Are you overweight?
- Thread starter Kronos
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,805
- Location
- Falling...
Well I suppose one could compile a huge list of every single male athlete and draw a standard deviation curve to get your answer, however, I'm not going to bother.
Sprinters != long distance runners.
Same as cross country bike riders != Track cylists
Your selections are tiny, it's easy to find people that fall within the criteria you want to prove a point. I could choose the ruby team, swimmers, field athletes and so on. It's east to pick and choose.
As a general rule, BMI is just a very broad brush - it's like using a sniper rifle and asking someone to hit the side of the Hoover dam - most people will be able to hit it, but that doesn't mean that everyone is a sniper. So just because you get some accurate BMI readings, it doesn't mean that as a general rule it is useful.
As I said there are far better ways of measuring other than bodyfat (which is the best way), such as hip to height and hip to waist ratios and waist to height. Combine those WITH the BMI reading, THEN I agree it's a good guideline.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,805
- Location
- Falling...
Yes but disgusting!
I was surprised to see a cruiserweight come up not being overweight with BMI. I checked your figures and it's right.
I'm a defender of BMI. Not because it's right for everyone, but because it's a good guide for the average joe. And it's a good, quick, politically neutral (i.e. not especially confrontational) way of medical professionals telling people they are overweight/obese.
I'm around 22 on BMI. approx 12st (76Kg) and ~185cm
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
BMI is fine when used in the right context, ie the general health of the population. It is useless when used on specific people like rugby players, weight lifters etc.
Well, the point I was making earlier is that BMI is not accurate, and if you are 'probably quite fat' then you only really need your reflection to tell you. That and how long it takes you to get up a flight of stairs
My point is, if you're not a serious fitness freak, then the mirror is all you need to tell you how healthy you are (and maybe your doctor, worst case). If you are into fitness, then you will want a better measure than BMI. Therefore, BMI is pointless.
Well, the point I was making earlier is that BMI is not accurate, and if you are 'probably quite fat' then you only really need your reflection to tell you. That and how long it takes you to get up a flight of stairs
My point is, if you're not a serious fitness freak, then the mirror is all you need to tell you how healthy you are (and your doctor). If you are into fitness, then you will need a better measure than BMI. Therefore, BMI is pointless.
Agreed, just need to swap BMI scale with some sort of web cam flab recognition software, or hell slap the tubby peoples flab and time how long it quakes
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,805
- Location
- Falling...
Yup. They are. Horrid things.
I don't disagree with BMI being used, if it is used as part of more specific and useful measurements - but on it's own, or just plugging into a calculator just doesn't give the right results or sensible results.
Which was sort of my point, it's not the massively overweight general population that will try and argue against using BMI.
Based on my BMI the NHS would be happy to offer me Orlistat and gastric band surgery.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I have a BMI of 26 which "tecnically" means I'm overweight - but I'm not overweight due to muscle density.
BMI has it's limitations as a way of measuring whether you're overweight.
BMI has it's limitations as a way of measuring whether you're overweight.
The mirror can tell you how overweight/underweight you are, but not necessarily how "healthy" you are.
You got me there! I was oversimplifying. You get the general idea of my point though I assume.
I'm overweight by a couple stone. I'm 5'9, and 13 stone currently, which translates to a size 36 waist.
Ideally 11 stone is where I should be, and 34 waist.
Running at least twice weekly, not snacking at night, but losing any weight at all is proving difficult.
Ideally 11 stone is where I should be, and 34 waist.
Running at least twice weekly, not snacking at night, but losing any weight at all is proving difficult.
Pretty much any rugby player. Including wingers and scrum-halfs.
Most guys who play NFL.
Most guys in the NBA.
Think that should qualify as a fair number.
5"11 and my optimal weight is supposedly 75kg.
I'm 73kg with a 30-31" waist, however my body composition has meant I've ALWAYS had these love handles, they aren't massive, but they are there and I certainly notice them. Everything else I'm happy with aside from them. Pain in the arse!
Was 70kg at my lightest when getting back from travelling and they were still there, some of us are doomed to have them!
I'm 73kg with a 30-31" waist, however my body composition has meant I've ALWAYS had these love handles, they aren't massive, but they are there and I certainly notice them. Everything else I'm happy with aside from them. Pain in the arse!
Was 70kg at my lightest when getting back from travelling and they were still there, some of us are doomed to have them!
What sort of food are you eating? Not asking about snacking I'm asking about evening meals and the sorts of thing you drink?
FYI I was 13.5st which was on the high side of a 34" waist, basically 34s were uncomfortable.
I've lost just under 2st through diet alone (as in good food, not actually dieting as such) and that dropped my waist like a stone, it's cost me a fortune, I'm now down to 30" and still dropping.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I'm 6'2 and 14st and 6lb. Apparently I have a BMI of 25.9 which is overweight. I don't really look or feel overweight so I am surprised to see that score. I might try to get myself down to 14st mark, but I don't think I ought to be below that truth to tell.
Oh wait, muscle weighs more than fat right? That must be it.
Oh wait, muscle weighs more than fat right? That must be it.
Last edited:
There is a science to it.
Many people(along with myself) believe that a 'healthy' amount of weight to lose is 1/2lbs a week. Many other people consider that slow going but it soon adds up.
Also, check out MyFitnessPal and other calorie counting apps. I'm not condoning calorie counting your life away, but it is a really easy way to gauge how you are doing even if you just do it for a few weeks to get a general idea if you are that worried.