Does the scale really NOT matter?

[tuffgrl]

I am 5'2 and I have some muscle build, and some fat as well. I don't consider myself fat though, but why is my weight 125-130? Just 6 monthes ago I was 118-120 and I don't think I was doing anything different diet wise. I am lifting heavier weights now. Does muscle really make that big of a difference when you step on the scale? I see fitness models in magazines who are ripped and like 5'6 and weigh 115-120. Should I be worrying about what the scale says at all. Is there a certain "ideal" weight for my body type? And why do those damn gorgeous perfect models, who are so much more muscular than I am weigh so much less than I do?

[Babyphat]

For every pound of fat you LOSE you gain 2lbs of muscle.

I would not be too concerened with the scale. You can weigh 140 and be fat or you can have a woman weigh 140 and be very toned and in shape.

I would go more off your BF % if it were me.

Traci

[arbit]

125 is a good weight for 5.2. Dont worry so much about the scale.
Also, the perfect fitness models u see on magazines dont have that shape all year round. That condition is maintained for a short while for the shoot. And a week befor the shoot they dehydrate themselves so the pics have more definition. + good photographers.
Stallone looked awesome in Rambo, but recently he was on Larry King where he said his bodyfat was so low his head was messed up at that time.
If u really want sometihing to shoot for, 110lbs would be ideal for u.

[sillyme]

Originally Posted by arbit

If u really want sometihing to shoot for, 110lbs would be ideal for u.

Are you goin by that old chart that says 100 lbs for 5 feet tall, then 5 lbs for every inch over 5 feet (for women)

[ajarvis]

Originally Posted by arbit

If u really want sometihing to shoot for, 110lbs would be ideal for u.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm only an inch taller, 5'3, and I weigh 150lbs. I'm also a size 4/6. So not over weight. The scale weight is not important.

[CF-OC_gal]

I'm 5'4, a size 12 and @128-130lbs. I'm not by any means fat or even pudgy.

The scale and your dress size mean nothing.

Your weight could have gone up if you recently increased the intensity of your training. When you are microtearing muscles they tend to hold fluid to do the repair work. Therefore a regular schedule of training will mean a continuous amount of time with extra fluid in you muscles doing tissue repair which means extra fluid weight. (think of a blister and inflamation)

Edited to say: BTW when I was 114 lbs and 9% body fat I was still a size 12 (broad shoulders and hips!) and size 29 jeans, well maybe they were 28 before kids.

[Lady C]

Everyone is different. Laura (see pics in progress pics) is 5'-3" and 106 @ 21% bodyfat when she started - Ended up being 105 @ 15% bodyfat and is as strong as an ox. At an inch taller I weigh a good 15 lbs more and still around 16% bodyfat.

As you can see the scale is not a good indicator - only the mirror and a tape measure is.

Only worry about stuff you can control - diet & exercise. Only the mirror and your friends will tell you the truth.

[tuffgrl]

Ok, I'll keep all of that in mind. I remember when I was taking Xenadrine RFA-1, I was down to 110. But obviously it's not going to be as easy since I'm not taking any supplements. I have a size 1 pair of shorts that I used to slip into with ease, and now I can't even pull them up! Oh, well. I just ordered a bodyfat caliper, so as soon as I get it I can start to keep progress of my body fat.

[cursor]

Muscle doesn't really weigh that much more than fat. It looks better because it's 'shapable' tissue ... you can flex it.

Muscle is about 22% more dense than fat tissue.
___The density of lean tissue is about 1.1g/cm3.
___The density fat is about 0.9g/cm3.

reference

Note: Since the density of fat is less than that of water (1.0 g/cm3), people with more body fat 'float' more readily. Both muscle (1.1g/cm3) and bone (3.0g/cm3) tend to sink.

[threenorns]

i'm 5'2-1/2", my mother is 5'4".

at one point about 15yrs ago, i was 145 and she was 125. she was size 11, i was size 9.

throw the damned scales out - go by how your clothes fit and you feel about how you look.

[arbit]

Originally Posted by ajarvis

I don't think that's accurate. I'm only an inch taller, 5'3, and I weigh 150lbs. I'm also a size 4/6. So not over weight. The scale weight is not important.

Sorry I shood have been more clear. I did not mean 125-130 at 5.2 is overweight. It is fine. The *best* is 110lb - resulting BMI=20. Less than 18.5 is considered underweight(101 lbs for her). Hence I would say110 is probably the optimum for her. Any lower and she is treading dangerous waters. At 110-115, her weight is low, but she has some buffer before being underweight
At 125 her BMI is 23, normal, and not too far away from ideal IMHO.
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/calc-bmi.htm

Let me also add that I think she is healthier now at 125 than she was at 110 with xenadrine.
Taking supplements to burn more energy is like throwing crap into the engine so that it is less efficient and has to use more gas.
Health=efficient body.

[ajarvis]

BMI is not accurate for people who are active. According to the BMI almost all professional athletes would be considered overweight. According to the BMI I'm overweight. When I did weigh less than I do now it was because I wasn't eating properly, and I actually looked sick, and weak. I always had people asking me if I was OK, or feeling well.

[arbit]

BMI is the same for guys&girls. So while it may not be a good indicator for guys into muscle building, IMHO it shood be good for girls. They cant build a whole bunch of muscle(without steroids).

[Lady C]

BMI for ANYONE active is bad. It says I'm overweight.

[threenorns]

well, hell! LOOK at you!!!! all that avoirdupois just hanging off everywhere! <rolling eyes>