what's your bmi?
02-14-07 | 03:33 PM
#26
Videre non videri
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,208
Likes: 4
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Bikes: 1 road bike (simple, light), 1 TT bike (could be more aero, could be lighter), 1 all-weather commuter and winter bike, 1 Monark 828E ergometer indoor bike
Originally Posted by Roody
Body tissue composition measures lack even the first qualification for being a valid measure. They are not reliable. That means they will not always give you the same value when you repeat the measurement with the same method. They will also not give you the same number if you use two different methods to measure the same person. Without reliability, you cannot have validity. OTOH, Weight measurements are highly reliable, and height measurements are almost totally reliable.
Sure, height and weight measurements are pretty tought to mess up, but the derived information isn't necessarily useful.
Think about it... What if we measured foot length and multiplied that with head circumference? Sure, you'd have a very repeatable measure but it would (probably) have no usefulness whatsoever!!!
On the other hand, a body fat measurement, even if off by as much as 2-3 percentage points between two measurements using the same method on the same person, it's still a very useful measure, since the healthy and unhealthy ranges overlap for individuals and are also fairly broad. If a an adult man measures as having 14% body fat, or 17% body fat, it still provides a good indication of healthy body fat levels.
A measure that has a high variability but a high degree of usefulness is much more valuable than a measure with negligible variability but almost no usefulness...
02-14-07 | 04:20 PM
#27
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by CdCf
But you're confusing things here...
Sure, height and weight measurements are pretty tought to mess up, but the derived information isn't necessarily useful.
Think about it... What if we measured foot length and multiplied that with head circumference? Sure, you'd have a very repeatable measure but it would (probably) have no usefulness whatsoever!!!
On the other hand, a body fat measurement, even if off by as much as 2-3 percentage points between two measurements using the same method on the same person, it's still a very useful measure, since the healthy and unhealthy ranges overlap for individuals and are also fairly broad. If a an adult man measures as having 14% body fat, or 17% body fat, it still provides a good indication of healthy body fat levels.
A measure that has a high variability but a high degree of usefulness is much more valuable than a measure with negligible variability but almost no usefulness...
Sure, height and weight measurements are pretty tought to mess up, but the derived information isn't necessarily useful.
Think about it... What if we measured foot length and multiplied that with head circumference? Sure, you'd have a very repeatable measure but it would (probably) have no usefulness whatsoever!!!
On the other hand, a body fat measurement, even if off by as much as 2-3 percentage points between two measurements using the same method on the same person, it's still a very useful measure, since the healthy and unhealthy ranges overlap for individuals and are also fairly broad. If a an adult man measures as having 14% body fat, or 17% body fat, it still provides a good indication of healthy body fat levels.
A measure that has a high variability but a high degree of usefulness is much more valuable than a measure with negligible variability but almost no usefulness...
That said, I also think that waist-to-hip ratio should be included whenever BMI is measured...it's at least as important an indicator of "overweight" status.
02-15-07 | 03:01 PM
#29
Originally Posted by biffstephens
I think Roody just called me fat!!!
HEY!!
HEY!!
- A skinny little competetive cyclist with Q tip arms, or
- A fat guy who wants to be a skinny little competetive cyclist with Q tip arms.
Either way BMI is a pretty good index for you.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
02-16-07 | 12:54 PM
#32
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by edmaverik
16 Bmi.
16% body fat is not too bad, but a BMI of 16 is well into "anorexic" territory.
02-19-07 | 04:33 PM
#37
Used to be a climber..
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,067
Likes: 193
From: Tucson, AZ
Bikes: 2021 Merlin Sandstone, 2016 Ridley Fenix SL, 2020 Trek Emonda ALR (rim brake), Trek Roscoe 9
Originally Posted by jamesstout
the average bmi of a tdf winner is actually 21
I still have another 8-9 pounds to lose though, and then I'll be at 21.9. Any lower than that and I'd have to seriously watch my diet; and since I don't get paid to ride, I'm not THAT obsessive about it. I figure that 5'7" and 140 pounds is good enough (currently 149 pounds right now). Granted, I like climbing and all, but I don't want to look like Michael Rasmussen or anything.
Back in my teens, while cycling I think the lightest I remember myself being at was somewhere around 127-130 pounds at my current height. I could climb ok, but I was lacking a bit in power, so I really don't want to get to that point....my body seems to like 140.
__________________
2016 Trek 520 (54cm) touring bike for sale - never ridden. Message me for photos/details.
2016 Trek 520 (54cm) touring bike for sale - never ridden. Message me for photos/details.
02-19-07 | 04:34 PM
#38
Software for Cyclists
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
From: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Originally Posted by Garandman
At my height of 6'1 and lean body mass of 193 lbs, I'm officially overweight with zero bodyfat.
Many overweight people carry excess muscle mass too - they need it just to move all the fat mass around. In those cases, losing muscle mass as part of a long term weight loss strategy is normal.
02-19-07 | 05:41 PM
#39
Zoom zoom zoom zoom bonk
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,922
Likes: 979
From: New Zealand
Bikes: Giant Defy, Trek 1.7c, BMC GF02, Trek Marlin 6, Scott Sub 35, Kona Rove, Trek Verve+2
23.8 on my way to 22.5(I figure the middle of the healthy range is a good spot)
Was 28 middle of last year, and as low as 19 in my early 20s
Was 28 middle of last year, and as low as 19 in my early 20s
02-19-07 | 06:22 PM
#40
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
BMI...............31..............Obese
Actually I'm 5'8" and 204, with a 48-50" chest and a 35" waist. In times past I frequented the weight room a bit. OK, a lot.
Like to think of myself as a mountain of muscle overlain with a cuddly layer of 'soft tissue'.
And yes, I believe in Santa and the Keebler Elves.
Actually I'm 5'8" and 204, with a 48-50" chest and a 35" waist. In times past I frequented the weight room a bit. OK, a lot.
Like to think of myself as a mountain of muscle overlain with a cuddly layer of 'soft tissue'.
And yes, I believe in Santa and the Keebler Elves.
02-19-07 | 07:52 PM
#41
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Bmi
Here is a web sight that will do your BMI for you...
https://www.obesityhelp.com/morbidobe...on/bmicalc.php
https://www.obesityhelp.com/morbidobe...on/bmicalc.php
02-21-07 | 09:22 PM
#47
Aut Vincere Aut Mori
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,166
Likes: 1
From: Chapel Hill, NC
Bikes: Irish Cycles Tir na Nog, Jack Kane Team Racing, Fuji Aloha 1.0, GT Karakoram, Motobecane Fly Team
22.6
6'2 and change & 178. I want to be at 175ish for race season.
6'2 and change & 178. I want to be at 175ish for race season.
02-21-07 | 11:43 PM
#49
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Oleanshoebox
Mine's 25.1. I'm 6 feet 185 lbs and my bmi says I'm overweight and high risk. How bout you?
For those that don't know how, you multiply your body weight in lbs by 705 then divide it by your height in inches, then divide it by your height in inches again.
For those that don't know how, you multiply your body weight in lbs by 705 then divide it by your height in inches, then divide it by your height in inches again.
1. It's easy to understand
2. People with a lot of fat cannot be measured by a skinfold caliper.
For people with low fat (12% or less), you can and should use calipers instead of BMI. However, for someone over 20%, calipers just aren;t very accurate and BMI gives a better idea.
