BMI of 27

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the references Tony. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, of

course. Should have indiciated it . Losing weight does inevitably

entail losing fat and muscle. Since you can add muscle mass both

during after and weight loss, it's not something to obsess about. On

other hand, losing more muscle mass than needed to achieve a desired

something (BMI, waist-to-hip, % fat, appearance, etc.) can and

should be remediated -- at least to maitain desirable level of

muscle mass. Which muscles? How about the bike rider with pipe stem

arms. Is he healthy? Fit? certainly for one activity. But overall?

From a thermodymamic point of view, too little muscle is not good

since it predisposes you to yo-yoism. But too much muscle needs to

be fed, leading to higher than desirable caloric intake, and all the

consequences of that.

Incidentally, I've been to your site, seen your photos. You look

pretty darn fit. Surely not you're not embarrased to venture on any

beach except maybe Venice, California. How do you decide on the

proper level of " rippedness " with respect to CRONing?

Mike

>

> Mike,

>

> 1) You cannot lose only fat. Approximately 80% of the fat in the

body

> is subcutaneous fat. You always lose lean body mass and fat when

you

> lose weight. See Message 15864 from last year where this topic was

> discussed. At 15% Body Fat, over half of the weight that you lose

is

> lean body mass. When your percentage of fat is higher, you lose a

> greater proportion of fat.

>

> 2) BMI by itself is insensitive to the distribution of weight.

Ronnie

> (Mr. Olympia) has a BMI of 41, but a waist of about 30

inches.

> Abdominal fat has been associated with increased cardiovascular

> problems. Waist-to-Height ratios greater than 0.5 are indicative

of

> intra-abdominal fat for both men and women and are associated with

a

> greater risk of cardiovascular disease. Waist-to-Height ratios

greater

> than 0.55 also increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.[1]

> The waist-to-hip ratio is also used as a criterion, but

unfortunately,

> using this method, a big butt cancels a big gut.

>

> You can estimate your percentage of body fat using the Navy

> Circumference Method. All you need is a scale and a tape measure:

>

> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html

>

> Tony

>

> [1](See for example, S.D. Hsieh, H. Yoshinaga, T. Muto, Int. J.

Obes.

> Relat. Metab. Disord., 2003 May;27(5):610-6. Waist-to-height

ratio, a

> simple and practical index for assessing central fat distribution

and

> metabolic risk in Japanese men and women.)

>

> --- In , " mikesheldrick " <mike@>

wrote:

> >

> > I can empathise. I'm a BMI of 27. Despite my best efforts, I've

> > only managed to maintain this weight. I'm intent on losing 20

lbs

> > (of fat, of course) for lots of reasons including egotistical.

I'm

> > ecoubling my efforts to eat less, exercise more.

> >

> > But BMI seems very arbitrary, and as your husband notes, not

> > necessarily very accurate. It's highly precise, however, (I mean

the

> > technical definition of precise). This is probably why it's so

> > favored by the medical commuity.

> >

> > It's hard for me imagine that morbidity is vastly greater at a

BMI

> > of 27.5 vs 25, say. Not to mention longevity.

> >

> > Another point I've never understood, re your mention of

> > Schwarzenneger, is how unhealthy excess muscle tissue might be.

> > Maybe he is just as bad off as being obese (in common parlance).

> >

> > Anybody have the quintessential BMI summary at her/his

fingertips to

> > save me a search? Sorry to be so lazy.

> >

> > Mike

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Seemingly, here's a good page on a variety of body measures:

http://members.nuvox.net/~on.jwclymer/bmi.html

and this one is referenced on there:

http://www.halls.md/body-surface-area/refs.htm

Mike

[Guest guest]

The problem I have with losing weight is some will be muscle and NO ONE has proved to my satisfaction, some will not come from heart muscle, organs.

Regards.

[ ] Re: BMI of 27

Thanks for the references Tony. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, of course. Should have indiciated it . Losing weight does inevitably entail losing fat and muscle. Since you can add muscle mass both during after and weight loss, it's not something to obsess about. On other hand, losing more muscle mass than needed to achieve a desired something (BMI, waist-to-hip, % fat, appearance, etc.) can and should be remediated -- at least to maitain desirable level of muscle mass. Which muscles? How about the bike rider with pipe stem arms. Is he healthy? Fit? certainly for one activity. But overall?

..

[Guest guest]

I've lost thirty pounds in the last couple of years, and I've gotten

stronger (and faster) in all measurable areas. To me that bespeaks an

_increase_ in lean body mass, so I'd suggest it's more a question of what

in particular you're doing than in weight loss per se. This is also borne

out by the Tanita, etc., bf % calculations.

Maco

At 02:44 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote:

The problem I have with losing

weight is some will be muscle and NO ONE has proved to my satisfaction,

some will not come from heart muscle, organs.

Regards.

[ ] Re: BMI of 27

Thanks for the references Tony. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, of

course. Should have indiciated it . Losing weight does inevitably

entail losing fat and muscle. Since you can add muscle mass both

during after and weight loss, it's not something to obsess about. On

other hand, losing more muscle mass than needed to achieve a desired

something (BMI, waist-to-hip, % fat, appearance, etc.) can and

should be remediated -- at least to maitain desirable level of

muscle mass. Which muscles? How about the bike rider with pipe stem

arms. Is he healthy? Fit? certainly for one activity. But

overall?

..