120 lbs

120 pounds sounds high to me, but I'm a short person. Maybe it's due to
the average woman being a certain height so that's an expected weight for
the average height woman?

on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:56:07 GMT, Larelle Read <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Can someone tell me why America has this obsession with women being 120 lbs?
I've seen one lady on this NG state her target goal is 120 lbs? Why 120? Why
is 120 the holy grail weight??? At my lightest weight I was 141 lbs and I
felt fantastic. I could wear all the clothes that I liked. I was fit, I
could exercise easily, I was attractive to the opposite sex. To me, 120 lbs
sounds underweight. If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be worried I was
just swapping one medical illness (obesity) for another (anorexia).

PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

-----
Bev

"Larelle Read" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone tell me why America has this obsession with women being 120
lbs?

I don;t think it does. No one wants to see a 6' 120 pounder and no one wants
to see a 5' 120 pounder either.

Quoted message said:

I've seen one lady on this NG state her target goal is 120 lbs?

are you talking about me?

Quoted message said:

Why 120? Why

Because I am 5'3 and 126 was my "normal weight" for years - even at 126 I
always felt I could stand to lose about 5 lbs - so why not shoot for what I
think was MY personal ideal?

Quoted message said:

is 120 the holy grail weight???

you got a problem

Quoted message said:

At my lightest weight I was 141 lbs and I
felt fantastic.

I am 141 today and I am fat. I look better than 200lbs but I am still fat
for my height.

Quoted message said:

I could wear all the clothes that I liked. I was fit, I
could exercise easily, I was attractive to the opposite sex. To me, 120
lbs
sounds underweight.

That would depend on height, dontcha think?

Quoted message said:

If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be worried I was
just swapping one medical illness (obesity) for another (anorexia).

yes - I plan to hit my goal weight then stop eating food altogether - you
got it lady.

Quoted message said:

PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

it's NOT - but obviously you've got a bug up your butt about it. No one else
on this group or anywhere else has made a comment on my goal weight.

JoAnna
started atkins 7/04 - 176 lbs/141/120 get over it

Quoted message said:

Moses lived 120 years

so - it may well be the Holy Grail weight? LOL

"Larelle Read" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone tell me why America has this obsession with women being 120
lbs?
I've seen one lady on this NG state her target goal is 120 lbs? Why 120?
Why
is 120 the holy grail weight??? At my lightest weight I was 141 lbs and I
felt fantastic. I could wear all the clothes that I liked. I was fit, I
could exercise easily, I was attractive to the opposite sex. To me, 120
lbs
sounds underweight. If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be worried I was
just swapping one medical illness (obesity) for another (anorexia).

PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

Why are you so concerned with that weight? You saw ONE woman in this NG -
so you're all worked up about it? Generally people's goal weights reflect
their height. Someone aiming for 120 is most likely aiming for it because
that is a healthy weight for their height.
How tall are you? If 120 is under the healthy range for you, then obviously
that is not the goal weight for you.

--
Spring
LC since 1/1/04
260/200/170

"Before" & "current" pics at link below:
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/sprgsnow/album?.tok=phX4sVBBuvxvs4Hs&.dir=/55b8&.src=ph

Don't worry, you'll never get down to 120 pounds.

--
You take stupid to a new level. -- MFW

"Larelle Read" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone tell me why America has this obsession with women being 120
lbs?
I've seen one lady on this NG state her target goal is 120 lbs? Why 120?
Why
is 120 the holy grail weight??? At my lightest weight I was 141 lbs and I
felt fantastic. I could wear all the clothes that I liked. I was fit, I
could exercise easily, I was attractive to the opposite sex. To me, 120
lbs
sounds underweight. If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be worried I was
just swapping one medical illness (obesity) for another (anorexia).

PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

Larelle Read said:

To me, 120 lbs
sounds underweight. If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be worried I was
just swapping one medical illness (obesity) for another (anorexia).

PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

Is 120 STILL the holy grail weight???
When I was anorexic at the age of 16, I weighed 118, and I was cadaverous.
My *doctor* said that I have very dense and heavy bones and should weigh
more like 140-145. Trust me, these are NOT words someone in the throes of
anorexia wants to hear.

Ugh... Nice to know people still take superfluous issues like bone
and muscle density and water retention etc into account... (eyeroll)

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

no one wants
to see a 5' 120 pounder either.

Begging your pardon, but yes, I do. Everyone is shaped differently; while
120lbs on your near-5ft frame might look fat to you, 120lbs on another 5ft
frame might look fabulous.

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

Quoted message said:

I'm 5'2" and when I was 120 I wore sizes 4 and 6. I have a large bone
structure (size 9.5 shoes, size 7 rings). 120 is on the small side for me;
I feel more comfortable around 130 or 135.

Not to be mean but...130-135 is heavy for 5'2. And I don't think big feet
make up the weight (wow - by the way!). I don't think they've ever found a
skeleton with Fat Bones BTW. Also - my shoe size was up to 9 when I was
fatter maybe it is weight-related for you? I am back to a normal 7/7.5

My friend who is the same height

Quoted message said:

is between 95 and 100lbs. She's a size 0. She has a tiny bone structure
(size 5 shoes, etc.), and any more weight on her would make her seem
overweight.

To the OP: Relax. 120 is a magic number only to those who read and live by
fashion magazines. You're in this for *you.* What number makes you feel
good?

Cate

hehe.....this time last year I had a gf who was 5'9" and weighed 110 lbs.
She told me that guys really enjoyed her at that weight. I would've
preferred her at 120 lbs as her hip bones were sharp as a knifes!
So, 120 lbs is important to us guys to keep from getting cut up.

🙂

Larelle Read wrote:
:: Can someone tell me why America has this obsession with women being
:: 120 lbs? I've seen one lady on this NG state her target goal is 120
:: lbs? Why 120? Why is 120 the holy grail weight??? At my lightest
:: weight I was 141 lbs and I felt fantastic. I could wear all the
:: clothes that I liked. I was fit, I could exercise easily, I was
:: attractive to the opposite sex. To me, 120 lbs sounds underweight.
:: If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be worried I was just swapping
:: one medical illness (obesity) for another (anorexia).
::
:: PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

Quoted message said:

Why are you so concerned with that weight? You saw ONE woman in this NG -
so you're all worked up about it?

No, it's because whenever I see programmes from America about women wanting
to lose weight, they all wanna get to 120. When slim women on American TV
talk about how much they weigh...they ALL seem to be 120...be they 5'1" or
5' 8".

I don't think that I have a hang up with it...I'm just trying to work out
WHY, for so many people in the U.S. The target weight always seems to be
120. Perhaps most women in America are 5' 1" or less, I dunno.

I apologise to the one woman I picked up on with the 120 lbs weight goal. It
was not meant to be a personal attack. It just reminded me of the fact that
for years I've seen the American ideal of 120 lbs and I just wanted to
finally understand why that exact weight meant so much.

Even when I was 141 lbs, I was STILL fat in America...nice.

I don't intend to

On 28/1/05 1:12 pm, in article
[email hidden], "JC Der Koenig"

Quoted message said:

Don't worry, you'll never get down to 120 pounds.

Cate said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Not to be mean but...130-135 is heavy for 5'2.

I don't consider it mean; I consider it ignorant. You're projecting your
idea of fitness and attractiveness onto someone you've never seen.

And I don't think big

Quoted message said:

feet make up the weight (wow - by the way!).

I used shoe and ring size to indicate the size of my bone structure,
which
is large despite my short height. I didn't say my feet or fingers make
up a
bulk of my weight. (Btw, when I'm 120 I also have size D breasts.) I have
wide hips, a big ribcage, short, big-knuckled fingers, and a very small
waist in proportion to the rest of me. I'm also short-waisted, which
translates into the bottom of my ribcage being 2 inches above the top of
my
pelvic bone. I'm betting your bone structure isn't the same as mine.

I don't think they've

Quoted message said:

ever found a skeleton with Fat Bones BTW.

No, but bones do weigh differently. For instance, people of African
descent tend to have heavier bones, while people of Asian descent have
lighter bones. See, for instance:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/87/7/3057

Quoted message said:

You are misconstruing what I'm saying. I have to think that either you're
doing it on purpose, or that you truly don't know that people of the same
height have differently sized skeletons and different body types no
matter
their weights. Genes have as much to say about your shape as what you put
in your mouth.

Do you understand that people have different body types? Have you ever
watched the Olympics or women's basketball? That's a good way to get an
idea of how people (particularly women) of the same height can be built
wildly differently and have varying, fit weights.

Also - my shoe size was up

Quoted message said:

to 9 when I was fatter maybe it is weight-related for you? I am back
to a normal 7/7.5

When I was 120 my shoe size was 9. When I was 110 my shoe size was 9.

Did you know Marilyn Monroe was widely reported to wear a size 14 and
weigh
140 pounds at 5'5"? Her body type is whole lot more attractive to me
than,
say, someone with a body like the Olsen twins. That, to me, says 'Ick.'

Obviously YMMV.

Cate

I've been reading some of my girlfriend's "womens magazines," and I have
to say that the women in these mags are osbcenely thin.

--
Bob in CT

Cate said:

You are misconstruing what I'm saying. I have to think that either you're
doing it on purpose, or that you truly don't know that people of the same
height have differently sized skeletons and different body types no matter
their weights.

she's just an ignorant crank. your explanation makes perfect sense to
anyone with half a brain.

Quoted message said:

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

God, that's really charming! Full of subtlety. If you think it's "ick", you
might want to keep that opinion to yourself next time. So much for this NG
being called atl.SUPPORT.diet.low-carb

Quoted message said:

Not to be mean but

....your were earlier, so why stop now!

Quoted message said:

...130-135 is heavy for 5'2.

It *IS* not. The desirable weight for height guide in my carlorie counter
says that for a medium framed woman 5'2" has a weight range of 121 to 133
lbs.

