Notices
Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

200 lbs is Overweight?

Old 04-07-09, 06:16 AM
  #26  
bab2000
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 524

Bikes: riders:Schwinn Continental ('80), Specialized Crossroads Sport ('07), Schwinn Super Sport (73), Schwinn Superior (76), Projects: Schwinn Sprint ('74), Trek 800 & Schwinn Continental ('71)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by squirtdad View Post
Remember charts are averages.......individuals will vary.....my doctor did a very simple screening test, had me grasp my wrist with thumb and index finger and see if they went all the way around the wrist and touched or not. The idea is to get a feel of bone size.......he said based on that he would target a goal weight of 200 pounds for me, but would have targeted 175 or so if I had been able to completely circle my wrist.... Now I am far from that goal, and may be he is a quack, but there are individual differences.
Interesting, using your own thumb abd index finger to determine bone frame.

I have read that the measure of 7-3/4" or higher of a wrist would indicate large bone frame, and anything less is normal. It was explained that this measure indicated if a person was big boned or not much access to accumulated around this part of the body.

I have always considered myself big boned, and this theory confirmed, left wrist measures 8.5", the right is 8.75".

My target weight per the latest chart my doctor uses indicates I should be at 210#. BMI has me at 180# for my height, 6'4". So I have some work to do to shed 60# more. I hit a wall at 275#, yet found change in meal habits and frequency, broke this and in last week dropped weight and again on track.
bab2000 is offline  
Old 04-07-09, 07:02 AM
  #27  
atcfoody
Senior Member
 
atcfoody's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In school again.
Posts: 262

Bikes: Trek 7200fx, Surly LHT

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Welcome to one of my pet peeves (rant warning)

Originally Posted by CliftonGK1 View Post
I don't go by charts, calculations, tables and any other nonsense. I go by what my doctor tells me.

My blood pressure is great. My midday HR is in the low 50s. My respiratory exchage volumes are fantastic. No cholesterol issues. Good fasting blood sugar. Aside from being nearsighted and having arthritic hands, I'm in great shape...

At 6'6", 250 pounds, and over 15% bodyfat. Could I stand to lose a few pounds? Sure. I'm slowly working my way back down to 10% or less, but it's apparently not impacting my health, no matter what the most recent doomsayer health magazines want to tell me about how my 40" waist is going to give me diabetes/cancer/aneurisms/harpooned or whatever.
That has got to be one of the most straight forward and correct statements I have seen on this topic in quite a while. CliftonGK, you are right on.

Now, let me address some of the problems I have with this topic of being "overweight".

A scale only tells you how much gravity pulls on you, that's it. It is not a statement of fitness, nore should it ever be taken as one. I have several students that, if they just went by a scale, would be classified as over weight or obese (a 5'3" female that weighs 145, for example). She happens to be a track and field athlete and wears a size 1 dress. Call her fat, and she will re-arrange your anatomy for you, no charge.

BMI charts are averages (as others have said), but they are also averages for the general population. They are not accurate when looking at an athletic population (If you ride several times a week, work out, and eat right, or any combination of the above, you are an athlete, and not part of the general population). They just don't apply to people with an active lifestyle. For example. I'm 6' tall, and weigh 235#. According to the BMI charts, I'm obese. 36" waist, 19" calves, 26" quads, 45" chest, 15" biceps, and, last time I went to the Y, FitLinx said I lifted over 18,000#. Obese, my @$$!

When we discuss this topic in class (just covered sports nutrition and exercise physiology), we use %body fat to determine wether or not a person is obese. Adult males with a % body fat higher than 20%, and adult females higher than 30% are the standards we use. This is an objective measurement, that is repeatable and consistent. Resting heart rate, blood pressure, blood glucose and cholesterol, those are the things that tell you if you are fit (VO2 max and lactate threshold could be in there as well, but those are harder for the average person to test).

Sure, competitive cycling favors the "skinny minnies", but who do they all want to grab the wheel of when its windy on the Tuesday night club ride. Yup, the big guy that can move. Competition is all about the power to weight ratio, who can get the most force to the crank for the longest time wins. Being in shape is about being happy with who you are and being able to do what you want. Personally, I want to be able to still race my grandkids when I'm in my 80's, and win!

D
atcfoody is offline  
Old 04-07-09, 10:23 AM
  #28  
Nightshade
Humvee of bikes =Worksman
 
Nightshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by StephenH View Post
I might point out that Clydesdale horse are big horses, not just fat horses.
VERY true!
__________________
My preferred bicycle brand is.......WORKSMAN CYCLES
I dislike clipless pedals on any city bike since I feel they are unsafe.

Originally Posted by krazygluon
Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred, which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?
Nightshade is offline  
Old 04-07-09, 07:25 PM
  #29  
the engine
... part of the machine.
 
the engine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 210

Bikes: '15 Raleigh Willard 2, '14 Lynskey Sportive, '10 Lynskey R230, '?? Burley Duet Tandem, various others in various states of mobility.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm 240 lbs., 5'-11" ... that said, I haven't been under 200lbs. since my second year of HS ... 1977. My chest is 48", waist is 36" and my quads are 28" ... I look funny on a bike. I've also been riding seriously since helmets were "hair-nets". I ride hilly centuries for fun. I don't climb fast, but I can climb anything, and I can climb all day long.

Weight has nothing to do with fitness ... I could care less about the posers ... it's about the ride, and what it does for you.

I have my wheels hand-built, so I don't worry about being a Clyde pounding the pavement ... I just put my head down and ride to make myself happy.
the engine is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 12:46 AM
  #30  
exile
Senior Member
 
exile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 2,894

Bikes: Workcycles FR8, 2016 Jamis Coda Comp, 2008 Surly Long Haul Trucker

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
I'm a Clyde going in the wrong direction. At 5'9" and 235-240 I'm actually looking to increase my weight. I could lose a few pounds (fat), but muscular weight is a lot different. My last estimated bodyfat % was 15%. I am more of a mesomorph now, but when I started lifting I thought of myself as an ectomorph. I judge how I look by the mirror.

I ride my bike for the cardio and maybe loss of bodyfat. I hated walking on a treadmill. Just didn't seem to make sense walking in place on a perfectly beautiful day outside. I definetly don't plan on entering any kind of race, but it would be funny to see myself on my LHT in the Tour De France (fenders and all). Your records not safe Lance, i'm not in the pack, I am the pack .
exile is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 05:33 AM
  #31  
EatMyA**
Senior Member
 
EatMyA**'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I dont care if you're 6'6". If you're 200lbs and you have a six pack, YOU are a BIG dude, and most likely pretty freaking strong. If you ae 5'6" 200lbs and with a ripped midsection, you are a freaking monster.

Most people have no idea what a cut up 200# looks like. you will have very few people sympathize because they can't understand.

They think hey I am 250 I probably just have 50 lbs extra "my doctor told me so!". "Therefore I must be 200lbs lean. 200 is not that big." In reality they have about 90-100lbs extra.

Magazines and media also make this worse because they all lie. Athletes all lie and put 10-40lbs extra weight, and 1-3" more on their height, on thier profiles. So people look at these guys who are like 180# claiming they are 215# playing football or whatever and think "215lbs is not THAT big!". Same for some of these 215# BIG guys (in great shape) that play pro ball claiming they are 235# or 240#.

Kinda like when 40 year old women lie and say they are 30. Then people think "jeez 30 looks kinda old". When in reality 30 still looks young.

To answer your question on WHY people think Clydes are fat; Just go to a regular race then go to a Clyde race. Most people are not going to be over 200# and lean. Its a generalization. Plus carrying all that extra weight requires muscle. Imagine carrying 100lbs on you all day, you would build like 10lbs of muscle from that alone. So clydes are generally a bit stronger and more muscular too, NOT just fat.

Reading this over I have no idea what the point of this post was. Just things I have noticed.

Last edited by EatMyA**; 04-08-09 at 05:36 AM.
EatMyA** is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 06:10 AM
  #32  
bab2000
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 524

Bikes: riders:Schwinn Continental ('80), Specialized Crossroads Sport ('07), Schwinn Super Sport (73), Schwinn Superior (76), Projects: Schwinn Sprint ('74), Trek 800 & Schwinn Continental ('71)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EatMyA** View Post
Reading this over I have no idea what the point of this post was. Just things I have noticed.
+1, I was beginning to think the same.

Yet, we each should know our own structures, and in true sincerity know if we should make improvements or not. Self perception is most important.

We must be the responsible caretakers of our bodies, as well as our minds, not doing so will lead you to a dead-end earlier than expected.
bab2000 is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 12:31 PM
  #33  
Dr_Robert
AKA Nathan
 
Dr_Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm 6'3", with ~180 lbs. of lean body mass. Even in the best shape of my life (a couple years ago), I was over 200 lbs. with 10-12% body fat. I could probably get my weight below 200 lbs., but I'd have to lose fat and muscle to do it (or get my body fat below 10%, which is a LOT easier said than done).

-DR
__________________
'08 Bianchi San Jose
'06 Giant OCR C3
'04 Specialized Hardrock Comp

Last edited by Dr_Robert; 04-08-09 at 12:42 PM.
Dr_Robert is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 12:42 PM
  #34  
baron von trail 
Senior Member
 
baron von trail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,509

Bikes: 3 good used ones

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Dr_Robert View Post
I'm 6'3", with ~180 lbs. of lean body mass. Even in the best shape of my life (a couple years ago), I was over 200 lbs. with 10-12% body fat. I could probably get my weight below 200 lbs., but I'd have to lose fat and muscle to do it.

-DR

As a fellow 6-3'er, I can definitely relate. 195 to 200 is about rock-bottom, if we want to carry any kind of muscle mass.

The last time I was under 190, I was in college, drinking most of my meals and baking my breakfast. It was a fun time, don't get me wrong, and some of the wgt loss was needed because I dropped down from being a 230# football player in HS. But, most everyone around me said I was way too thin. looking back, I agree.
baron von trail is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 12:50 PM
  #35  
Dr_Robert
AKA Nathan
 
Dr_Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baron von trail View Post
As a fellow 6-3'er, I can definitely relate. 195 to 200 is about rock-bottom, if we want to carry any kind of muscle mass.
I had a friend who was 6'3" and ~180 lbs. He was a college wrestler, very low body fat %, and had to work extremely hard to maintain his build (he'd routinely have to drop ~5 lbs. of water weight before an official weigh in, just to stay in his weight class).

So yeah it's possible, but just barely.

-DR
__________________
'08 Bianchi San Jose
'06 Giant OCR C3
'04 Specialized Hardrock Comp
Dr_Robert is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 01:51 PM
  #36  
theetruscan
Senior Member
 
theetruscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have plenty of friends who are over 6', and under 170 pounds, some who are under 150 pounds. None of them are unhealthily thin. They just have slight builds.

I was seriously emaciated at 188 pounds at 6'2".

Bodies vary, we know this. But, for the vast majority of body types, 200 pounds is going to be overweight. Does weighing 200 pounds mean you're overweight? No. But, as with all "rules of thumb" it is right far more often than it is wrong.

Giving anecdotal evidence of people who are tall, heavy, and fit doesn't change the "rule of thumb," it just shows it to be a "rule of thumb as opposed to an absolute truth. Giving anecdotal evidence of people who are heavy and overweight doesn't show it to be an absolute truth. I'm not entirely sure what's so exciting here.
theetruscan is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 02:02 PM
  #37  
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Posts: 3,841

Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by EatMyA** View Post

Magazines and media also make this worse because they all lie. Athletes all lie and put 10-40lbs extra weight, and 1-3" more on their height, on thier profiles. So people look at these guys who are like 180# claiming they are 215# playing football or whatever and think "215lbs is not THAT big!". Same for some of these 215# BIG guys (in great shape) that play pro ball claiming they are 235# or 240#.

Reading this over I have no idea what the point of this post was. Just things I have noticed.
I find you generalization interesting. When I walked into the training room at Mizzou, I found the exact opposite. As a wrestler, I knew that I was 6'6" and just beloe the 275# limit. I was astonished by the number of linemen that were listed on the roster at 6'5" and 265#, but in reality were 2-3" taller than me and a good 30-40 heavier. There was no way those Hoss's were anywhere near there listed stats, but in the exact opposite direction that you've experienced.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 02:22 PM
  #38  
cs1
Senior Member
 
cs1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Clev Oh
Posts: 7,076

Bikes: Specialized, Schwinn

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light". I was 205 lbs with 4% body fat. and I am 210 now.
How tall are you?

Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?
I'm 5'9" so, Lance seems about average to me. I don't consider myself emaciated at 144lbs either.

Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
Nobody here acts like that. Maybe the hot shots on the road forum do. These riders are very humble if you ask me.
cs1 is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 02:26 PM
  #39  
guelerct
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cranford, NJ
Posts: 51

Bikes: GT Avalanche 1.0, Cannondale CAAD 9-5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
5'11, 235 here and just getting into road cycling. I am fit and muscular with a BMI that says I'm obese.

