MarkusDarwath Member

This is an oft-repeated claim, but does not hold up when comparing the appearances of celebrities today with those from 60 or more years ago.

I would presume there may be some overlap between "blood, water and lymph system" and other organs. Even taking this link with a large grain of salt, 94 pounds does not sound excessive for lean mass excluding muscle.

Your unwillingness to question basic assumptions handed to you by self-appointed authorities doesn't help yours. Evidence of dishonesty and social manipulation by "those in charge" is everywhere, media, education, politics... why would govt supported health and nutrition guidelines be any different? We are living in…

Exactly this! "Overweight" by BMI is not actually over-weight, it is simply a weight. The use of that term with that BMI range is, in my opinion, a form of shaming motivated by social engineering goals.

Perhaps you could afford to, but there's no reason you need to unless it's for competition or just the look you prefer. At 13-14% BF you already are an athletic body composition. Going lower starts to bring you into that elite range. I have no desire to look quite that cut. I'm not a huge fan of it, and especially don't…

So it's a height to weight ratio with a poor correlation to body composition. This makes it useful to the individual, how? It's an equalizer for studies of large populations. It's only an indicator of healthy body composition when applied to the -mathematical average- of a group with a very large set of data points. You do…

40% was a rounded number. My actual calculations for 220 work out to 42% muscle, with my calculations at current weight having given me 94 pounds non-muscle lean mass . And yes, I do believe that my total of bone, internal organs, skin, blood, blood vessels, nerves, cartilage, lymphatic system... (have I left anything…

Who's maximizing? 42% is solidly within normal range. Yes, I wish to retain a solid mass and improve my functional strength to continue an active lifestyle. If I had a desk job and was less concerned with strength I might be ok with going as low as 205 (which would still be "overweight" by bmi). As it is, 220 is a more…

Again, at my present weight, the scale and BMI are actually in agreement. If you are going to assume the scale is wrong, then BMI is also wrong. What I see in the mirror also agrees with being around 35% body fat.

I'm also looking at muscle mass percentage. 40% in a male is -normal-, not a high weight. I'm also saying that what the "experts" and "authorities" are defining as high weight, is not necessarily high. I've put up my math. Let's see some solid numbers and evidence in support of the BMI definitions, because all I've seen so…

What is composition then, if not percentage? And if you read further on, it does actually state "percentage" down the page a ways. Livestrong also states that BMI is supposed to approximate body fat percentage. And they're a site I generally disagree with on a number of topics, as they promote low fat, high carb diets and…

My wrist is just under 8 inches, measured between my hand and the protrusions of the bones on either side of the joint. So 7-7/8". I'm basing my calculations on my mass minus fat and muscle percentages as measure by my bio impedance scale. I'll mention again, that at present time, the body fat percentage reported by the…

He represents maybe a percent of a percent of vegans?

15% body fat is borderline athletic for a male. 40% muscle mass is in the middle of average. Not an extreme outlier on either of these accounts. 6'1" and large frame puts me on the top end of normal, not an extreme outlier. The only way I could possibly be an extreme outlier is if my bone and organ density is off the…

I'm not kidding myself. I am fat, and diabetic and my joints hurt. And I haven't at all denied it. That is why I'm counting calories and losing weight. As far as my goals, they are supported by math. The numbers say that if I were under 25 BMI I would also be below average in muscle mass for my weight. The numbers say that…

livestrong.com/article/78471-bmi-mean/ Very first result when searching "what does bmi mean". Yes, it's supposed to be an estimation of body fat. Your profile pic suggests you are a distance runner. Lower than average body fat often goes with the territory.

Compared to the general populace, 10% or less body fat is super lean. And he's a runner. Yes, as a sprinter he's going to have more mass than a distance runner to get that explosive burst of speed, but he's still built for speed, not brute strength, therefore is not likely to be at the upper limits of lean mass for his…

And people with poor reading comprehension make inaccurate assumptions. Your point would be?

Actually, BMI is -supposed- to be a simple estimation of body fat percentage. As such, it may average out to be close over large populations, but on an individual basis it is often just plain wrong.

I think you are underestimating the difference. I'm saying Bolt has a small amount of extra muscle and he looks phenomenal for it, in part because he is also very lean so it's not hidden.

That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%

The thread is about determining one's ideal weight. The "ideal" part pretty much excludes couch potatoes. I'm not saying BMI isn't 'close enough' to BFP for the beginner. I'm saying that as one approaches ideal fitness it tends to be too far off for two many people, therefore is not a good measure for determining goals.

It's just as well, because the way you phrased that is an absolute straw man and not at all what I said anyway.

I agree there is a fairly large margin for error. I disagree that it's less reliable than BMI.

They have a scale, but not a tape measure and internet connection? Where are they looking up the BMI chart from?

At 6'1", 220 pounds and 15% body fat, 40% of my mass would be muscle, which is actually in the bottom half of average according to reference.com. https://reference.com/science/percentage-body-weight-muscle-9342f11bfa8a2895# Yet these same stats calculate to a 29 BMI. I am not Gimli. I'm simply a tall guy with broad…

I think they should measure or calculate their body fat percentage, use that to determine lean mass, and pick a BFP within normal range to shoot for, adding that number back to their lean mass. Yes, they might likely lose some lean mass along the way and need to recalculate, but chances are the initial target is going to…

I would speculate, no. At least not directly. Where the danger to the heart comes in is from the metabolic changes created by too much visceral fat in and around the other organs.

Again, the thread was about how to determine what should be a healthy weight. On an individual basis, BMI is useless for that. The weight ranges are too broad to be of help to someone just getting started into improving fitness, and there are far too many people who will simply fall outside the scale (either high or low)…

I know that. My original response was to the fellow who said he kept track by marking measurements on the inside of his belt. As long as one's belly is the same size as where there belt rides, that works, but in a case like mine it would not.