Reply With Quote
as one immortal figure would say:
gfy
Based on your posts, it's hard to believe "good enough" is good enough for you.Almost nobody has "significant muscle mass".
The other myth I hear from fat ladies is they have "big bones".
(no, silly lady, you're fat because you eat too much, eat badly)
BMI is not precise, but "wildly inaccurate" due to the above two items isn't why.
BMI is useful because it's generally "good enough"
as one immortal figure would say:
gfy
BMI bases your ideal weight and what your estimated body fat % off height and gender as the only variables. To act like that's useful is pretty stupid.Almost nobody has "significant muscle mass".
The other myth I hear from fat ladies is they have "big bones".
(no, silly lady, you're fat because you eat too much, eat badly)
BMI is not precise, but "wildly inaccurate" due to the above two items isn't why.
BMI is useful because it's generally "good enough"
DOK, what do you propose that so much more useful, accurate than BMI?
I'm not championing BMI, just saying it's a pretty good indicator.
More accurate is looking at someone. Damn hard to hide 30+ pounds of fat.
What's more useful and accurate is measuring the actualy body fat % and as you said looking in the mirrior. There are some skinny people with bad genetics which keeps their cholesterol high, but more often than not, cholesterol is also a good measure imo.
Serena Williams for example would probably be borderline obese according to BMI but her actual body fat % is probably much lower than what's needed to be considered healthy.
"What's more useful and accurate is measuring the actualy body fat %"
how do YOU do that?
I don't measure my body fat % because I don't have the little pinch an inch tool or whatever you use. I know that I wasn't obese 5 lbs ago. I have a very broad chest and shoulders and even when I was 243 lbs I barely looked overweight (in clothes). I am just using BMI as a very loose goal. If I was following it hard core, then I would not target 180 as my goal weight since I would have to go much lower to be "normal" (I wouldn't cross out of the overweight into the normal weight threshold until 173).What's more useful and accurate is measuring the actualy body fat % and as you said looking in the mirrior
Serena Williams for example would probably be borderline obese according to BMI but her actual body fat % is probably much lower than what's needed to be considered healthy.
As far as your serena williams example, its not really relevant as the issue of "significant muscle mass" has been addressed upstream.
BMI is bull . You can be in much better health being a few pounds overweight than someone who is skinny and doesn't exercise.
The Serena Williams thing was in response to Boutons saying "almost no one has significant muscle mass" and "some girls use the excuse they're big boned." Serena Williams is both big boned and has significant muscle mass.
I'm the same as you where I've got broad shoulders and can hide extra weight pretty well, especially since my body distributes extra weight extremely evenly throughout my body. Even at my fattest of 280 I looked fat but not like someone who weighs close to 300 pounds.
I'm not sure what the point of your post was tho since I agree you can weigh more than what BMI says...
I guess my point is that BMI has some use as long as people aren't taking it as law. It is a really easy (and easy to calculate) loose guide for people losing weight. Body fat percentage while better for accuracy, requires tools and such, that is more money (or in my case, some money as my only tools are a free bike and a free app) - lol.
Oh ok I see what you mean.
imo, weight loss should be determined simply by getting to a weight where you're happy with and confident in how you look while you're also healthy.
Change is not easy. It takes displine and desire. A pill does not attack the real issues. I recommend a healthy diet of food,drink and exercise daily to help with any excess weight you would like to lose. Drink lots of water and get 7 to 8 hours of sleep every night. I start my day off with a light jog, followed up with reading and meditation. Hopefully get some cardio and weights in before nightfall. Life is busy, you have to make time. For the summer, the kids are out of school, I have to get up at 6 in order to start my day off with some positive energy. I can't just hit the gym up like I do durning the school year so to adapt, change my routine up, I am swimming every other day, playing basketball, soccer with kids along with about 20-30 minutes of weights I sneak in while at the house. I prefer the gym. Try your best not to use diet pills. It's a short fix that could do you more harm than good in the long run. God bless.
Pills don't work
dieting doesn't work
I'm so sick of USA's OB- ING-SESSION with overweight. What a sick society.
So is it available in SA ?
I think the only thing that should matter is how you feel. I remember I used to bust my ass to lose 10 pounds before going on trips where I'd do lots of hiking, thinking it would make things easier. I found the opposite to be true; that I was better off keeping the weight. In my case completely getting rid of a small gut seems to be pretty counter-productive.
Is 1 lb. too heavy for 8"?
so has croutons been confirmed for a fat ass with his pro fat agenda here? America's obsession with overweight is cause it costs a ton of money to care for fatties. Or were you saying you don't like Americans thinking fat is okay?
THere is a good bull episode on BMI
No that's not all that matters. My wife had a new patient that was a triathlete & totally fit/lean who came in for a routine physical. After talking to this person about diet, family history, etc. she ordered an advanced lipid panel and a CIMT (Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Ultrasound) and the super healthy triathlete had 40% blockage and was well on the way to a stroke.
My wife uses BMI, waist cir ference, and risk factors (bloodwork, family history, etc.) to get a picture of one's overall health. So BMI is important but it's not the end all be all. Waist cir ference is probably more important because belly fat is more active in causing obesity related diseases. So the 6' 210lb guy with chicken legs/arms and a fat gut is at more risk than the guy with the same weight distributed over his body.
You're right about needing medical checkups, but my main point (I guess not that clearly articulated, as phrased above) was that trying to look skinny shouldn't be important. In this country if you have thick hips and legs a lot of people consider you a fatass even when you can be in way better shape than a skinny person.
"they've shown" that greasebags can be fit, and being fit somewhat counters the medical disadvantages of being a greasebag.
"looking skinny" isn't the objective. An what's long with looking skinny, anyway?
but being a fatass, to greater or lesser, degree is now normalized as acceptable. With 2/3+ of USA overweight or obese, it's way past average.
Well I don't disagree that appearance doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of someones fitness or health. At the same time though you have to be careful equating being in shape with healthy. You can go to any triathalon, marathon, or cycling event and see plenty of fatties who are in great shape but probably not very healthy.
I consider myself in decent shape and last year I went jogging on a trail near my parents house. This very fat chick passed me up only she wasn't really running, it was more of a really fast waddle like a duck. I couldn't keep up with her though...man that pissed me off.
Anyway that's the biggest downside to these fat pills. If people can lose weight without changing their diet/lifestyle they are going to think they are somehow healthier when really they are still at high risk for daibetes, cardiovascular disease, and other obesity related diseases.
On another note, I normally stay away from "hot" stock trades but I took a risk on this one. The amount of manipulation of this stock on the day of the FDA announcement was amazing. USA Today published an online artice saying it had been approved before it had then retracted it saying it was an innocent mistake, The Street posted that morning that the stock "was minutes away" from being halted for the decision to be announced when it wasn't made until after hours on and on. I lost my nerve and bailed with a lousy $230 profit on a $70K investment. Good thing as the stock has tanked following the approval.
You think the stock market is tricky, manipulated?
BigPharma, who do their own testing, suppress negative results, hype positive results, usually on very small human populations, so when you take a new drug, you're really beta test, field testing, the drug.
Ask the Vioxx victims how that goes (the ones still alive).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions