WTH?@! body massage index
Replies
-
jeffjeff85 wrote: »Can you hear me in the back?@!
My waist size is unacceptable,hence the calorie count.
What has that to do with a "calculator" that says a 5'9" 170 lb guy is obese? That's ridiculous, but then so is the idea that I replied AGAIN!
For about the hundredth time - "Overweight", not "Obese". And at a BMI of 25.1, barely into the "Overweight" category (which begins at BMI 25.0). The classification of "Obese" begins at BMI 30.4 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »Can you hear me in the back?@!
My waist size is unacceptable,hence the calorie count.
What has that to do with a "calculator" that says a 5'9" 170 lb guy is obese? That's ridiculous, but then so is the idea that I replied AGAIN!
Wow. Great first impression you've made on this thread.
I would have quoted all of your argumentative posts, but won't waste my time.
Why do you keep arguing when people have told you accurate info? They keep trying to tell you that there is a difference between overweight and obese which you don't seem to understand. You apparently think that 25 bmi is obese, when it isn't. 30 is, so I don't see why you keep arguing and insulting everyone.9 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »Can you hear me in the back?@!
My waist size is unacceptable,hence the calorie count.
What has that to do with a "calculator" that says a 5'9" 170 lb guy is obese? That's ridiculous, but then so is the idea that I replied AGAIN!
Do you think we as individuals participating in the MFP forum are aware of and responsible for every link that is posted anywhere on this site?
MFP has ads and links to outside sites all over the place. There are also literally thousands of random internet strangers posting links here in the forum to god knows where. We have no idea what link you clicked on or where it took you. We are not MFP employees and we don't know the destination of every hyper link on this site. All we can do is tell you that whatever calculator you went to was wrong. Not sure why you are upset with us. Your OP didn't say you knew the site gave you bad info, just that you were so shocked by the results. None of us can read your mind, nor are we plugged into the MFP mainframe tracking every link you click on. Sorry about that .
At least now we are all clear that this unspecified link to an unspecified BMI calculator is giving out bad info! :drinker:10 -
shadow2soul wrote: »jeffjeff85 wrote: »I may not have said that correctly. I weigh currently 213. The bmi thing said max 170, but if that's true then every MMA fighter I ever met was obese
It is not uncommon for athletes to be outliers. Athletes typically have more muscle mass than the average person. That said it doesn’t make the BMI range wrong for the average person. It just means athletes should also look to BF%.
Actually, it's most common for athletes not to be exceptions, even though they do have more muscle mass than the average person. For example, most Olympic champions fall in the normal BMI range. The BMI ranges will encompass a surprising lot of physical variation.
Do more actually healthy weight high-level athletes fall into a higher-than-normal BMI category than among non-athletes? Sure. But it's not the commonest case. Are some recreational athletes or people with physically intense occupations so muscular that they have overweight BMI when not over-fat? Sure. But not very doggone many. Normal people using "but athletes" as part of their justification of being at an overweight BMI are mostly showing their cognitive bias.
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20811275/bmis-of-champions-mens-edition/
https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20793992/bmis-of-champions-womens-edition/
As a generality, sports that require strength but not speed/mobility have more participants in the obese category, and to the extent that their sport doesn't penalize fatness via performance, some of those are actually observably over-fat (look at the weight lifters, for example: Not all are fat, but some are).
Sports requiring strength, but also requiring speed/mobility, and in which hitting/shoving/pinning others is part of the sport (so pure size is useful), or those in which weight is supported (swimming/kayaking/etc.) tend to have more champions in the overweight category, but not the obese category. (This is consistent with the data for some top MMA guys earlier in the thread, BTW).
Lots of sports have champions in the normal weight category, and a few are even underweight.
The female athletes overall skew lower, as one might expect since the BMI ranges are unisex.
We do see some high-profile professional athletes in the US (football, baseball come to mind) who combine being very muscular with being kinda fat. I'm sure their BMI puts some of those guys in the obese category, but we'd have to have BF% and do the arithmetic to estimate whether they'd be obese, overweight, or normal BMI with a healthier BF%. PEDs (at some point in life) likely make some of these guys more muscular than could be achieved naturally, too.3 -
shadow2soul wrote: »jeffjeff85 wrote: »I may not have said that correctly. I weigh currently 213. The bmi thing said max 170, but if that's true then every MMA fighter I ever met was obese
It is not uncommon for athletes to be outliers. Athletes typically have more muscle mass than the average person. That said it doesn’t make the BMI range wrong for the average person. It just means athletes should also look to BF%.
Actually, it's most common for athletes not to be exceptions, even though they do have more muscle mass than the average person. For example, most Olympic champions fall in the normal BMI range. The BMI ranges will encompass a surprising lot of physical variation.
Do more actually healthy weight high-level athletes fall into a higher-than-normal BMI category than among non-athletes? Sure. But it's not the commonest case. Are some recreational athletes or people with physically intense occupations so muscular that they have overweight BMI when not over-fat? Sure. But not very doggone many. Normal people using "but athletes" as part of their justification of being at an overweight BMI are mostly showing their cognitive bias.
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20811275/bmis-of-champions-mens-edition/
https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20793992/bmis-of-champions-womens-edition/
As a generality, sports that require strength but not speed/mobility have more participants in the obese category, and to the extent that their sport doesn't penalize fatness via performance, some of those are actually observably over-fat (look at the weight lifters, for example: Not all are fat, but some are).
Sports requiring strength, but also requiring speed/mobility, and in which hitting/shoving/pinning others is part of the sport (so pure size is useful), or those in which weight is supported (swimming/kayaking/etc.) tend to have more champions in the overweight category, but not the obese category. (This is consistent with the data for some top MMA guys earlier in the thread, BTW).
Lots of sports have champions in the normal weight category, and a few are even underweight.
The female athletes overall skew lower, as one might expect since the BMI ranges are unisex.
We do see some high-profile professional athletes in the US (football, baseball come to mind) who combine being very muscular with being kinda fat. I'm sure their BMI puts some of those guys in the obese category, but we'd have to have BF% and do the arithmetic to estimate whether they'd be obese, overweight, or normal BMI with a healthier BF%. PEDs (at some point in life) likely make some of these guys more muscular than could be achieved naturally, too.1 -
I clicked a link.
It said 5'9" and 170 is obese.
I said that can't be right.
Not sure how "we" got to CDC and the weight of chicken breast.
But, such are forums I suppose.9 -
The link you clicked was wrong (which certainly isn't an aberration on the internet). 5'9" 170 lbs. is overweight (BMI 25.1). And barely into the overweight category. That seems easy enough to understand.jeffjeff85 wrote: »Not sure how "we" got to CDC and the weight of chicken breast.
But, such are forums I suppose.
Maybe possibly it came from your mention of the calorie count of chicken breast in this post:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/42491264/#Comment_42491264...Not sure how accurate it will be, since I see grilled chicken breast is 80 calories or just over 200, (????). No idea which is right...
It's also pretty simple that 4 oz. of chicken breast will have less calories than, say, 8 oz. of chicken breast. And it's already been explained that the food database here is user sourced and contains a lot of erroneous/bogus entries.5 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »I clicked a link.
It said 5'9" and 170 is obese.
I said that can't be right.
Not sure how "we" got to CDC and the weight of chicken breast.
But, such are forums I suppose.
We do not know what link you clicked. People here have repeatedly told you that if it said that 5’9 and 170 is obese, it isn’t right - according to the BMI scale that is barely overweight.
So what exactly is it you want of us here?5 -
Actually, I don't want anything. Strange that people continue to post. Perhaps to "prove" .... Something?
Anvilhead ... Search "grilled chicken breast" and see how many results you get. Then narrow it as suggested to "grilled chicken breast usda" and note how many you STILL get. And note that vastly different numbers all State for the SAME weight of chicken. Then DON'T come reply about it, since I've already seen it.11 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »I clicked a link.
It said 5'9" and 170 is obese.
I said that can't be right.
Not sure how "we" got to CDC and the weight of chicken breast.
But, such are forums I suppose.
Actually, you never said that can't be right. It sounded like you were upset to find out that obese was lighter than you thought. If you had posted the link and said this can't be right, we would've all agreed with you. And you brought up the calorie count in chicken.
Again, you seem to be upset that we aren't able to read your mind.7 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »...Search "grilled chicken breast" and see how many results you get. Then narrow it as suggested to "grilled chicken breast usda" and note how many you STILL get. And note that vastly different numbers all State for the SAME weight of chicken...
Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s already been thoroughly discussed. Not news to any of us who’ve been here for a while.2 -
So disappointed! Clicked here thinking I was going to learn something about a body massage index and all it's about is someone not understanding a link they can't identify and grilled chicken breasts. Bummer!!
14 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »Can you hear me in the back?@!
My waist size is unacceptable,hence the calorie count.
What has that to do with a "calculator" that says a 5'9" 170 lb guy is obese? That's ridiculous, but then so is the idea that I replied AGAIN!
I don't believe this happened. I believe it said overweight and you confused overweight with obese. If you did get this result, you should be able to duplicate it and post a screenshot here.6 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »There ya go... According to that bmi calc, Matt Hughes is obese
No, on the borderline between normal and overweight.2 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »Actually, I don't want anything. Strange that people continue to post. Perhaps to "prove" .... Something?
Anvilhead ... Search "grilled chicken breast" and see how many results you get. Then narrow it as suggested to "grilled chicken breast usda" and note how many you STILL get. And note that vastly different numbers all State for the SAME weight of chicken. Then DON'T come reply about it, since I've already seen it.
Even stranger that you posted in the first place, if you didn’t want any response from the community.
I’m continuing to post because I’ve had some gin and I enjoy a good trainwreck. I’m looking forwards to the inevitable flounce
9 -
jeffjeff85 wrote: »Can you hear me in the back?@!
My waist size is unacceptable,hence the calorie count.
What has that to do with a "calculator" that says a 5'9" 170 lb guy is obese? That's ridiculous, but then so is the idea that I replied AGAIN!
Screenshot or it didn't happen4 -
So disappointed! Clicked here thinking I was going to learn something about a body massage index and all it's about is someone not understanding a link they can't identify and grilled chicken breasts. Bummer!!
Perhaps according to the body massage index, 170lbs is obese? I mean, perhaps massage therapists get put off massaging bigger people and have a lower cut off point for the categories? Is that right, @jeffjeff85?6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions