Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Looking good vs feeling good page 2

  1. #11
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    7,935
    From the OP, I don't know what you mean about looking good vs feeling good.

    Do you think that you look better at 135, but feel better at 120?

    Perhaps there's a happy medium? Like, try for 127 and see if you look AND feel good?

    I would go for feeling good, and then see what weight that is.

  2. #12
    UniqueTII's Avatar
    UniqueTII is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ankeny, IA
    Posts
    198
    If you're actively trying to lose weight, just stop that for a bit but keep eating Primal fare. I personally don't think that a few extra pounds will make you feel worse, so if you like how you look at that weight then finding the best of both worlds shouldn't be difficult.
    Ed W. Age:35 Height: 6'4"
    SW: 289 (1/1/12) CW: 195 (11/1/12) GW: < 200 (Hit 198 on 10/3/12) Now onto body comp.

  3. #13
    CarlaC's Avatar
    CarlaC is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    50
    I would target the weight:

    Where my best clothes are
    Where I can stay comfortably without gaining
    Where I don't look like a lifetime smoker due to sagging skin
    Where I am proportional (some breasts, stomach not sticking out, shirts not riding up in back)

    Keep in mind that once you gain you look old when you go back to your lowest weight....

  4. #14
    magnolia1973's Avatar
    magnolia1973 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,726
    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.

    I mean, it sucks that the media only represents one or two body types as attractive- willowy thin, curvy but no fat... but the reality is that a whole range of bodies get check outs. I think in terms of "attractive" the difference between 130 and 117 is minimal except in your own mind. If 117 is where you feel awesome and energetic and healthy then there ya go.

    I think that the "fat" people that are treated poorly are the very obese, where it is apparent that the fat is hurting health. Thinking back to 300lb days- who wants a mate that is winded by a short walk and can't really move correctly, that has no energy etc. That doesn't send an image of "can have and care for a child". Just like a skeletal woman with no energy is not attractive.

    That doesn't excuse the way fat women are treated, but you can't send out an image of being unhealthy and expect men to find you attractive. However- you don't need to be "thin" to be attractive-just a healthier weight. I'm 5'6, 184. I get checked out a lot. Men flirt with me. This did not happen at 300 or 250.... or even 220. But it happens now.... and my body looks and feels pretty healthy.

  5. #15
    Sabine's Avatar
    Sabine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth Texas
    Posts
    5,003
    Also, depending on how long ago you were at 132 and 117, you may get the same energy results at the higher weight now. By this I mean- age counts, and your activity level, what you are feeding yourself, etc.
    Were you just outrageously energetic because you were 18 years old? Or were you less energetic at 132 because you were eating lots of crap?
    Go for 132, then pause there, and consider. Also, take pictures and look at them, because what we see in the mirror can be so distorted by our minds. Even better, scan your various pictures all to black and white- it makes it easier to be objective, rather than subjective. (Go, funny brain tricks!)

  6. #16
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    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.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  7. #17
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote 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.

  8. #18
    Figlio di Moros's Avatar
    Figlio di Moros is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    wNY
    Posts
    272
    Quote 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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •