Am I big or is it muscle?

Options
2»

Replies

  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    dhimaan wrote: »
    CoderGal wrote: »
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    jayliospecky wrote: »
    Hmm. Well you seem to have a solid trunk, but your branches are a little spindly, to be honest. Are you sure you're only 5'4? You seem taller to me.

    :laugh:

    I hope these guys don't get on your nerves and make you leaf. But I think you should branch out and do things for your physical and emotional health instead. That may sound a little sappy but I think concentrating on those types of questions is the root of all evil. But I may be thinking a little binary...tree

    What are you talking about?

    Some people just can't see the forest for the trees.
  • rupertspenser
    rupertspenser Posts: 567 Member
    Options
    going back to the question... sounds most likely to be muscle
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    dhimaan wrote: »
    CoderGal wrote: »
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    jayliospecky wrote: »
    Hmm. Well you seem to have a solid trunk, but your branches are a little spindly, to be honest. Are you sure you're only 5'4? You seem taller to me.

    :laugh:

    I hope these guys don't get on your nerves and make you leaf. But I think you should branch out and do things for your physical and emotional health instead. That may sound a little sappy but I think concentrating on those types of questions is the root of all evil. But I may be thinking a little binary...tree

    What are you talking about?
    Look at the post. It's been pointed out at least tree times.

    I can say that because of where I'm from. It makes scents...pine is a popular one.

    I apologize for my colorful autumn posts. I'm just trying to spruce the place up.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,243 Member
    Options
    To the OP, unless you are doing a lot of sprinting around the court and jumping to spike/block it is unlikely that you have a huge amount of extra muscle over others who you play volleyball with. Without pictures it is sort of difficult to say since we have nothing to go by except your activity. With others I would suggest if you really want to know find somewhere to get a DEXA scan or Bodpod test. The hand held devices are a waste as they are not in any way accurate. Calipers used by experienced trained people can do ok.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Options
    Did I miss the forrest for the trees?
  • dhimaan
    dhimaan Posts: 774 Member
    Options
    What did one tree say to the other tree?
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    Liftng4Lis wrote: »
    Did I miss the forrest for the trees?
    Shh everything is going to be a-o-k. I mean o-a-k.
    dhimaan wrote: »
    What did one tree say to the other tree?
    In a nutshell, I don't know because I don't have enough info. I'm going to go out on a limb and ask what are their backgrounds?

    Math: Gee-Om-A-Tree!
    Computer Science: How do you log on?
    Business: Is this branch closed?
    Police: Elementree my dear Watson.
    HKR: Did you bring your swimming trunks?
    Farming: Where is the Poultree?
    Zoology: They probably just barked at eachother.
    Education: School Starts in Septimber!

    ...To much? :P
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    Tree puns aside...

    I agree with everyone who has said you need to figure out your body fat. You can get a very rough estimate using an online calculator, all you need is a tape measurer to get your measurements. Google 'Navy Circumference Body Fat Calculator," plug in your numbers, and voila.

    For comparison though, I'm 5'4" also and when I started losing weight I was 145. I had some muscle but I was definitely pretty flabby. Then I got down to 130 and was happy with that, but I gained the weight back. Now I am 135 but look better than I did when I was 130 because I've gained muscle through lifting. But I think you would have to have a LOT of muscle to be 5'4" and 145 and have it be more muscle than fat.

  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    LaurenAOK wrote: »
    Tree puns aside...

    I agree with everyone who has said you need to figure out your body fat. You can get a very rough estimate using an online calculator, all you need is a tape measurer to get your measurements. Google 'Navy Circumference Body Fat Calculator," plug in your numbers, and voila.

    For comparison though, I'm 5'4" also and when I started losing weight I was 145. I had some muscle but I was definitely pretty flabby. Then I got down to 130 and was happy with that, but I gained the weight back. Now I am 135 but look better than I did when I was 130 because I've gained muscle through lifting. But I think you would have to have a LOT of muscle to be 5'4" and 145 and have it be more muscle than fat.

    Those online calculators are extremely inaccurate. As some others have said, get it tested with BodPod or Dexa scans. I'd even suggest calipers over that calculator any day.

    There is also a group on MFP called "Eat Train Progress." It's run by two very knowledgable MFPers and they have a thread where you can post pictures to get a body fat % estimation. or you can PM them, but read the sticky so you know what poses/pictures you need to submit.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    LaurenAOK wrote: »
    Tree puns aside...

    I agree with everyone who has said you need to figure out your body fat. You can get a very rough estimate using an online calculator, all you need is a tape measurer to get your measurements. Google 'Navy Circumference Body Fat Calculator," plug in your numbers, and voila.

    For comparison though, I'm 5'4" also and when I started losing weight I was 145. I had some muscle but I was definitely pretty flabby. Then I got down to 130 and was happy with that, but I gained the weight back. Now I am 135 but look better than I did when I was 130 because I've gained muscle through lifting. But I think you would have to have a LOT of muscle to be 5'4" and 145 and have it be more muscle than fat.

    Those online calculators are extremely inaccurate. As some others have said, get it tested with BodPod or Dexa scans. I'd even suggest calipers over that calculator any day.

    Yes those are all better methods but not everyone wants or is able to go out and get a test or buy calipers just to answer a simple question. The calculators are not exactly accurate but they can give you a starting estimation (that is why I said a "very rough estimate.") I was actually surprised when I got my body fat tested with calipers at my gym it turned out to be within .5% of what the online calculator had told me. So it can be pretty close for some people. Maybe not for everyone, but it's not going to tell you you're obese if you're actually fit, or vice versa, you know? It can give you an idea.
  • MKEgal
    MKEgal Posts: 3,250 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    cladinose wrote:
    I am 5'4 and weigh 145 pounds. I don't know if I weigh that much because I have high fat content or if I have muscles that weigh down the scale. (I know that muscle weigh more than fat)
    Here's a calculator which can give you an estimate of body fat %.
    It also has a chart showing the healthy body fat % ranges.
    (Click the down arrow on the right end of the line of symbols under where it says "body fat category".)
    http://www.webcalcsolutions.com/fitness-calculators/body-fat-navy.asp?acctnum=3

    And no, muscle does not weigh more than fat.
    A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat
    which weighs the same as a pound of feathers
    which weighs the same as a pound of uranium.
    The volume those 1-lb samples occupy will be vastly different.

    For a given mass, muscle will take up less space than fat (muscle is more dense, so you'll look
    smaller at the same weight with a higher % of muscle).
    1 pound of salmon is smaller than 1 pound of butter.
    (And yes, I know that a pound is not a unit of mass.)

    For a given volume, muscle will weigh more than fat.
    10 cubic inches of muscle will weigh more than 10 cubic inches of fat.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    LaurenAOK wrote: »
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    LaurenAOK wrote: »
    Tree puns aside...

    I agree with everyone who has said you need to figure out your body fat. You can get a very rough estimate using an online calculator, all you need is a tape measurer to get your measurements. Google 'Navy Circumference Body Fat Calculator," plug in your numbers, and voila.

    For comparison though, I'm 5'4" also and when I started losing weight I was 145. I had some muscle but I was definitely pretty flabby. Then I got down to 130 and was happy with that, but I gained the weight back. Now I am 135 but look better than I did when I was 130 because I've gained muscle through lifting. But I think you would have to have a LOT of muscle to be 5'4" and 145 and have it be more muscle than fat.

    Those online calculators are extremely inaccurate. As some others have said, get it tested with BodPod or Dexa scans. I'd even suggest calipers over that calculator any day.

    Yes those are all better methods but not everyone wants or is able to go out and get a test or buy calipers just to answer a simple question. The calculators are not exactly accurate but they can give you a starting estimation (that is why I said a "very rough estimate.") I was actually surprised when I got my body fat tested with calipers at my gym it turned out to be within .5% of what the online calculator had told me. So it can be pretty close for some people. Maybe not for everyone, but it's not going to tell you you're obese if you're actually fit, or vice versa, you know? It can give you an idea.

    That's not a simple question...a simple question has a simple answer. And those calculators can give you a very misleading starting estimate. I'd suggest going with the pictures thread. They're pretty good at it and you won't get mislead. As for the pretty close for some people comment. That's like saying the number 20 can be pretty close for some people. That doesn't mean everyone can just apply it as a starting estimate. If you have higher fat content not stored around your waist but somewhere else like your arms legs butt boobs etc it throws things off like mad. And yes, I've seen it tell people they're obese when they're fit and vice versa. For example apparently I'm 15%...uh..yeah...no.
    My friend:
    Waist: same as me
    Height: same as me
    Weight: 30lbs heavier then me with a more amazing bum
    pant size: 6 sizes larger to fit bum

    She has a higher body fat, but the calculator will give her 12%, and me 15%. Neither of our body fat percentages start with a 1. So that estimate went completely in the wrong direction and took away numbers when it should have been adding.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Options
    The calculators that don't ask for elbows are off for me, apparently because my wrists (and neck!) are small for my body. So they think I'm small-boned when I'm not at all (in the torso). My waist and hips measurement really need the wide skeleton taken into account or the extra inches are assumed to be fat. They don't work well for more unusual proportions.

Categories