Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:11 pm    Post subject: Body Mass Index

We were amidst heated debate on the subject of body mass index when the forum was interrupted. In summary, the following was the views presented:

1- Some believed that BMI is irrelevant as long as the person exercises and stays active.

2- Some thought that being big and strong is the ultimate goal of power training.

3- One person claims that overweight is not necessarily due to overeating and immobility.

4- One person did not see any problem with overweight and claimed that today's training is much safer and healthier than it used to be.

My view was that overweight is a silent killer whether one exercises or not.

I wish to present my data as we discuss the subject.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie
_________________
Author of "Essentials of Weightlifting and Strength Training".

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:31 pm    Post subject:

The question is...how much weight is overweight?

As far as I'm aware, these BMI thing don't take into consideration lots of factors and are applied to general population, not athletes.
_________________
The only permanent is change.

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:55 pm    Post subject:

I agree with Henry.

It just doesnt cater for muscle ie. My dad and i are same height (maybe im an inch taller), same weight. He's an old man with a gut and plenty of bf%, i have a 32 inch waist and am lean with little bf.

haha i just used a BMI calculator and i got 24.8 which is just shy of being overweight

Thus i believe its irrelevant

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:05 pm    Post subject:

weird conversation for a bunch of lifters to be having, but here's an interesting note: Lab mice when fed one day and forced to fast the next lived nearly twice as long as those allowed to eat as much as they want. they were also (for obvious reasons) considerably smaller. There is now a small group of people who is trying a reduced calorie diet (less than 1500 Calories a day) with the beleif that the benefits to longevity exist in humans as well. These people are wraith-like, they look like some of the skinniest, fragile people on the planet, but appearently they maintain pretty good health.

What does this teach us? NOTHING really. Perhaps their good health is due to their concentration on what they eat as opposed to stuffing their face with garbage every chance they pass a McDonalds. But then again, the reduced amount of body mass, and lowered caloric intake would stress the body a lot less than somebody taking in double that amount.

Another observation: who gives a shit? Aren't most strength athletes (PLers, oly lifters, strongmen, etc.) who have to cut for weight classes walking around with a BMI of 30 or more? Yet they're mostly muscle. it's about greatness gentlemen. If your definition of greatness is being the strongest mother fucker on the planet that's your size, you better quit reading and get to your fridge. If you want to live forever, consider meditation, fasting, and a glass of wine with a sensible dinner.

Myself, I don't care about becoming old so long as I live well. I mean sweet fucking christ, 1500 calories? That's like three double cheesburgers from McD's! that's less than a meal for me! what about my chocolate shake?! What about my fries?! Fuck that shit, I'll stick with beer, rich food, eating what I want, and a shorter life any day. It's not how long your life is, its what you do with it.

And another fucking thing, What is with the constantly increasing standards of health? used to be your cholesterol had to be under 220, then that was too high, now it's 200. WHO'S DYING FROM THIS SHIT?! NOBODY! That's who! But you bet your sweet ass the pharmacudical companies are out there raking in cash every time one of these standards is changed. Blood pressure, BMI, cholesterol, and a thousand other shitty little hoops the medical industry wants you to jump through. Wanna lower your cholesterol (which may in fact have NO significant effect on the rate of heart disease)? Try eating sensibly (cutting out foods with cholesterol) and upping your fruit, vegetable and fish intake. Yeah fish. You can take the mercury I promise. It won't fucking kill you...

Fucking bmi, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?! ARE WE SO AFRAID OF EVERYTHING THAT EVEN FOOD IS A SOURCE OF PHOBIAS NOW?! People are not as dumb as they think they are, but they sure act like it....
_________________
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -HL Mencken

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:09 pm    Post subject:

Who the f$ck would want to live a long life as a skinny arse pathetic weakling?

That about sums it up

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:35 am    Post subject:

Jerry makes the most relevant point here
_________________
"If you even dream of beating me you'd better wake up and apologize." - The One, The Only Muhammad Ali

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:19 am    Post subject:

The recent classification of obesity as a disease is unnerving.

Obesity stems from two survival traits that have evolved into humans over most of prehistory.

1. Less energy expenditure = greater survival
2. Storage of energy for lean times

Or, in layman's terms, laziness, and the inclination to stuff your face.

The environment in the US is one of overabundance. Overabundance of nutrient sparse, calorie dense food. Overabundance of labor saving transportation and devices.

The insane availablity of low nutrient "comfort" foods is what's causing the obesity problem, and the lack of education about health and self-discipline regarding exercise and nutrition.

I am still reviewing Dr. El-Hewie's book, and was going to comment on his dietary recommendations, but probably won't, since they would improve upon the diets of 99+% of the US population. I am just not a fan of grains.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:26 am    Post subject:

Being lean or skinny isn't the same as being a weakling.

Look at lightweight OLs or wrestlers. Would you call them weak? I didn't think so. As a 142 lb wrestler, at the age of 14, I could climb a thick rope very quickly without using my legs. I lost this ability after I stopped climbing ropes when I changed schools the next year. I could also do well over 100 push ups, and had good flexibility and was very well conditioned. I couldn't bench 200lbs, and I couldn't squat 300lbs, but I was strong relative to the guys I wrestled, and that's what mattered.


For some, the quest of having a better, leaner body coincides with their pursuit of absolute, relative strength. For others, the allure of being big, huge, HYOOGE MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!, is the siren song that walks them towards their goals.

However, there are very real health problems that can arise from being big, despite conditioning levels. These problems are compounded by the tendency to eliminate cardiovascular exercise and eat like shit.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:27 am    Post subject:

Mohamed, read this article and tel me what you think:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000E5065-2345-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:56 am    Post subject:

Ironic, because you lift weights, you think you are above facing the human condition.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:34 am    Post subject:

Mohamed, I think extra weight (even lean weight) can kill you but BMI is a lousy indicator. Remember that BMI was invented as a crude tool by the insurance industry. It is an okay measure for populations (which is what an insurance company needs) but too crude to be of any use on an individual.

My thinking is that if you are going to gain weight you have to increase your aerobic power to go along with it. A test of VO2max (relative to bodyweight) would be a better indicator, but it's a lot more work to measure this than BMI on an insurance application.

I know, I know, that is not going to be a very popular theory on a board called POWER AND BULK. The good news is, if you're wheezing and huffing and puffing after hauling a bag of groceries and your 275 pound ass up a flight of steps, you probably won't have to suffer much longer than fifty years.
_________________
"Now that I broke the rushing record, no matter what else happens, they'll always remember me as the guy that broke the 2000 yard record." Orenthal James Simpson

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:20 am    Post subject:

"wheezing and huffing and puffing after hauling a bag of groceries and your 275 pound ass up a flight of steps". i know more than a couple of guys like this, with bodyfat in the 6 percent range. they dont need the stairs to make them wheeze either.
there is no doubt that obesity is a problem. i know quite a few seriously fat guys, and MOST of them are fighting some sort of diabetes. they tend to be older(like me), and didnt have this problem until they were hitting their mid to late thirties. all of them had poor dietary habits, especially a tendency to drink only soda pop.
ive kept track of my heart rate and BP for years, as well as my weight.
an increase in bodyweight pretty much goes hand in hand with an increase in HR and BP. ive got to a point where i realize ive got to bring it back down while i can do it easily. sensible weight loss is not hard, and you get to keep most of your strength.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:47 am    Post subject:

BMI is a tool. And, no tool in inherently bad.

How a tool is used determines its validity.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:51 am    Post subject:

BMI is a flawed tool. While not as bad as the linear height/weight charts, it still only uses a square in it’s calculations. Weight is a function of volume, which is a cubic.

Let me elaborate. To achieve a BMI of 24 for various heights, the BMI calculation give us the folllowing values;

Height 5’-0” (60”) Weight 123# BMI 24
Height 5’-5” (66”) Weight 148# BMI 24
Height 6’-0” (72”) Weight 177# BMI 24

Now let’s use the 5 footer as our basis. If the 5 and a half footer has the same build and composition then we can calculate his weight. He’s 66” tall versus 60” – 10% taller or 1.1 times as tall. Given the same build (i.e. proportions) he’s also 10% wider and 10% thicker. This means the taller man occupies 1.331 (1.1 cubed) as much volume as the smaller man. Given the same composition, he’d weigh 1.331 times as much – 164#.

