How long until I look normal or not fat

mynameisaaronn
mynameisaaronn Posts: 8 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
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

p0vb6mvz0w2m.jpg
p1qsq7vsnciu.jpg
«1

Replies

  • yskaldir
    yskaldir Posts: 202 Member
    When you are down to 180
  • Geocitiesuser
    Geocitiesuser Posts: 1,429 Member
    cheldadex wrote: »
    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.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    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.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    When you start putting on some more muscle.

    Otherwise, around 200-210
  • Geocitiesuser
    Geocitiesuser Posts: 1,429 Member
    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.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    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-

    chto-takoe-periodicheskoe-golodanie-2.jpg


    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
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    edited May 2017
    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.
  • Geocitiesuser
    Geocitiesuser Posts: 1,429 Member
    edited May 2017
    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.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    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?
  • Geocitiesuser
    Geocitiesuser Posts: 1,429 Member
    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.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    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.
  • Geocitiesuser
    Geocitiesuser Posts: 1,429 Member
    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.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    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.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    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.
  • Geocitiesuser
    Geocitiesuser Posts: 1,429 Member
    edited May 2017
    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.
  • Chadxx
    Chadxx Posts: 1,199 Member
    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.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    edited May 2017
    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.
  • yskaldir
    yskaldir Posts: 202 Member
    edited May 2017
    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.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    edited May 2017
    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.

Categories