when am I a fatty

Monty said:

What does my BMI need to be to qualify as a fatty?
I cannot wait!

If it's left to Kurgan's definition anything 19 and over is there and
he's defintely THE expert on the subject here due to his long and
intense study of the subject.
Bill C

Monty said:

What does my BMI need to be to qualify as a fatty?
I cannot wait!

Dumbass -

Not that high.

Research indicates that over 25 brings on an increase in incidence of
fat-related disease.

In Asians, it's even lower (due to the propensity to store fat in the
abdominal region). The line for Asians is 23.6.

bon appetit,

K. Gringioni.

If you are wondering about it.........

If you have to ask, then.......

6' 170# BMI = 23
52 years old
HDL 60
LDL 82
Total Cholesterol 148
Glucose 86
Triglycerides <45

alright, pass the French Fries, I'm not a fatty yet!

Monty

....and I was called a Dumbass. My lucky day!!!

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Monty said:

What does my BMI need to be to qualify as a fatty?
I cannot wait!

Dumbass -

Not that high.

Research indicates that over 25 brings on an increase in incidence of
fat-related disease.

In Asians, it's even lower (due to the propensity to store fat in the
abdominal region). The line for Asians is 23.6.

bon appetit,

K. Gringioni.

Monty said:

6' 170# BMI = 23
52 years old
HDL 60
LDL 82
Total Cholesterol 148
Glucose 86
Triglycerides <45

alright, pass the French Fries, I'm not a fatty yet!

Monty

Nice numbers, bro...

Ex-cowboy? Astronaut? Good genes?

jj

I ride a lot and I'm a vegetarian

"Jet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Monty said:

6' 170# BMI = 23
52 years old
HDL 60
LDL 82
Total Cholesterol 148
Glucose 86
Triglycerides <45

alright, pass the French Fries, I'm not a fatty yet!

Monty

Nice numbers, bro...

Ex-cowboy? Astronaut? Good genes?

jj

BMI is a looney tunes idea. Someone 6'4" and weighing a nearly invisible 155
lbs would be considered to be "normal".

I'm THIN at 185 and that is JUST under the overweight line.

"Monty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

6' 170# BMI = 23
52 years old
HDL 60
LDL 82
Total Cholesterol 148
Glucose 86
Triglycerides <45

alright, pass the French Fries, I'm not a fatty yet!

Monty

...and I was called a Dumbass. My lucky day!!!

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Monty said:

What does my BMI need to be to qualify as a fatty?
I cannot wait!

Dumbass -

Not that high.

Research indicates that over 25 brings on an increase in incidence of
fat-related disease.

In Asians, it's even lower (due to the propensity to store fat in the
abdominal region). The line for Asians is 23.6.

bon appetit,

K. Gringioni.

Tom Kunich said:

BMI is a looney tunes idea. Someone 6'4" and weighing a nearly invisible
155 lbs would be considered to be "normal".

"Normal" is between 20 and 25. For 6'4" that's 164-205 lb.

E.
-down to 22.3, 0.8 to go

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

"Monty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

6' 170# BMI = 23
52 years old
HDL 60
LDL 82
Total Cholesterol 148
Glucose 86
Triglycerides <45

Freaky...we could be twins. Same height, weight, age. My HDL & LDL are
both a bit higher (80 & 91), total cholesterol 192 (family genetics,
damnit).

FWIW, according to US averages for height, age, and gender, we are in the
17th weight percentile.

GG

Quoted message said:

alright, pass the French Fries, I'm not a fatty yet!

Monty

...and I was called a Dumbass. My lucky day!!!

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Monty said:

What does my BMI need to be to qualify as a fatty?
I cannot wait!

Dumbass -

Not that high.

Research indicates that over 25 brings on an increase in incidence of
fat-related disease.

In Asians, it's even lower (due to the propensity to store fat in the
abdominal region). The line for Asians is 23.6.

bon appetit,

K. Gringioni.

Tom Kunich said:

BMI is a looney tunes idea.

BMI is (almost) nonsense in terms of fitness. The calculation is overly
simplistic and makes no differentiation between fat mass and muscle
mass.
At 5'10" and 178 lbs. my BMI indicates that I'm mildly overweight. The
BMI ignores the independent measures that I have 11% body fat (as
measured by submersion).

Now I'll agree that I still have to pull that 178 uphill and my body
profile is not optimum for cycle racing--but in terms of health and
overall fitness- give me a break!

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BMI is a looney tunes idea. Someone 6'4" and weighing a nearly invisible

155

Quoted message said:

lbs would be considered to be "normal".

I'm THIN at 185 and that is JUST under the overweight line.

