  |
|
TRAILRYDER444
8/8/07 10:22 A
|
|
|
|
| I would agree that the BMI is not a very good scale in fact it has pegged me wrong for the past 20 or so years. I was in the best shape of my life (prior to an accident that prevented me training for 2 years) and it had me listed as grossly obese. I stand 5'10 and weighed 275lbs with a small percent of bodyfat. I did cardio five days a week for 30 mins, lifted heavy 6 days a week twice a day. I'm just now able to start training hard once more and my weight dropped to about 250-60 lbs or so. This site I hope will provide me with some extra motivation from a diet stand point as I have developed a few bad habits. The BMI still has me as obese and when I applied for life insurance they gave me a hassle due to the BMI. I had to explain with pictures my situation and it was an act of congress to deal with these people.
|
|
ASPENJULES
8/6/07 11:52 A
|
|
|
|
So guys suffer from the freshman 15 too?? Is it bad that I'm glad to hear that? LOL
*Getting fat is a butal feedback loop of pain, which encourages more sedentary behavior, which leads to getting fat...*
Truer words were never spoken, HOKIECPE! Add in there getting older... it's a challenge, isn't it?
|
|
HOKIE_SKEPTIC
8/6/07 11:23 A
|
|
|
|
| I've felt that bodily sabotage about running. Being a tall guy, I've always held more weight than your average person on my knees. Once I got over 230 or so (freshman year of college), I couldn't run on consecutive days without knee pain. I'm working my way down to where I can run more consistently. Getting fat is a brutal feedback loop of pain, which encourages more sedentary behavior, which leads to getting fat...
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, thanks for that army spreadsheet (especially whoever posted the direct link because I was NOT able to get there before that). I guess I've got some measuring to do though I know they would say "I don't *think* so" if they could through their laughing. Do you know how accurate it is or isn't if you're measuring yourself?
And yeah, Splatman... sure changes things when your body itself sabotages your ability to exercise. LOL
|
|
|
|
I used to be able to run with the big dogs, so to speak, until my knees started getting bached about and I actually broke my left knee cap, well a big chip off of it anyway, and not moving like I used to helped to pack on some serious pounds. I was up to nearly 240 for a while and even at 6'2" you could tell I was out of shape.
Aren't body injuries wonderful?
|
|
|
|
That sucks, I did not have that problem for me it was I ran constantly until I injured my back when I had to slam on the emergency brake (stop running) the weight caught up to me. The height thing I was joking I am 5’11”
You doing good though
|
|
HOKIE_SKEPTIC
7/23/07 2:05 P
|
|
|
|
| Seriously, though, my height was part of the problem for me. I grew so quickly as a kid (as you can see) that I could eat anything and as much of it as I wanted with no ill effects. It was only when I was 18 that I stopped growing up and started growing out. But still, at my height, it doesn't show as much, even when I was 100 lbs overweight! It took me some time to convince myself how dire the situation was.
|
|
|
|
| Ok, sorry I read it backwards in that case what type of diet was it I need a couple more inches of height.
|
|
HOKIE_SKEPTIC
7/23/07 1:56 P
|
|
|
|
| ?? I was gaining height. 6'4" at 15 years old in 1995, 6'6" all ages listed after that.
|
|
|
|
| Hokiecpe, what kind of diet helps you lose weight and height? I need to know because I am short enough and I want to avoid it!
|
|
HOKIE_SKEPTIC
7/23/07 10:14 A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The military one seems a bit too loose, and doesn't seem to count my weight too much into the equation.
I found a site that has you do a tape of the stomach at the belly button, waist at the widest point of the hips, widest point of a clenched forearm, and the wrist between where the bone ends and the hand begins.
Also, I guess taking your bodyfat measurements too often might give a false gain/loss due to error or other factors, so word is to wait a month between readings.
-Ken
|
|
|
|
| See - now there's a formula that might work for more guys than the BMI. The BMI is a guide but doesn't take in to consideration certain factor of the body. Knowing why your body needs and tailoring your intake to balance your activites in relationship to your weight goals sounds like a better way to go. Or use the two in conjunction if you so desire!
|
|
HOKIE_SKEPTIC
7/22/07 3:41 P
|
|
|
|
| I agree that BMI doesn't work for lots of folks. What do you guys think about BMR - basic metabolic rate: a formula for figuring out how many calories you should eat in a day?
|
|
|
|
So....what then shall we do about the results? Ready to bust out some cardio the get the metabolism up and burn some fat?
I'm up for it!
|
|
|
|
sparkpeople breaks up the line for the page...
armybytes.com/cgi-bin/download.pl?file=1
that's direct to the file. It's a zip that has an excel file in it, so you need excel to use it.
(Put http:// in front of it)
I tried it... apparently I'm at 23% bodyfat. The military says 24% is the top within limits. The high desired bodyfat for my age is about 20%, so I need to lose 5lbs of fat to get there.
Interesting, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
| OK, I got it and I'm ready to get rid of it. Any takers?
|
|
|
|
Huh....I just gave it a try and I'm at 16% body fat and it all worked out correctly.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/useful_files/apft_and_weight_control/automated-body-fat-conten.shtml
is the file I used.
|
|
|
|
| I did that and nothing happened
|
|
|
|
| Put in your age, height, weight and then the measurements from your neck and abdomen [horizontal at the navel] and the formula does the rest. Usually, the neck is measured, then the abs, then the second neck, and so on. If any of the measurements are more than 1/4 of an inch off you might get a flag raised in the formula but it does work pretty well.
|
|
|
|
| I tried it and thought that I was computer literate. Well I have not figured it out.
|
|
|
|
| Did you try that spreadsheet link from earlier? See what that has to say, just for shingles and grins.
|
|
|
|
BMI says I am just about overweight. Ha! Whatever.
Give me a bodyfat percentage and physical fitness test over "(Weight in lbs) * 703 / (height in inches, squared)" any day.
|
|
BIGDADDY16
6/13/07 11:00 P
|
|
|
|
| Hey dont feel bad I am 6'2 at 159 now, but I am right in my BMI but will be up to 193 accourting to SP. Even if I see 193. It always seems that skinny wants to gain and heavy wants to lose and knowbody is ever really happy. I mean I would love to gain around 20lbs but if I stop eating and working out for a week I will drop 10lbs. It is so tiring trying to keep up with what is what as far as BMI and SP goes that I will gain until I can't or stop at around 185lb cause I think that would shoot me in between both. But there is my rant sorry to take up so much time but wife can only hear so much..ty guys
|
|
|
|
I agree with yawl,
I’m 5’11” and I have a very large bone structure as most Irish descendents.
To check what size bone structure you have hold your wrist.
Try and touch your thumb and middle finger.
If you can touch your thumb and middle finger your bone structure is “Normal” if they over lap then it’s “Small” if they don’t even touch then it’s “Large”
Obviously, everyone has too use their own hand for this test.
I also have muscle.
My Dr. wants me at about 200lbs. (with my frame) That will give me a 34 waist. and a 52 – 54 chest
According to SP I’ll still be Obese; furthermore, for me to be “healthy” at 200lbs I would have to be about 6’3”.
Yeah Right I’ll be getting right on it.
|
|
|
|
Well you do have to enter your height and weight to the spreadsheet so those factors are accounted for in the formula. If you were to use the Army Regulation 600-9, all those factors are manually entered and you have to use charts to get the rest of the figures for the final math. I've double checked the math in the spreadsheet to the manual formula and it's good to go according to the regulation.
Oh ya - 78% of all percentages are made up on the fly.
|
|
ROBERTINTHESKY
6/2/07 3:42 P
|
|
|
|
People need to remember that BMI has a simple purpose - to measure populations in general. It's used when they say "...30% of people are overweight...". Measuring a persons height and weight is quite simple, doing a caliper measurement is a lot slower and therefore much more expensive. The formula has 2 variables, you can't really get much simpler than that.
The formula would have a natural variation of about 10-15%, depending on muscle and bone content.
If I were to design a new formula, that say had 3 variables - height, weight and waist circumference, it would likely be much more accurate, but the calculation would almost certainly require a variable to the power of a non-integer, something the majority of calculators cannot do. Plus of course the majority of people would not even know how to work it out and you have a recipe for getting massively wrong values.
BMI is simple - but it works - generally because it is so simple, most people can calculate it, most people can differentiate BMI 15 from BMI 20, it's been around about 150 years, so its not too bad I guess.
|
|
|
|
| Very true and a good point to make. A friend of mine in Germany had biceps as large as my thigh and was solid muscle - also a large framed body. Then again he had been a member of the all-Army power lifting team. According to the formula he was well overweight and he had the tank test perfromed and was at 8% BF. There's always an exception to every rule - with no exceptions! '-)
|
|
|
|
i prefer the SYF formula.
can you look down and "See Your Feet". i could have a 1% body fat and still be morbidly obese. i was an offensive tackle in college so i have a bit of a wide frame, while i dont powerlift anymore i still have a large muscle content on my weight. i hide weight well, at 345lbs i asked my DR if i needed to lose weight and he told me it does not concern him becuase i am just a bigger guy and not overly fat.
|
|
|
|
That spreadsheet is the formula used by the Army until last September and according to the Army doctors I spoke with, is accurate within 1%. The only better test is the water tank test. The new formula for the Army is WAY off, if you ask me, but I'm no physiologist so what do I know?
I still use this formula and it's dead on, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So where does one find this HAIMWI scale? ya - just google it.....
GolfPro - thanks for this link:
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/useful_files/apft_and_weight_control/automated-body-fat-conten.shtml
|
|
|
|
| I think the HAIMWI formula comes pretty close to being right for me. I have my "ideal" weight being 150. Using the formula a male who's 5 foot 7 1/2 inches tall with a medium frame should weigh 145. Pretty close I think.
|
|
GYPSYHEART
2/26/07 12:07 P
|
|
|
|
| The HAIMWI comes a lot closer to reality for me: small frame 5'6" = ideal weight 117 lbs. I have weighted that...about 16 years ago, at age 39. I began serious exercise and weight training at 40 and "bulked up" to 122. My body fat, by a vacuum chamber calculation (expensive to have done but VERY accurate) was 9%. This is extremely low for a woman. yet by HAIMWI scale I would have been 5 lbs overweight. The BMI would have had my 117lb weight being underweight. bottom line: body fat % tells the truth.
|
|
|
|
Hi
You could try the HAMWI calulcation for ideal weight.
Hamwi Formula for Men
106 lbs for first 5 feet + 6 lbs for each inch over 5 feet (medium frame)
Small frame (- 10%),
Large frame (+ 10%)
Hamwi Formula for Women
100 lbs for first 5 feet + 5 lbs for each inch over 5 feet (medium frame)
Small frame (- 10%),
Large frame (+ 10%)
|
|
|
|
I get kinda frustrated with the BMI as well, but maybe there is something to it. We may not be obese, or morbidly obese, but it could say yes you still have weight you need to lose.]
Peace brothers
|
|
GYPSYHEART
2/19/07 11:34 A
|
|
|
|
| The BMI is totally misleading. My family is small framed. According to the BMI I only need to loose about 10 lbs to be healthy. HA! My body fat percentage would still be very unhealthy. A large frame person, on the other hand, would think he/she is fat based on the BMI when actually he/she has a low % of body fat. A weight lifter with 19" bicepts and a 6 pack would be considered obese by the BMI chart. Basically the BMI should be done away with in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Crazy4Blues,
Careful man. I totally agree with you the Matt is doing really, really, well. But I am (almost I'm 5'7) the 5'8 guy. And my goal weight is 150.
If I were a female I might think about being hurt, or depressed, or something. LOL
Wishing you the best,
Mike
|
|
|
|
Matt,
I can see your frustration, but remember tools are just tools. Some tools work for some situations that don't work well for others. The BMI chart...well, not a good tool for you (or me).
I found one of the best tools for determining how I'm doing is a full length mirror. This is one of the few tools that'll work for almost anyone.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
CRAZY4BLUES
2/6/07 10:01 A
|
|
|
|
Matt:
You go 'head, dude! You've achieved a tremendous amount! See, that's ANOTHER lame thing about static numbers like BMI. There's just NO WAY a 5',8" man who happens to weigh 150 pounds is healthier than you given all of the work you have put in to get where you are now.
Great work!
|
|
|
|
| I wish they made a BMI calculator for people with large frames. I've lost like 65 pounds now, and I just now broke out of the obesity range. That's just not right for someone with 2 foot wide shoulders, lol.
|
|
|
|
Blues,
I can totally relate to having a toddler in the house. I have a three year old son that has endless energy and a darling 12 week old daughter. They all cut into "our" time, but man are they worth it.
The fact that you prioritize your family over other things is worthy of even more respect than busting out with a five hour ride.
Isn't it rewarding when you know that your hard work is paying off? And as for your heart pounding...isn't pushing ourselves part of the joy of it all?
Keep it up man,
Mike
|
|
CRAZY4BLUES
2/4/07 1:28 A
|
|
|
|
Hey, Mac! Thanks for the "love"!
Actually, I haven't done any 5-hours rides yet, but I do 2.5-3 hour rides regularly. It's not that I don't think I couldn't ride five hours--I just don't have that kind of time usually. Mounting biking is my passion--it's the one cardio activity that I truly enjoy. I would ride every day if I could. But, with the nine to five and the toddler in the house, I'm LUCKY if I can break off 1-2 rides per week.
I will say this, though. I have been trying to concentrate on weight training my legs, and, tody, I think I started feeling the results. My climbing was a little easier, and I could "attack" hills a little better. Ah, but that heart still pounds like a pistion in a flat-out Corvette!
|
|
|
|
Man,
First off thanks! Second, check you out! I looked at your tracker on your profile and your rockin'. Five hour mountain bike rides explain a lot about how you've done such a great job. Keep it up. By the way I'm jealous about the fact you can play guitar. I can play about 8 chords or so. B's and F's and anything else where you have to hold down several strings with one finger just mess me us. Keep up the good work!
Mike
|
|
CRAZY4BLUES
2/2/07 6:33 P
|
|
|
|
Tulfarche:
Man, those are some impressive stats! I think you are so right about genetics. A lot of it does depend on diet, too. I have found that I'm trying to emphasize complex carbs for endurance (e.g., 5-hour mountain bike rides) and less protein. I'm not going to be packing on the bulk like that!
|
|
|
|
| Keep in mind that BMI does not factor in a muscular build. My arms are probably three times the size they were when I graduated high school as a 120 pound twig. The extra muscle I added to my arms, shoulders, back, and legs, is simply weight to a BMI chart. But the extra muscle helps me burn more calories and get more acconplished.
|
|
|
|
Be careful relating body fat with having a 'six pack'. When I got out of boot camp (USMC) I weight 180 pounds and was 6' 5" tall. I could run 3 miles in 18 minutes and do 189 sit ups in a minute and a half. I wasn't even close to a 'six pack'. Some of that is in your genes.
TF
|
|
|
|
| lol...welllll, anyone CAN do it. It's more a matter of SHOULD they do it. Professional and Collegiate athletes do weel on 3-7% body fat. But they all have strict training programs and half their job is to work out an be in shape. All of us don't have a "true" reason to get down so low.
|
|
CRAZY4BLUES
1/19/07 10:53 P
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I know, 11% BF is knocking on the door of six-pack territory. Guess I need to take it one step at a time. I reckon I'm just trying to think about some sort of new goal, and I imagine I'm thinking out loud a bit.
You know, we have so many images of, say, Division I atheletes, professional atheletes, 19 year-old models. These images are so common, it's easy to start thinking that "anybody can do it." Thanks for the perspective, Matt.
Guess the thing to do is not worry so much about the numbers and just keep moving. It'll all work out eventually . . .
|
|
|
|
You're right, it would basically be impossible to lose 20 lbs of "just" fat. The other thing to keep in mind, is that 11% body fat is a VERY aggressive goal. If you take a look at Tanita's Fat Chart you'll see that a 40 year old would be a true healthy fat percentage around 16-18%. 11% is almost on the unhealthy side.
Not too mention, unless your body is accustomed to it (like professional athletes), it wants/requires a certain amount of fat to function properly. While I don't want to scare you away from your goals, I suggest talking to your doctor before trying to achieve 11%.
matt
|
|
CRAZY4BLUES
1/19/07 4:55 P
|
|
|
|
Okay, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a minute.
I got a Tanita scale that measures body fat. It says that I have about 23% body fat. At 170 pounds, that means 39.1 pounds of me is body fat, right? That means that I could theoretically loose another 20 lbs., and I'd be well within my BMI range, and my body fat then would be a lean 11%.
All of this assumes I don't put on more muscle mass, but I don't know if I could do the exercise required to lose 20 pounds w/o putting on at least another 5 or 10 pounds of muscle.
So maybe my ultimate goal is to lose 10 pounds of fat and put on 10 pounds of muscle, putting me at 160 pounds @ 11% body fat. These numbers seem to check out.
So, am I now to believe the BMI actually makes sense?! Say it ain't so!
|
|
|
|
| According to BMI, I have always been overweight, even at the time when I ran 10 km three times a week, played basketball 4 times a week and had gym classes. I was very thin, but the BMI said "overweight". My targed weight is BMI 28.3, but that is a weight my doctor said I should be at (and I know I should be at).
|
|
ROADTODENVER
1/6/07 5:10 P
|
|
|
|
| True... if you have body fat calipers then you should definitely go by that. And if you plan on buying some calipers, get the normal ones... nothing fancy. I noticed the electronic ones are really not accurate at all.
|
|
|
|
Even waist size is relational to muscle mass as well as height. Someone who is 5'4" has an ideal waist size smaller than 35". And a guy 6'4" could be more than healthy with a 38"-40" waist.
The best way to determine healthy body size is in body fat percentage, or in size ratio between hips, waist, and chest.
|
|
ROADTODENVER
1/6/07 3:17 A
|
|
|
|
BMI is a decent "guide" but I wouldn't live and die by it. It doesn't really factor in muscle which is fine for women but not us (and lets be honest... guys have a lot more muscle on average than women)
I'd go more by your waist size more than anything else since that's where men store most of their fat. A waist size of 35" (measured at the belly button) is ideal. If it's over 40" you start having health problems.
|
|
|
|
| BMI seems a bit outdated/flawed to me. Anyone with any sort of muscle to them will probably be considered "overweight" at a time when they are actually quite healthy. At 6'2" and 236 I was supposedly "obese", which if you look at me is ridiculous. Not that you can, since I haven't made my spark page yet...
|
|
|
|
| lol....well, at least you got there! I still have never been "healthy" according to BMI. Everything else in the world says I'm healthy, just not BMI. Then again, "they" say BMI only makes sense for people who aren't too skinny or too athletic.
|
|
CRAZY4BLUES
1/4/07 4:57 P
|
|
|
|
Over the holidays, I got pretty sick--bad head cold and a touch of the stomach flu (thankfully, no puking). Didn't feel like eating, and I lost a few pounds. My daughter was sick, too, and I had to take her to the doctor, so I decided to get on the scale. I was 168 fully clothed, wallet, car keys--everything. At 7:00 p.m.!
Anyway, that means that, minus the clothes, I was at my BMI (164 is "acceptable" for a person 5' 8"). BUT, I was sick as all get out. BUUUUUT, I was at a "healthy" weight! Sheesh!
|
|
