
But get this: whenever I estimate my perfect weight, I assume I have a "large" frame. I mean, I am a tall girl, I have always been a tall girl, I was always one of the tallest people in my class in elementary school. And, to be honest, it is easier to think that I should be at the highest portion of my weight class rather than the lowest. When I want to be painfully honest with myself I might look at the "medium" frame weight. But, think of my shock, when yesterday as I was reading the current Self magazine and it explained how to determine your "happy weight". This is the weight that you can live at comfortably, without working out constantly or limiting everything you eat. To calculate this weight, you have to know your frame size, and the article explains how to measure your wrist to determine that. Well, I have a small frame! Like really small; like I would have to gain over a quarter of an inch around my wrist to even come close to a medium frame. And get this: my happy weight is 143. I guess I have further to go than I thought!
3 comments:
how much of this "happy weight" is based on muscle vs. fat??? And how happy can you be if all you do is look at a number on a scale? I think maybe use this as another of many tools for guidance, but go more by how you think you look at a certain weight, rather than stressing over a specific number on a scale.... it's just too variable.
I like what Jennifer said. It's true, they often forget about muscle weighing more than fat, and it makes you leaner. But way to go on the weight loss goals!
I KNOW! I mean 143 is small -- like Jennifer small! And let's face it, I might have small wrist bones, but I do NOT have small hip bones. I mean, Jennifer's hips are as wide as my one thigh!
Post a Comment