I’m 6 feet and 1 inch and weigh 260 lbs and while I definitely would consider myself “fat”, I’m hardly an obese blob either. If I lost 50 pounds I wouldn’t even feel overweight, and the “suggested range” is 140-188 pounds. 144 pounds IMO is absurdly skinny for someone of my height and build. Even 188 pounds seems on the thin side honestly, not borderline overweight.
What do you think?
Depends on body fat percentage.
It’s possible to be of normal weight yet 30-35% bodyfat. Or go the other way and be 5%.
More info needed. Muscle mass/fat mass ratio of that 210 lbs is the determining factor.
This question is why I consider the BMI to be a guide and nothing more.Simply weight and height aren’t enough. You could be fit, low body fat and have large muscle mass and not be fat at that height, or you could be a blob.
Honestly? I think we have WAY too many fat/exercise threads stuck in MPSIMS and IMHO.
Maybe the board will create a “Health” sub section that these can all be moved to.
Yeah, when I was in Basic in Army, there was one fellow who was shorter than most of us, but built like a tank from power-lifting for years prior. His waist size (thick, thick abd musculature from lifting huge loads of iron weights made it so) His BMI was not anywhere near within Army standards, but guy could whup-up/outpower anyone who dared challenge him. Kinda like a shorter Rulon Garner Pics here of him mostly during his gold-medal-winning wrestling events (beat the 13-time Russian champ squarely!). Guy grew up busting ass on a dairy farm and his appearance doesn’t indicate the actual strength/mass/speed of musculature he had then.
Army co-hort had to, totally unnecessarily IMHO, go through being put into tank of water on a seat hanging from a scale to get more appropiate measurement of mass -v- fat ratio or whatever Army demanded to have. Several other weirdish tests were done as well; poor fellow felt humiliated since he was in far better shape than almost the rest of us. He would easily outrun everyone, too, over two miles runs. He eventually got the ‘waiver’ he needed to be part of Army despite being out-of-spec.
Hydrostatic bodyfat testing is still the gold standard. Although, if the guy was showing a clear six-pack, he was at most 8-10% which is quite lean.
I can’t believe I’m the first – of course a person who is six foot tall and weights 1,210 pounds is fat. Guiness Book of Records fat. 
Unless it is all muscle, yeah, fat. Some fat is good, but at 6’1" 190 is pushing it. TSS 6’ 2.5" and 225 lbs.
I’m 6’6" and 190 lbs and I like to think I’m roughly the weight I should be. You’d have to be seriously beefy not to be (slightly) fat at 6’1" and 210 lbs.
This is a photo of an Australian Rules Footballer, Scott Pendlebury.
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Scott+Pendlebury+Collingwood+Magpies+Recovery+ITsTXyd5_vcl.jpg
He’s listed at 191cm and 91kg which is basically 6 foot 3 and 200 pounds. He’s a lean running athlete.
Another guy who fits the profile more closely is Josh Hunt.
This guy is 185cm and 100kg, or 6’1" and 220 pound and I wouldn’t dare call him fat.
I was coming here to write that. At first glance, I read the title that way too.
I’m 6’1" My lowest adult weight was 190 pounds, at that point I was mountain biking 40 miles a day off road and was on a very restrictive diet. It’s not a weight I ever plan on achieving again. In my opinion I was too thin.
I’m much more comfortable at 210-220. It’s still requires a lot of exercise but I can eat a less restrictive diet. If I’m in that weight range no one would call me fat.
Many of the healthy BMI ranges are not just “not jiggles and rolls fat,” but rather actively slim.
Lots of variability in body types, but a 6’ 1" 210-pounder would not typically be someone who would be categorized walking down the street as a “look at fatso” body type. To most people, the typical response would be “he looks normal weight,” IMO. Again, ignoring outliers, such a person fully clothed would not look fat to almost everyone. That’s the aesthetic answer.
If you’re asking health-wise, that combination could be anything from ripped to “just a bit of a spare tire, not quite as healthy as you ought to be,” depending upon body type, muscle mass, etc. But if I get the sense of why you’re asking–lose the 50. I suspect the predominant response you’ll get is, “protoboard, you look fantastic!”
I’d say the big problem with BMI is that it doesn’t take distribution into account. How you carry your fat has a lot to do with how big you appear to be. As does how your bones are set–wider shoulders make your waist look slimmer, for example.
I think giving us measurements would be a better way to determine whether we thought you were fat, not your weight and height. Weight is just not what we actually use when determining if someone looks fat.
Me also. Wow of course you’re fat at 1,210 pounds!
That’s pretty much me, although I’m a bit taller. The only time I weighed less than 200 lbs was when I was exercising like a fiend and eating like a bird. That’s not a sustainable lifestyle. 210 feels about right, and that’s what my target is.
Right, of course for any individual it actually depends on build. BMI alone is a screen at best and works well for populations and less well for individuals with individual variation.
That said, 6f 1i 210 lb is a BMI of 27.7 which while labelled “overweight” by CDC criteria is pretty much in the lower risk range for medical outcomes when populations are studies. Many athletically built people will have that BMI and some who have solid muscle with very little body fat. Quite a few well muscled athletes will be in the BMI 25 to 30 range. Of course many slugs will have that BMI and have it all centered as fat in their mid-section.
OTOH there are few (not zero, few) individuals with BMIs over 30 who do not have significant excess fat and those closing in on BMI of 35 or over … the person with a BMI of 35 or higher who is not accurately labelled as obese by body fat percent as well is a very rare individual, a few bodybuilders or powerlifters maybe. And one can be accurately labelled obese and be very fit and strong and healthy as well.
Josh Hunt’s BMI as listed for ht and wt is 29. Yes a heavily muscled athlete. “Overweight” by BMI definition but in no way “over-fat” and also very fit. By percentiles he’s still in the middle half on BMI for adult males. I am sure very low percentiles for percent body fat.
Rulon Garner may have had lots of muscle and been very fit but he was also fat. The two are not mutually exclusive. His BMI at6f 1.5 i 265 pounds (what he apparently competed at) was 34.5 and yes very strong, very fit, and fat. Of note he went up to 474 after his career, went on Biggest Loser and dropped a bunch before quitting the show, aimed to get on the Olympic team again which would have required getting back down to 264.5, missed the weight (he says) by 15 pounds and since then regained 100 back.
