Obese and proud of it!
Options
Replies
-
@gdyment I'm not saying that it's 100% accurate, but it's kind of a running average of a lot of different methods. I use several of the tape measure formulas, skin caliper, BIA scale, mirror. The picture I posted above was just before I started bulking and I had myself at ~170 lbs and right around 13% BF which seems about right with the picture. I agree that If I was 180 @ 3-4% bodyfat, I would look Arnold-esque.
If I didn't lose any LBM and could cut down to 180 right now, I'd only be at 12%. Based on the muscular potential calculator here: http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html , at 19-20% body fat, my muscular potential would be 230lbs+. So I still have quite a bit of muscle that I could put on. My upper body is way under developed compared to my lower.
Ultimately I would like to go get the DEXA or BodPod to get a more accurate reading.
Here's where I was Jan '15 compared to May '15.
0 -
Great work! Yes, I'd agree that the BMI is a little off for you
Obese, you are not.0 -
It's a guideline. Guidelines are for the typical cases, not outliers. The vast majority of 5'8" males that weight 200 pounds are, in fact, obese.
If you are an outlier, be happy you aren't one of them. :drinker:
EDIT: There is something that feels off about your numbers. According them, you put on 10 pounds of LBM in four months - that's an extremely...aggressive...rate of addition.0 -
It's a guideline. Guidelines are for the typical cases, not outliers. The vast majority of 5'8" males that weight 200 pounds are, in fact, obese.
If you are an outlier, be happy you aren't one of them. :drinker:
At the point that it's used to dictate health goals fore EVERYONE (ie. insurance rates) it's no longer a guideline, it's a mandate.0 -
Amazing results. Well done mate. I wouldn't worry about BMI if you lift heavy. Body fat percentage/weight on the scale/mirrors are probably more accurate indicators. I think even Arnold Schwarzenegger's BMI would have been considered morbidly obese at his peak. Don't give it a second thought.0
-
It's a guideline. Guidelines are for the typical cases, not outliers. The vast majority of 5'8" males that weight 200 pounds are, in fact, obese.
If you are an outlier, be happy you aren't one of them. :drinker:
At the point that it's used to dictate health goals fore EVERYONE (ie. insurance rates) it's no longer a guideline, it's a mandate.
Sure, they could do customized testing on everyone, which would cost a bunch more money, and raise rates anyway.
Obladi oblada...0 -
I missed that part. Your insurance uses BMI to determine rates? Weird. 'MuricaIt's a guideline. Guidelines are for the typical cases, not outliers. The vast majority of 5'8" males that weight 200 pounds are, in fact, obese.
If you are an outlier, be happy you aren't one of them. :drinker:
At the point that it's used to dictate health goals fore EVERYONE (ie. insurance rates) it's no longer a guideline, it's a mandate.
I can understand why you're annoyed in that case.
0 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »
I missed that part. Your insurance uses BMI to determine rates? Weird. 'MuricaIt's a guideline. Guidelines are for the typical cases, not outliers. The vast majority of 5'8" males that weight 200 pounds are, in fact, obese.
If you are an outlier, be happy you aren't one of them. :drinker:
At the point that it's used to dictate health goals fore EVERYONE (ie. insurance rates) it's no longer a guideline, it's a mandate.
I can understand why you're annoyed in that case.
It doesn't for regular health insurance, but life insurance does and is fairly commonly done.0 -
It's a guideline. Guidelines are for the typical cases, not outliers. The vast majority of 5'8" males that weight 200 pounds are, in fact, obese.
If you are an outlier, be happy you aren't one of them. :drinker:
At the point that it's used to dictate health goals fore EVERYONE (ie. insurance rates) it's no longer a guideline, it's a mandate.
Sure, they could do customized testing on everyone, which would cost a bunch more money, and raise rates anyway.
Obladi oblada...
@Mr_Knight it wouldn't require "customized testing"! The navy uses a tape measure method, there's also a YMCA formula based on tape measure. Those are still guesstimates, but much better than BMI. And there are several caliper based ones as well, with as few as 3 measuring spots. You really think that a tape measure or caliper is "customized". I'm not calling for BodPod, hydrostatic or DEXA for the masses, but there's just no reason to continue using blood letting to get the "bad blood" out. I just think we can do better with our level of intellect and technology.0 -
Right but you're bashing the BMI which is a valid simple metric, instead of bashing the companies that are using it incorrectly as some sort of absolute guide line. It should be - if you are over X BMI you get more test/medical whatever.
None of our insurance companies or corporate wellness plans use BMI in that manner. Just because some American companies are using a screwdriver as a hammer doesn't make the screwdriver a terrible tool.
Not only that, but in your pictures above, the left ones at 192 are still in the "Overweight" area which you certainly appear to be in those pictures.
Your "After" shots at 168 are JUST barely into the "Overweight" section which is still possible since you seem to carry fat lower down (love handles, back, visceral fat). You are not the poster boy for an unfair BMI chart. Lose 5 pounds, get your insurance and you're golden.
0 -
Not what you asked , but I suspect you are off at your body fat estimations.0
-
Congratulations, you're an outlier. That doesn't change the statistics on BMI.0
-
For a "normal" BMI for my height, I'd have to have -1%BF to weigh that amount. My company wellness plan also tells me I need to go on a "low fat diet" still. We're still in the stone age my friend. Luckily, my family doctor is smart enough to approve my BMI and give me credit for it.0
-
Right but you're bashing the BMI which is a valid simple metric, instead of bashing the companies that are using it incorrectly as some sort of absolute guide line. It should be - if you are over X BMI you get more test/medical whatever.
None of our insurance companies or corporate wellness plans use BMI in that manner. Just because some American companies are using a screwdriver as a hammer doesn't make the screwdriver a terrible tool.
Not only that, but in your pictures above, the left ones at 192 are still in the "Overweight" area which you certainly appear to be in those pictures.
Your "After" shots at 168 are JUST barely into the "Overweight" section which is still possible since you seem to carry fat lower down (love handles, back, visceral fat). You are not the poster boy for an unfair BMI chart. Lose 5 pounds, get your insurance and you're golden.
Wow...just, wow. I agree that I could be considered overweight in the left side of the pictures (5 lbs from obese?), but you'd be hard pressed to find people that said the right side at 168 is overweight. Those "love handles" you refer to are my hip bones.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Congratulations, you're an outlier. That doesn't change the statistics on BMI.
You mean the statistics that were backed into to come up with a formula, which the developer of said formula stated should never be used to assess whether or not any individual was overweight or obese, but rather was only ever meant to compare populations? You're right, those statistics on BMI have remained constant.0 -
as a former health insurance company IT geek, i can tell you this without the slightest hint of hesitation...
these people are leeches who will stop at NOTHING...i repeat, NOTHING - to suck the last insurance premium dollar from their clients, and will go even further than that to keep from paying anything they can remotely justify denying responsibility for.
does anyone have any historical information on what was an "acceptable" BMI measurement in years past compared to current expectations?
I'm willing to bet that what was a once reasonable number has trended in recent years towards illogical expectations of most of their coverage demographic over the years in order to have a rubric by which to charge more per insured to classify them as fata$$e$.0 -
BMI works well as a warning for most people. The people it's not suited for are the people who already know it's not right for them. I agree that it's only really a problem if an organization uses it to provide or reject benefits without further consideration.
Based on those pics I think you are slightly fatter than the numbers you wrote. Not worryingly fat, but not as low as 13%.0 -
those taps tho
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 956 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions