Ideal Weight

Leafing through rec.running, I read Ignoramus7090's message of 27 Nov
2004:

Quoted message said:

There is no single authoritative formula for ideal weight. You can
google for "metlife ideal weight table", that gives ideal weight based
on whether you are big bones or small boned.

"Big boned" is sort of an odd term. Does it really have much to do with
bones? I always thought I was big-boned until I lost a lot of weight. Those
really weren't big bones underneath all that fat, it was just more fat,
followed by muscle.

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John Short,
South African coach.

Leafing through rec.running, I read Rob Beattie's message of 27 Nov 2004:

Quoted message said:

A lot of people in this group seem to know exactly what their ideal
weight is i.e. they claim that they are x pounds overweight.

I think runners know this because they know what weight is best for their
running and fitness.

Quoted message said:

Is there a generally accepted reference for this? I know that the
media keep banging on about bmi but as has been mentioned many times
in this ng and others, bmi does not take into account people who are
more or less musculor than the norm.

Exactly. It's just the same old height and weight chart, which has now
been adopted for insurance purposes. A better guide would be your
clinically measured bodyfat percentage.

Quoted message said:

I am a 5ft 7inch male aged 34 and weighing 161. According to the bmi I
am at the upper end of normal but I don't reckon I have too much fat
on me at the moment and am convinced that my leg muscles add a lot of
weight(My abs can be clearly seen so my body fat percentage must be
around the 10% mark).

Probably true, but you'll never know until you get it measured.

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John
Short, South African coach.

Quoted message said:

Rob Beattie rob@/remove/ghosh.co.uk said:

A lot of people in this group seem to know exactly what their ideal
weight is

Ideal weight is context-dependent. Ideal for what ? If you want to be at an
ideal running weight, you don't want too much weight (lean or otherwise). If
you're competing in a powerlifting competition, there's no reason to get down
to a very low bodyfat percentage, and you want as much lean mass as you can
get.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i.e. they claim that they are x pounds overweight. Is there
a generally accepted reference for this?

Your best bet is probably some sort of body fat measurement. A "good" body
fat measurement is again context dependent. "Good" for health may be still
considered high for a runner or a bodybuilder.

Measurements aren't that accurate either. I've regularly measured in the 2-5%
range, but it's almost impossible to be in that range, so I'm probably in the
6-10% range.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know that the media keep
banging on about bmi but as has been mentioned many times in this ng
and others, bmi does not take into account people who are more or less
musculor than the norm.

BMI is just weight normalised by height.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am a 5ft 7inch male aged 34 and weighing 161. According to the bmi I
am at the upper end of normal but I don't reckon I have too much fat
on me at the moment and am convinced that my leg muscles add a lot of
weight(My abs can be clearly seen so my body fat percentage must be
around the 10% mark).
I am content with my weight right now because I am more of a
footballer than distance runner and need to keep my sprinting muscles

Everyone is "convinced" that "it's all muscle". But if you're really convinced,
why this post ? Get it measured instead of leaving it to guesswork.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

rob@/remove/ghosh.co.uk (Rob Beattie) wrote in message

Quoted message said:

A lot of people in this group seem to know exactly what their ideal
weight is i.e. they claim that they are x pounds overweight. Is there
a generally accepted reference for this? I know that the media keep
banging on about bmi but as has been mentioned many times in this ng
and others, bmi does not take into account people who are more or less
musculor than the norm.

Yet another article on over-interpreting BMIs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/weekinreview/28kola.html

"Rob Beattie" <rob@/remove/ghosh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A lot of people in this group seem to know exactly what their ideal
weight is

<snip>

I think you missed the fact that when people on here say
'ideal weight', they mean running/racing weight.

If I train a lot, I sit at around 130-132lbs. If I am training
really hard and don't eat right, I can go under 130lbs, even
under128lbs.

If I don't train at all for a couple months it rises to low 140's.

Before I started to run I was also in the low 140's. All this
suggests to me that my 'ideal' weight is probably low 140's.
However I have found through my own experiences that I
race short distances best while at 130lbs. Long distances
are best at 135lbs. If I go outside either boundary, my
running suffers in some way or another.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton ON)
www.absolutelyaccurate.com
www.allfalldown.org

Quoted message said:

Yet another article on over-interpreting BMs:

Spend a lot of time studying your BM's Rick?