Taramere Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) I doubt threads like this will be all that accurate, as it's going to self-select for people with are more pleased with their numbers. Me.. I'm pretty hot. ::rolls eyes:: LOL. I'm not thrilled about mine. I'd like to be back down to 125 but I'm not prepared to do what's entailed. There's a lot of effort and dieting required for me to sustain that level. A couple of years back I was spending about 12 hours a week in the gym and living on ready made weightwatchers meals to ensure I didn't go about 1500 calories a day. I had a fitness assessment and was told I'd reached "athlete level". Then a friend said (in reference to a facebook profile picture) that I could do better. It was a wake-up call as to the whole fitness/slimness obsession can become. I'm a 43 year old woman. I'm not ready to sit down with my knitting for the next 40 years....but neither am I prepared to spend it running for endless hours on a treadmill like an autistic hamster. Especially as I was starting to get knee problems and an increasing number of migraines (which according to my doctor can occur after over-exercising...though I tried to counteract that by taking in loads of fluid). I agree that this is a thread where people will tend to only post if they are average or below average weight. From what I can see, the majority of posters are reporting a BMI of below 22...which is well below average for countries like the US and the UK - and even significantly below average for the thinnest European countries. So we're not really getting true "average" results here. For many women (depending on their age, metabolism and body frame) the impression of "normal" or "average" that they'd get from this thread wouldn't be realistic unless they were prepared to start starving themselves. Which absolutely no responsible person should advocate. Fitness and medical professionals are the best people to dictate what weight is "normal" and healthy for the individual. Not anonymous posters on the internet. Interesting statistics, NYC guy. Thanks for going to that effort. Edited July 11, 2011 by Taramere
mo mo Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I ran some statistics on the information reported so far: WOMEN -- 30 reported age, 33 reported both height and weight Age Average = 32 Oldest = 50 Youngest = 20 Height Average = 5'5" Tallest = 6'0" Shortest = 4'11" Weight Average = 127 Heaviest = 168 Lightest = 90 BMI Average = 21.0 Highest = 28.0 (corresponding to 5'5" 168) Lowest = 15.8 (corresponding to 5'9" 107) 29 women, or 88%, fell into the "normal" range (below 25) 4 women, or 12%, fell into the "overweight" range (25-30) 0 women fell into the "obese" range (above 30) MEN -- 16 reported age, 19 reported both height and weight Age Average = 33 Oldest = 55 Youngest = 20 Height Average = 5'11" Tallest = 6'6" Shortest = 5'6" Weight Average = 180 Heaviest = 223 Lightest = 116 BMI Average = 25.3 Highest = 32.0 (corresponding to 5'10" 223) Lowest = 16.6 (corresponding to 5'10" 116) 7 men, or 37%, fell into the "normal" range (below 25) 11 men, or 58%, fell into the "overweight" range (25-30) 1 man, or 5%, fell into the "obese" range (above 30) That's funny.. I'd fall into the obese range, although I'm far from that. BMI numbers tell you nothing. I'm 5'10, 235lbs. 30 years old. That would put me at a BMI of 33.7. According to the stats, I'm the heaviest guy here. What that doesn't tell you is that I wasn't kidding when I said I am built like Captain America. I have really broad shoulders, 48" chest, 34" waist. Huge leg muscles (I can't do skinny jeans, or even regular fit, they'd have to be relaxed or loose to fit me right). I can fit into size L shirts just fine, even some mediums, but I have a hard time finding dress shirts cuz either the arms aren't wide enough, or the neck isn't big enough. If I bought a stock dress shirt that fit my neck and arms from the shelf, It'd look like I am wearing a too too since the rest of me is so thin. So yea, my original point stands. Numbers don't tell the whole story.
nyc_guy2003 Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I'm not calling anyone fat, but I just find it interesting that the people who complain most about BMI not being accurate are the ones who are flagged as obese or overweight.
Taramere Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 That's funny.. I'd fall into the obese range, although I'm far from that. BMI numbers tell you nothing. I'm 5'10, 235lbs. 30 years old. That would put me at a BMI of 33.7. According to the stats, I'm the heaviest guy here. What that doesn't tell you is that I wasn't kidding when I said I am built like Captain America. I have really broad shoulders, 48" chest, 34" waist. Huge leg muscles (I can't do skinny jeans, or even regular fit, they'd have to be relaxed or loose to fit me right). I can fit into size L shirts just fine, even some mediums, but I have a hard time finding dress shirts cuz either the arms aren't wide enough, or the neck isn't big enough. If I bought a stock dress shirt that fit my neck and arms from the shelf, It'd look like I am wearing a too too since the rest of me is so thin. So yea, my original point stands. Numbers don't tell the whole story. The Independent article I linked earlier mentions that a lot of American footballers would be classed as "obese" according to BMI charts...when the reality is that they're just packing a lot of muscle http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-big-question-is-the-bmi-index-the-right-way-to-tell-what-our-weight-should-be-416858.html This anomaly was highlighted by a study last year which showed that when American Football players were rated on their BMIs, 50 per cent fell into the "obese" classification despite being highly physically fit and healthy.
mo mo Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I'm not calling anyone fat, but I just find it interesting that the people who complain most about BMI not being accurate are the ones who are flagged as obese or overweight. Because it's not accurate. Hey look at pro athletes like MMA fighters or boxers. Brock Lesnar is like 6'3 290 lbs. Is he fat? Helllllll no. Mike Tyson is around my height and in his prime he only weighed a few pounds less than me. Was he fat? No way.... There are a lot of ripped football players and strongmen that are over 300 lbs. They really don't have much fat on them. BMI really means nothing.
Star Gazer Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I'm not calling anyone fat, but I just find it interesting that the people who complain most about BMI not being accurate are the ones who are flagged as obese or overweight. Well, duh. Why would someone complain if their numbers said they were at their ideal weight? I'm sorry, but I'm not "overweight" but my BMI numbers sure say so!
mo mo Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 The Independent article I linked earlier mentions that a lot of American footballers would be classed as "obese" according to BMI charts...when the reality is that they're just packing a lot of muscle http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-big-question-is-the-bmi-index-the-right-way-to-tell-what-our-weight-should-be-416858.html Yep.. that's exactly my point. Craig Matthews is easily pushing 300 lbs but I doubt anyone would ever call him obese.
Star Gazer Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I'm curious when BMI became more important to some people than body fat percentage...?
mo mo Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I'm curious when BMI became more important to some people than body fat percentage...? Yea really. It's actually quite useless when u think about it. I have a friend that is about the same height as me. He weighs at least 60lbs less than I do, but he carries more than double the amount of body fat. If you were to look at us shirtless, you wouldn't even have to ask who's BMI is "better" or "within the ideal range". People automatically say I'm the healthier, more fit guy every single time.
SmileFace Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I'm curious when BMI became more important to some people than body fat percentage...? Didn't you know being skinny fat was the new fade! Got to love it. My body fat is about 23-24% and for my height and weight, that is great. I can care less about BMI but it can be accurate in some cases. Just like everything else, it depends.
mo mo Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 Didn't you know being skinny fat was the new fade! Got to love it. My body fat is about 23-24% and for my height and weight, that is great. I can care less about BMI but it can be accurate in some cases. Just like everything else, it depends. The people that mind don't matter and the people that matter don't mind.
Taramere Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 I'm curious when BMI became more important to some people than body fat percentage...? Mine was 21% when I was going through that crazy fitness regime a couple of years ago, and had the fitness assessment. I'm pretty sure my BMI was 22% at that point. I don't think it would be feasible for me to get a BMI below that. According to the following wiki link, the leanest professional athletes (women) are between 14 and 20% fat. High fitness level is 21 to 24%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage It pisses me off that some guy should come on here and try to tell me that between 110 and 125 pounds is "average" for a European woman of 5 ft 4"(125 pounds would be a BMI of 21.5) when I know exactly how much time, effort and sacrifice I was putting in to be at that level of fitness and fat ratio. It just wasn't possible to sustain. I don't know whether to be more annoyed with him, or with the women who I suspect have lied to him about their weight...resulting in these skewed notions. According to the following article a lot of women lie about their weight - even on official documents. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2767_137/ai_n31565088/ So it's not surprising a lot of men have false ideas about what constitutes an "obese" weight in a woman.
Star Gazer Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 Mine was 21% when I was going through that crazy fitness regime a couple of years ago, and had the fitness assessment. I'm pretty sure my BMI was 22% at that point. I don't think it would be feasible for me to get a BMI below that. According to the following wiki link, the leanest professional athletes (women) are between 14 and 20% fat. High fitness level is 21 to 24%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage It pisses me off that some guy should come on here and try to tell me that between 110 and 125 pounds is "average" for a European woman of 5 ft 4"(125 pounds would be a BMI of 21.5) when I know exactly how much time, effort and sacrifice I was putting in to be at that level of fitness and fat ratio. It just wasn't possible to sustain. I don't know whether to be more annoyed with him, or with the women who I suspect have lied to him about their weight...resulting in these skewed notions. According to the following article a lot of women lie about their weight - even on official documents. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2767_137/ai_n31565088/ So it's not surprising a lot of men have false ideas about what constitutes an "obese" weight in a woman. I'm pissed off at both him and the lying women! Haha! My BMI is about 26 (overweight) and yet my BF% is right under 24 (either fit or normal/healthy, depending on what you're looking at). Check out this chart: http://www.nutribase.com/fwchartf.shtml
thatone Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) That's funny.. I'd fall into the obese range, although I'm far from that. BMI numbers tell you nothing. I'm 5'10, 235lbs. 30 years old. That would put me at a BMI of 33.7. According to the stats, I'm the heaviest guy here. What that doesn't tell you is that I wasn't kidding when I said I am built like Captain America. I have really broad shoulders, 48" chest, 34" waist. Huge leg muscles (I can't do skinny jeans, or even regular fit, they'd have to be relaxed or loose to fit me right). I can fit into size L shirts just fine, even some mediums, but I have a hard time finding dress shirts cuz either the arms aren't wide enough, or the neck isn't big enough. If I bought a stock dress shirt that fit my neck and arms from the shelf, It'd look like I am wearing a too too since the rest of me is so thin. So yea, my original point stands. Numbers don't tell the whole story. i can sympathize with that. 6'0", vary between 230-240. even if i lost down to my high school weight of between 210-220, which i've done around age 30 once, i still had a chest measurement around 46 or 47, and still couldn't wear a 38 size pants off the rack that fit in the waist because the legs were too small. i don't lift or anything to build shoulder muscle, it just winds up there. as a kid we spent our days on our bikes running the streets so that's where the leg muscle came from then, even though it's long gone now, lol. if i gain weight it shows up in the chest too, when i was living in new orleans and eating out all the time i got up to as much as a 52" chest. i'm like a lighter haired tony soprano the older i get, hoping to skip the bald part, though... on the dress shirts, try the online tailors (ravistailor.com is the one i use), their shops are overseas so the prices aren't bad, considering you're paying them in indian or thai money you benefit from the exchange rate. custom made shirts from them wind up about the same price as dress shirts off the rack in the US, it's not a bad deal. you just have a local alteration shop take your measurements and put them in on their webpage along with a pic of yourself and order away. they do good work for the price. Edited July 11, 2011 by thatone
Chocolat Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 The Independent article I linked earlier mentions that a lot of American footballers would be classed as "obese" according to BMI charts...when the reality is that they're just packing a lot of muscle For people with a lot of muscle, both BMI and bodyfat % should be taken into the equation. The reason BMI is so popular is because it is easy to use and consistent to apply. Most people who know their bodyfat are either using crappy bio-impedance devices (scales, handheld) or had someone at the gym with no training try to use calipers. Even the best methods -- DEXA, hydostatic weighing -- have a 2%-3% margin of error, which can easily lead someone into thinkng they're "fit" when they aren't. Interesting note: The Navy bodyfat measurement system is just as accurate as any other (1%-3% margin of error) and relies on measurements: http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-Navy
Feelsgoodman Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 The Independent article I linked earlier mentions that a lot of American footballers would be classed as "obese" according to BMI charts...when the reality is that they're just packing a lot of muscle http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-big-question-is-the-bmi-index-the-right-way-to-tell-what-our-weight-should-be-416858.html Another blonde moment from our adorable British poster Have you ever watched American football??? Many of the players ARE obese. All they do is stand around and act like a human wall. The guys who actually score points (running backs and wide receivers) would not be classified as "obese" by any BMI chart.
thatone Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Another blonde moment from our adorable British poster Have you ever watched American football??? Many of the players ARE obese. All they do is stand around and act like a human wall. The guys who actually score points (running backs and wide receivers) would not be classified as "obese" by any BMI chart. some of them would. look at roy williams (the safety not the receiver). he's played as high as 240, at 6'0". btw if you want to see a weight loss miracle look at nate newton. former lineman for the dallas cowboys for those not familiar. in his playing days he was around 330-340. he's lost down to 180. saw an interview with him and he was joking about trying to go to a practice to see old friends and security wouldn't let him in because they didn't recognize him, lol. btw for those overseas it's amazing how much those guys have to eat. they can lose as much as 10 pounds over the course of a single game, just sweating it out. they have to eat about 5000 calories a day to maintain the weight. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700079926/Game-plan-Food-is-fuel-for-Y-and-U-football-players.html Jason Speredon has a challenge a lot of folks would love: feeding a body that burns 4,000-5,000 calories a day. The 6-foot, 5-inch BYU offensive lineman can put away two steaks the night before a football game; his "normal" serving of lasagna is the size of a dinner plate. The U.'s 6-foot-5, 310-pound offensive lineman Tony Bergstrom puts away a plateful of bacon and adds gravy to everything for breakfasts other than game day. He also drinks about 1,000 calories in protein shakes each day. "I don't count calories, I just eat until I'm pretty much bloated pretty every meal," he said. "A lot of people say they wish they could eat that much, but it can be one of the hardest things, to eat enough to put on weight." Welcome to the college football diet. Beth Wolfgram, the U's sports dietitian, estimates that a 300-pound lineman needs around 4,700 calories a day to maintain his weight through the intense practice and playing schedule. Smaller players may need less, but it depends on the amount of activity as well. Edited July 12, 2011 by thatone
Feelsgoodman Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 It pisses me off that some guy should come on here and try to tell me that between 110 and 125 pounds is "average" for a European woman of 5 ft 4"(125 pounds would be a BMI of 21.5) when I know exactly how much time, effort and sacrifice I was putting in to be at that level of fitness and fat ratio. It just wasn't possible to sustain. Every person is different and this thread is not about you. Just because you don't fall within the generally accepted definition of "average" does not mean that the standards should be adjusted in order to accommodate your physique. I don't know whether to be more annoyed with him, or with the women who I suspect have lied to him about their weight...resulting in these skewed notions. According to the following article a lot of women lie about their weight - even on official documents. Women lie about all sorts of things and I'm not sure where you get the idea that my opinions are based on what women tell me. I think the real reason why you are angry and annoyed is because you are highly insecure about your body and are trying to convince others (and, even more importantly, yourself) that the average is whatever you want it to be.
Taramere Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Another blonde moment from our adorable British poster How are you getting on with those "average weight in Europe" stats? Still convinced that 110 to 125 pounds is the weight of the average 5 ft 4 European woman? That would be a BMI of 21.5. It doesn't compute. As for my body...I'd like to lose 7 pounds ideally, but like I say I'm not so worried about it that I've done anything yet. I'm still well within my health weight range. I'm more concerned about the possibility of pro-ana types reading this thread. However many times you want to give your view of the normal weight range of a healthy woman, it contrasts with the medical view - which, ideally, is the one people should pay attention to. Have you ever watched American football??? Many of the players ARE obese. Yes. One professional game in Canada, one amateur High School game in North Carolina. I don't recall seeing any grossly obese players, but it was a while back. Edited July 12, 2011 by Taramere
Feelsgoodman Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Yes. One professional game in Canada, one amateur High School game in North Carolina. I don't recall seeing any grossly obese players, but it was a while back. You crack me up Taramere. Maybe you shouldn't speak of things you have no clue about. Even at the NFL level, many defensive players are very obviously fat. As the article posted by thatone explains, they put on ridiculous amounts of weight because their position requires a heavy mass.
Taramere Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 You crack me up Taramere. Maybe you shouldn't speak of things you have no clue about. I'm happy to not discuss American football. You also should not speak of things you have no clue of. The BBC came up with some updated figures on average BMI rates in Europe. Here you are. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6148456.stm It shows Italy lowest at 24.3. For a 5 ft 4" woman that would be 142 pounds. Check it out for yourself. You can't get much more reliable than the BBC, though I'm sure you'll want to argue that it's all wrong. Feel free, and also feel free to provide some credible stats to support your argument....but I'm done.
Eternal Sunshine Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 32 female I am 5'9" and 156lbs (pic is in my profile) I know I am a bit chunky and have been trying to lose 10-20lbs for ages. I am not a small build so it's not gonna be easy but the truth is - I eat right for a few days and then slip right back into the chocolate/cake eating
Star Gazer Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 For people with a lot of muscle, both BMI and bodyfat % should be taken into the equation. The reason BMI is so popular is because it is easy to use and consistent to apply. Most people who know their bodyfat are either using crappy bio-impedance devices (scales, handheld) or had someone at the gym with no training try to use calipers. Even the best methods -- DEXA, hydostatic weighing -- have a 2%-3% margin of error, which can easily lead someone into thinkng they're "fit" when they aren't. Interesting note: The Navy bodyfat measurement system is just as accurate as any other (1%-3% margin of error) and relies on measurements: http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-Navy I get dunked (hydrostatic) every quarter, and it's remained fairly consistent over the past few years. I'm very confident in the accuracy of the test results.
runner Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 For the record BMI charts are useless. Never refer to them. yep, i've never conformed to that scale, even when i was down to ~8% body fat. anyway... male, 34 5'8" 182 lbs (which is about 12lbs over my usual)
Recommended Posts