I'm curious if anyone on this board has tried nutrisystem? I have been on it for 3 weeks (weekdays only) and am finding that by Wednesday I am a hungry man. My workouts make me hungry!
Is anyone else here on Nutrisystem or something like it and having similar issues? I am worried that the food plan will cause me to bonk when I start riding (it's not warm here yet).
guelerct is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 02:28 PM
  #40  
baron von trail 
Senior Member
 
baron von trail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,509

Bikes: 3 good used ones

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by theetruscan View Post
I have plenty of friends who are over 6', and under 170 pounds, some who are under 150 pounds. None of them are unhealthily thin. They just have slight builds.

I was seriously emaciated at 188 pounds at 6'2".

Bodies vary, we know this. But, for the vast majority of body types, 200 pounds is going to be overweight. Does weighing 200 pounds mean you're overweight? No. But, as with all "rules of thumb" it is right far more often than it is wrong.

Giving anecdotal evidence of people who are tall, heavy, and fit doesn't change the "rule of thumb," it just shows it to be a "rule of thumb as opposed to an absolute truth. Giving anecdotal evidence of people who are heavy and overweight doesn't show it to be an absolute truth. I'm not entirely sure what's so exciting here.
Are they Ethiopian?
baron von trail is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 07:25 PM
  #41  
dlester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 463

Bikes: Trek Portland/Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo/LeMond Versailles

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by yeamac View Post
Correct me if I'm misreading the information, but I don't see a discrepancy between the BMI weight chart and your article. At the bottom of the BMI chart it says: Weight ranges are used to provide information about the range of weights with the lowest risk of developing weight-related conditions. Which is why this is called a "healthy" weight range. Like you say, it is just an average. It seems to take into account the 3 various body types from the link you reference. For more muscular types, you would be near the top of the weight range (as am I). If you are not so muscular, you would be near the lower end of the spectrum. Sure, you can be overweight and fit, but so far those clydes who have commented in this thread about their weight all seem to say they could loose a few pounds.

I got down to 193 about a year ago, and at 6'-1", according to the BMI chart, was just barely overweight (189 top of the range). And guess what, I still had a gut at 193 pounds. Now I've crept back up to around 206 and my gut is even bigger and I'm putting a strain on all the new clothes I had to buy. I'm very fit -- I rode a 125 mile ride last Friday with an 18.5 mph computer average. I rode a 50 mile ride the next day in a paceline with a 21.3 mph average. But, to the original question, yeah, I still say 200 pounds for almost anyone under 6'-3" is going to be overweight. Maybe not by a large margin, but still wanting to loose a few pounds anyway and reduce the size of that gut.
I don't think you were misreading anything, but because the chart is 'an average' it will automatically tell larger framed people they need to lose too much weight, and conversely it will tell smaller framed people they are healthy when in fact they could stand to still lose a few pounds.

The BMI chart says, for my height, I should be 178 pounds. I mentioned that to my doctor and he just laughed and jokingly said if I ever got down to that weight he would admit me into the hospital. Based on body fat calculations he has given me a range of 205 to 215, with the caveat that when I get closer to that we can do the tests again and get more accurate (it was just the fat calipers).

But, I will not ever get to my 'ideal BMI weight' in the tables. It just isn't going to happen, and it won't for anyone who is a meso-type build (as referenced in that article).
dlester is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 07:43 PM
  #42  
StanSeven
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,415

Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 892 Post(s)
Liked 857 Times in 622 Posts
Originally Posted by RedDeMartini View Post
I am a little bit annoyed that there is an assumption that 200 lbs. is considered heavy or that the sport is ""geared for the ultra light".

The lycra clad whippets I see out on their weekend warrior rides might look like lance but he is light because he is short.

Muscle is heavy, if you are less than 200 lbs how tall can you be without being emaciated?

Additionally, why are you making muscular riders feel like outsiders? For that matter why are you describing riding as a "sport". Both of these fallacies work against widespread cycling and the benefits it can bring.
Calm down. Ask yourself why you are so sensitive about weight.

If you are happy about your height, weight, conditioning, etc., what's the problem?
StanSeven is online now  
Old 04-08-09, 08:37 PM
  #43  
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
I'm curious. It seems a lot of big people believe it is totally healthy to weigh a lot, as long as that weight is muscle instead of fat. Is the medical science clear on that? I've never seen this topic addressed honestly.
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 09:01 PM
  #44  
Dr_Robert
AKA Nathan
 
Dr_Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Body fat % is a much more accurate way of measuring fitness than total body weight or BMI (BMI = total body weight indexed by height). Example:

6'4", 260 pounds, BMI 31.6 (obese)
5'10", 170 pounds, BMI 24.4 (normal)

Based on those numbers, which one's healthier? Now what if I told you that the first guy is a competitive body builder with 6% body fat, and the second guy is a couch potato with 20% body fat? Granted, most of us here in this forum (including myself) have more in common with the second example than the first, but weight alone isn't always the best indicator of overall fitness.

Originally Posted by pacificaslim View Post
I'm curious. It seems a lot of big people believe it is totally healthy to weigh a lot, as long as that weight is muscle instead of fat. Is the medical science clear on that? I've never seen this topic addressed honestly.
Going back to my example, the biggest thing the 260 body builder would have to worry about is bone & joint health, since he's putting a lot more weight and stress on his frame. In all other respects, he's much better off than the "little" guy.

-DR
__________________
'08 Bianchi San Jose
'06 Giant OCR C3
'04 Specialized Hardrock Comp
Dr_Robert is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 09:25 PM
  #45  
Wiggle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 385

Bikes: 2019 Trek 520 Disc, 2012 Jamis Ventura Sport

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Everyone probably realizes this but BMI certainly isn't too useful for active people. I'm 200lbs, 5'10" and about 17% BF. Which means I'm not extremely lean but don't look fat, despite than I think I'm within 5lbs of being obese. I've got friends who weigh 30lbs less and can grab more fat off their midsection than I can thanks to me having a thick frame and a bit of muscle from 2 years of heavy weight training.
Wiggle is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 09:54 PM
  #46  
pipes
S E Michigan
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I duno about the wrap your finger and thumb around your wrist test ! When I was 371# I was a half inch short of being able to do it ! Now I have lost 135 # It overlaps a half inch ! Other than I lost some a the fat in my wrists I doubt it says much about my bones ? IMHO But ymmv
pipes is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 10:00 PM
  #47  
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr_Robert View Post
Going back to my example, the biggest thing the 260 body builder would have to worry about is bone & joint health, since he's putting a lot more weight and stress on his frame. In all other respects, he's much better off than the "little" guy.
How about stress on the heart and other organs? I'm just curious because one certainly doesn't see a lot of big people living to be really old or even being very healthy in their retirement years. It's more often the skinny folks that do well.

260 and ripped may seem good when we're young, but it seems unlikely that that 260 lb. body builder is going to maintain that low of body fat % as he gets older. He may still weigh 260, or even more if he can't reduce calorie intake to match his declining activity level, but he's not going to look like solid muscle forever.
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 04-08-09, 10:07 PM
  #48  
grimace308
crash 5
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: mpls
Posts: 262

Bikes: 90s? serotta t-max, 09' planet x ti frame w/sram force, '10 Bianchi Volpe

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baron von trail View Post
Are they Ethiopian?
naw, while i am 250lbs of butter these days, my old highschool race weight was 165lbs at 6'1". i could bench 265+ and after 7 years of gymnastics, i wasnt small, nor weak. 48" coat and blah blah blah

6 years later i left boot at 180, but i had gained my "man" weight, that all dudes get around age 21-25.

these days i figure if you dressed me out and threw me on a spit, i reckon youd get 45 of meat...maybe
grimace308 is offline  
Old 04-09-09, 05:12 AM
  #49  
baron von trail 
Senior Member
 
baron von trail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,509

Bikes: 3 good used ones

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by pacificaslim View Post
I'm curious. It seems a lot of big people believe it is totally healthy to weigh a lot, as long as that weight is muscle instead of fat. Is the medical science clear on that? I've never seen this topic addressed honestly.
Some studies are finding that the less you eat, the less you age: calorie depravation.

Let's, for a minute, assume that there is some merit to this concept. That would suggest that weighing less is indeed better.

Now, for myself, I am looking at things in two different ways. 1) I would like to be as healthy as possible for as long as I can manage. 2) I want to enjoy myself for that duration.

So...I found that calorie depravation simply does not work for me
baron von trail is offline  
Old 04-09-09, 09:51 AM
  #50  
PSR215
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Theres alot of material out there indicting the future health/longevity of heavier people whether fat or muscular. Ex football players are notorious for being big muscular and dieing much younger than smaller counterparts. This is not just a myth. I dont know how anyone can say well Im carrying 50 extra pounds but its all muscle and Im healthy now and Im confident that I will remain so well into the future.

Ive heard lectures by doctors specializing in diet/ nutrition and who have studied the effect of weight vs health who advocate that muscular people well above accepted bmi weight ranges are at greater health risk for the standard American diseases of the heart lung arteries kidneys etc then their lighter counterparts.

Like it or not skinny rats outlive fat rats in every study.
PSR215 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.