Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Give us your thoughts on the latest McDougall mailings here

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, Heather McDougall, carolve

Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby VeganEva » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:42 am

Wow, the weight chart in the latest newsletter is sobering to say the least. At 5'2", I'm supposed to be 100 pounds, basically my high school weight. :eek:

I have some pounds to lose, but hadn't planned on getting down quite that low.

Thoughts?
User avatar
VeganEva
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:48 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby John McDougall » Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:54 pm

Your bones have not grown since high school.

Also note: These figures will help reassure people that they are not becoming too thin on the McDougall Diet

John McDougall, MD
User avatar
John McDougall
Site Admin
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:08 pm

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby VeganEva » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:30 pm

Good point, Dr. McDougall,my bones have not grown. My metabolism has definitely slowed down since then, just making it a bit more challenging to lose the weight. No excuses, though. Thank you for the input! :)
User avatar
VeganEva
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:48 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby sjbell » Tue Dec 01, 2015 4:53 pm

I also wonder if anyone is successful at reaching and maintaining the Weight as stated in the chart. I was very compliant with the prog before I had my 2 children and also ran a lot - 6 days training per week to reach and maintain my weight as 100lb. I hAve never been anywhere near as low as that since - because I can't train so much (2 small children) or because my compliance isn't as good or a combination of both ? I would love to get closer to that Weight without running 6 days per week but is it truly possible?
sjbell
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:40 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby VeganEva » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:09 pm

Good question! I know that, for me, it would require more dedication and calorie restriction than I am willing to do at this point. My numbers are perfect and I'm in excellent health other than being overweight. I personally feel that at 100 pounds I would look emaciated. My bones haven't grown since high school but my body has changed after 3 kids. I'd be happy in the 125 range. Again, just my personal opinion, not a medical professional.
User avatar
VeganEva
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:48 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby ljones33971 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:12 pm

Hello,

I am 58 years old, female and is 5'8".
I was setting my goal weight at 146 lbs. I weighted this weight 3 years ago and was wearing size med tops (top heavy) and size 6 and 8 bottom. I don't want to go smaller that those sizes. I would look like a toothpick with boobs.

I think 127 is too low for me, I also exercise (cardio and weight training) 5 times a week.
What are your opinions?

Thanks in advance,
Linda
ljones33971
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:47 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby Katydid » Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:19 pm

ljones33971 wrote:Hello,

I am 58 years old, female and is 5'8".
I was setting my goal weight at 146 lbs. I weighted this weight 3 years ago and was wearing size med tops (top heavy) and size 6 and 8 bottom. I don't want to go smaller that those sizes. I would look like a toothpick with boobs.

I think 127 is too low for me, I also exercise (cardio and weight training) 5 times a week.
What are your opinions?

Thanks in advance,
Linda


I was in a similar situation a few years ago. I developed an autoimmune disease that required me to go on Dr. McDougall's elimination diet, severely restricting my food. I am also 5'8" and my weight dropped to 128. I was about a size 4 at the time and looked like a walking skeleton. I am also big boobed and the pressure of my bra straps on my collar bones was actually painful. All my ribs stuck out like I was starving. It wasn't very attractive and it even hurt to sit on my tail bone. It took a while to get my weight back up once I learned what foods were safe for me, but I'm much happier with an additional 15 pounds on my skeleton.

Kate
This diet can save your life - it saved mine! Read my story at:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/cathy_stewart.htm
User avatar
Katydid
 
Posts: 4692
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:30 am
Location: Marysville, Mi.

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby VeganEva » Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:27 pm

Wow, I'm glad I'm not alone in this. I just spoke w/my young adult daughter who is a runner, in perfect health and a size XS to Small/Size 2, and she's overweight according to this chart. :eek:

I have been going by a WW Chart (https://www.weightwatchers.com/plan/pop/weightrange.aspx)to set my goal weight which seems much more realistic to me. This says I should weigh between 109 - 137. That I can do.
User avatar
VeganEva
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:48 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby memkat » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:28 pm

I don't see myself getting that low either although I do want to lose 20 lbs.

On ETL I once got down to 142 at 5 ft 6 in and at age 68 my internist was thrilled at my weight loss but cautioned me to not lose any more thands 140.
I have a rare autoimmune disease called Wegeners Granulomatosis which flared up last year about this time and treatment is Rituximab and high doses prednisone which immediately causes weight gain for me. I did well while on the high doses with extreme care to eat mostly greens. I am still on 5 mg of prednisone and am told it's for life. I won't go into my whole heath history but in early November decided to read Dr McDougall's maximum weight loss Book and it finally makes sense to me to cut the nuts and seeds and avocados :crybaby: and even nut milk and making my own rice milk at least for now. After 3+ years on ETL I am loving eating potatoes! I did well on ETL, lost weight, got off Cpap machine, went from 17 meds to 3, but started gaining weight after my flare and know I was so hungry I was eating nuts , peanut butter sandwiches and every so often chocolate covered pretzels :confused: so eating starches and loving feeling satisfied.
I wrote Dr McDougall an email and was so impressed to receive an answer within an hour. I am doing pretty well so far but may consider the elimination diet.
So happy to have found this WOE!

Kathleen
Image
User avatar
memkat
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby VeganEva » Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:33 am

memkat wrote:I don't see myself getting that low either although I do want to lose 20 lbs.


I wrote Dr McDougall an email and was so impressed to receive an answer within an hour. I am doing pretty well so far but may consider the elimination diet.
So happy to have found this WOE!

Kathleen


Wow, Kathleen, sounds like you are doing great! Congrats!
User avatar
VeganEva
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:48 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby Dougalling » Sun Dec 13, 2015 4:04 pm

Hi

Why aren't breast size part of any women's weight charts?

" A good sized pair of Ds weigh about 19 pounds. TOGETHER. (Separate, it's about 9.5)

AA(about a pound together), A(4.75 together, 2.375 separate), B(9.5 together, 4.75 separate), C(14.25 together,7.125 separate), D(19, 9.5), DD(23.75,11.875), DDD/E(28.5,14.25), F(33.25,16.625) Basically you just keep adding a cup size(the A cup, natuarlly, 4.75) and if you want the separate single boob measurement, just divide the total amount by 2. I'm actually a 32 FF.

(Something to keep in mind is your band size. the smaller the band size, the smaller the cups. and it would naturally be the same idea with bigger band sizes. A 32 FF would translate to 34 F, 36 E/DDD, 38 DD, 40 D, etc. My cup size would sound pretty darn huge on it's own. But compared to my friend Mesa, (who's a 36 DD) our boobs actually match up to the about the same size(mine are still a bit bigger). It's all about your band size. This scale of measurement is based on a 34-36 range. So take your band size, translate it, and there's your breast weight. (EX. 32FF=34F=36E/DDD=33.25lbs.)

And another thing about the band size. Naturally a bigger band means more weight. A bigger band will have a bigger cup because there's a bigger boob to cover. Don't feel bad about that. It just means you have more weight on your chest that you can subtract from the scale(i do that religiously lol it does wonders for your self esteem, i swear.)" from http://www.caloriecount.com/forums/heal ... igh/page/1
Image
User avatar
Dougalling
 
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:10 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby graciezoe » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:25 am

I was able to get down to 116 lbs with WOE, which I have never been before...well maybe when I was a young teen. I'm in my early 50's, so it can be done. Dr. McDougall is correct that it reassures me as people have told me I'm too thin.
A HCLF Vegan.
Cardio Goal: 650 minutes a week on treadclimber and Bowflex Max 5 plus, weekend hikes.


Starting weight on 3/2014 was 304 lbs
Weight as of 4/2016 is 114 lbs
User avatar
graciezoe
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:46 am
Location: CT

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby geo » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:22 am

Speaking as a 6' male, I reached the 160lb (with clothes) limit that Dr Kempner suggests. And I don't feel thats too skinny as some of my friends suggested. In fact I can tell you that even at that weight, there was still some clearly visible fat that I could have replaced with muscle. (You can see my before/after pics in my testimonial and Star McDougaller story links in my signature below.)

Nor is it difficult to keep that weight once you've been on the program for awhile. For my size, Dr Kempner's chart indicates a BMI of approximately 21.0. I assume thats pretty much what the other weights would indicate if calculated out.

A BMI of 21 would fall about in the middle of the healthiest BMI range of 18.5 - 22.9. So its not really too low, but our perspective these days might seem to make it so. Remember, Dr Kempner suggested these weights in the late 40's - early 50's, a time when people were just naturally thinner than we tend to be today. And people tended to be more muscular then as they led much more physically active lifestyles than we do today. So our perspective is naturally going to be that these weights are too low when they really aren't.
geo

My 1 year Journal McDougalling and results Testimonial
My March 2013 Star McDougaller Story
My new 2017 Journal
geo
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:53 am

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby roundcoconut » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:25 pm

Dougalling wrote:Hi
Why aren't breast size part of any women's weight charts?


What an interesting question!

I stopped weighing myself last summer, so that if anyone should ever ask to know my weight, I can honestly say, "I'm not exactly sure!" Because Americans DO get really hung up on numbers!

The idea that boob size can skew the idea of ideal weight is so true, because if I were to give someone my scale number, some "concerned" busybodies would certainly say, "That is too low! You are underweight! Go eat more potatoes!" But as a AA cup, we're just talking a few ounces of breast tissue, and on top of that, my band size might only be 29 or 30 inches. So, at the figure on Dr Kempner's chart, someone like me is in no way underweight.

Even at the proverbial 10% below that figure, I would be extremely lean, but not in starvation territory.

I tend to think that modern people have no concept of what underweight really means. Underweight means that your body has exhausted all of its fat stores and is now having to shut down organ functioning in an effort to avoid death. So when people say, "You are underweight!", they just honestly don't know any better.

One more comment:

I think we are particularly confused about lean bodies in our society because, around here, the only time we ever get to see someone who is of a lean weight is when they are dying of something (most likely cancer) or when they are engaging in destructive health practices (heroin, anorexia, chain smoking, exercise obsession).

And all the research around CRON (calorie reduction with optimal nutrition) finds positive outcomes for lean body weights in well nourished people, but no one finds positive outcomes for people whose leanness is a product of -- name your poison! -- a diet of cigarettes and diet coke; chemo-"therapy"; or meth.
User avatar
roundcoconut
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Nov Newsletter - Weight Chart

Postby BeachLife » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:14 pm

Personally, seeing the low weight on the Kempner chart is unrealistic for me. I'm 5'6" and 117 pounds is simply TOO bony/skinny for me. And 10% less than that?!? No, absolutely not.

I've been as low as 125 and even at that weight, the bones were showing through (hips, ribs, forehead (!), etc.). Looking like a skeleton with skin, I was always cold, not comfortable sitting on a bony bottom, cavernous eyes, hands/fingers that resembled chicken legs/feet, sharp angles of elbows. Looking at pictures of that time, I am shocked how sick/ill I looked :eek: even though I did it healthy (100% McDougalling), exercised daily (45 min. walking and 2x week weight lifting) and wasn't considered "thin" (BMI and now Kempner's chart).

My "happy weight" has always been 135-140 and that's where I'm focused --- healthy, active, no bony. :mrgreen:
Image

All shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well. ~ Julian of Norwich
User avatar
BeachLife
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:01 pm

Next

Return to Comments on Latest Newsletter or Star McDougaller

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest