- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BMI
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:04 pm to HeartAttackTiger
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:04 pm to HeartAttackTiger
quote:
BMI. what is your current
Did an In Scan today. BMI at 29, body fat at 13%
BMI is sofa king we todd it.
This post was edited on 5/17/24 at 10:08 am
0
Posted on 5/17/24 at 5:36 am to HeartAttackTiger
Highest: 27.5
Current: 24.6
I prefer to be sub 24. My joints and back feel better in that range. I have more energy and feel youthful again in that range (I’m 49). I tend to have far fewer training injuries as well.
Current: 24.6
I prefer to be sub 24. My joints and back feel better in that range. I have more energy and feel youthful again in that range (I’m 49). I tend to have far fewer training injuries as well.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 9:09 am to HeartAttackTiger
It’s a 29 right now. At its highest, maybe 31.
Latest body fat % was 13.7%.
Latest body fat % was 13.7%.
This post was edited on 5/17/24 at 9:10 am
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:27 am to pilsnerpusher
quote:
I prefer to be sub 24. My joints and back feel better in that range. I have more energy and feel youthful again in that range (I’m 49). I tend to have far fewer training injuries as well.
Due to my build I've never had a BMI issues, but definitely understand the outliers, especially among the serious lifters here.
That said unless you are a still a highly competitive athlete or bodybuilder having a high BMI at a certain point in life/age does have some negative impact on the body for the large majority of people. I think many people would have the same benefits as you described with a lower BMI.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 10:59 am to NOLALGD
to me if you are natural...waist size at navel is better measurement for health.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:42 am to HeartAttackTiger
quote:
HeartAttackTiger
quote:
What is the highest you've ever seen for your BMI and what is your current
BMI?
You first.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 11:54 am to HeartAttackTiger
quote:
What is the highest you've ever seen for your BMI and what is your current
BMI?
BMI is a shite methodology. But 30 was my highest.
Posted on 5/17/24 at 12:23 pm to bayou85
I think its a great methodology for 99.9% of people, especially today, especially in Louisiana.
Posted on 5/18/24 at 9:25 am to Tiger_n_Texas
quote:
but 2.5 years ago I was at 41.3.
quote:
Today I'm at 30.8.
That's a massive (you may pardon the pun, but it was intended) accomplishment and something in which you should take pride (frick the "fat acceptance" fools - more accurate to call it "preventable chronic disease and early death acceptance").
Posted on 5/18/24 at 9:34 am to lsu777
quote:
to me if you are natural...waist size at navel is better measurement for health.
Probably true, however BMI is way better than the average person thinks. Even an extraordinarily fit large athlete (defensive linemen, bodybuilders, upper weight category strength athletes, etc.) will have downsides to a high BMI. Your joints, particularly the lower extremity joints, DGAF how much muscle you're carrying. Likewise, all the organ systems are stressed with excess weight, even if it is a lot of "good" weight.
I know from your posts you have an extraordinary depth of experience in some of these issues, but it is a lot of "inside baseball" and very specialized as you have already conceded to a degree, even in this thread.
BMI (and I was skeptical myself back in the day) IS a good measurement because of the research that has been done. Likewise, there is also good research on waist size (as a gauge of visceral fat). It should go without saying that carrying large amounts of lean muscle (which has positives of its own to balance versus a more ideal BMI) instead of visceral fat (which has fewer positives and far more negatives) is preferable for health, but not without disadvantages of its own.
This post was edited on 5/18/24 at 9:35 am
Posted on 5/18/24 at 9:57 am to HeartAttackTiger
29
6’3
235
6’3
235
Posted on 5/18/24 at 11:29 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Ace Midnight
Thanks, it's been a journey for sure. Several failures at the beginning. Biggest mistake was trying to make too many changes at once. Figured out (for me) the best way was to take it one step at a time. Get one new positive habbit ingrained in my daily life, then slowly add another. This forum has been amazing and served as the core for my changes.
Posted on 5/18/24 at 11:33 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Probably true, however BMI is way better than the average person thinks. Even an extraordinarily fit large athlete (defensive linemen, bodybuilders, upper weight category strength athletes, etc.) will have downsides to a high BMI. Your joints, particularly the lower extremity joints, DGAF how much muscle you're carrying. Likewise, all the organ systems are stressed with excess weight, even if it is a lot of "good" weight.
I used to think that but the doctors at barbell medicine proved me wrong on this with posting a bunch studies showing your organs are not stressed from the extra muscle
quote:
I know from your posts you have an extraordinary depth of experience in some of these issues, but it is a lot of "inside baseball" and very specialized as you have already conceded to a degree, even in this thread.
The sport’s specialized part of all my knowledge is a new thing. 99% of my training is more gen pop/aethetics
quote:
BMI (and I was skeptical myself back in the day) IS a good measurement because of the research that has been done. Likewise, there is also good research on waist size (as a gauge of visceral fat). It should go without saying that carrying large amounts of lean muscle (which has positives of its own to balance versus a more ideal BMI) instead of visceral fat (which has fewer positives and far more negatives) is preferable for health, but not without disadvantages of its own.
Only negatives would be lower joints like ankles and that would still be not that much and far outweighed but if natural you are not gonna get crazy ffmi anyways. That’s why I said waist size is better for those that lift. For 95-98% of people bmi is more than fine
Posted on 5/18/24 at 1:54 pm to lsu777
quote:
also understand I am the rarity, along with many on this board, who BMI does not apply. if you have not been lifting weights progressively for atleast 3 years, it almost 100% applies to you
Using BMI to define obesity works for well over 99% of the population.
The Normal vs. Overweight and Underweight vs. Normal borders for younger men get a little wonky though.
For a 6’0” male: Overweight starts at 184, but you’re not underweight until sub-140.
As you progress through the “overweight” bracket from BMI 25 - 30, it requires an increasing amount of weight training, to the point where if you’re perfectly healthy at BMI 30 it’s because you’re a professional athlete.
But at BMI 25.0, which is also overweight, the majority of graduating high school football players and most casual male gym goers are clocking in ahead of that mark, even without a deliberate effort to build significant muscle mass.
To get below BMI 18.5 as a younger male, you’re fighting stage 4 cancer.
Clinically it doesn’t matter, however there are disease studies that get thrown off because BMI 26 dudes in good shape get lumped into overweight, while cancer patients who still haven’t shed enough pounds to classify as underweight get lumped in as “normal”.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 5:07 am to HeartAttackTiger
32.3
But i was also 6’5” 272 lbs @ 9% bodyfat, bench 315 19 times. Call me obese whatever; bmi is outdated
But i was also 6’5” 272 lbs @ 9% bodyfat, bench 315 19 times. Call me obese whatever; bmi is outdated
Posted on 5/21/24 at 5:23 am to Stoic Poser
Good grief man…I hope you were on an OL somewhere.
When you get out on the edges of the bell curve with height or lean mass the calculation starts to break down. For me to crack the “healthy” 25 BMI I’d have to get to 210 lbs which would be 5%-8% body fat. That seems extreme just to be considered healthy.
When you get out on the edges of the bell curve with height or lean mass the calculation starts to break down. For me to crack the “healthy” 25 BMI I’d have to get to 210 lbs which would be 5%-8% body fat. That seems extreme just to be considered healthy.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 6:22 am to HeartAttackTiger
Highest 34.4 - Was around 290 lbs
Current 31.7 -Weighed in at 267 this morning
Not sure if I will ever get back into "Overweight" territory or not since I am considered "Obese" right now.
Current 31.7 -Weighed in at 267 this morning
Not sure if I will ever get back into "Overweight" territory or not since I am considered "Obese" right now.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 6:32 am to SquatchDawg
Tall lanky ex right fielder that had my own “rejuvme” regimen many moons ago post playing days.
Looked healthy; insides prob not so much
Looked healthy; insides prob not so much
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News