At a doctor’s appointment a few months ago, I weighed in at 246 pounds (including about 6 lbs of clothes; I report nude weight for the balance of this post).
I was told I needed to lose about 100 pounds, which would bring me to 140 lbs.
Since then, I’ve cut way back on careless eating (no more Stouffer’s mac and cheese with a quarter pound of kielbasa as a midnight snack, and–the biggest sacrifice–no more fast food and sodas. I particularly miss Kentucky Fried Chicken Original Recipe. I’ve had maybe 6 Cokes since I started, and I want to report that Coca-Cola really is the Food of the Gods when you drink it infrequently enough to pay attention to it). I’ve also started vigourously exercising at least 30 minutes a day.
My experience is definitely that carbs cause more trouble than fats and proteins. I.E., the macaroni caused more weight gain than the cheese and kielbasa.
My current weight is about 214 pounds. Whine: ▼
“About” because my bathroom scale, a Taylor model 7362, displays weight to 0.5 lbs, but readings a few minutes apart can vary by up to 4 lbs. I understand this is typical for Taylor, and most other digital scales. C’mon, guys. Losing the meaningless 1/2 digit would improve readability.
I’m looking to break 210 in a couple of weeks; I’m hoping for 200 by the end of May.
But–losing a hundred pounds? Is that even reasonable? Healthy? Friend Pat, who’s spent far more time than I have researching fitness issues, says no–a more reasonable target for my sex (male), height (5′ 10″) is about 175 lbs.
I found this “Ideal Weight Calculator“, which actually presents several different possibilities based on different methods.
A common medical recommendation for someone of my height (5’10″), age (54), and sex(male) would be 132-174 lbs, based on a Body Mass Index of 19-25; my BMI at 240 lbs would have been about 34 kg/m**2.
The “People’s Choice” target is 200 lbs. This is “the average weight that other people of [my] Age, Height, Weight and Gender would describe as their ideal weight.: [Emphasis in original.]
So, 165-175 lbs is not at all a bad target, and losing 65-75 lbs is gonna be a lot easier than losing 100 lbs. But 140 lbs wouldn’t make me a scarecrow. I should add, I was a bean pole until my late thirties, despite a horrendous diet and almost no exercise–I’ve had to work hard to get up to 240.
In the meantime, I’ve just put half a dozen shirts back in my working wardrobe, I’m on the last notch of my belt, and my resting pulse has dropped from the mid-90s to the low 60s. Blood pressure and blood sugar have gone down as well. I can even see the beginnings of an actual waist, a distinct narrowing below my rib cage, where before I believe there was pretty much a straight line, maybe even a bulge, between my ribs and my thighs. (I don’t know for sure, because I generally didn’t look at myself in the mirror.)
I’m pretty pleased.
[Update]
Hm, the BMI is, evidently, being deprecated in favor of the waist/hip ratio. If I’ve correctly followed those instructions, my waist is 42″, and my hips are 44″, a ratio of 95%.
The target is < 90%.
While that doesn’t seem to translate directly into “How many pounds do I have to lose?”, it’s at least fairly objective.
Too bad I didn’t measure myself from the very start, so I’d know how much I’ve improved. (I didn’t even own a scale until I was about a month into this.) My guess is that my W/H ratio was greater than unity.
Better yet, I should have taken pictures. OK, everybody who does not want me to post nude pictures of an old fat guy speak up in comments!
(I’m rather annoyed at how hard it was to find a good description of taking the W/H measurements. There are contradictory answers, no good pictures taken on non-perfect body types, nothing with a skeleton shaded in for reference, gah.)
[/update]
