So... I am suddenly a lard-butt now?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
81

There seems to be a lot of misconception about BMI (over all, not just in this thread). I think some people are confusing BMI with being a comment on how someone looks. BMI chart says you are overweight, so you must look fat. BMI has nothing to do with how you look, it is not a comment on how you look in those pants, or whether you are hot or not. It just means, if you fall outside of the normal range, you are statistically at greater risk of certain diseases, because of your ratio of body fat. You can say, but I look awesome, so screw that BMI number, but the facts remain. Not that you specifically, are going to die of heart disease if your BMI is 26 instead of 24, but over a population, people within this range of BMI tend to be healthiest. Take that information for what it is worth.

I hate those sites that show the range of people and say see? These people have an ‘overweight’ BMI but they look great! Because BMI has nothing to do with the way you look! It is not something scientists made up to be the scale of hotness! Also, if you have to ask yourself, “could it be that I am so muscular that my BMI is off?” Then the answer is ‘probably not.’ If you are a bodybuilder or a professional athlete or look like an Olympian, then you probably know that already, and are not concerned by your BMI.

It is also not a scale of ‘normal’ in the sense that ‘most people in America fall in this range.’ We are all aware that as a populace, Americans are getting fatter. That does not mean that the BMI scale should change accordingly, so when people say “I look normal” that does not mean anything when it comes to BMI. You may well be ‘normal’ weight as in, you look like an average American, but that does not mean your weight is ‘normal’ when it comes to your health.

82

Exactly. It’s based on statistical means, and should be taken for what it’s worth. Of course, I take what my doctor says far more seriously than I take BMI scales, what with him knowing me personally. If I look good, and I feel good, and my doctor says I’m at a healthy weight, then screw the BMI number indeed.

83

Even if you do gain weight*, so what? Nobody will care if your BMI is on the high side of normal if you can run a marathon and use your abs to grate cheese.

If in your OP you said “the BMI chart says I’m borderline overweight, but I eat well, run five times a week, bench twice my weight, am training for my second Iron Man, and my doctor says I’m in great shape” you’d probably have a lot more responses telling you to disregard the BMI.

But your argument is that you don’t think you have any weight to lose, and that you’re not considered large by the people around you. According to your location tag you live in Tennessee, which in 2008 was the 6th fattest state in the US. In 2007 it was estimated that over 67% of Tennesseans were overweight or obese. Is it possible that seeing so many overweight people has skewed your perception of what is healthy?

  • The only person I know who actually gained weight at the gym started at 6’4" and 165 pounds. Everything he eats and every exercise he does is so he can achieve his goal of gaining 20 pounds.
84

Well, yes, that’s usually the weight that’s lost. What’s your point? Everyone has fat on them. The issue here is what constitutes too much. You seem to be claiming that anyone with the capability to lose weight and not be unhealthily thin is, by deifnition, overweight. What I’m saying is that

A) That is NOT the accepted definition of “overweight” and
B) It’s a ridiculous definition that implies a logically silly conclusion.

The summer I joined the Army I started off 6’2", 155, and ended the training period 6’2", 175. By your definition I’d become overweight - I could have stopped all the training and lost weight, I’d assume. But since when has skinny been more healthy that muscular and strong?

Who’s said that can’t be fat because they have no health problems?

85

Yeah… you just *know *Debbie and Hans are a little porky.

86

Before I started running, I was losing a steady 1lb a week. Once I started running (with no changes in diet) I stayed static weight wise for over 3 months. Now, I was still getting thinner, as measured by the regularity with which I added holes to my belt. But I wasn’t losing weight. If I hadn’t had a calorie debt each week, I probably would have put weight on.

I am 5’9, 190lbs. This gives me a BMI of 28 (down from a BMI of 36 :eek:). I hope to reach a BMI of 25 by the end of the year. I still have subcutaneous fat to lose (belly, kidneys, chest), but I doubt I can easily get much below a BMI of 25 - I have really big thighs (I did a visual comparison at the gym during my boxercise class), and thus the proportion of weight in my legs is higher than most. Pants that fit my waist don’t fit my thighs - I have to try bigger ones. And there is no fat to lose on those legs. I can thank running and cycling for that.

[QUOTE=bump]
I’m 6’1" (well 6’ 0.5", but I round up), and about 295 lbs. According to those conductance based body fat percentage things, my bodyfat percentage is 39%

Which means that about 180 lbs of me is not fat. Assuming that I have a healthy body fat percentage of 10% (which is on the low side), I’d still weigh 198 lbs.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t put too much stock on that conductance based body fat percentage value. I have lost 57lb over the last year, and my scales still think that I am at 30% body fat. I blame my internal conductance issues (seriously - I upgraded to dual wound pickups for my guitar - the single wound pickups I had hummed like anything if I was not earthed). However, if you lost weight, I think you could easily get down to a healthy BMI without reducing your fat percentage to something unhealthy.

I use BMI as a guide, and an aspiration. While I am aware of the shortcomings, I also know that my physiology is not too far off the curve, and I can’t use that for an excuse to not try to lose the weight. If I get to a point that I can’t lose weight, I will evaluate the situation, otherwise, I keep trying. I also cannot use the “Oh I am overweight, but I am fairly fit” excuse, either. It may be true, but if I had to stop working out, then I would not be fit and overweight. I’d just be overweight. If I am fit and not overweight, and stop working out, then I’ll just not be fit.

Si

Si

87

We have this whole thread of people complaining that BMI’s definition of overweight is incorrect. How is that any different?

You’re doing it again. You didn’t gain 20lbs of fat when you joined the Army. That’s what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about fat.

88

I think what you’re saying here is that you were building muscle by running? Correct me if I’m wrong. Now I can’t say this for 100% sure, but pretty close; everything I know about anatomy, exercise, and nutrition tells me that you cannot build muscle while running a caloric debt. Your body will, at best, go into a more effecient mode and try to retain as much mass as possible, but at that point you will be cannibalizing muscle mass. I don’t think what you’re saying here is possible. Like I said, I’m willing to be proven wrong but I’m pretty sure about this.

89

I’ve run only three times in my whole life, but two weeks of summer camp when I was 15 saw me lose two jeans sizes and gain 5 kg (distance walked over mountains on “rest days,” 28 km). The end of the worst of this winter (ie, I’m going for walks again) has seen me lose one jeans size without losing any weight.

I come from a long line of walkers…

Cisco, proteins are the LAST source of energy used by the body. Not only are they less efficient as a source of energy than sugars and fats, but using them as a source of energy is… a waste of high-quality materials (you can build sugars and fats from proteins, but you can’t build proteins from sugars and fats). So yes, you can build muscle while being on a caloric-debt diet/exercise regime.

90

Doesn’t matter what you know, this thread is full of statistical miracles - people whose BMIs and bodyfat tests tell them they’re overweight or even fat, but these tests are all wrong. Even though the people concede they could lose 15-20lbs, the tests are wrong. Do you understand? The tests are WRONG.

You are WRONG and the tests are WRONG.

:confused: um wouldn’t you be less flabby if you lost 15 pounds?

and the rest of us descended from the wheeled ape?

counter-intuitively, not so. Look up muscle catabolism.

False. Protein can convert to glucose, that’s it (the glucose can then be converted to fat but that’s all. If you’re confusing fat with fatty acids you’re… well, confused.) .

91

Forgot what I came to say in the first place:

I think people place too much attention on numbers (in life in general, but particularly when it comes to bodies). Inches, pounds, calories, BMI value, bodyfat… what do you really need?
If you can stand naked and look in the mirror and be happy with what you see, FUCK THE NUMBERS.

92

BMI doesn’t take into account body type, just height and weight.

It doesn’t consider muscle mass, or body fat percentage, its very… primitive.

Just food for thought.

93

Well shucky ding dang. A feller might’a thunk that this’udda came up in one of the precedin’ 91 posts.

94

And if the DOCTOR says you’re healthy.
“Flabby” and losing weight-maybe-if I tone up, though, I could put on muscle mass.

It all depends.