Metal Reviews

i don't know how old you are now, but i think it's quite normal for ppl to gain weight when their bodies exit childhood and enter adulthood. When i turned 17 i only weighted 46 kilos and at that point i had been working out for a year. As i stated in another post i weight around 68 kilos now, i would like to think that it is due to lifting weights, but that's not the case, not alone that is. Of course, i also started to eat differently, but still.. a whole lot change inside the body from the age of 16-??, despite having experienced puberty.



I actually weighted 73 kilos last summer, boy was i fat. I gained 5 kilos in a month simply by eating pizza after each workout session... and Mars ice... yummy.. it all got placed on my belly and i was per difinition for the first time in my life overweight according to the BMI-index .. but duo to lazyness i lost them again, luckely - i stopped eating and i didn't work out for the following 4 months or so.
That's the second time i have gained 5 kilos in just a month. Back in primaryschool i realized i was very underweight so i started to drink 2 liters of milk every day for two months, which annoyed my parents and at the end i think i had gained 7-8 in total... nice.
I'm 23, btw, still handsome (my mother told me so) and single

It's all matter of metabolism...I can eat, drink alcohol and all kinds of shitty things but in the end i will always weigh 71kg for 1.82m.
This year in camping I had it confirmed, drunk and ate as much as my friend (we did everything together so i am sure) he gained 5kg and i lost 500g!
I LOL at his face!

BMI is bullshit. It doesn't accurately measure anything, much less one's level of relative health. Think about it, it only measures height/weight ratio, so all those bodybuilders with 300 pounds of muscle and 0.000003% body fat would come out as morbidly obese on the BMI. It was invented in the 1800s by a (I think) Dutch scientist, as a way to gather census data. It has nothing at all to do with health.

Some doctors use it, alarmingly. It was first invented by a sociologist to classify people into three categories, fat and jolly, skinny and twitchy, and medium.

It is a rough guide to one's weight. The Defence Forces, nutritionists and some doctors use it. I wouldn't use it as a concrete thing, it doesn't really set any true boundaries when it comes to being overweight/underweight/etc.

I know when I dip to being underweight because I start feeling rather weak. When I was 15-16 my weight varied dramatically, and I had to avoid being too light for fear of feeling bad. I think the best judgement is the effect of weight on health, ie are your joints coping? Is your liver functioning well? Are you breathing okay? Are you snoring excessively?

Misha - I am one of Tlaloc's co-workers.

Astaroth - I am 19. My weight is meant to increase by 1 kilo a year at a steady rate, but that hasn't been happening. Now that I settled into being a vego and quit drinking my weight has stabilised. I have a weird metabolism, I can lose or gain several kilos within a week, but the average will always be the same in the end.

i know it's bullshit, he he... in gymnasium we used another technique where we measured the bones, and since i was very "tiny" boned my max weight including fat was 57 kilos, which sound rather bullshitty too. But you're right, if you want to get a clear picture you have to measure your body fat. How to imply, i dunno.
I don't think the big bodybuilders are to be considered healthy, though - they are rotten on inside and they probably got a too small a heart to go with their body. Most of them are fat anyway, unless they are going to a competition. And.. they do have more than just 0.00003 % of body fat, i overheard a guy the other day, who looks pretty big and fit, he had 14-16 % of body fat. Still way less than normal ppl.

uh... btw, health experts have invented a new term. You can now be thin-fat.. meaning you can be skinny, and yet have high amount of body fat. Which figures if you look at all those skinny kids with no muscles at all. So even if you have "normal" BMI or lower you can still be unhealthy as fuck and suffer from the same deceases as overweight ppl

0.000003 was just a hyperbolic exaggeration for effect...I think you'd drop dead if you had that little fat. Bodybuilders aren't really healthy, either, although they're anything but obese, which is the point.

Health is far too complex to be quantified with any single number, weight, bmi, whatever.

i know you were exaggerating .. but i only partly agree with the bodybuilders being unhealthy. Those bodybuilders who uses steroids etc are unhealthy as fuck indeed, most of them end up with small testicles and a bad heart. However, a regular bodybuilder guy who's in good shape will always be somewhat healthy, but a fitness guy is in even better condition, and also way healthier, cuz bodybuilding is rather static since they are relaxing most of the time during a workout session + they are not using nearly as much energy.
I would like to point out when i talk about bodybuilders in general i include the big Arnold type, the fat bouncer type and the normal ppl in various shapes and sizes, which is why i can't agree with you with them being unhealthy. Working out is always better for your health than not working out at all, with exeption of those who use drugs of course.... the body was meant to be used - not videogames, tv and candy all day long.


uhm... to make matters very short. I think your example with the bodybuilders with very low body fat is a bad example, they count less than 0.1 % of the population anywho. i don't believe that any health models ala BMI was designed to be used on all ppl - only ppl within the range of "normal", what ever that is, from a mathematical point of view that could be anywhere from 30-80 % of the population, i dunno.
I don't think models ala BMI is meant to be used as an healthy/unhealthy indicator alone either.. but it can be used as an indicator to see if a person is too skinny or too fat. Sure, you can be a bodybuilder, big boned or have tiny bones, and then the model gets less accurate, or you could simply move the boundries between skinny, normal and fat up or down on the scale. But it's still crap method according to our livestyle nowadays, for reasons already mentioned - % of body fat

Wait, back up a little. BMI is not a health model. It never was. It's an indicator invented by a sociologist in the 19th century. It is a broad, sociological indicator that is simply too inaccurate and limited for decisions about the health of any individual, not even as a rough guide.

As for body fat percentage, the optimum is 5% for men and 12% for women.

I agree; 7% of a woman's body should be boobs.

Exactly. That was my point with the bodybuilder example; a six-foot, 250-pound man has a BMI of 33.9 (according to the calculator I found online) no matter what his body fat percentage is. 33.9 is well into the obese range.

Lulz.

Boobs are not made entirely of fat, but of complex mammary tissue.

Ideally, a man should have 40% of his body mass as muscle, and women 30%. Women need the extra fat for childbirth and stuffs, and don't grow as muscular.

Fat-only boobs resemble most man-boobs anyway, and don't look good.

it's still a bad example, though. 99% of the ppl who weight 250 pound are still obese. BMI was not meant to be used on atletes/bodybuilders, anyway. It is meant to be used as a indicator/recommendation for normal ppl, nothing more. Measuring the body fat is, of course, the best way to see if you're really obese, however, u still need be in the 20-25 area if you are a normal person. Not 16-17 like i once was.

you're probably just upset because your BMI is 26




i can find several pages with various recommendations on the net what a optimal body fat percentage should be... 5% seems way too little, even without looking on a the net - you'd have to be a top-atlete then.. are u sure you didn't find these percentages on a crazy fitness or anorexia page?

12% for a woman seems wrong too... and i like busty women. 30-40%, thank you

Doesn't matter what boobs are made of! Boobs is gud!

not true... silicone boobs are yuaky! they look disgusting, unless they are somewhat descrete. Big deformed silicone boobs, no thank u. Natural, oh yes thank u very much. BIG natural, oh yes yes yes

The ideal percentages are far from the actual reality (on average). Your preference for women is plain unhealthy. What would their organs and bones be made of? Eww.

perhaps...25-30% would do just fine, then

anywho.. i have read that the average body fat percentage in america is 26% for women, and i also read on several sites that 15-12% and below you'll be just fine for men - even professionel atletes are in that area - except for Ronaldo who's in the 20-30 area. 5-0% is just not right, it's exaggerated and it only covers the essential fat percentage -get below 3% if your a guy endagers the health. Besides, some ppl are simply born with a different bodytype making it impossible, there is 3 body types with each their characteristics: Endomorph, Ectomorph, and Mesomorph, nobody has body that measures up a 100% to any one of them, though.

i think u have a distorted view on how much of the body in reality is body fat. 15% may sound alot and disgusting, but it's not... unless you shop it off and put it on a plate