I woke up one morning, looked in the mirror and thought "Yeah, that looks pretty good, I feel good, and this would take a minimum of maintenance. So I guess this will do." And it happened to be around that weight. It's also not what I thought I ought to weigh when I started. It's higher.

    I would totally play it by ear. As you lose, it will get harder and harder because your body tends to fight you as bodyfat gets more scarce. There's probably going to be a point of diminishing returns where the effort you have to put into losing weight just doesn't equal the happiness you'll get from losing it. Given a reasonably healthy body image, that's when I'd just relax and be happy. But it's not really about a number.


    • #17
      Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
      What would you set as your goal weight?
      I don't know that you should.

      Always providing something's not broken -- I think if you're eating a grain-free, processed-food free, lowish-carb ancestral diet in normal quantities, going moderate on booze, and are fairly physically active then your body is quite capable of sorting itself out and arriving at whatever is normal for you. It may take some time, but that's what I think it does -- all else being equal. If you had to do it all by calculating intake and energy output in order to get to a certain figure you'd decided on ... well, you just couldn't do it. It would be too complex. Gary Taubes talks about this in Good Calories, Bad Calories.

      It would be like having to consciously calculate and control processes like breathing and digestion, which -- thank God -- work just fine without conscious supervision.

      You might not like what's, so to speak, "right for you", but I think whatever is "rightf or you" is precisely where you'll get, so long as something isn't broken, and so long as you don't throw your body curveballs in the shape of "neolithic foods" or broken sleep or whatever.


      • #18
        Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
        I think "attractive" is a factor of how healthy we are and not about weight. If you are grossly obese or skeleton thin, you are not healthy, no matter what your numbers may say. But for most of us, we can be healthy at a wide range of weights. And "attractive" has more factors than body fat %. There is the glow of your skin, health of your hair and eyes, your energy level. No one wants to be with the person who may have a perfect body but has dull skin, listless hair and no energy.
        It's a fair point-the most attractive female form has a waist-to-hip ratio of .66-.72, which is healthy in the avg. woman, as well as clear skin, facial symmetry, etc. that are other indicators of good health. Feeling good and looking good tend to end up being the same thing.