What's ideal weight for soemone's hight?

Tom G wrote:

"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...

Tom G wrote:
It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds of
bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle in that,
tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish
steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful items
like
extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc., it
wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and tear.

You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with crisis' better,
but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit because
theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight causing
extra stress.

The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the
added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame
(bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact
(read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and
LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it
would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better
suspension, transmission and safer bumpers.


Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler and
maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of it's
design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what expense? A
sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile.

To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a
fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up
fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the
benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from
the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You
want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the
health benefits.

Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does
the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of
muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person
starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and
a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle
mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the
benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the
benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed
in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of
muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI
26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the
muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that
zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost
being possible joint stability and tendon strength.

As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them
into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the
scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They
would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the
"Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by
body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have
much bodyfat.

This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue. Muscle
weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether the
extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other
supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500 lbs
will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the
increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top, it
still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it can.
I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in the
reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are saying,
on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently. Any
increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life span
in the end.

I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near
future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%.
They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to
the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far
as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its
dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since
we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the
general public.

That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become
unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more
muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who
trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem.


Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self limiting.
I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone
structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push so
much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased
wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so
through damage and pain in the end.

I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower
their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health
assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in
general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so.
Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average,
dumbed-down science assumption.

As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your
ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone
structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon
connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have
in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the
amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you
trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are
not one and the same.

But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a
person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people
who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle
building activities have a very either/or image -- either you
don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train
and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts
weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder.

Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But you
will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems they
were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames.

Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of
someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of
what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was
a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone
frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was
just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and
5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin --
it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this
guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very
trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all
that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he
too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the
"Normal" BMI range.

Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the
internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed further
than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a
disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't it?

Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't
always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example
above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is
at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say,
over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not
having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and
suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which
they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle
mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus
greater bone density, plus later in life having injury
prevention, not to mention mobility, etc.

The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that
muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself
training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be
in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount
of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the
genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at
greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the
current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or
haven't looked into researching their population.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tom G wrote:

"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...

Tom G wrote:
It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds of
bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle in
that,
tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish
steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful items
like
extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc., it
wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and
tear.

You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with crisis'
better,
but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit
because
theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight
causing
extra stress.

The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the
added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame
(bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact
(read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and
LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it
would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better
suspension, transmission and safer bumpers.


Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler and
maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of it's
design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what expense?
A
sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile.

To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a
fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up
fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the
benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from
the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You
want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the
health benefits.

Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does
the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of
muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person
starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and
a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle
mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the
benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the
benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed
in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of
muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI
26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the
muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that
zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost
being possible joint stability and tendon strength.


Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of
muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound of
fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so
sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day, and
food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes
(you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?).


As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them
into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the
scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They
would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the
"Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by
body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have
much bodyfat.

This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue.
Muscle
weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether
the
extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other
supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500
lbs
will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the
increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top,
it
still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it
can.
I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in
the
reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are
saying,
on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently.
Any
increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life
span
in the end.

I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near
future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%.
They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to
the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far
as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its
dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since
we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the
general public.


I think those studies can be done, and hopefully will be. The data is
probably already there from previous studies..it's just a matter of finding
an exercise physiologist grad student who can parse it out, and it wouldn't
require a government-funded experiment.


That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become
unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more
muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who
trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem.


Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self
limiting.
I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone
structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push
so
much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased
wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so
through damage and pain in the end.

I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower
their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health
assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in
general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so.
Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average,
dumbed-down science assumption.


Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study (
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1
million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and mortality.
I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for pro US
football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to
believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've not
seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone.


As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your
ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone
structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon
connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have
in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the
amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you
trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are
not one and the same.

But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a
person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people
who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle
building activities have a very either/or image -- either you
don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train
and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts
weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder.

Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But
you
will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems
they
were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames.

Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of
someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of
what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was
a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone
frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was
just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and
5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin --
it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this
guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very
trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all
that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he
too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the
"Normal" BMI range.


Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and harder to
achieve!



Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the
internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed
further
than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a
disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't
it?

Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't
always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example
above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is
at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say,
over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not
having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and
suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which
they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle
mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus
greater bone density, plus later in life having injury
prevention, not to mention mobility, etc.

The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that
muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself
training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be
in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount
of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the
genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at
greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the
current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or
haven't looked into researching their population.

Agreed...hopefully, that research will soon be undertaken. I imagine it
would make a good doctoral thesis, and the data is probably already there
from previous studies.

GG


--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a
fuel guzzler.

As opposed to getting fatter, yes. But along with increased food intake
comes other considerations like heavy metal toxicity and oxidants. If a
person just eats less, there would be less of the bad inputs that are hard
to get rid of and tend to build up over a life time.

Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up
fuel efficiently that cause many health problems.

Agreed

Some of the
benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from
the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You
want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the
health benefits.

Agreed as well. But if the body was at optimum weight, less emphasis
would be placed on having to do activities to burn extra calories. Glucose
and cholesterol problems are usually not troublesome to the naturally trim
people that may do far less exercise than others.


Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does
the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of
muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person
starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and
a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle
mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the
benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the
benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed
in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of
muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI
26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the
muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that
zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost
being possible joint stability and tendon strength.

Yes, it is a question of degree. 25 lbs of extra muscle for me is
probably more beneficial and less taxing than carrying the same amount of
fat weight. But I don't really know that I could say that I am healthier
than a person who only is 155 lbs just because I have more muscle.
Muscle burns more calories and helps in other body regulations for sure,
but more food is needed to maintain the muscle size and also the calories
required to do the work of building more muscles. I may have to indeed eat
twice as much food than a person that is 155, but probably eating the same
amount as a person that is steadily growing fatter by a few pounds a year.
I think the slender person at 155 would live longer than I would even
though I am more muscular. But I would probably live longer than a person my
size that is chubby and carrying the extra 25 lbs as fat.
The point you made about joint and tendon stability kind of goes along
with my theory that extra weight taxes other supporting structures because
of them being designed for a certain size limit. It is hard to know at what
point that the strength component starts to cancel out effeciency due to
increased size and stress on other areas. 20 or 30 extra pounds of muscle
may be ideal, or not, over what BMI considers ideal weight.


As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them
into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the
scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They
would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the
"Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by
body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have
much bodyfat.

Tom Cruise is an example of someone who is considered as overweight (BMI
25). Anyone looking at him would consider that as a healthy weight.
My own BMI is 25.1, and I do not want to be smaller.
http://ca.geocities.com/kazzy_ca/pho...omgallant.html


This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue.
Muscle
weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether
the
extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other
supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500
lbs
will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the
increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top,
it
still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it
can.
I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in
the
reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are
saying,
on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently.
Any
increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life
span
in the end.

I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near
future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%.
They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to
the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far
as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its
dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since
we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the
general public.

The studies do need to be expanded I think. It would be nice to know for
sure whether a person should be reving up the metabolism beyond what is
needed. Eating less may have more benefits than just maintaining weight.


That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become
unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more
muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who
trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem.


Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self
limiting.
I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone
structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push
so
much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased
wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so
through damage and pain in the end.

I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower
their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health
assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in
general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so.
Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average,
dumbed-down science assumption.

The BMI weight may be what is considered perfect balance of muscle size,
calorie intake, %bodyfat, and activity level. If a person were to do
everything in balance, that target weight may be the result of those
efforts. It is hard to find data to back any of this as I believe the BMI is
designed for average populations that most are not exercising.


As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your
ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone
structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon
connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have
in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the
amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you
trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are
not one and the same.

Agreed


But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a
person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people
who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle
building activities have a very either/or image -- either you
don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train
and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts
weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder.

If I received a dollar for every time I have heard, "I don't want to
lift too much, because I don't want to be huge".


Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But
you
will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems
they
were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames.

Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of
someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of
what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was
a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone
frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was
just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and
5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin --
it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this
guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very
trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all
that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he
too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the
"Normal" BMI range.

Weight training to a persons normal genetic potential seems to put them
into the overweight category. Of the people I personally know that work out
consistantly, most would be considered so.


Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the
internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed
further
than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a
disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't
it?

Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't
always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example
above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is
at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say,
over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not
having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and
suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which
they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle
mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus
greater bone density, plus later in life having injury
prevention, not to mention mobility, etc.

I know what you are saying about the cancer causing things. That may
partially be due to over consuming any food. More food will naturally
increase bad inputs as well as tax the body to cause this. This is why I
wonder about how beneficial it is to exercise a lot so a person can eat more
food.
Also about the injury prevention topic. I seem to see 2 types of people
with accumulated injuries. Those that do nothing all their lives, and then
the few times that they need to do something that requires fitness hurt
themselves and take much longer to heal. And then there are the fitness
fanatics that seem to be always nursing an injury. It seems to me that those
slim guys that are active, but not overly so remain injury free well into
old age. What purpose is it to exercise excessively most of your life, to
end up hurting in old age due to accumulated injury? That is not much
different then the inactive fat person in the end.


The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that
muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself
training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be
in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount
of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the
genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at
greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the
current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or
haven't looked into researching their population.

And that is why I question BMI. I work out to achieve best fitness in
the least amount of time and effort. I don't think I exercise too much, but
the index says I'm fat, and this has been brought up in my driver's licence
medical exam. I need to get a medical every 2 years to maintain my class 3
and 4 licence. When the Doctor told me that I am overweight according to
BMI, I was not very happy. I'm sure that if anyone reads my charts, there
are no side notes saying,"patient is overweight, but carries an above
average amount of muscle mass due to exercise and weight training". To the
insurance companies, I'm just fat, and at greater risk for diseases
associated with obesity.
My goals for now, are not to have a BMI smack in the middle. I think 180
is my ideal size. 155 is to skinny for me. 180 may not be the ideal size
according to the charts, but I'm feeling quite healthy right now and don't
intend to be smaller because of some chart that may have the facts wrong. If
it is found that indeed I should be smaller in size due to health issues
that are proven, then I would possibly change my opinion on BMI.
Thankyou for an interesting discussion. In general I have to agree with
most that was talked about. My views are only from a possibility that some
info may not be correct the way we have been taught. Is BMI an ideal weight?
It is possible. But how can we know for sure, if the muscle size issue isn't
studied and included with that index. If the index is created for average
people, then a consideration should be made for people that are larger due
to exercise, not being over fat.


--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

"Ignoramus9778" wrote in message
...
Good points Gary. The only health advantage of having more muscle
mass, pertinent to this newsgroup, than is "necessary" (loosely
defined) is that muscles use up sugar and therefore can enable one to
eat more carbs and not gain. This can be phrased as greater insulin
sensitivity.

The disadvantages, as you noted, are related to effects of calorie
restriction (negative health return on extra calories eaten) and
having to eat more to maintain that muscle mass.

There are no specific studies addressing mortality of lean but heavy
individuals that I could find. So we can only speculate.

That BMI is correlated with mortality is not helpful when addressing
very rare individuals who have overweight BMI but are lean. They are
very much out of the normal continuum of fitter vs. fatter people,
that the findings for the general population cannot be applied to them
directly.

One article that sheds light on this subject is this:

Interesting study. Here's a direct link:
http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/c.../full/10/5/361

Unfortunately, it was a pretty small study, and their confidence intervals
were not very useful (IMO). In particular, Table 2 seems to indicate that
men have a lower mortality if their Body Fat Percentage is greater than
17.1% - the lowest relative risk was seen at BF 17.1% - 19.7%. This is a
healthy BF range, but certainly not an "athletic" percentage. It seems to
imply that having an athletic BF % increases one's health risks, but the
confidence intervals in each quintile are quite broad, and the number of
deaths recorded are pretty low. Hopefully, this is NOT the case...otherwise
I might need to put on some fat mass!

GG


``OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the association between
various measures of adiposity and all-cause mortality in Swedish
middle-aged and older men and women and, additionally, to describe the
influences of age and sex on these associations. RESEARCH METHODS AND
PROCEDURES: A prospective analysis was performed in a cohort of 10,902
men and 16,814 women ages 45 to 73 years who participated in the Malmo
Diet and Cancer Study in Sweden. Baseline examinations took place
between 1991 and 1996, and 982 deaths were documented during an
average follow-up of 5.7 years. All-cause mortality was related to the
following variables measured at baseline: body mass index (BMI),
percentage of body fat, lean body mass (LBM), and waist-to-hip ratio
(WHR), with adjustment for age and selected covariates. Body
composition data were derived from bioelectrical impedance
analysis. RESULTS: The association between percentage of body fat and
mortality was modified by age, particularly in women. For instance,
fatness was associated with excess mortality in the younger women but
with reduced mortality in the older women. Weaker associations were
seen for BMI than for percentage of body fat in both sexes. Placement
in the top quintiles of waist-to-hip ratio, independent of overall
body fat, was a stronger predictor of mortality in women than in
men. The observed associations could not be explained by bias from
early death or antecedent disease. DISCUSSION: The findings reveal sex
and age differences for the effects of adiposity and WHR on mortality
and indicate the importance of considering direct measures of
adiposity, as opposed to BMI, when describing obesity-related
mortality risks.

PMID: 12006635 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]''

--
223/173.3/180

"GaryG" wrote in message
news
"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tom G wrote:

"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...

Tom G wrote:
It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds
of
bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle in
that,
tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish
steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful items
like
extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc.,
it
wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and
tear.

You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with
crisis'
better,
but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit
because
theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight
causing
extra stress.

The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the
added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame
(bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact
(read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and
LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it
would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better
suspension, transmission and safer bumpers.


Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler
and
maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of
it's
design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what
expense?
A
sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile.

To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a
fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up
fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the
benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from
the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You
want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the
health benefits.

Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does
the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of
muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person
starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and
a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle
mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the
benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the
benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed
in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of
muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI
26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the
muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that
zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost
being possible joint stability and tendon strength.


Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of
muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound
of
fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so
sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day,
and
food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes
(you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?).

Good point.



As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them
into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the
scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They
would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the
"Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by
body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have
much bodyfat.

This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue.
Muscle
weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But
whether
the
extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other
supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say
500
lbs
will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the
increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up
top,
it
still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it
can.
I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in
the
reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are
saying,
on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most
efficiently.
Any
increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life
span
in the end.

I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near
future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%.
They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to
the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far
as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its
dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since
we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the
general public.


I think those studies can be done, and hopefully will be. The data is
probably already there from previous studies..it's just a matter of
finding
an exercise physiologist grad student who can parse it out, and it
wouldn't
require a government-funded experiment.


That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become
unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more
muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who
trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem.


Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self
limiting.
I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my
bone
structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push
so
much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes
increased
wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do
so
through damage and pain in the end.

I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower
their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health
assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in
general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so.
Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average,
dumbed-down science assumption.


Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study (
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1
million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and
mortality.
I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for pro
US
football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to
believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've
not
seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone.

Just an observation in my own life of people around me says that slim is
better than larger muscles and overfat. Less injuries, and better quality of
life into old age.



As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your
ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone
structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon
connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have
in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the
amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you
trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are
not one and the same.

But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a
person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people
who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle
building activities have a very either/or image -- either you
don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train
and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts
weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder.

Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally.
But
you
will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems
they
were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames.

Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of
someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of
what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was
a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone
frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was
just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and
5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin --
it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this
guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very
trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all
that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he
too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the
"Normal" BMI range.


Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and harder
to
achieve!

Haha. I know what you mean.




Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the
internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed
further
than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at
a
disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off,
isn't
it?

Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't
always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example
above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is
at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say,
over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not
having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and
suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which
they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle
mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus
greater bone density, plus later in life having injury
prevention, not to mention mobility, etc.

The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that
muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself
training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be
in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount
of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the
genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at
greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the
current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or
haven't looked into researching their population.

Agreed...hopefully, that research will soon be undertaken. I imagine it
would make a good doctoral thesis, and the data is probably already there
from previous studies.

I have heard people question the value of the index for years. You would
think that the government would take more interest to correct the 1 size
fits all description.


GG


--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

"Tom G" wrote in message
news:iqSId.151942$6l.103242@pd7tw2no...

"GaryG" wrote in message
news
"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tom G wrote:

"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...

Tom G wrote:
It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds
of
bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle
in
that,
tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish
steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful
items
like
extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc.,
it
wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and
tear.

You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with
crisis'
better,
but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit
because
theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight
causing
extra stress.

The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the
added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame
(bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact
(read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and
LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it
would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better
suspension, transmission and safer bumpers.


Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler
and
maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of
it's
design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what
expense?
A
sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile.

To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a
fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up
fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the
benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from
the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You
want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the
health benefits.

Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does
the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of
muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person
starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and
a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle
mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the
benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the
benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed
in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of
muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI
26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the
muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that
zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost
being possible joint stability and tendon strength.


Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of
muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound
of
fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so
sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day,
and
food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes
(you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?).

Good point.



As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them
into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the
scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They
would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the
"Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by
body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have
much bodyfat.

This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue.
Muscle
weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But
whether
the
extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other
supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say
500
lbs
will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the
increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up
top,
it
still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it
can.
I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account
in
the
reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are
saying,
on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most
efficiently.
Any
increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens
life
span
in the end.

I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near
future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%.
They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to
the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far
as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its
dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since
we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the
general public.


I think those studies can be done, and hopefully will be. The data is
probably already there from previous studies..it's just a matter of
finding
an exercise physiologist grad student who can parse it out, and it
wouldn't
require a government-funded experiment.


That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become
unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more
muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who
trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem.


Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self
limiting.
I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my
bone
structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to
push
so
much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes
increased
wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to
do
so
through damage and pain in the end.

I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower
their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health
assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in
general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so.
Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average,
dumbed-down science assumption.


Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study (
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1
million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and
mortality.
I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for
pro
US
football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to
believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've
not
seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone.

Just an observation in my own life of people around me says that slim
is
better than larger muscles and overfat. Less injuries, and better quality
of
life into old age.



As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your
ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone
structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon
connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have
in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the
amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you
trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are
not one and the same.

But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a
person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people
who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle
building activities have a very either/or image -- either you
don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train
and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts
weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder.

Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally.
But
you
will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems
they
were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames.

Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of
someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of
what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was
a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone
frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was
just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and
5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin --
it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this
guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very
trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all
that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he
too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the
"Normal" BMI range.


Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and
harder
to
achieve!

Haha. I know what you mean.




Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But
the
internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed
further
than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be
at
a
disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off,
isn't
it?

Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't
always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example
above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is
at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say,
over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not
having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and
suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which
they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle
mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus
greater bone density, plus later in life having injury
prevention, not to mention mobility, etc.

The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that
muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself
training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be
in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount
of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the
genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at
greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the
current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or
haven't looked into researching their population.

Agreed...hopefully, that research will soon be undertaken. I imagine it
would make a good doctoral thesis, and the data is probably already
there
from previous studies.

I have heard people question the value of the index for years. You
would
think that the government would take more interest to correct the 1 size
fits all description.

The problem is that BMI is a reasonable surrogate for "fatness" for a large
percentage of the population (probably 90%+). It's also very simple and
fast to calculate (requiring only height and weight).

Compare the ease of calculating BMI vs. calculating Body Fat Percentage.
First, you have to decide on which method to use (body circumference,
calipers, bio-impedance, DEXA, dunk tank, etc.). Then, you have to make
those measurements, or arrange for a test (which can be time-consuming, and
expensive), and in the end analysis, the body fat percentages are all
estimates, subject to error.

Until an easy, repeatable, way of quickly and cheaply estimating Body Fat
Percentage comes along, I think we're stuck with BMI.


GG


--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

GaryG wrote:

Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of
muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound of
fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so
sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day, and
food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes
(you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?).

But when I read about those studies I often wonder if the benefit
is truly coming from calorie restriction, or from the body having
less bodyfat due to the calorie restriction.

Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study (
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1
million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and mortality.
I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for pro US
football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to
believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've not
seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone.

As someone who's done research (not medical research, media
research) I know that it matters a great deal who your population
is, what pool of people you've selected base your research on.
Assumptions made on the general population don't always apply to
individuals who different than the average. And that's what I'm
pointing out. There are people, who due to their genetics and
activities are not the average, and therefore the assumptions
based to the average probably do not apply.

As far as football players goes, not a lot of them are very lean.
Running backs maybe, but a tackle, no?

He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was
just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and
5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin --
it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this
guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very
trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all
that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he
too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the
"Normal" BMI range.

Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and harder to
achieve!

Fairly young, late twenties. He had never had a problem with
weight (was a wrestler in high school and remembers how surprised
he coaches were to his low BF% what little trouble he had
maintaining it) and didn't seem to worry all that much about
staying lean, but tried to "eat healthy" (though we didn't really
talk about what sort of diet he followed) and be active. He was
just someone who had been dealt a good genetic hand and had
always eaten well and exercised.

If you exercise, get lean, and are lucky enough to have some
extra LBM it just doesn't make sense to try to hit a BMI number
at the cost of losing muscle mass. And likewise it doesn't make
sense (to me) to not train in a way that would be beneficial to
in an effort to avoid falling out of the BMI "Normal" range.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Ignoramus9778 wrote:

That BMI is correlated with mortality is not helpful when addressing
very rare individuals who have overweight BMI but are lean. They are
very much out of the normal continuum of fitter vs. fatter people,
that the findings for the general population cannot be applied to them
directly.

Yet, my experience is that people with overweight BMI numbers but
have low BF% are not all that rare. I know many. Then, again I
know a lot of people who WT.


--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Tom G wrote:

Agreed as well. But if the body was at optimum weight, less emphasis
would be placed on having to do activities to burn extra calories. Glucose
and cholesterol problems are usually not troublesome to the naturally trim
people that may do far less exercise than others.

I was about to post this in my message...

I don't remember where or what the percentage was, but I remember
being shocked at the percentage of people who were Type II
diabetic and where not overweight.

.... but decided to look around to see if I could find some
numbers and accidentally came across this from the Mayo clinic
website: http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=WO00041

The BMI is a good but imperfect guide. Muscle weighs more than
fat, for instance, and women and men who are very muscular and
physically fit can have high BMIs without added health risks.
Because of that, waist circumference is also a useful tool to
assess abdominal fat. In general, men are considered overweight
if their waist measurement is greater than 40 inches. And women,
in general, are overweight if their waist measurement is greater
than 35 inches.

To bad they didn't offer any numbers or research to back that up.

Yes, it is a question of degree. 25 lbs of extra muscle for me is
probably more beneficial and less taxing than carrying the same amount of
fat weight. But I don't really know that I could say that I am healthier
than a person who only is 155 lbs just because I have more muscle.

I think that you are or would be.

Muscle burns more calories and helps in other body regulations for sure,
but more food is needed to maintain the muscle size and also the calories
required to do the work of building more muscles. I may have to indeed eat
twice as much food than a person that is 155, but probably eating the same
amount as a person that is steadily growing fatter by a few pounds a year.
I think the slender person at 155 would live longer than I would even
though I am more muscular. But I would probably live longer than a person my
size that is chubby and carrying the extra 25 lbs as fat.
The point you made about joint and tendon stability kind of goes along
with my theory that extra weight taxes other supporting structures because
of them being designed for a certain size limit. It is hard to know at what
point that the strength component starts to cancel out effeciency due to
increased size and stress on other areas. 20 or 30 extra pounds of muscle
may be ideal, or not, over what BMI considers ideal weight.

If I received a dollar for every time I have heard, "I don't want to
lift too much, because I don't want to be huge".

My canned response is: "You should be so luck."

I know what you are saying about the cancer causing things. That may
partially be due to over consuming any food. More food will naturally
increase bad inputs as well as tax the body to cause this. This is why I
wonder about how beneficial it is to exercise a lot so a person can eat more
food.
Also about the injury prevention topic. I seem to see 2 types of people
with accumulated injuries. Those that do nothing all their lives, and then
the few times that they need to do something that requires fitness hurt
themselves and take much longer to heal. And then there are the fitness
fanatics that seem to be always nursing an injury. It seems to me that those
slim guys that are active, but not overly so remain injury free well into
old age. What purpose is it to exercise excessively most of your life, to
end up hurting in old age due to accumulated injury? That is not much
different then the inactive fat person in the end.

I don't believe that exercise would end up causing more
accumulated injury problems than not exercising would. Are there
those who injure themselves exercising extensively? You bet. And
I've talked to several (especially runners) and almost every one
of them have told me in some way that they brought the injury
upon themselves due to foolishness or not educating themselves.
Running while injured, adding too many miles to fast, etc.
Likewise, I've injured myself by doing a WT move wrong -- but
that was before I spent the time to learn how WT correctly. And
that's why most my explanations in training people usually start
with "you can hurt your BLANK by doing this move wrong."

And that is why I question BMI. I work out to achieve best fitness in
the least amount of time and effort. I don't think I exercise too much, but
the index says I'm fat, and this has been brought up in my driver's licence
medical exam. I need to get a medical every 2 years to maintain my class 3
and 4 licence. When the Doctor told me that I am overweight according to
BMI, I was not very happy. I'm sure that if anyone reads my charts, there
are no side notes saying,"patient is overweight, but carries an above
average amount of muscle mass due to exercise and weight training". To the
insurance companies, I'm just fat, and at greater risk for diseases
associated with obesity.

And that's my REAL problem with the whole BMI issue. While I'm
not worried about health effects due to having too much muscle
(or the eating that would be required to maintain it); I am very
worried about the government or an insurance company punishing me
because I don't fit into a guideline that doesn't apply to
everyone.

I do think that if they could find an economical and accessible
way for everyone to use BF% I think that they would be using it
as a means to do research and to educate the public. Its because
the BMI only needs a scale and a height measurement (which most
households have and every doctors office has) and a calculator
that the BMI is being used. Or so I would like to believe.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net...
Tom G wrote:

Agreed as well. But if the body was at optimum weight, less emphasis
would be placed on having to do activities to burn extra calories.
Glucose
and cholesterol problems are usually not troublesome to the naturally
trim
people that may do far less exercise than others.

I was about to post this in my message...

I don't remember where or what the percentage was, but I remember
being shocked at the percentage of people who were Type II
diabetic and where not overweight.

... but decided to look around to see if I could find some
numbers and accidentally came across this from the Mayo clinic
website: http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=WO00041

The BMI is a good but imperfect guide. Muscle weighs more than
fat, for instance, and women and men who are very muscular and
physically fit can have high BMIs without added health risks.
Because of that, waist circumference is also a useful tool to
assess abdominal fat. In general, men are considered overweight
if their waist measurement is greater than 40 inches. And women,
in general, are overweight if their waist measurement is greater
than 35 inches.

To bad they didn't offer any numbers or research to back that up.

With respect to waist circumference, there is good evidence to back up the
contention that it is unhealthy to have a large waist.


Yes, it is a question of degree. 25 lbs of extra muscle for me is
probably more beneficial and less taxing than carrying the same amount
of
fat weight. But I don't really know that I could say that I am healthier
than a person who only is 155 lbs just because I have more muscle.

I think that you are or would be.

Muscle burns more calories and helps in other body regulations for
sure,
but more food is needed to maintain the muscle size and also the
calories
required to do the work of building more muscles. I may have to indeed
eat
twice as much food than a person that is 155, but probably eating the
same
amount as a person that is steadily growing fatter by a few pounds a
year.
I think the slender person at 155 would live longer than I would
even
though I am more muscular. But I would probably live longer than a
person my
size that is chubby and carrying the extra 25 lbs as fat.
The point you made about joint and tendon stability kind of goes
along
with my theory that extra weight taxes other supporting structures
because
of them being designed for a certain size limit. It is hard to know at
what
point that the strength component starts to cancel out effeciency due to
increased size and stress on other areas. 20 or 30 extra pounds of
muscle
may be ideal, or not, over what BMI considers ideal weight.

If I received a dollar for every time I have heard, "I don't want to
lift too much, because I don't want to be huge".

My canned response is: "You should be so luck."

I know what you are saying about the cancer causing things. That may
partially be due to over consuming any food. More food will naturally
increase bad inputs as well as tax the body to cause this. This is why I
wonder about how beneficial it is to exercise a lot so a person can eat
more
food.
Also about the injury prevention topic. I seem to see 2 types of
people
with accumulated injuries. Those that do nothing all their lives, and
then
the few times that they need to do something that requires fitness hurt
themselves and take much longer to heal. And then there are the fitness
fanatics that seem to be always nursing an injury. It seems to me that
those
slim guys that are active, but not overly so remain injury free well
into
old age. What purpose is it to exercise excessively most of your life,
to
end up hurting in old age due to accumulated injury? That is not much
different then the inactive fat person in the end.

I don't believe that exercise would end up causing more
accumulated injury problems than not exercising would. Are there
those who injure themselves exercising extensively? You bet. And
I've talked to several (especially runners) and almost every one
of them have told me in some way that they brought the injury
upon themselves due to foolishness or not educating themselves.
Running while injured, adding too many miles to fast, etc.
Likewise, I've injured myself by doing a WT move wrong -- but
that was before I spent the time to learn how WT correctly. And
that's why most my explanations in training people usually start
with "you can hurt your BLANK by doing this move wrong."

And that is why I question BMI. I work out to achieve best fitness
in
the least amount of time and effort. I don't think I exercise too much,
but
the index says I'm fat, and this has been brought up in my driver's
licence
medical exam. I need to get a medical every 2 years to maintain my class
3
and 4 licence. When the Doctor told me that I am overweight according to
BMI, I was not very happy. I'm sure that if anyone reads my charts,
there
are no side notes saying,"patient is overweight, but carries an above
average amount of muscle mass due to exercise and weight training". To
the
insurance companies, I'm just fat, and at greater risk for diseases
associated with obesity.

And that's my REAL problem with the whole BMI issue. While I'm
not worried about health effects due to having too much muscle
(or the eating that would be required to maintain it); I am very
worried about the government or an insurance company punishing me
because I don't fit into a guideline that doesn't apply to
everyone.

That is a real problem for many people. Unfortunately, life (insurance) is
not always fair, and some of us can find ourselves paying higher insurance
rates for many reasons (e.g., I pay a higher rate, even though I exercise
and have a "normal" BMI, because my father who smoked, died from a heart
attack at age 47).

I do think that if they could find an economical and accessible
way for everyone to use BF% I think that they would be using it
as a means to do research and to educate the public. Its because
the BMI only needs a scale and a height measurement (which most
households have and every doctors office has) and a calculator
that the BMI is being used. Or so I would like to believe.

Yes - BMI does have a significant advantage in that it is very easy to
calculate.

Perhaps if the insurance companies could be induced to use the "Navy" method
of estimating body fat, as a backup procedure for those with high BMI's, it
could help to weed out folks with high BMI/low BF from being seen as
"overweight". The US Dept. of Defense does this, as part of their personnel
assessment and evaluation programs. Folks who don't pass their BMI
standards are measured for body fat, using a few circumference measurements.
If their body fat is estimated low enough using this method, they
"pass"...otherwise, they are considered "overly fat".

FWIW, the "Navy" body fat calculation is built into my WeightWare program,
and you can find it online at http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm