belljr
Footballguy
nice.... it's funny I am at 200 for years....it's an easy weight for me to maintain. That's said I feel like a blob
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Otis diet fad of the month thread - Potato mania!!1 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
Keerock
Footballguy
How tall? I'm 6'0" and definitely "big boned"... carry a lot of my weight in my legs back to my days as a catcher :nohomo: When I got below 200 before my wedding (25 years ago), my upper body was close to frail and my lower body stayed about the same. I'm fine with 200#
belljr
Footballguy
i am 5'8" big legs .... my best shape was 175 180 but very little fat. I'll get down to 180 feel great but won't look like college 180
seahawk 17
Footballguy
What do you low carb guys consider low carb? I know Atkins is like 20-25g to begin with. Not really looking to do a "diet" but I really want to clean up this area of my eating.
Rick James
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
215-210 has traditionally been a set point for me, but I'm not sure what that really means. In the past, as I got under 230, I started getting really serious about exercise. So I'd start running 40 miles a week. Or I'd start working out with a personal trainer. And my weight would tend to stall around the same time. I'd continue to get faster/stronger and even lose an inch or so, but getting below 207 or so just didn't happen.
I'm not sure, but I suspect that I just started eating more. I'm sure I did with the trainer. Because there's a point 40 minutes into a workout while you're star crawling for god knows how long when you think "I can't do this fasted."
So this time, I might do the occasional "check-in" 5K on a weekend, but I think I'm going to stick to walking and bodyweight exercises until I'm around 200. We'll see how that works. I'm losing fast, but I'm not eating THAT few calories compared to doctor supervised programs. So I'm not worried about going too fast.
I'm not sure, but I suspect that I just started eating more. I'm sure I did with the trainer. Because there's a point 40 minutes into a workout while you're star crawling for god knows how long when you think "I can't do this fasted."
So this time, I might do the occasional "check-in" 5K on a weekend, but I think I'm going to stick to walking and bodyweight exercises until I'm around 200. We'll see how that works. I'm losing fast, but I'm not eating THAT few calories compared to doctor supervised programs. So I'm not worried about going too fast.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
This is similar to my target. I don't consider myself "low carb" but I certainly try to avoid eating the 300 g of carbs that the programs say are normal. I try to come in around 100g, but I don't beat myself up if I have a potato and end up at 150 (or if end up at 60, for that matter). I don't aim for induction levels.
Keerock
Footballguy
I'm usually between 50-100 net carbs per day.
Keerock
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Just curious. Have you tried to have your bf% determined? How did you pick 175?bigbottom said:
bigbottom
Footballguy
I guess it's somewhat arbitrary. Haven't tested my body fat percentage, but I imagine it isn't good. Still pretty flabby around the middle.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keerock
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I'm just curious. We're the same height. Keeping in mind that the bioimpedence measures in bathroom scales are inaccurate, the best guess is that I'd be in single digit body fat at 177 (I'm averaging measuring about 165 lbs in lean mass on the Aria). So I'll probably get it professionally measured as I get close to 200.
I do tend to have very thick and muscular legs and guys who have been obese for a long time apparently develop denser bones.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Yeah no way am I close to single digits. I did a fitness program a couple years ago when I dropped from 186 down to 169. They did a body fat percentage test using all sorts of wires and electrodes through a computer and I dropped from 24% down to 17%. So I was well into double digits even at 169. I clearly have light bones and no muscle mass.
culdeus
Footballguy
This discussion highlights the fact that people's and especially americans' idea of what is a healthy weight is far higher than reality. Hence the Dove "real curves" ad campaign and the continued fat acceptance. Telling someone at 175 to eat a sandwich is exhibit A.
Every 1 percent body fat over 10 for men is a risk for disease. Women it's even worse. their cutoff is like 18 which is harder to hit because they don't have testosterone.
Every 1 percent body fat over 10 for men is a risk for disease. Women it's even worse. their cutoff is like 18 which is harder to hit because they don't have testosterone.
James Daulton
Footballguy
I used to fall into this exact same way of thinking. I'm 6'1 and I consider myself "big-boned." Don't most of us? When I hit my highest weight of 250, I was like, 220 would be the perfect weight for me. That's 30 pounds after all, I'd be a stick! Well, I hit 220, looked in the mirror, and saw I was decently less fat, but still likely 20% bf. Now I'm sitting at 205, around 13% bf. To truly get to 10% I'll have to push just below 200 or so. I'm carrying a decent (not a ton but decent) amount of muscle mass. If I didn't lift I'd guess I'd be 10% at 180 or so. The morale of my story is just what culdeus said, most of us way overestimate what our healthy weight is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I haven't heard that at all. I've seen studies suggesting that "overweight" populations (by BMI) have fewer co-morbidities than "normal weight" populations (nobody disputes that obese populations have significantly more than either).
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
OK, that doesn't sound at all dubious...
Guyenet wrote a bit about this here.
The short answer is that certain diseases make people lose weight, which can make the "slightly overweight" category look good because they don't have AIDS or whatever. But if you go by a person's highest weight rather than current weight at the time of death, slightly overweight people no longer maintain their advantage over lean people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Otis
Footballguy
Chaos Commish said:Good job on the loss, get well soon and stock healthier snacks. Also, wth, thanks for this thread. I like having the topic on the front page even if you started it. I'm in maintenance but always need to be dieting. Just my genes and chemistry I guess. I've been really focused lately. My 5-4 140 pound tennis stud daughter has dropped 8 pounds because her dad hasn't been stocking any crap . She wants to be 120 by end of May. I never bugged her about putting on a few pounds. Just setting the example.Otis said:
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
10%?? Oof. I'm something around 24. Down a few percent since I started this, but still a ways to go. Frankly I don't think I'll ever sniff 10. If I can hit 15 I'd be ecstatic.
Chaka
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
Getting to and maintaining 10% body fat is extraordinarily complicated for all but a very small percentage of men.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Of course, in that case we're all screwed because we let ourselves get overweight or obese in the first place. I can't change my maximum BMI (well, I suppose I could fall of the wagon again and go over 3 bills).
I wouldn't conclude that. I mean, it may be true; but I don't think it follows from the data Guyenet presented. When we look at the mortality rates of people who were thin at death, we get one answer. When we distinguish between people who were always thin, and formerly overweight people who later became thin, we get a different answer. Maybe if we distinguish between formerly overweight people who became thin due to disease, and formerly overweight people who became thin by dieting and exercising, we'll get still another answer.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I wasn't intending to suggest that was a serious conclusion. I was just pointing out that the data he was addressing was interesting, but also had its own limitations. I also wasn't suggesting that the earlier studies "proved" that it was better to be overweight.
But I know that doctors who treat obesity have told me that most health benefits are derived from not being obese, not necessarily by being your goal weight. The same way that we're learning that very moderate exercise has as much health benefit (as opposed to "fitness" benefit) as vigorous exercise.
I have no doubt that I'd be fitter at 175 than 190. Culdeus is suggesting I'd be healthier there (and more likely to live longer), and I'm curious what he's read to arrive at that conclusion.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
At 6'2", my "ideal" weight according to that ridiculous BMI scale is like 175. I got down to 178 when I was 21 and worked all summer as a barback lugging hundreds of cases of beer and literally a ton of ice every day. Outdoors. In Cincinnati. Anyway, I looked so emaciated that people were practically begging me to go to a doctor or eat a sandwich or something. And the BMI says I could have been 25 pounds lighter and still in the "healthy weight" window.
At 150, my body would consist of bones, one hamstring, and my liver--which is very dense.I wouldn't want to be anywhere south of 190. My MFP goal is 220, which is still beefy but was my standard weight for a very long time. It'd be nice to do the little things again like running and jumping and putting on socks without a Herculean effort.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
BMI is an average, so we know it doesn't apply to everyone. It still might work in large population studies because you'll get less muscled people and heavier muscled people.
One reason why I want a DEXA scan eventually is that it just seems weird to think of me as "heavily muscled." I'm not strong. But if the impedence method is even close to accurate, I don't enter the "normal" BMI range until I'm 175 lbs and like 8% body fat. I wore 31" waist slacks at 210. I get that those sizes are larger nowadays, but I'd be like a 27" at 175.
I'm still having a problem with the statement that "every 1% of bodyfat over 10% carries risk of disease." Let's assume a 170 lb man at 10% body fat (153 lbs of lean mass and 17 lbs of fat). 5% more body fat puts him at 180 (153 lbs of lean mass and 27 lbs of fat). That's a profound difference if the guy wants to star in Magic Mike 2, but I'm having a hard time believing it really means much to his health.
One reason why I want a DEXA scan eventually is that it just seems weird to think of me as "heavily muscled." I'm not strong. But if the impedence method is even close to accurate, I don't enter the "normal" BMI range until I'm 175 lbs and like 8% body fat. I wore 31" waist slacks at 210. I get that those sizes are larger nowadays, but I'd be like a 27" at 175.
I'm still having a problem with the statement that "every 1% of bodyfat over 10% carries risk of disease." Let's assume a 170 lb man at 10% body fat (153 lbs of lean mass and 17 lbs of fat). 5% more body fat puts him at 180 (153 lbs of lean mass and 27 lbs of fat). That's a profound difference if the guy wants to star in Magic Mike 2, but I'm having a hard time believing it really means much to his health.
Skylord
Footballguy
I'm 6'2" and down from 209 to 178. I'm fairly thin as this point, but I have some fat that can still go. Aiming towards 175. Absolutely no way I could ever get down to 150. I was 165 in highschool and was rail thin.
At 6'2", my "ideal" weight according to that ridiculous BMI scale is like 175. I got down to 178 when I was 21 and worked all summer as a barback lugging hundreds of cases of beer and literally a ton of ice every day. Outdoors. In Cincinnati. Anyway, I looked so emaciated that people were practically begging me to go to a doctor or eat a sandwich or something. And the BMI says I could have been 25 pounds lighter and still in the "healthy weight" window.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere south of 190. My MFP goal is 220, which is still beefy but was my standard weight for a very long time. It'd be nice to do the little things again like running and jumping and putting on socks without a Herculean effort.
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
I've intermittent fasted, juice fasted, milk fasted and water fasted. All I've had today is beer. I think I'm going to beer fast for a few days for grins, and because I like beer.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
I'm sure 175 fits for plenty of people that are 6'2" I'm just not one of 'em. I work much better as giant than wiry.I'm 6'2" and down from 209 to 178. I'm fairly thin as this point, but I have some fat that can still go. Aiming towards 175. Absolutely no way I could ever get down to 150. I was 165 in highschool and was rail thin.
At 6'2", my "ideal" weight according to that ridiculous BMI scale is like 175. I got down to 178 when I was 21 and worked all summer as a barback lugging hundreds of cases of beer and literally a ton of ice every day. Outdoors. In Cincinnati. Anyway, I looked so emaciated that people were practically begging me to go to a doctor or eat a sandwich or something. And the BMI says I could have been 25 pounds lighter and still in the "healthy weight" window.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere south of 190. My MFP goal is 220, which is still beefy but was my standard weight for a very long time. It'd be nice to do the little things again like running and jumping and putting on socks without a Herculean effort.
Britney Spears
guest speaker
Where can I see a good BMI scale? Wondering what my weight should be.
At 6'2", my "ideal" weight according to that ridiculous BMI scale is like 175. I got down to 178 when I was 21 and worked all summer as a barback lugging hundreds of cases of beer and literally a ton of ice every day. Outdoors. In Cincinnati. Anyway, I looked so emaciated that people were practically begging me to go to a doctor or eat a sandwich or something. And the BMI says I could have been 25 pounds lighter and still in the "healthy weight" window.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere south of 190. My MFP goal is 220, which is still beefy but was my standard weight for a very long time. It'd be nice to do the little things again like running and jumping and putting on socks without a Herculean effort.
Every scale is a BMI scale. For any given height, BMI is proportional to weight. You just need to find a chart or online calculator to do the conversion.
seahawk 17
Footballguy
For those of you who dislike BMI, another tool for your tool belt.
http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/heightweight.html
http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/heightweight.html
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
BMI is calculated as (weight in lbs * 703) /(height in inches ^2)
Scale is:
< 18.5 -- Underweight
18.5 -25 -- Normal
25 -30 -- Overweight
> 30 -- Obese
(There are subcategories in the underweight and obese categories)
EDIT: For instance, since I'm 5'10", every 7 lbs is one "point" in BMI (6.97 but close enough). So I can just divide my weight by 7.
Scale is:
< 18.5 -- Underweight
18.5 -25 -- Normal
25 -30 -- Overweight
> 30 -- Obese
(There are subcategories in the underweight and obese categories)
EDIT: For instance, since I'm 5'10", every 7 lbs is one "point" in BMI (6.97 but close enough). So I can just divide my weight by 7.
Last edited by a moderator:
Otis
Footballguy
27.9 checking in. Less than three over the normal range, and tend to be a thicker guy I think, so I'm probably even closer to normal than that.
Still, a little algebra tells me I need to get down to 205 (lose another 24lbs) to make normal. That's REALLY thin for me, like high school weight. But we'll see. Onwards...
James Daulton
Footballguy
Everything I see shows a bodyfat % for a middle aged man between 15% - 18% as good. Unless you want to get pretty ripped, I think this range is pretty healthy.
Keerock
Footballguy
First off... the sandwich comment was a joke (defense mechanism spurred by jealousy) If GBBB feels comfortable/healthy at that weight, I'm ecstatic for him.
Secondly, I tend disagree with the "guidelines" presented to us regarding weight/fat/etc. Different people have different body types, so to group them into the same guidelines (like BMI, for example) is unrealistic. Case in point... my two oldest boys. One is 5' 10" 215#... big kid, thick, muscular. Could probably stand to lose 15 lbs. Below 200# he would be losing muscle. The other one is 6' 1", 190#. Lean, muscular. Add 10# to him and take 15# of the other and they look completely different at 200#.
My point is... saying a 6'0" male should weigh 175# is too general. A lot depends on body type (along with other factors). I'm at about 170# of lean body mass right now. That leaves room for about 5# of fat (2.8%) for me to barely fall within an acceptable BMI.
Keerock
Footballguy
Still "obese" here with a BMI of 30.5. I'm not saying I'm thin, but obese? At what I consider to be my target/ideal weight, according to BMI I'm still on the high end of "overweight", or as I like to look at it, "too short"
Last edited by a moderator: