Im ALMOST over-weight

...According to BMI - new home page stuff

61 to 80 of 104 messages
TR
16/11/2007 at 00:14
LR,
I reckon that once you do enough varied sport - not just running, then your body will find its optimium weight for the demands that you place upon it. Then you have to live with what you've got.

I'd run a wee bit quicker if I lost a bit of my armour, but WTF - so what !

I upped the running this time last year for an aborted FLM sub3 attempt as a 12 stoner and ran 60 ish miles per week (plus other stuff) and was still 12 stone in March, and still am now !
16/11/2007 at 10:51

I don't think the body is that 'clever' - I've seen lots of prople claiming that they can't shift the last stone, yet when they go away on an activity holiday (trekking, snow sports etc) they lose the weight and find that they feel all the better for it - then they decide to knuckle down to maintain that weight, and after a short time, it becomes second nature to eat smaller amounts at mealtimes. The stomach - and the appetite - adapts.

It's been shown that people automatically eat more when given bigger portions. Anybody who's been on a cruise ship will know that it is very difficult not to put on a lot of weight during the trip.

TR
16/11/2007 at 13:36
I agree, I mean enough sport to have shifted the last stone.
LR
16/11/2007 at 13:46
Looks like I have to find another sport to do, and cancel all those cruises!
LR
21/11/2007 at 12:05
You're all evil, complaining that you're all at varying levels of nearly normal. As a cack stumbling runner I can confirm that losing a bit of weight would at least do me a bit of good, but I have something that nobody else seems to have - a BMI graph!
  
http://www.pimpthatsnack.com/images/graphs/pimpdaddy_bodymass.png

  (http://www.pimpthatsnack.com/images/graphs/pimpdaddy_bodymass.png) if this doesn't display well.

 This applies to me rather more than the rest of you because I'm definitely more paunch than power, but if I could hit the lovely 'normal' zone I'd be happy regardless. 

21/11/2007 at 17:58

Felt compelled to add in my views about BMI as for years it has been annoying how so-called experts drag it up time and time again. I am 6 ft 2 and seem to have plateaued at around 92 kg ( yes one tall woman!) which would make me close to obese. But I have a big frame and have always done a lot of exercise so there is plently of muscle sitting on it. Ok if I was to be honest I could lose a bit off the lower half, but there isn't much fat on the rest of me.

As for losing weight, even when training for the marathon and putting in the mileage, I just seem to lose inches ( particularly around the stubborn lower half) not weight. So as long as the trousers are getting looser, I'm not fussed about the weight. Plus the fact that life is too short to cut out all the cakes just for a few extra seconds.

21/11/2007 at 20:31
i thought cutting out cakes added a few more years to your life expectancy not just seconds?
22/11/2007 at 10:35

If your (Gina34) waist measurement is below 31 1/2 inches, I wouldn't worry too much about what the scales say. Ideally you could check your body fat % using one of the many available scales that combine a body fat monitor (like Tanita). Or just jump up and down without clothes on: all the bits that wobble are fat, not muscle!

If you're pear-shaped you're at fairly low risk of heart disease etc, even if you're a little overweight, because your fat is on your hips and bottom rather than visceral (within the abdomen, around the internal organs). But if you're apple-shaped, beware! If you're eating a lot of cakes and other junk food, it might be a good idea to get your cholesterol checked as those so-called 'foods' are loaded with saturated and trans fats. High cholesterol and dyslipidaemia is associated with bad diets and obesity, and is as big a killer as smoking.

22/11/2007 at 21:56
31 1/2 inches! In my wildest dreams. ;(
23/11/2007 at 11:11
If you're male, you're allowed 37in. I'm a generous sort
TR
23/11/2007 at 13:04
I'm under 32in.

First race Sunday, since I knobbled my knee ligaments in the Summer whilst running off-road.

Well see how a 24+ BMI fitness man does. 2nd ever 1/2 Mar, 1h 26m to beat (from the same race last year).

