I'm 42 pounds over my ideal weight

According to this site I use to track my running: www.winningstats.com a male who is 6 feet tall has an ideal weight of 178 pounds.

Today I am 220 pounds.

What exactly is this “ideal weight” weight thing supposed to be telling me. Is the extra mass no good even if it’s muscle?

I’m worried and pissed about this all out of proportion, probably channeling stress from my upcoming move to a new house.

But, it bothers me a lot right now.

I’m carrying about an extra 20 lbs, but then again, I’m short for my height.

I would be astonished if extra muscle mass were looked down upon. That’s one of the problems with Body Mass Index figurers - they don’t take into account the type of mass.

Muscle mass is good. Muscle mass makes us happy. Don’t let it get to ya, Scylla. Good luck on the upcoming move.

Lay off the wandering heroes.

Well, that’s your problem right there!

Ok, I think the stats on this particular site are a bit off…

I filled out the “Body-Fat %” section with my current stats.

It said I have 31% body fat.

Had I not just had a professional reading done that indicated body fat of 19%, I may have been concerned…

Ok, now I just adjusted my sex and I now have a body-fat % of -5.

While I like that number better, I’m pretty sure there must be some sort of calculation error happening…

Well I’ve lost 45 pounds now, and still am off by 5 from the alleged ideal.

So close…

>> Ok, now I just adjusted my sex

Was it painful? :wink:

Didn’t you just run in a marathon? Didn’t you have the lady Dopers drool over your massively muscled body?

I think someone’s trolling for compliments. Disgusting, really.

I wouldn’t worry about it. I’m 6’ and weigh 225. Yes, I have a pot, but I doubt I would be considered obese.

There seems to be a reaction against those BMIs as being seriously out of wack.

BMIs suck, and they’re definitely discriminating, since lots of places use it as an exact scale.

I’m 6’ 240. I have a small gut, but I have a huge frame, and lots of muscle. I won’t even look at the BMI, since since childhood I’ve seen how “off” they can be.


You guys are just kidding yourselves. Unless it really is muscle (and if it was, you wouldn’t have thousand plus post counts at here on the Couch Potato Message Board) the charts are accurate. I’m 6’2", 235 lbs, and all of it is rolly polly chubby wubby fatty watty lard. No illusions here. I’m fat and happy.

According to various charts I’ve seen, I’m anywhere between 30 and 50 pounds “overweight.” You’ll pardon me if I think that’s a crock of shit, because my 5’7", 165 pound self is just fine with me. (apologies for the poor picture quality, took it just now with my cheap-ass QuickCam)

No weight or BMI chart can take into account the amount of variation in peoples’ bodies and such. Don’t let 'em bug ya.

According to BMI charts, I’m an OK weight for my height - but I can see just from looking down at my belly that there’s too much fat and not enough muscle. I have lost some fat from exercising more, but there’s still a couple of little rolls there. I don’t think I want to lose it all, though, I like a thin soft covering on my body.

I’m sure these charts would tell me I’m carrying enough extra weight to make another complete adult male - because, let’s face it, I am. But I’m also pretty heavy built underneath it all, so I’d probably register as overweight even if I didn’t have all the fat. These things are blunt instruments at best, not to be relied upon - human bodies vary too much for any formula-derived ideal to apply.

Anyway, I don’t care - I may be fat, but I’m still healthy, and I refuse to be brainwashed by the popular media about my shape. I have no desire to emulate those emaciated Hollywood super-waifs like, err, Orson Welles or Marlon Brando.

Those charts are a crock of crap. For one thing, activity level is much more important to your health than weight. For another, they don’t take into account your bone structure, muscle mass, or where your fat is stored. The last can be important because people who carry their extra weight in their stomach and chest area are more likely to suffer heart attacks than those of us with fat asses.

Extra muscle mass rocks. It means that you burn more calories at rest than someone who weighs the same, but has a higher percentage of fat. In other words, it gives your metabolism a boost. It takes a lot of calories to maintain muscle, few to maintain fat.

If you are healthy, active, happy with how you look, and have no joint problems I say toss the chart in the can.

Oh! My doctor also has this cool scale (which I got on just yesterday). You step on it barefoot and it sends some sort of impulse through your body that tells you how many pounds of fat, lean body mass, and water you’re composed of. I was going to do some research on how it works and whether it’s accurate or not. But maybe you can find a physician with one of those contraptions and see how you fare.

If you’d like cites for this information, I’d be happy to send you an e-mail with some links to reading material and titles you could check out. It’s just some of the info. you tend to gain if you stuggle with weight and fitness issues. No time to deal with multiple cites right now.


I think that dudes get away with extra weight a lot more easily than chicks.

<rant on>

The other day I was perusing one of the OTHER forums I post to and I see a thread where some guy has posted that he’s happy about the arrival of spring because this means girls will be out in tank tops and short shorts. Ok, fine, he’s male, they look, no biggie.

The guy who responded ‘Yeah, but some of them still have that ‘hibernation fat’ and should stay indoors.’… come over here so I might wring your neck. Just what the hell is wrong with a chick who doesn’t have the body of Gwenyth or Sarah-Michelle, eh?

Hibernation fat my ass. I’m just not a ‘skinny’ chick. And god damnit if I wanna wear a tank top, I WILL you intolerant small-minded fuckwad. You wanna look only at supermodels? Tape the swimsuit issue of SI to the inside of your sunglasses, because out here n the REAL WORLD us REAL CHICKS are gonna be walkin around. And we’re not donning burqa because your sorry ass can’t handle a chick with some flesh to her.

<rant off>

According to those charts, Shaquille O’Neal’s a tub of lard. They don’t take into account muscle mass at all. I know you run alot Scylla, and work out, so I can’t believe you’re over your “ideal weight.” Certainly, Shaq doesn’t seem to have any problems with his weight.

I’m a fitness fanatic, and if I lose ten pounds I have a washboard stomach. I wear a 46 jacket and 34 pants. I’m not worried about fat. I don’t think I have much.

42 pounds is a lot of mass though, and doesn’t it put the same strain on the heart whether it’s fat or muscle?

Well, Shaq is a proffesional athlete, far different from an average person.

I’m With DPWhite, most of the people that whine about the charts being wrong, only do so because they cannot cope with the fact that they are fat.
at 5’9 190lbs, I am fat. I’m not heavy framed, or big boned, I was skinny once, but I ATE too much and SAT around far too long.
I am doing something about it, no doubt about that, but accepting that I am fat is the first step in resolving it.
Now on the other hand, I doubt that I will ever be my Ideal body weight ever again. I think for my height its like 155. Too skinny IMO, but 165 is better. 190 is definatly too fat, when my stomach jiggles when I laugh, I know its time to quit eating the ho-ho’s…lol