How long until I look normal or not fat
mynameisaaronn
Posts: 8 Member
I am 20 years old, 6 foot and currently weighing 250lbs, I started at 271. Question is in the title really but what weight range can I expect to start looking like the average build rather than packed on with excess fat?
I feel like I have SOME muscle mass below the fat because I do alot of heavy lifting at work and used to play rugby, What range can I expect it to start showing
I feel like I have SOME muscle mass below the fat because I do alot of heavy lifting at work and used to play rugby, What range can I expect it to start showing
1
Replies
-
When you are down to 1801
-
When you are down to 180
Agreed with this. Between 170 and 180, assuming you're lifting weights, is around the time a 6' tall man starts 'looking different'. That's at least how it's working out for me. In general have a look at the BMI chart, I find it is really accurate for 99.999% of the population.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Based on your image (and my eyeball bodyfat analysis) you look like you still have about 25- 30% bodyfat.
Based on this, you still have at a minimum 60 - 75 pounds to lose.2 -
When you start putting on some more muscle.
Otherwise, around 200-2101 -
200lbs is still pretty overweight for a 6' tall man... Just throwing it out there. You'd have to carry an INSANE amount of muscle to be 6' 200lbs and be lean.
BMI chart is more accurate than anyone really wants to admit. 160-170 is a good weight for most 6' tall men.3 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »200lbs is still pretty overweight for a 6' tall man... Just throwing it out there. You'd have to carry an INSANE amount of muscle to be 6' 200lbs and be lean.
BMI chart is more accurate than anyone really wants to admit. 160-170 is a good weight for most 6' tall men.
Yes, that's true. I'm just throwing this image out there so you have an idea OP-
They are 6'3 and 205 pounds. So... three inches taller than you and they have been training for 6-7 years with (or without) the use of "aids".
here's some pictures of men who are in the 190's at 6 foot.
http://mybodygalleryformen.com/photos-30927-body-shape.htm?StartAt=3#.WRsqllOGPMU3 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »200lbs is still pretty overweight for a 6' tall man... Just throwing it out there. You'd have to carry an INSANE amount of muscle to be 6' 200lbs and be lean.
BMI chart is more accurate than anyone really wants to admit. 160-170 is a good weight for most 6' tall men.
This depends very much on bone structure. A 6' man with a large frame and decent amount of muscle will be underweight at 160-170. A 6' man with a narrow frame and decent amount of muscle will not. Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds. The second man will be overweight at 200 pounds.
You can't project your ideal weight onto all other men of similar height.2 -
Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive and 16lbs overweight on the BMI chart.2 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive.
I tried to capture that in my reference. Emphasis on the "lean" part. Some guys with a decent amount of muscle mass but also 15%+ body fat might look less "big" at that weight. Maybe that's what they're referring to?1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive.
I tried to capture that in my reference. Emphasis on the "lean" part. Some guys with a decent amount of muscle mass but also 15%+ body fat might look less "big" at that weight. Maybe that's what they're referring to?
Could be. I wouldn't really call a 6' guy at 190-200lbs "fat" but definitely not optimal. I have known lots of athletic 6' tall guys that weight, but by no means were their bodies 'cut' or as OP states, "different looking". They still looked pudgy with their shirts off.0 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive and 16lbs overweight on the BMI chart.
My profile picture is me at 225lbs at 6'3 and by no means look massive.
3 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »200lbs is still pretty overweight for a 6' tall man... Just throwing it out there. You'd have to carry an INSANE amount of muscle to be 6' 200lbs and be lean.
BMI chart is more accurate than anyone really wants to admit. 160-170 is a good weight for most 6' tall men.
Yes, that's true. I'm just throwing this image out there so you have an idea OP-
They are 6'3 and 205 pounds. So... three inches taller than you and they have been training for 6-7 years with (or without) the use of "aids".
here's some pictures of men who are in the 190's at 6 foot.
http://mybodygalleryformen.com/photos-30927-body-shape.htm?StartAt=3#.WRsqllOGPMU
If they had any muscle in their legs they'd be 30 lbs heavier.
Don't skip leg day
11 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive and 16lbs overweight on the BMI chart.
My profile picture is me at 225lbs at 6'3 and by no means look massive.
Compared to the average joe, yes, your LBM is massive.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive and 16lbs overweight on the BMI chart.
My profile picture is me at 225lbs at 6'3 and by no means look massive.
okay, but like... you're also 3 inches taller.
Regardless, i think atleast in the case of the OP this isn't even relevant because he has a pretty high bodyfat percentage and looks to be untrained.2 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive and 16lbs overweight on the BMI chart.