I'll see how many skinny rakes I can finish on front of.
LR
23/11/2007 at 13:33
Good Luck TR, I am sure all 24+ BMI-ers will be rooting(?) for you. Maybe we should set new categories - ditch the SM, SF,MV and FV's and go for BMI instead!
LR
23/11/2007 at 18:24
Didn't dare get out the tape measure, but did do the jumping up and down (when there was no-one about!) not too horrific but it is definately the lower half that is the problem. But hey I blame that on genetics and not the occasional cake. Quite happy to be one of lifes plodders and the extra bit helps to keep me warm in the winter. Plus the fact that in long races I actually find myself passing skinny people at the end of the race , must be that extra energy that I have stored away.
Easy11    pirate
23/11/2007 at 18:42

Wouldn't worry about BMI anyway,

If this is used a yard stick the entire England rugby team would be obese which is clearly not the case. Because this uses weight and height , and not build anybody who is not of an average build will produce an abmormal result. 

Incidently mine shows as extremly underweight which I am not, just tall. 

Aitch!    pirate
24/11/2007 at 11:29
I don't get on with the BMI thing either. I am classed as overweight (probably closer to obese) but this is true, I do need to lose some but I AM doing something about it upping the mileage and currently food combining. I have been unfortunately blessed with an very slow metabolism so for me to lose weight I almost have to halve my food intake and run every day. It doesn't feel very fair when I have very thin friends that eat like horses, don't exercise and remain the same weight. Does anyone know ways to speed up metabolism?

Like people have said, BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass which weighs more than fat so I would never use the BMI as a guideline for well-being. I tend to use how I look and feel and my dress size as an indicator.
24/11/2007 at 11:41
doesnt snorting crack speed up your metabolism?...or taking speed???
Aitch!    pirate
24/11/2007 at 13:39
If they're the only options I'd rather be overweight!! They say running in the morning is good for the metabolism for the day but I just don't have time first thing, it would mean getting up at stupid o'clock! Surely there must be something that could help, it feels unfair.
24/11/2007 at 22:06

The easiest way to "boost your metabolism", which most people understand as meaning that you burn more calories at rest and during everyday activities, is, ironically, to put on weight. The more you weigh, the higher your resting metabolic rate, and the more calories you burn off just getting up and walking from one room to another.

25/11/2007 at 13:45

..bad idea from me.

Increasing muscle mass also burns more I believe, as muscle itself uses enregy just to exist. Also just generally doing resistence work on the big muscle groups?....legs and arse.

25/11/2007 at 14:02

I would like to add some arithmetic on this! I had a test years ago when i was 158 pounds (6ft 1). I was in pretty good form and had done an 8m run at close to 7 min mile pace that morning. The test was putting some electodes on various parts of my body inc. ankles and comoing up with 10.8% fat and 65% water. The range for water was said to be 55-65% water, so i was right on the upper limit.

65% of 158 is 103 pounds, but if one was at 55% it would be 87 pounds so you would have lost 16 pounds. For my weight i would then be 142 pounds, this would improve my times i suspect! If 76% of my weight is fat and water then 24% must be down to bone density and muscle. I would argue that i couldn't go down to less than 7% fat, so where could i lose weight beyond 6 pounds (i am at the same weight now). And yet i did get down to 152 pounds last year when i came back from India. No, i don't think it was fat loss- more likely to be water! I would add that it doesn't mean i was dehydrated, only that my water level was down on what it had been.

In 1975 when i broke my jaw i was 133 pounds momentarily, i have a picture of myself. You wouldn't want to be this thin, so its muscle and fat i lost. One contributor said  that they were this light while running 40 mins for 10k, this is just incredible! But i wonder if the reason older people lose weight is down to bone density rather than anything else. Back to the 59 kg person who was 184 cm tall, it may be the biscuits they are eating that is causing the light weight but remember that with a mimimal food intake, which is almost certainly what they have, they are not leaving much room for actual meals. The author of the British Cycle Federation coaching manual stated that empty calories should be avoided. He was right!

As i said my weight is now the same as it was that day. I was 39 then, am now 51. But ,where have i lost weight? Water, bone density, fat or muscle. Or are all my levels the same. It seems that if any of these figures are less than othe other ones may be more. I have a feeling that my fat level will be up marginally(maybe 2%- this amounts to just 3 pounds). This will mean i have lost either muscle or bone density! In 1979 i was 170 pounds as a racing cyclist, i would put it down to more muscle with some increase in fat but not much. If i remember rightly i was 32 inch waist but now am no more than 1/2 inch less!

So tell me are some of these satements flawed in some way or am i right. Does bone density go down with age or is it minimal in terms of overall weight for older people.

61 to 80 of 104 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums