Ideal Weight? Does anyone have a goal or target weight??

[kekalot]

14 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Very interesting post, though I did think that you should be a certain weight according to your height. I have little fat and little muscle, I was never strong when I was a teenager, just about everyone would beat me at arm wrestling, but when it came to running, I was faster than most other guys in my age group.

 

But take a guy at 185 Cms, he should weigh around 78-80Ks. If a guy is big muscled, no fat, 185 cms tall and weighs about 95 Ks, he is still well overweight no matter how you dress it up, and he is only that weight because of pumping iron, and probably on steroids, as muscle weighs more than fat.

 

Robblok beat me to the reply but yeah.

 

bodybuilder will almost always be heavier yes but no one would call them "overweight" even if they are generally over the average.

I used to run quite a bit, wish I still did (damn dogs)

 

for reference here's a picture of me on the left at about 68kg, 191cm. with my dad and brother about ±15kg more (so 191cm and 83-85kg)

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by kekalot

[morrobay]

Your High School weight

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Your a funny guy with a skinny guy complex... overweight is used for fat not muscle. 

 

But now that you explained how everyone could beat you up it all made sense to me. 

I'm sorry Robbok, but much as I agree with nearly all your posts, IMO, guys who pump iron, and a lot of them are on steroids, so much that their bodies are full of veins, look like freaks, and it is not natural. I still say that guys who are so full of muscle that they are a lot of Ks above the normal weight for their height are over weight, the scales in the gym don't lie.

[transam]

12 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

I'm sorry Robbok, but much as I agree with nearly all your posts, IMO, guys who pump iron, and a lot of them are on steroids, so much that their bodies are full of veins, look like freaks, and it is not natural. I still say that guys who are so full of muscle that they are a lot of Ks above the normal weight for their height are over weight, the scales in the gym don't lie.

Mine ain't and l don't...

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

I'm sorry Robbok, but much as I agree with nearly all your posts, IMO, guys who pump iron, and a lot of them are on steroids, so much that their bodies are full of veins, look like freaks, and it is not natural. I still say that guys who are so full of muscle that they are a lot of Ks above the normal weight for their height are over weight, the scales in the gym don't lie.

Look... its ok for you to live in your own world and make up your own fantasy. I wont shatter your illusions. Your totally wrong about what constitutes overweight. You have no medical background. The overweight term is based on fat.. and its the health problems stemming from that. 

 

As for steroids, I would not know if it were a lot or not. I am sure that many of the biggest guys are on steroids, but in a given gym they are a minority. I understand you got a bit of a trauma from your youth being the smallest and now you feel you have to defend the only thing you got going for yourself your weight. 

 

So be it.. i prefer to debate based on facts not made up stories. Overweight is designed to look for people who are to fat and have health risks from carrying extra weight. This does not apply to athletes (bodybuilders included) who are heavier because muscle is heavier than fat. 

[NoshowJones]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

Look... its ok for you to live in your own world and make up your own fantasy. I wont shatter your illusions. Your totally wrong about what constitutes overweight. You have no medical background. The overweight term is based on fat.. and its the health problems stemming from that. 

 

As for steroids, I would not know if it were a lot or not. I am sure that many of the biggest guys are on steroids, but in a given gym they are a minority. I understand you got a bit of a trauma from your youth being the smallest and now you feel you have to defend the only thing you got going for yourself your weight. 

 

So be it.. i prefer to debate based on facts not made up stories. Overweight is designed to look for people who are to fat and have health risks from carrying extra weight. This does not apply to athletes (bodybuilders included) who are heavier because muscle is heavier than fat. 

I'm not saying that being overmuscled is a health risk, what I am saying is that some of these photos I have seen are unsightly, just like these fat bellied  tattooed guys. You

must know the sort I am talking about. But we will just have to agree to disagree that overmuscled guys are overweight.

[robblok]

Just now, possum1931 said:

I'm not saying that being overmuscled is a health risk, what I am saying is that some of these photos I have seen are unsightly, just like these fat bellied  tattooed guys. You

must know the sort I am talking about. But we will just have to agree to disagree that overmuscled guys are overweight.

I find real skinny guys unsightly.. just like fat bellies and tattooed guys.. and the current top bodybuilders are not something I think looks good. But muscled is ok with me. But can't debate taste as everyone likes different stuff.

 

As for the overweight.. lets agree to disagree because its an endless debate and you don't seem to understand that overweight is a medical term and based on fat.

[NoshowJones]

39 minutes ago, robblok said:

I find real skinny guys unsightly.. just like fat bellies and tattooed guys.. and the current top bodybuilders are not something I think looks good. But muscled is ok with me. But can't debate taste as everyone likes different stuff.

 

As for the overweight.. lets agree to disagree because its an endless debate and you don't seem to understand that overweight is a medical term and based on fat.

OK mate. Muscled is OK with me too up to a point. I cannot comment on medical terms, I think Sheryls the one for that.

I'm happy the way I am 6ft and 77Ks, not skinny but slim.

[colinneil]

13 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

OK mate. Muscled is OK with me too up to a point. I cannot comment on medical terms, I think Sheryls the one for that.

I'm happy the way I am 6ft and 77Ks, not skinny but slim.

 

 

 

Sorry possum, just couldnt resist.

Edited July 2, 2017 by colinneil

[robblok]

42 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

OK mate. Muscled is OK with me too up to a point. I cannot comment on medical terms, I think Sheryls the one for that.

I'm happy the way I am 6ft and 77Ks, not skinny but slim.

As long as your happy with how you are then that is ok, there was a time I was not happy with my looks and it caused me to lose 25kg of weight. I kept the fat off.. though my weight went up because of muscle. 

[dontoearth]

A better way to look at this is in a table or chart format.  You will notice that the BMI (Body Mass Index) gives you a range of weights that are considered healthy.   The BMI for my height 5

10" runs from 136-173 lbs.   That is quite a range of weight.   It still won't include body builders or super athletes or very short or very tall people.  A friend commented that an update for older people would be helpful too.   It probably covers about  80-85% of the population very well.  It is hard to remember what a world of normal weight people looked like.  Try some google image searches of old crowd photos in the 1940-60's.  You will see a lot of ANOREXIC people.  LOL  Or you will realize we have bent the norm way out of shape making overweight seem normal.   And blood pressure pills seems normal!  And cholesterol pills seems normal!  And Type II Diabetes seems normal!  Do you get my drift?   The extra 20-40 lbs people are carrying around is unhealthy!   Either it causes disease which science is presently debating or is a sign of disease.  Cause or correlation?  My brother told me how you need to be overweight to fight off a major diseases according to his doctor's advice.  My thought was that you would be a lot less likely to have a major disease like cancer or heart failure to fight off if you weren't overweight in the first place!   I am down from a BMI of 30 to a BMI of 26 but need to move down to a 24 BMI.  It ain't easy.  I do believe it is very necessary.

Here is a chart giving ranges for a healthy weight based on height.  

http://www.free-power-point-templates.com/articles/free-printable-body-mass-index-bmi-chart/

 

[dontoearth]

The fat VS. normal weight for body builders or athletes can only be solved by body fat testing.  My health club the Olympic in Parthumwan Princess Hotel at MBK has an electronic Tanita scale with body composition analyzer.  According to the product manual it is within some small % point of DEXA scans.   If you are way above  normal weight on BMI and muscular a scan to prove you are healthy meaning low fat weight would clear things up nicely.  There are charts or scales showing a healthy body fat weight.  BTW, my body fat is still too high.    Here is an article for the more athletically inclined.

https://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

 

[tropo]

11 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

The fat VS. normal weight for body builders or athletes can only be solved by body fat testing.  My health club the Olympic in Parthumwan Princess Hotel at MBK has an electronic Tanita scale with body composition analyzer.  According to the product manual it is within some small % point of DEXA scans.   If you are way above  normal weight on BMI and muscular a scan to prove you are healthy meaning low fat weight would clear things up nicely.  There are charts or scales showing a healthy body fat weight.  BTW, my body fat is still too high.    Here is an article for the more athletically inclined.

https://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

 

Allow me to come in again and upset the apple cart.

 

This is no such thing as a healthy body weight. You can be very healthy and fat or very unhealthy and skinny, and everywhere in between.

 

BMI scales are merely statistical averages and have no place in modern day assessment as the figures you get are merely "statistical lies".

 

Ever heard of the guy who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of 3 feet?

 

We should stop using meaningless words such as "overweight" and "underweight" and use percentage of body fat. Geez, when I'm in shape I'm over 100kg and around 10% bodyfat. That's obese on BMI scales. I actually feel lean at 100kg. I'd feel like a skeleton at 80kg.

 

Having said that, I don't think there would be any additional health risk if, for example,  I carried 10kg more of body fat. That's all about body image and vanity, not health. The important thing is to keep an eye on things such as blood sugar levels and blood pressure and try to stay fit. You can carry extra fat and still be fit and healthy.

[dontoearth]

34 minutes ago, tropo said:

Allow me to come in again and upset the apple cart.

 

This is no such thing as a healthy body weight. You can be very healthy and fat or very unhealthy and skinny, and everywhere in between.

 

BMI scales are merely statistical averages and have no place in modern day assessment as the figures you get are merely "statistical lies".

 

Ever heard of the guy who drowned crossing a river with an average depth of 3 feet?

 

We should stop using meaningless words such as "overweight" and "underweight" and use percentage of body fat. Geez, when I'm in shape I'm over 100kg and around 10% bodyfat. That's obese on BMI scales. I actually feel lean at 100kg. I'd feel like a skeleton at 80kg.

 

Having said that, I don't think there would be any additional health risk if, for example,  I carried 10kg more of body fat. That's all about body image and vanity, not health. The important thing is to keep an eye on things such as blood sugar levels and blood pressure and try to stay fit. You can carry extra fat and still be fit and healthy.

I was totally agreeing with you and hyperlink is a chart on % of BODYFAT! 

[tropo]

17 hours ago, dontoearth said:

I was totally agreeing with you and hyperlink is a chart on % of BODYFAT! 

Sure... I was harping on about the "healthy body weight" terminology that everyone clings onto these days. A lot of the leaner folk would probably be healthier with more body fat, but vanity prevents that.

[nausea]

On 03/07/2017 at 2:29 PM, tropo said:

Sure... I was harping on about the "healthy body weight" terminology that everyone clings onto these days. A lot of the leaner folk would probably be healthier with more body fat, but vanity prevents that.

 

Your reasoning certainly seems to apply to older people:

 

"Jan. 28, 2010 -- People who carry a few extra pounds after age 70 tend to live longer than people who don’t, new research finds.Overweight older adults who took part in the Australian study had a clear survival advantage over those who were normal weight, underweight, or obese.The findings suggest that the widely accepted body mass index (BMI) weight guidelines may not be particularly useful after age 70, lead researcher Leon Flicker, PhD, of the University of Western Australia tells WebMD."

 

There are other studies that suggest the same.They don't really know why but they speculate that the body has reserves to survive health crises. 

 

Oops, just noticed I'm a bit late with that; still, there it is, for what it's worth.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by nausea
More info.

[Gulfsailor]

4 minutes ago, nausea said:

 

Your reasoning certainly seems to apply to older people:

 

"Jan. 28, 2010 -- People who carry a few extra pounds after age 70 tend to live longer than people who don’t, new research finds.Overweight older adults who took part in the Australian study had a clear survival advantage over those who were normal weight, underweight, or obese.The findings suggest that the widely accepted body mass index (BMI) weight guidelines may not be particularly useful after age 70, lead researcher Leon Flicker, PhD, of the University of Western Australia tells WebMD."

 

There are other studies that suggest the same.They don't really know why but they speculate that the body has reserves to survive health crises. 

 

Oops, just noticed I'm a bit late with that; still, there it is, for what it's worth.

 

 

It could also be that just the overweight people who manage to make it to 70+ are stronger than lighter people, of whom both the strong and weak ones would make it to that age. It's like the anecdotal uncle who smoked 3 packs a day and lived to be a hundred. The many more smokers (and in this case the fatties) who never made it past 70 are not included in the sample. So this study could very well conclude that if you live an unhealthy lifestyle and make it to 70 you have a better chance of making it to 80 than the average 70yr old who lived a healthy life. Something to ponder. 

[nausea]

1 hour ago, Gulfsailor said:

It could also be that just the overweight people who manage to make it to 70+ are stronger ... Something to ponder. 

Yeah, I hear what you say. They had some controls for thinner people being inherently frailer I think, but I'd have to check.

[tropo]

3 hours ago, nausea said:

Yeah, I hear what you say. They had some controls for thinner people being inherently frailer I think, but I'd have to check.

There's also the consideration that lightweight people probably eat less. Eating less means getting fewer essential nutrients from food. This is a big factor for people who diet hard to get to some imaginary "healthy weight" ascertained from those ridiculous BMI charts. Calorie restriction can also lead to large fluctuations in bodyweight (yo-yo dieting), which can also lead to an impaired metabolism...  caused from chasing numbers on a BMI chart.

 

These BMI charts are basically statistical lies. Even if they work out ok (healthy) for 50% of the population, there's another 50% being misled. You can drown trying to cross a river with an average depth of 3 feet.

[nausea]

Your guess is a good as anyone's, even the researchers could only speculate:

 

'Flicker, a professor of geriatric medicine and executive director of the Western Australian Centre for Health and Ageing, admitted he wasn't sure why excess weight protected older adults. "We can only hypothesise," he said.'

 

Personally, I had a very bad virus a couple of years ago. I didn't eat for five days before seeking medical help and going on an IV. I'm sure my few extra pounds helped me there.

 

 

[tropo]

8 hours ago, nausea said:

Your guess is a good as anyone's, even the researchers could only speculate:

 

'Flicker, a professor of geriatric medicine and executive director of the Western Australian Centre for Health and Ageing, admitted he wasn't sure why excess weight protected older adults. "We can only hypothesise," he said.'

 

Personally, I had a very bad virus a couple of years ago. I didn't eat for five days before seeking medical help and going on an IV. I'm sure my few extra pounds helped me there.

 

 

It's only called "excess weight" if it's ascertained to be excess by referencing BMI charts.

 

I'm questioning the charts and suggesting it's not excess if the person is healthy. Of course, then we'll have to define "healthy", which is even more difficult to define than "excess bodyweight".

 

I'm a good example. Let's say I'm after health insurance and they do what they normally do - check BMI charts to determine risk factors. I'm officially obese by those charts yet I'm about 10% body fat.

[nausea]

" I'm officially obese by those charts yet I'm about 10% body fat."

 

Show-off.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by nausea
More info.

[dontoearth]

      One of the problems with BMI is the redefinition of normal weight, overweight and obese in 1998.  Basically they changed the classifications moving millions of normal weight individuals into the overweight classifications and even millions more people from overweight to obese.  So if you are in the overweight category now on BMI you are probably in the normal category  (in the pre-1998 scale) and in the best health range.  This is not the first or last research article to point out that the BMI classification of overweight seems to have the best health outcomes.  

       The problem is people at the obese scale are still in trouble if the BMI is past 30 in the current scale no matter how you slice and dice the numbers and categories you are in the problem zone for disease.  Here is an article explaining the changes which points to the desire for doctors to write diet pill prescriptions and drug companies to crank out those pills!  If I am not mistaken the diet drug coming on the market phen-phen at this time killed lots of people!  

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/
 

    Many studies now point to optimal health and longevity for the overweight BMI we currently have in the after 1998 scale.  BTW that would be 25-29 not over 30!

[tropo]

This is really quite good:

 

http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/?ru=0

 

They factor in a higher BMI for health for older people. Even at BMI 31, I'm doing quite OK according to their assessment. They classify it as "moderately elevated".

 

I like the way they mention that staying at my bodyweight is more important than trying to reduce it and that "no diet" is the best diet.

[nausea]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

This is really quite good:

 

Like it. SBMI factors in age, sex, and possible Asian ethnicity. My SBMI is 39/70 (optimal - just), recommendation - weight maintenance, as opposed to a BMI of 27 (overweight).

 

Interestingly, the blog recommends walking and cycling, and discourages jogging, which I agree with for older people, cos of possible detrimental effects on the joints.

 

Walking and cycling aren't options for me cos I already have joint problems (hip/knee). I use swimming for general toning, cardio and mobility, and stair walking to maintain strength and bone density. For me the latter is an overall strengthening exercise cos, by necessity, I use my arms as much as my legs to pull and lower myself up and down the stairs.

[Damrongsak]

On 7/2/2017 at 9:21 AM, tropo said:

...BMI scales are merely statistical averages and have no place in modern day assessment as the figures you get are merely "statistical lies"....

Yep, one site said my BMI was less than the 2nd percentile (167.6 cm tall, 56.8 kg).  Another site said my IQ was only a bit lower than the 50th percentile.  My head is not that big!

 

All I know is that I gained 10 pounds since high school, 45 years ago.  Loss of muscle mass has compensated for the gain in handles and hair over the years. 

 

I do try to eat healthy, salads and stuff.  And the girls still love me.

 

 

[tropo]

On 9/18/2017 at 3:22 AM, nausea said:

 

Like it. SBMI factors in age, sex, and possible Asian ethnicity. My SBMI is 39/70 (optimal - just), recommendation - weight maintenance, as opposed to a BMI of 27 (overweight).

 

Interestingly, the blog recommends walking and cycling, and discourages jogging, which I agree with for older people, cos of possible detrimental effects on the joints.

 

Walking and cycling aren't options for me cos I already have joint problems (hip/knee). I use swimming for general toning, cardio and mobility, and stair walking to maintain strength and bone density. For me the latter is an overall strengthening exercise cos, by necessity, I use my arms as much as my legs to pull and lower myself up and down the stairs.

I've just started a boron supplement program. I'm only 2 weeks in and noticing a huge difference already in my knees. I noticed a difference in the first day - incredible. There are so many amazing testimonials of arthritis cures and improvements you have to give it a try. There are also scientific studies to back this. In countries such as Israel where soil born content is high, arthritis is rare. The drug companies like to keep this information secret. Some of the major studies were done in Australia, so they put borax in the poison section in Australian shops lest the public start using it and curing their arthritis.

 

You can get boron supplements, but I chose to use borax. A lifetime supply would cost around 500 baht. Apart from bone and joint benefits, there are many more, including increasing the production of testosterone.

[nausea]

4 hours ago, tropo said:

I've just started a boron supplement program.

Thanks for that. There's some boron in the supplement I'm taking for general bone health, but probably not enough.

 

I have plenty of aches and pains but my main problems aren't arthritis related. A Thai doctor has diagnosed the hip problem as FAI (femoroacetabular impingement). The knee problem is an ACL (anterior crucial ligament) injury. I'm taking a conservative approach to both at the moment. Whether that's a mistake or not, I don't know, but I'm trying to stay away from surgery.

 

 

 

 

 

[tropo]

1 hour ago, nausea said:

Thanks for that. There's some boron in the supplement I'm taking for general bone health, but probably not enough.

 

I have plenty of aches and pains but my main problems aren't arthritis related. A Thai doctor has diagnosed the hip problem as FAI (femoroacetabular impingement). The knee problem is an ACL (anterior crucial ligament) injury. I'm taking a conservative approach to both at the moment. Whether that's a mistake or not, I don't know, but I'm trying to stay away from surgery.

1

Calcification of soft tissue is a problem throughout the body as you age. That'll cause the aches and pains which will worsen as you get older. Boron plus magnesium are needed to prevent and reverse that. If you're getting less than 6mg of elemental boron per day, you aren't getting enough. For magnesium, you need at least 400mg per day, preferably more. You should also consider adding iodine to the mix and replace table salt with natural salt. Celtic Sea Salt, Redmond Real Salt and Himalayan Pink Salt are the big 3... all equally good and inexpensive - plus they taste a lot better. This will help balance the minerals in your body, which get out of whack from using processed table salt, which only provides Sodium and Chloride plus 2% unhealthy chemical additives.

[nausea]

49 minutes ago, tropo said:

Calcification of soft tissue is a problem throughout the body as you age.

Thanks for the tips. I'm a beginner at this. It's only when I got real problems that I started looking into the research a bit. Like I knew you needed calcium and vit.D; but vit. K and magnesium, for example, were completely new to me. I was quite amazed at the vital role these two play; all backed by solid research.

 

One point you raised is of particular interest. I use iodised refined salt, cos of the iodene; are you saying 

this is bad. I had a quick look at the packaging to see what it actually contains, but it's all in Thai, so no joy there.