The FastDay Forum

I posted this at the bottom of another thread but I am curious to know what you think of it. It was very helpful to me. It obviously isn't super scientific, just a bit of fun!

1) Think of the weight you were in your 20s, when you were slim and perfect (of course). It must be a weight that you maintained for some time, not one you reached for a few days after a bout of tummy-flu!

2) Ladies, add 1kg for each child you have had.

3) Ladies and gentlemen, add 1kg for each decade since your 20s (ie. +1kg if you are in your 30s, 3kg in your 50s etc.)

My "ideal" weight, that I maintained for years in my 20s, was 53kg.
Add 2 kids and 1 decade (soon to be 2!): new target is 56kg.

I find it a healthy reminder! I went on a diet 3 years ago and ended up being the same weight as in my 20s, which was my goal, but forgot to add 3 kg for my 2 kids + 1 decade, and I looked like a skeleton. People were horrified and thought I was ill! If I add the 3kg it becomes MUCH more realistic and feasible.
I also like this because it naturally takes your "frame" and so on into account, since your starting point is your own weight when you were a little lighter.

Of course, this is only a good indication if you actually were slim or a healthy weight in your 20s!

Does this work for you?

[janeg]

ooof, i've done it and it still seems unreachable!
Like the idea behind it though.
Last week (before the monthly weighing) I really felt as though I was reducing remarkably and that my goal weight is too high and maybe, jut maybe, I could get back to the 9stone/126lbs/57kg mark.
in your dreams, jane!

That makes sense to me - meaning I should aim for 52 Kg, which I did achieve and maintain 3 years ago on the Dukan diet, although I would still have a BMI of 23 according to the online calculators (which don't take age into consideration).

I like that and actually gives me a target 2kg lighter then my first major goal - so possibly in reach!

titch22, how weird, I achieved 53 kilos 3 years ago on the Dukan diet! Very close!

I know, it does make sense to me too, more so than BMI. Because it is based on something I achieved in the past, taking all my specific details into consideration. Aiming for a weight you have never been is silly, and aiming for the weight you were 20 or 30 years ago before having kids and aging is unrealistic.

I agree about the unrealistic goals, Nanou. I weighed well below 50 Kg in my 30s and struggled to avoid looking scrawny and have people ask me if I'd been ill, despite eating like a horse! Now I'm 55 and I think 50 Kg is far too low, regardless of BMI.

Doesn't look as if would work for me as I am in my sixties so would have to add 7 kilos; age has made me shorter by 1½ inches and this calculation would make me 1 stone (14lbs)heavier than when I was in my twenties and thirties. (Sorry about the mixed measurements - although just remembered that clever Moogie has added a converter which works when placing mouse over weight/height).
It does seem realistic though and so will reserve judgement because I may need to adjust my goal weight upward a if it looks as if the dream of reaching my goal weight/low end of BMI range is unrealistic and means I will look like skin and bones.

cmce, does that mean you have 3 kids? Being in your 60s would mean an extra 4 kilos, with 3 kids then that would be 7. It seems fair enough to me! I know it's hard to adjust. Maybe somewhere on the middle?
My mum is in her 70s and constantly trying to reach the weight she was in her 20s, which is NOT going to happen (she has a fair way to go) and makes her miserable!

well for me it means instead of the 60kg (sorry I'm not a stones/ pounds person)what the drs seem to think I should be I get to be 65kg which I think would be a more realist target for me.

I weighed myself on the chemist's scales on the way home from school in the sixth form (age 18) and was 144 lbs. Today, 44 years later, I was 136 lbs. Certainly thin, but I don't think scrawny, and I do feel fit. I can't see any justification in getting heavier with age, I'm afraid, except the extra insulation perhaps saving money on heating bills...

I wonder if this applies to women more than men? There are versions of BMI that take age into account too, there must be a reason... The kids thing makes a lot of sense too. All that extra skin, all the tissue you develop, it must go somewhere!

Muscle weighs a lot, and some men lose muscle when they get older, like my lovely father-in-law who doesn't have an ounce of spare fat and is getting lighter by the minute (in a healthy way).

Nanou
It's an interesting proposition. Can l ask where it comes from?

It depends on how you looked in your 20s and if you had an ideal weight back then. My mum was chubby till she had me (at 26) and she wouldn't want to go back to being chubby plus 5 kilos...
I'm trying to remember how much I weighed when I was 20-years old but I can't remember. I think I was pretty much the same weight all my adult life (+/- 3 kilos after holidays, exams etc) till Mr Thyroid came to visit. GGrrrrrrr

Silverbelle, I read about it in Dukan's book. I don't agree with all his principles although I did lose a lot of weight following his diet, but I have to say I liked his taking pregnancies and age into account. He says the reason why many women can't lose weight is because they have already reached what he calls their "true weight" and are aiming too low, which will never work in the long term. Funnily enough, I stopped losing weight on his diet exactly when I reached my Dukan "true weight". Since then, I aim for that and it seems to be a much better fit. It happens to coincide with a healthy BMI for me, but that would not be the case for everyone.

Many criteria are taken into account, but I particularly liked the pregnancies and age factor. In fact, I think he allows up to 1.5kg for each child.

His whole point is that you need to accept that your target may need to come up a little.

Oo I like this - it means that my chosen goal, which is not much below overweight, is reasonable. Thanks for the thought!