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I've been reading some of my girlfriend's "womens magazines," and I
have to say that the women in these mags are osbcenely thin.

I'd love it if it could be arranged for the women who are obsessed with
magic numbers like 120lbs could hear this from men (and from other women)
every so often.

But as long as they continue to read 'women's magazines' there's no chance
it'd sink in.

Cate

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

no one wants
to see a 5' 120 pounder either.

Begging your pardon, but yes, I do. Everyone is shaped differently;

while

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

120lbs on your near-5ft frame might look fat to you, 120lbs on another

5ft

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

frame might look fabulous.

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

Your perceptions of normal seem highly skewed.

For a 5' tall woman who weighs 120 lbs:

if she were age 30, she would weigh less than 67% of all other 5', 30 year
old women.
if she were age 40, she would weigh less than 79% of all other 5', 40 year
old women.
if she were age 50, she would weigh less than 85% of all other 5', 50 year
old women.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 5'2" and when I was 120 I wore sizes 4 and 6. I have a large bone
structure (size 9.5 shoes, size 7 rings). 120 is on the small side for

me;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I feel more comfortable around 130 or 135.

Not to be mean but...130-135 is heavy for 5'2. And I don't think big feet
make up the weight (wow - by the way!). I don't think they've ever found a
skeleton with Fat Bones BTW. Also - my shoe size was up to 9 when I was
fatter maybe it is weight-related for you? I am back to a normal 7/7.5

re: "130-135 is heavy for 5'2."

While that might be your perception, and you might prefer to be thinner, you
are wrong when speaking of the "average woman".

For a 5' 2" tall woman who weighs 132 lbs:

if she were age 30, she would weigh less than 61% of all other 5' 2", 30
year old women.
if she were age 40, she would weigh less than 73% of all other 5' 2", 40
year old women.
if she were age 50, she would weigh less than 79% of all other 5' 2", 50
year old women.

So, a 5' 2" 132 lb woman would be considered thin by most standards...not
"model thin", but clearly quite a bit thinner than the average.

Note: all numbers based on US height/weight/age averages.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

Quoted message said:

My friend who is the same height

Quoted message said:

is between 95 and 100lbs. She's a size 0. She has a tiny bone structure
(size 5 shoes, etc.), and any more weight on her would make her seem
overweight.

To the OP: Relax. 120 is a magic number only to those who read and live

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fashion magazines. You're in this for *you.* What number makes you feel
good?

Cate

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:35v47mF4oksvvU1
@individual.net:

Quoted message said:

They'll hear it from some men and from other women, too.

Evidently.

Cate

Cate wrote:
:: "Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:: news:[email hidden]:
::
::: I've been reading some of my girlfriend's "womens magazines," and I
::: have to say that the women in these mags are osbcenely thin.
::
:: I'd love it if it could be arranged for the women who are obsessed
:: with magic numbers like 120lbs could hear this from men (and from
:: other women) every so often.
::
:: But as long as they continue to read 'women's magazines' there's no
:: chance it'd sink in.

They'll hear it from some men and from other women, too.

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I've been reading some of my girlfriend's "womens magazines," and I
have to say that the women in these mags are osbcenely thin.

I'd love it if it could be arranged for the women who are obsessed with
magic numbers like 120lbs could hear this from men (and from other women)
every so often.

But as long as they continue to read 'women's magazines' there's no chance
it'd sink in.

Cate

i don't "read" those magazines - never found anything worth readin in them.
I am also not stupid or hypnotized by the media.

I don't know why y'all are so obsessed with the 120 thing. That's NOT a
magic number - it's the RIGHT number for ME but as others have stated it's
too high and low low for THIER bodies.

Besides - don't we always see people (fat ones usually) going on about "who
cares about what size my body is, blah blah" Well - it's just as annoying to
see everyone with thier panties in a bunch over someone's goal weight or
idea of what attractive or thin or healthy might be.

Everyone get over it and go back to yer pork rinds :o)

Cate wrote:
:: Larelle Read <[email hidden]> wrote in
:: news:[email hidden]:
::
::: No, it's because whenever I see programmes from America about women
::: wanting to lose weight, they all wanna get to 120.
::
:: You've pretty much answered your own question: It's a cultural
:: thing. The average American woman believes the cultural pressure
:: that she's fat if she weighs more than 120. Every ad, every fashion
:: magazine, every TV show, every movie tells her so.

Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling themselves that.
Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing about weight, just looks.
Furthermore, why is it that people can't think for themselves?

(Have you ever
:: seen Helen Gurley Brown, the publisher of Cosmopolitan? She's about
:: 80 and looks like a torture victim, partially because of her
:: adventures in plastic surgery, and partly because she weighs almost
:: nothing.)
::
:: Conversely, when I used to live in England, I found that European
:: advertisers, TV producers, and filmmakers tended to use more women of
:: average shape. You'd never, ever see a Dawn French of 'The Vicar of
:: Dibley' given a sitcom in the US. Which is one reason the US has a
:: very high ratio of [censored] TV shows to good ones.
::
:: Cate