The same calculations for the 6 footer yields a weight of 213#. Plugging these values into the BMI formula gives us the following.

Height 5’-0” (60”) Weight 123# BMI 24
Height 5’-5” (66”) Weight 164# BMI 26.4
Height 6’-0” (72”) Weight 213# BMI 28.8

Since all these men have the same physique and composition, shouldn’t the BMI be the same. Instead the taller men are now labeled obese (BMI>25), moreso the taller they are.

Usually I wouldn’t care about such metrics, but the BS BMI is far too prevalent in the health and insurance fields. At 6’-5” and about 310#, my BMI of 37 (morbidly obese) sets off all the warning bells. “My god, he’ll probably drop dead within minutes. Better raise his rates.”

Despite my imminent BMI-indicated demise, my numbers don’t support it. BP is 110/70. Cholesterol is 100 (total). All the other numbers in my blood work (e.g. LDL/HDL, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc.) are solidly in the normal and healthy ranges. Yet only the BMI gets considered. Gee, wonder why?

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:17 am    Post subject:

you know your cholesterol is dangerously low right? Below 180 there is a notable INCREASE in the rate of heart disease... sorry that was a little off topic I know.
_________________
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -HL Mencken

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:05 am    Post subject:

Wes... it is not a flawed tool.

its use is flawed.

If you use BMI as a marker for people who are heavy vrs their height, then it is a good tool. Granted, this doesnt take into account body comp... but as a "quick n dirty" it will give you a shorter list to check for fatties.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:14 am    Post subject:

This is exactly what happens...I'm 6' and BMI 30...lots of my "ignorant" friends starts bitching about my weight, that I should weight less that 200, the heart, cardio, etc, etc. My BP, cholesterol, etc is all normal...BF% around 12.
_________________
The only permanent is change.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:15 am    Post subject:

poorly designed tools are inherently bad
_________________
Every time I lose, I'm one step closer to the big win.<HR> --Garm

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:17 am    Post subject:

How so Jake.... enlighten me!

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:32 am    Post subject:

The stupidity of the general public will lead to it's misuse.
_________________
"Damn, I go get a sandwich and all hell breaks loose and I miss it."
=John Henry Brown=

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:33 am    Post subject:

Sorry, the ignorance, in regards to it's proper use, will lead to it's misuse.
_________________
"Damn, I go get a sandwich and all hell breaks loose and I miss it."
=John Henry Brown=

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject:

Height 5’-5” (66”)

Shouldn't this be 5'6"?
_________________
"Damn, I go get a sandwich and all hell breaks loose and I miss it."
=John Henry Brown=

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:35 am    Post subject:

it's obvious
_________________
Every time I lose, I'm one step closer to the big win.<HR> --Garm

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:40 am    Post subject:

No, its not obvious... You need to qualify your shit.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:46 am    Post subject:

For example....

If you were searching a large population for morbidly obese people, what tool would you choose?

hydrostatic Bodyfat measurements? -->too expensive

skin fold bodyfat measurements? -->again too expensive

multi point body measurements i.e. height, weight, waist, neck, chest, hips, etc. etc. -->alot of effort to measure everyone

BMI --> holy shit... height and weight... just two measurements.. which are easy to get. Cheap inexpensive. However, you are going to get some false positives, but these are easily caught.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:49 am    Post subject:

I don't need a chart to tell me I'm fat.
_________________
"A coward turns away, but a brave man's choice is danger."
- Euripides

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:58 am    Post subject:

Oh for christs sake

"poorly designed" implies that there a flaws in the tool which lessen its effectiveness or usefulness. Such flaws would be considered "bad". If such flaws are present by default due to poor design, the tool would be "inherently bad".
_________________
Every time I lose, I'm one step closer to the big win.<HR> --Garm

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:00 pm    Post subject:

That's a tagline waiting to happen.
_________________
"Damn, I go get a sandwich and all hell breaks loose and I miss it."
=John Henry Brown=

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:09 pm    Post subject:

Waist size has a good correlation, not very expensive, and if you measure it you can combine it with height & weight to estimate bodyfat (U.S. Naval Method). A lot better than just height and weight, not too expensive, simple math, even people from L.A. can handle it.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:15 pm    Post subject:

Poorly designed doesnt imply flaws.

poorly designed does imply less effective and less usefull.

Flaws arent always considered "bad"

A poorly designed and flawed tool, is not "inherently bad"

...For example: a cheap shitty poorly designed and flawed screw driver that is kept in a car trunk, is better than no screw driver during a breakdown.... or better than a 1,000 dollar perfect screwdriver miles away in your garage at home while you are broke down on the road.

Your argument sucks!





How many times has your doctor hydrostatically weighed everyone that came in the door? How about skin fold calipers? How about waist, neck, etc etc. ?

But I bet most peeps that see the doc are getting weighed and their height is measured.

Flawed tool.... I dont think so.

Misunderstood tool... Yeah.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:42 pm    Post subject:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12831273&dopt=Abstract

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:54 pm    Post subject:

Misused would be a better word. BMI should never be used for measuring an individual. It's OK for measuring a large population.

Stats -

1985 - The average BMI of the American population was 28

1995 - The average BMI of the American population was 29.5

That data has some usefullness. An indivduals BMI is meaningless by itself.

--rickey

(Source of data: pulled straight outta my ass)

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:56 pm    Post subject:

of course, BMI is a weak estimate of body fat % in bodybuilders!

BMI is a correlation between height and weight.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:00 pm    Post subject:

Embrio, you should maybe do a search into it and realize that people are using BMI as more than just a height/weight correlation. They are using the BMI as a correlation to obesity/bodyfat percentage and as an indicator of health issues.

If it was just a height/weight correlation, we would still be using charts.

Edit:
"Body mass index (BMI) is measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to both adult men and women"

http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:06 pm    Post subject:

How other people use it, has been my whole argument.

What something is.. isnt as important as how something is used.

A good analogy:
Handguns.
Handguns arent inherently bad. But, the use of handguns can produce some ill results.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:10 pm    Post subject:

BMI is:

(weight/height x height) x 703 =BMI

That is the formula....

Whoever says it has anything to do with bodyfat is a complete dipshit.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:16 pm    Post subject:

Your argument is a pile of shit when the industry that created the BMI uses it differently than you use it.

And you messed up your parenthesis, it's (weight/(height x height)) x 703, but you should include the units for the weight and height, which are lbs. and inches respectively. When using meters and kilograms, multiplying by 703 is not necessary.

From the CDC website: " What are some of the other ways to measure obesity? Why doesn't CDC use those to determine overweight and obesity among the general public?

Other methods include calipers (skin-fold measurement), underwater weighing, bioelectrical impedance, and computerized topography. However, these methods are very expensive, need highly trained personnel, and are not readily available to the public or general clinical settings."

So, they correlate the BMI calculation to methods used to calculate bodyfat. It's nice to see you think the people at the Center for Disease Control are dipshits.

Maybe once in a while you should just shut the fuck up and accept that you're wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:23 pm    Post subject:

The BMI was built using random samples of the general population. So, you're probably not going to have a powerlifter in the sampling but you will have some skinny fucks as well as some obese bastards. All in all though, you're going to have an average small dicked, pot bellied, chicken legged mother fucker.

If you are carrying more muscle mass than the average member of the general population, then the BMI isn't going to fit you.

Its pure statistics. I can imagine that if they can predict the Presidential election from a sample size as small as 700, I bet the BMI was built on a smaller sample size. How many powerlifters, bodybuilders or guys carring more muscle mass than usual were in the sample? Probably none. Even as a skinny teen with naturally big shoulders and legs, I always used to push the envelope on the BMI. The Air Force used to use it as a one size fits all way to see if you were "fat" or not. I used to have to actually cut weight to make it. I hate the fucking thing.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:08 pm    Post subject:

Riddle... I dont know what the CDC uses it for.

But, if they are using it to identify people who are in a risk catagory... then I dont see how that is being used wrongly. It is just statistics.

Like those people who are in a higher risk catagory because of family history, pre-existing conditions, or work related hazards.



So, if you doctor prescribes heart surgery because of your BMI, then he is an Idiot.

If your doctor uses the BMI of a power lifter or bodybuilder to diagnose him, then he is an Idiot.


But if a doctor uses BMI to go through his patients records and identify people who are in a high risk catagory for health problems, and uses this information wisely... and if he takes note of the people that score high on the BMI, but are clearly athletic, .....then he is not an idiot.

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:18 pm    Post subject:

Fuck BMI. Next thing you know they'll come up with some kind of arbitrary number that means you're too drunk to drive.

South Beach, bitches. That is all you need to know about diet. Read the cardiologist's book, not El-Pewie's.

208 and falling,

Doughboy

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:56 pm    Post subject:

It is an effort to address the issue of disproportionate growth of bodyweight with respect to heart size.

Also, joints wear and tear disproportionately increase with increasing bodyweight.
_________________
Author of "Essentials of Weightlifting and Strength Training".

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:40 pm    Post subject:

But I mean really, this board isn't "Health and Fitness" it is "Power and Bulk". Most of us here want to be big and strong.

Everybody has their vices. Carrying more muscular bodyweight than the average guy isn't as bad as many of them, and it seems that neither is carrying a llittle extra fat as long as you are in shape.
_________________
"Due to poor and improper nutrition, C-pig became so obese that he could not even walk, see, or even stand without help."

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:55 pm    Post subject:

Shaf: the emphasis on reducing cholesterol in the prevention of coronary heart disease is made forcefully in the recommendation of the American Heart Association Step 1 diet and Step 2 diet. These limit daily cholesterol intake to 300 mg and 200 mg, and saturated fat to 10% of daily calories and 7%, respectively.

Simply, if one eats plenty of grains, yet diminishes daily intake of animal products, one could easily avoid taking cholesterol reducing drugs (statins, etc).

The common belief that shedding one pound of body fat requires burning 3500 Calories, either by exercise or dieting, or both, also emphasizes the fact that weight loss should be best directed to body fat.
_________________
Author of "Essentials of Weightlifting and Strength Training".

Last edited by Mohamed El-Hewie on Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:32 am    Post subject:

Is this a common belief or a scientific fact? I thought it was a fact.

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:48 am    Post subject:

A pound of fat contains 3500 calories. If through exercise and or diet you create a 3500 calorie deficit, you've lost a pound of fat. Specious logic, at best.

You've lost weight to be sure, but probably not all fat.

What would be a nice companion to the BMI is a fitness matrix. Certain basic exercises, that if done to a certain standard would negate the high BMI, as far as insurance.

Probably the higher the BMI, the fewer pull-ups that individual can do.

No getting around it, a high BMI means you're a big fucker.

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:25 pm    Post subject:

Well, the net loss would be fat since carbohydrates (glycogen and glucose) replenish easily. Protein loss, however, depends on resistance exercise or lack of it. And, fluid losses also replenish easily. Fat is the constant fuel storage in body and its level depends on energy balance.

The fitness matrix is a reasonable idea. Pull ups are great indicator of general fitness and test one's ability to defy gravity with the weakest parts of the body.

BMI is the best index of the body ability to regulate heat. The higher the BMI, the lesser the ability to depose heat, the greater the chance of organ stress. Elephants, buffalos, and other large animals, rely on aquatic media to depose body heat. Birds with lower BMI rely on air for body cooling. For humans, there is few business opportunities to have in aquatic media. Unless one plans to spend longer hours in water, it is wise to optimize bodyweight in order to lead healthy living.

Overheating is a limiting factor for people with high BMI with respect to physical activity. The greater damage occurs at the knee and hip cartilages which end up in early retirement from sport and early joint replacement surgeries. Many heavy people also struggle with personal hygiene. Taking a daily shower is a taxing task for overweight people. Let alone the need for special accommodation such as spacious car, spacious bed, and large size clothes.
_________________
Author of "Essentials of Weightlifting and Strength Training".

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:34 pm    Post subject:

Arguably true, but again you're lumping large athletes into the same group as the sedentary morbidly obese. A 300lb powerlifter is not going to have difficulty taking a shower, nor need a rag on a stick to wash his ass.

Overheating is definetely a challenge for big athletes, such as football players, but like anything, proper preparation such as a shady rest spot and an adequate supply of fluids will reduce the risk of hyperthermia.

Granted, we all know SHW lifters who let themselves go, especially after they pass their competitive zenith. But "being fit" should do much to head off the problems that you bring up.
_________________
Let me hear you say this shit is bananas.
B-A-N-A-N-A-S
This shit is bananas
B-A-N-A-N-A-S

Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:02 pm    Post subject:

[quote="WildGorillaMan"]

300 lb power lifter is morbidly overweight. You wouldn't live long with such massive body. Heavyweight class starts from 220 lb, so you reaching the extreme of weight.

Adequate fluid supply temporarily alleviate hyperthermia. But, your heart has to work harder to circulate the excessive circulation flow. The harder the heart works, the shorter it survives.

Fitness and overweight are mutually exclusive. You kidding yourself.
_________________
Author of "Essentials of Weightlifting and Strength Training".

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:08 am    Post subject:

skeletal muscle contractions help circulate your blood

fat doesn't

there's a HYOOOOOOOOOOGE difference between having excess muscle tissue vs. excess fat

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:25 am    Post subject:

i think there is something more to this bmi stuff, particularly for overfat lifters who do zero cardio ever.

when you see some top level NFL guys or whoever in their workout gear, and you see the height and weight breakdown and notice they are 4 inches taller and a bit lighter lighter than you, and look like a comic book hero while you look like comic book guy, you might want to give this whole bmi thing a look.

i think shaf touched on the mistake of confusing size with strength. a whole lot of us are affraid of losing size and strength, so we just don't bother getting fit, even tho we could be lighter, fitter and stronger if we put in some work.

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:00 am    Post subject:

GET IN MY BELLY!

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:37 am    Post subject:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but avoiding cholesterol consumption (limiting animal fats etc) doesn't lead to actually having good blood levels of Cholesterol itself.

BF% I think is a much better indicator of overall health than plain BMI, expecially for people under 100kg.
Not that you have to be at 6%, under let's say 20% I think is good

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:44 am    Post subject:

Fuck it, scrap weight classes, let's use the BMI.

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:30 am    Post subject:

Mohamed, the part about heat dissapation is interesting, but has BMI ever been directly compared to percent bodyfat or skinfold for heat regulation? I'm just thinking that since fat is an insulator, that's the main problem. I'd think there would be a big difference between a big fat round person with terrible peripheral circulation and a big muscular person.

Couldn't disagree more strongly with your endorsement of the AHA's dietary ideas, but that's another matter.
_________________
"Now that I broke the rushing record, no matter what else happens, they'll always remember me as the guy that broke the 2000 yard record." Orenthal James Simpson

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:54 am    Post subject:

Unfortunately...even with my pre-SHW 225lbs(I've ben a 232 lbs SHW for 2 weeks in my lifetime)...I've started to feel some minor knee problems. As for overheating...I've always had overheating.
_________________
The only permanent is change.

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:05 am    Post subject:

You generate heat based on your volume of tissue, you disipate heat based on the area of your skin.

Using the picture of Lee Moran on this board as an example. Lee is close to an all-time high in bodyweight, but, the area of his skin is not much greater then when he was a 198 pound lifter.

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:05 am    Post subject:

Define "long"? My 5'11" 300# grandfather lived to be 90, and was in apparent good health right up until he suffered a fatal stroke.

Larger animals tend to live longer, but larger individuals within the same species tend to have shorter life expectencies. This makes me wonder if the risks associated with increased size are going to be greater the farther you are from your natural weight. A 200#'er from a family of 98# weaklings might be at much greater risk than I would be at 275#.

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:19 pm    Post subject:

1) cholesterol lower than 180 - increased risk? Dietary Cholesterol?

Where did that come from? I remember seeing an inverted bell curve that indicated that rate of death from all causes increases no matter where you deviate from some point, maybe 160 or so?

My first cholesterol test was 98 for a total - I had it redone 3 times because my doctor didn't believe it. I was not working out, obese - a friggin fat slob. My HDL was 35 - which taken alone, is too low, but compared to my total - not bad.

As I got into better shape, my total increased to what it hangs now - 140. HDL around 45-50.

I also am under the impression that dietary cholesterol plays little in the effect on your total cholesterol. Heridity plays a bigger part. I was under the impression that if you restrick dietary cholesterol that your body will make more. Is this bogus?

2) BMI? Caloric restriction and long life.

If I could lose fat with no lose of lean muscle, I would still have a BMI too high. I think there is a philosophy that you can increase your life span if you survive on a caloric reduction program. Then we will all be a bunch of alien looking charactors - the walking dead. YOu would not have enough energy to screw your wife or girlfirend (or both), but you will out live them all....

Lifes to short to be small.

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:46 am    Post subject:

I'm of the opinion that cholesterol is almost entirely genetic. I had a test that came back with 240, so I cut out almost all saturated fats, started eating oats and flax every day, and started walking a few times per week. In a year my triglycerides went way down, but my total cholesterol went up and my HDL came down.
_________________
When the going gets rough, the rough use lube

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:20 pm    Post subject: On "Obesity: An Overblown Epidemic? By W. Wayt Gibbs&am

When scientists need money, they must make an issue, start a debate, submit grant proposals, and then publish statistical data.

The devil is in the statistical details.

1- This article does not claim that obesity is good for you; it only emphasizes the complex nature of disease causes. The decline in high blood pressure among obese people in the last four decades is "relative". The word "relative" is a trap since obese people still have higher prevalence of high blood pressure compared to non-obese.

2- The high prevalence of type 2 diabetes among obese people is indisputably increasing and afflicting children more than before.

3- The article clearly states that mortality and morbidity due to obesity is not the only concern but also the poor quality of life even if obese people could live long and disease-free.

4- The article also emphasizes that BMI over 40 is only common in 1 of 12 Americans and is a major concern as a cause of many diseases. In the same manner, people with underweight issues (BMI under 24) are also suffering from many diseases in comparison to people with healthy BMI.

5- The article makes an error on page 1, by claiming that BMI is a weight-to-height ratio. The fact is that BMI is a ratio of weight-to-surface area. The square of the height is an important parameter that represents the surface area of the body. This accounts for heat dissipation efficiency of the body.

Without politics and commercial bias, obesity and overweight have these dark sides:

1- it is not sexy to be overweight. High testosterone causes high level of mobility and aggression that build muscles and reduces fat. Overweight people suffer from the side effects of low libido and dulling of the mind. They fall asleep anywhere, anytime. Their sleep pattern is noisy and stressful.

2- it is not hygienic to massive. It increases the risk of infection of the person and his or her closest contacts.

3- it is not cool. Many people abandon their obese friends. They are a drag. You cannot do a lot of enjoyable things with someone who does not move.

4- Cartilages do not grow after the age of 25. If you use them fast you confront surgical problems. These are not fun, easy, cheap, or pain free.

5- the heart does not grow in proportion to bodyweight. Muscle mass do help pump blood only when they are activated. The heart works involuntarily, whether you like it or not. Skeletal muscles need your volition to pump blood.

6- too much inertia is a danger. There is high risk of accidents. Escaping alive from an accident scene is more porobable with light bodyweight than with massive body.


Reference:
Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults
NEJM, Volume 341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15
Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli, M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

_________________
Author of "Essentials of Weightlifting and Strength Training".

Last edited by Mohamed El-Hewie on Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject:

Where do Sumo wrestlers fit in to the equation?

What are the longevity statistics of this group of dedicated big fuckers?

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:23 pm    Post subject:

I never thought about fat as an insulator in living people. Fat cells do generate heat since they breathe like all cells.

Our body does syntheses cholesterol from carbohydrates and protein. Cholesterol is essential for our survival. Yet limiting intake of cholesterol only lengthens the time of build-up and allows the body a chance to prevent hardening of the blood vessels. It is a game of time-gain.

That is perfectly true. You could have the healthiest BMI and still develop heart attack due to clogged coronary arteries.

Thanks for making my point.

Living long is not the ultimate goal of health planning. Quality of living is another well-sought goal. You are perfectly correct in defending individual variations. Different people have different means of making life better and livable. Others are miserable.