I can't post a picture of my dad, but he's 6'2" . Currently he weighs 225, and has an almost flat stomach. He's trying to get down to 200 , which was his college athletics weight (he was a traithelete in college, high school track, football and wrestling all-state). He will be very lean at 200 lbs.1 -
Again, we're talking about a pretty big difference in height.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's rare, and involves a lot more muscle mass than people think. The BMI chart is ACCURATE for the vast majority of the population. Absolutely significant muscle mass is required to become a BMI outlier on the heavy end.
There is a cultural problem with the number 200lbs. There's nothing magic about it. For the VAST majority of 6' tall men, 200lbs is still very overweight.
200lbs at 5'10, 6', and 6'2 are all very different things. 200lbs at 6'2", is pretty much 'normal' bmi range shy by a pound or two. This number is 184lbs for a man two inches shorter.1 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »Similarly, the first man will need muscle - but not "an insane amount of muscle" to be lean at 200 pounds
Please show me a photo of this unicorn. A lean 200lb 6' is massive.
I tried to capture that in my reference. Emphasis on the "lean" part. Some guys with a decent amount of muscle mass but also 15%+ body fat might look less "big" at that weight. Maybe that's what they're referring to?
Could be. I wouldn't really call a 6' guy at 190-200lbs "fat" but definitely not optimal. I have known lots of athletic 6' tall guys that weight, but by no means were their bodies 'cut' or as OP states, "different looking". They still looked pudgy with their shirts off.
Actually, he said "normal". "Normal" guys do not have visible abs. I am well overweight according to BMI, do have visible abs, am certainly not massive, and the OP would be above 200 pounds at an equivalent bmi. BMI is highly overrated and was never intended to be a hard and fast rule for individuals but rather a guidline for populations.2 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »Again, we're talking about a pretty big difference in height.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's rare, and involves a lot more muscle mass than people think. The BMI chart is ACCURATE for the vast majority of the population. Absolutely significant muscle mass is required to become a BMI outlier on the heavy end.
There is a cultural problem with the number 200lbs. There's nothing magic about it. For the VAST majority of 6' tall men, 200lbs is still very overweight.
Two inches isn't "a pretty big difference in height". Ideal weight increases by about 5 pounds per inch. So, since you were pushing 160 pounds as the ideal weight for someone who is 6 feet tall, you're claiming that 170 would be ideal for someone who is 6'2.
My issue wasn't with you claiming that most people belong in the "normal" range of BMI. It was with you claiming that the ideal weight for *most* men was a sub-22 BMI. For tall men with anything other than a narrow frame, that's simply not true. BMI does not scale well with height. So, yes, many men will be fine at that BMI - but the men who are not are not "unicorns". I am married to one. Large frame. Long torso (meaning larger than usual rib cage - which means extra weight from bones). Used to throw shot put, discus, etc. Can lift a *lot*. (I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head.) To get sub-200 pounds, he would need to have a body fat below 10%. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, but pretending that he'd be "very overweight" if he has a normal body fat percentage (rather than athlete level) is absurd. And, yes, he's 6'1 instead of 6' but that's not actually a particularly meaningful distinction.
1 -
Christian Guzman is 6 feet and is about 170 pounds, and I'm gonna say he's got way more skeletal muscle than OP. 200 pounds at 6' and sub 12% is extreme jacked for the "normies", in fact, even many steroid users will not get to that stage.0
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »Again, we're talking about a pretty big difference in height.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's rare, and involves a lot more muscle mass than people think. The BMI chart is ACCURATE for the vast majority of the population. Absolutely significant muscle mass is required to become a BMI outlier on the heavy end.
There is a cultural problem with the number 200lbs. There's nothing magic about it. For the VAST majority of 6' tall men, 200lbs is still very overweight.
Two inches isn't "a pretty big difference in height". Ideal weight increases by about 5 pounds per inch. So, since you were pushing 160 pounds as the ideal weight for someone who is 6 feet tall, you're claiming that 170 would be ideal for someone who is 6'2.
My issue wasn't with you claiming that most people belong in the "normal" range of BMI. It was with you claiming that the ideal weight for *most* men was a sub-22 BMI. For tall men with anything other than a narrow frame, that's simply not true. BMI does not scale well with height. So, yes, many men will be fine at that BMI - but the men who are not are not "unicorns". I am married to one. Large frame. Long torso (meaning larger than usual rib cage - which means extra weight from bones). Used to throw shot put, discus, etc. Can lift a *lot*. (I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head.) To get sub-200 pounds, he would need to have a body fat below 10%. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, but pretending that he'd be "very overweight" if he has a normal body fat percentage (rather than athlete level) is absurd. And, yes, he's 6'1 instead of 6' but that's not actually a particularly meaningful distinction.
Exactly. Men with very large frames and a decent amount of muscle mass have to reach some absurdly low fat levels to meet the BMI requirements.1 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »Again, we're talking about a pretty big difference in height.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's rare, and involves a lot more muscle mass than people think. The BMI chart is ACCURATE for the vast majority of the population. Absolutely significant muscle mass is required to become a BMI outlier on the heavy end.
There is a cultural problem with the number 200lbs. There's nothing magic about it. For the VAST majority of 6' tall men, 200lbs is still very overweight.
Two inches isn't "a pretty big difference in height". Ideal weight increases by about 5 pounds per inch. So, since you were pushing 160 pounds as the ideal weight for someone who is 6 feet tall, you're claiming that 170 would be ideal for someone who is 6'2.
My issue wasn't with you claiming that most people belong in the "normal" range of BMI. It was with you claiming that the ideal weight for *most* men was a sub-22 BMI. For tall men with anything other than a narrow frame, that's simply not true. BMI does not scale well with height. So, yes, many men will be fine at that BMI - but the men who are not are not "unicorns". I am married to one. Large frame. Long torso (meaning larger than usual rib cage - which means extra weight from bones). Used to throw shot put, discus, etc. Can lift a *lot*. (I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head.) To get sub-200 pounds, he would need to have a body fat below 10%. Which isn't an inherently bad thing, but pretending that he'd be "very overweight" if he has a normal body fat percentage (rather than athlete level) is absurd. And, yes, he's 6'1 instead of 6' but that's not actually a particularly meaningful distinction.
Exactly. Men with very large frames and a decent amount of muscle mass have to reach some absurdly low fat levels to meet the BMI requirements.
100% disagree. That would have to be a hell of a frame. BMI is a good bodyweight estimate for the vast (vast) majority of the population. There is no such thing as being big boned. Do people exist outside the bell curve? Sure. But they are statistical anomalies OR professional athletes. 200lbs on a 6' frame is still overweight for the VAST MAJORITY of humans.2 -
Among the study participants, about half of women who were not classified as obese according to their BMI actually were obese when their body fat percentage was taken into account. Among the men, in contrast, about a quarter of obese men had been missed by BMI. Further, a quarter who were categorized as obese by BMI were not considered obese based on their body fat percentage. Overall, about 39% of participants who were classified as overweight by their BMI were actually obese, according to their percent body fat.
healthland.time.com/2013/08/26/why-bmi-isnt-the-best-measure-for-weight-or-health/
25% Is not a unicorn. 25% mischaracterized as obese by BMI when their body fat is lower is not a TINY MINORITY either.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/oxford-mathematician-explains-body-mass-index-flaw-244342
nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n1s/full/ijo200887a.html
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439
2 -
When I was in the military I knew a lot of guys who worked out regularly who failed to "make weight" on the scale but passed in the dunk tank.
When I met my 5'10" (now ex) husband he was in his 170s and lookin' fine. He had bigger legs than the guy in the picture on the left.3 -
Systematic review of the data strongly indicate "outliers" by BMI definition aren't outliers at all, that the application of BMI to estimate body adiposity, and therefore health risks, has serious and significant limitations, both in the "normal" and "class I obesity" ranges; mislabeling a significant portion of the population in such a way as to completely understate or overstate their risk of developing weight-related diseases.The relatively poor correlation between percent of body fat mass and BMI in males has been known for many years16 and was clearly shown in a study in which percent of body fat was determined by a densitometric method.56 For men with a BMI of 27 in that study, the 95% confidence intervals for percent of body fat were 10% to 32%; that is, in this group, the percent of body fat varied from very little to that considered to be in the obesity range. (NIH-suggested criterion for obesity based on percent of body fat for men is ≥25%, and that for women is ≥35%.57)
The relatively poor correlation between percent of body fat mass and BMI also clearly has been shown more recently in the NHANES III database in which bioelectrical impedance was used to estimate the fat component of body composition.51 In subjects with a BMI of 25 kg/m2, the percent of body fat in men varied between 14% and 35%, and in women it varied between 26% and 43%. Thus, using the NIH-suggested criterion based on percent of body fat to define obesity, subjects with a BMI of 25, a group that would be considered to be essentially normal, were associated with a body fat mass that varied again between low normal to obese. Also it is of interest that in the entire NHANES cohort, the BMI correlated better with lean body mass than with fat mass in men.51 More recent NHANES data also indicate a poor correlation of BMI with percent of body fat, particularly in men.58
Nuttall, Frank Q. "Body mass index: obesity, BMI, and health: a critical review." Nutrition today 50.3 (2015): 117.2 -
@mynameisaaronn All of this I've said can be reduced rather simply: you have quite a bit of weight to lose yet. I certainly am not going to predict when you'll find your weight "normal", but I dare say you will have a better idea yourself after you lose another 20-25 lbs or so. It will become increasingly evident to you how much excess weight you carry as you become leaner. This is how it works for all of us, barring body dysmorphia.
Congratulations on your progress to date, and best wishes!2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions