How long until I look normal or not fat

Geocitiesuser

tomteboda wrote: »

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.

tomteboda

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

kshama2001

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.

tomteboda

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.

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.

tomteboda

@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!