Keep telling yourself that...

FWIW, I used to think the same thing. For years I was around 185 (6' tall),
and nobody said I looked fat. Compared to US averages for my height, gender
and age, I was around the 33rd weight percentile.

But, I live where there's a lot of hills to ride, and a couple of years ago
I decided to see how losing some weight would help my performance on the
bike. I'm now down to 171, and aiming for 165 by the end of June (when I'll
be doing 450 miles in a week in Colorado, followed by the Markleeville Death
Ride a week later). My body fat has gone from around 18% to 12%.

Having lost that weight, I'm much faster going uphill, and feel great, on
the bike and off. At 52 years of age, I feel "light on my feet", and light
on the bike. The only downside is I'm a little slower on the downhills.

You may want to check your body fat percentage. If you're really buffed up
(think, the Rock) it may not be possible to lose weight without losing
muscle mass. But, for most of us, there is fat to be lost...it just takes
some work to lose it.

You can get a fairly good idea of your body fat percentage using the "Navy"
method. It only requires a couple of simple body circumference
measurements. I've built this method into my "CycliStats" program (free
trial version on the web site), or you can find an online calculator here:

http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html

Just ignore the "Ideal Weight" recommendations by this site - I have no idea
where they get their numbers, and they are not part of the Navy method for
estimating body fat.

--
~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Quoted message said:

"Monty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

6' 170# BMI = 23
52 years old
HDL 60
LDL 82
Total Cholesterol 148
Glucose 86
Triglycerides <45

alright, pass the French Fries, I'm not a fatty yet!

Monty

...and I was called a Dumbass. My lucky day!!!

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Monty wrote:
> What does my BMI need to be to qualify as a fatty?
> I cannot wait!

Dumbass -

Not that high.

Research indicates that over 25 brings on an increase in incidence of
fat-related disease.

In Asians, it's even lower (due to the propensity to store fat in the
abdominal region). The line for Asians is 23.6.

bon appetit,

K. Gringioni.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BMI is a looney tunes idea. Someone 6'4" and weighing a nearly invisible
155 lbs would be considered to be "normal".

They'd be considered underweight, if you're using the usual 20-25 thing.

Quoted message said:

I'm THIN at 185 and that is JUST under the overweight line.

Then either you have a load of muscle which isn't helping your cycling, or
you have more fat than you think.

But BMI is [censored], anyway - you can be really unfit, carrying excess fat and
still 'normal' on BMI, because you have almost no muscle; you can be really
fit, carrying very little excess fat, and 'overweight' on BMI, because you
have a lot of muscle.

Peter

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BMI is a looney tunes idea. Someone 6'4" and weighing a nearly invisible
155 lbs would be considered to be "normal".

They'd be considered underweight, if you're using the usual 20-25 thing.

Quoted message said:

I'm THIN at 185 and that is JUST under the overweight line.

Then either you have a load of muscle which isn't helping your cycling, or
you have more fat than you think.

But BMI is [censored], anyway - you can be really unfit, carrying excess fat and
still 'normal' on BMI, because you have almost no muscle; you can be

really

Quoted message said:

fit, carrying very little excess fat, and 'overweight' on BMI, because you
have a lot of muscle.

Peter

As a statement of athletic fitness BMI doesn't provide much information.
But, it does appear to be related to mortality.

In '99, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that involved
over one million participants who were followed over time. Here's the
abstract (full article can be found here
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ):

"ABSTRACT
Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We
investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of
disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United
States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14
years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the
risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to
smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race,
cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was
substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men
and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass
indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks
of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease,
cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and
severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk
associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for
blacks."

GG

"GaryG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BMI is a looney tunes idea. Someone 6'4" and weighing a nearly
invisible
155 lbs would be considered to be "normal".

They'd be considered underweight, if you're using the usual 20-25 thing.

Quoted message said:

I'm THIN at 185 and that is JUST under the overweight line.

Then either you have a load of muscle which isn't helping your cycling,
or
you have more fat than you think.

But BMI is [censored], anyway - you can be really unfit, carrying excess fat
and
still 'normal' on BMI, because you have almost no muscle; you can be

really

Quoted message said:

fit, carrying very little excess fat, and 'overweight' on BMI, because
you
have a lot of muscle.

Peter

As a statement of athletic fitness BMI doesn't provide much information.
But, it does appear to be related to mortality.

In '99, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that
involved
over one million participants who were followed over time. Here's the
abstract (full article can be found here

BMI provides a good indicator of a lot of things. For the average person. If
you tell me that Joe Bloggs was picked at random from the set of all
Americans with BMI over 30, then I will assume Joe Bloggs is fat and needs
to lose weight soon. If on the other hand Joe Bloggs was picked at random
from the set of Americans with BMI over 30 who happen to be powerlifters, or
bodybuilders, then I would not make that assumption (I might make other
negative assumptions in the latter case). But that won't show up if you do a
big study, because very few people are powerlifters or bodybuilders.

An athlete is not an average person. The study you quote does not refer to
athletes, so assuming it still applies is dangerous.

Imagine if you were to do a study where you took a lot of men over 70 years
old, sat them on exercise bikes, and forced them to pedal hard enough to put
out say 250W for ten minutes. You'd probably kill a significant number of
them. So your study would conclude that doing that sort of thing when over
70 is a very bad idea - which is true, if you are just talking about the
average 70-year-old man, who's typically not very fit and prone to heart
troubles. On the other hand, there are probably a few 70-year-olds, possibly
reading this, for whom that sort of thing is just part of the weekend bike
ride, and doing them good rather than harm.

Peter

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"GaryG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> BMI is a looney tunes idea. Someone 6'4" and weighing a nearly
> invisible
> 155 lbs would be considered to be "normal".

They'd be considered underweight, if you're using the usual 20-25

thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm THIN at 185 and that is JUST under the overweight line.

Then either you have a load of muscle which isn't helping your cycling,
or
you have more fat than you think.

But BMI is [censored], anyway - you can be really unfit, carrying excess fat
and
still 'normal' on BMI, because you have almost no muscle; you can be

really

Quoted message said:

fit, carrying very little excess fat, and 'overweight' on BMI, because
you
have a lot of muscle.

Peter

As a statement of athletic fitness BMI doesn't provide much information.
But, it does appear to be related to mortality.

In '99, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that
involved
over one million participants who were followed over time. Here's the
abstract (full article can be found here

BMI provides a good indicator of a lot of things. For the average person.

If

Quoted message said:

you tell me that Joe Bloggs was picked at random from the set of all
Americans with BMI over 30, then I will assume Joe Bloggs is fat and needs
to lose weight soon. If on the other hand Joe Bloggs was picked at random
from the set of Americans with BMI over 30 who happen to be powerlifters,

or

Quoted message said:

bodybuilders, then I would not make that assumption (I might make other
negative assumptions in the latter case). But that won't show up if you do

a

Quoted message said:

big study, because very few people are powerlifters or bodybuilders.

An athlete is not an average person. The study you quote does not refer to
athletes, so assuming it still applies is dangerous.

True enough...but, I've not seen any studies that say that powerlifters
enjoy longer lifespans either. There's some evidence that large athletic
folks have increased risk of mortality, but those numbers may be skewed due
to their consumption of steroids and other substances.

I'd love to see a study comparing "big muscular" vs. "smaller muscular"
folks. If the mouse studies on calorie restriction's impact on longevity
apply to humans, I would expect the results to show that being "big
muscular" is an independent risk factor (though presumably less of a risk
factor than being fat and/or unfit).

GG

Quoted message said:

Imagine if you were to do a study where you took a lot of men over 70

years

Quoted message said:

old, sat them on exercise bikes, and forced them to pedal hard enough to

put

Quoted message said:

out say 250W for ten minutes. You'd probably kill a significant number of
them. So your study would conclude that doing that sort of thing when over
70 is a very bad idea - which is true, if you are just talking about the
average 70-year-old man, who's typically not very fit and prone to heart
troubles. On the other hand, there are probably a few 70-year-olds,

possibly

Quoted message said:

reading this, for whom that sort of thing is just part of the weekend bike
ride, and doing them good rather than harm.

Peter

Ewoud Dronkert said:

E.
-down to 22.3, 0.8 to go

So, how do you plan to do this? Daily sessions on the rack? Strategic
amputations? Heel lifts?

Bret

Bret Wade said:

Quoted message said:

-down to 22.3, 0.8 to go

So, how do you plan to do this? Daily sessions on the rack? Strategic
amputations? Heel lifts?

Riding more, eating less or at least healthier. Shaving leg hair. Making
good use of the faculty's helium supply.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Riding more, eating less or at least healthier.

Dumbass -

Such concepts are unfathomable to the Fattie American Master.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:25:32 GMT, Bret Wade wrote:

Riding more, eating less or at least healthier. Shaving leg hair. Making
good use of the faculty's helium supply.

mine is 20.6 right now (just weighed myself before posting). i think i
lost 3 pounds spring cleaning my house&yard over the last 2 months, (if
your helium supply runs out and you need more options).

i don't really feel thin though. i definitely don't feel fit, that's
the worse thing to me. i hate being flabby.

heather