If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's ideal weight for soemone's hight?
Tom G wrote:
"RRzVRR" wrote in message ink.net... Tom G wrote: It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds of bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle in that, tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful items like extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc., it wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and tear. You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with crisis' better, but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit because theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight causing extra stress. The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame (bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact (read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better suspension, transmission and safer bumpers. Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler and maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of it's design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what expense? A sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile. To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the health benefits. Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI 26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost being possible joint stability and tendon strength. As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the "Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have much bodyfat. This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue. Muscle weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether the extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500 lbs will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top, it still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it can. I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in the reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are saying, on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently. Any increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life span in the end. I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%. They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the general public. That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem. Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self limiting. I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push so much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so through damage and pain in the end. I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so. Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average, dumbed-down science assumption. As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are not one and the same. But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle building activities have a very either/or image -- either you don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder. Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But you will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems they were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames. Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and 5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin -- it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the "Normal" BMI range. Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed further than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't it? Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say, over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus greater bone density, plus later in life having injury prevention, not to mention mobility, etc. The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or haven't looked into researching their population. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net... Tom G wrote: "RRzVRR" wrote in message ink.net... Tom G wrote: It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds of bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle in that, tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful items like extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc., it wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and tear. You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with crisis' better, but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit because theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight causing extra stress. The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame (bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact (read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better suspension, transmission and safer bumpers. Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler and maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of it's design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what expense? A sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile. To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the health benefits. Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI 26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost being possible joint stability and tendon strength. Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound of fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day, and food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes (you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?). As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the "Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have much bodyfat. This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue. Muscle weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether the extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500 lbs will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top, it still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it can. I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in the reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are saying, on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently. Any increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life span in the end. I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%. They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the general public. I think those studies can be done, and hopefully will be. The data is probably already there from previous studies..it's just a matter of finding an exercise physiologist grad student who can parse it out, and it wouldn't require a government-funded experiment. That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem. Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self limiting. I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push so much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so through damage and pain in the end. I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so. Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average, dumbed-down science assumption. Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study ( http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1 million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and mortality. I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for pro US football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've not seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone. As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are not one and the same. But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle building activities have a very either/or image -- either you don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder. Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But you will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems they were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames. Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and 5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin -- it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the "Normal" BMI range. Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and harder to achieve! Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed further than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't it? Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say, over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus greater bone density, plus later in life having injury prevention, not to mention mobility, etc. The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or haven't looked into researching their population. Agreed...hopefully, that research will soon be undertaken. I imagine it would make a good doctoral thesis, and the data is probably already there from previous studies. GG -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a fuel guzzler. As opposed to getting fatter, yes. But along with increased food intake comes other considerations like heavy metal toxicity and oxidants. If a person just eats less, there would be less of the bad inputs that are hard to get rid of and tend to build up over a life time. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Agreed Some of the benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the health benefits. Agreed as well. But if the body was at optimum weight, less emphasis would be placed on having to do activities to burn extra calories. Glucose and cholesterol problems are usually not troublesome to the naturally trim people that may do far less exercise than others. Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI 26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost being possible joint stability and tendon strength. Yes, it is a question of degree. 25 lbs of extra muscle for me is probably more beneficial and less taxing than carrying the same amount of fat weight. But I don't really know that I could say that I am healthier than a person who only is 155 lbs just because I have more muscle. Muscle burns more calories and helps in other body regulations for sure, but more food is needed to maintain the muscle size and also the calories required to do the work of building more muscles. I may have to indeed eat twice as much food than a person that is 155, but probably eating the same amount as a person that is steadily growing fatter by a few pounds a year. I think the slender person at 155 would live longer than I would even though I am more muscular. But I would probably live longer than a person my size that is chubby and carrying the extra 25 lbs as fat. The point you made about joint and tendon stability kind of goes along with my theory that extra weight taxes other supporting structures because of them being designed for a certain size limit. It is hard to know at what point that the strength component starts to cancel out effeciency due to increased size and stress on other areas. 20 or 30 extra pounds of muscle may be ideal, or not, over what BMI considers ideal weight. As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the "Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have much bodyfat. Tom Cruise is an example of someone who is considered as overweight (BMI 25). Anyone looking at him would consider that as a healthy weight. My own BMI is 25.1, and I do not want to be smaller. http://ca.geocities.com/kazzy_ca/pho...omgallant.html This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue. Muscle weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether the extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500 lbs will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top, it still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it can. I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in the reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are saying, on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently. Any increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life span in the end. I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%. They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the general public. The studies do need to be expanded I think. It would be nice to know for sure whether a person should be reving up the metabolism beyond what is needed. Eating less may have more benefits than just maintaining weight. That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem. Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self limiting. I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push so much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so through damage and pain in the end. I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so. Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average, dumbed-down science assumption. The BMI weight may be what is considered perfect balance of muscle size, calorie intake, %bodyfat, and activity level. If a person were to do everything in balance, that target weight may be the result of those efforts. It is hard to find data to back any of this as I believe the BMI is designed for average populations that most are not exercising. As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are not one and the same. Agreed But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle building activities have a very either/or image -- either you don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder. If I received a dollar for every time I have heard, "I don't want to lift too much, because I don't want to be huge". Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But you will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems they were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames. Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and 5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin -- it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the "Normal" BMI range. Weight training to a persons normal genetic potential seems to put them into the overweight category. Of the people I personally know that work out consistantly, most would be considered so. Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed further than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't it? Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say, over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus greater bone density, plus later in life having injury prevention, not to mention mobility, etc. I know what you are saying about the cancer causing things. That may partially be due to over consuming any food. More food will naturally increase bad inputs as well as tax the body to cause this. This is why I wonder about how beneficial it is to exercise a lot so a person can eat more food. Also about the injury prevention topic. I seem to see 2 types of people with accumulated injuries. Those that do nothing all their lives, and then the few times that they need to do something that requires fitness hurt themselves and take much longer to heal. And then there are the fitness fanatics that seem to be always nursing an injury. It seems to me that those slim guys that are active, but not overly so remain injury free well into old age. What purpose is it to exercise excessively most of your life, to end up hurting in old age due to accumulated injury? That is not much different then the inactive fat person in the end. The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or haven't looked into researching their population. And that is why I question BMI. I work out to achieve best fitness in the least amount of time and effort. I don't think I exercise too much, but the index says I'm fat, and this has been brought up in my driver's licence medical exam. I need to get a medical every 2 years to maintain my class 3 and 4 licence. When the Doctor told me that I am overweight according to BMI, I was not very happy. I'm sure that if anyone reads my charts, there are no side notes saying,"patient is overweight, but carries an above average amount of muscle mass due to exercise and weight training". To the insurance companies, I'm just fat, and at greater risk for diseases associated with obesity. My goals for now, are not to have a BMI smack in the middle. I think 180 is my ideal size. 155 is to skinny for me. 180 may not be the ideal size according to the charts, but I'm feeling quite healthy right now and don't intend to be smaller because of some chart that may have the facts wrong. If it is found that indeed I should be smaller in size due to health issues that are proven, then I would possibly change my opinion on BMI. Thankyou for an interesting discussion. In general I have to agree with most that was talked about. My views are only from a possibility that some info may not be correct the way we have been taught. Is BMI an ideal weight? It is possible. But how can we know for sure, if the muscle size issue isn't studied and included with that index. If the index is created for average people, then a consideration should be made for people that are larger due to exercise, not being over fat. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus9778" wrote in message ... Good points Gary. The only health advantage of having more muscle mass, pertinent to this newsgroup, than is "necessary" (loosely defined) is that muscles use up sugar and therefore can enable one to eat more carbs and not gain. This can be phrased as greater insulin sensitivity. The disadvantages, as you noted, are related to effects of calorie restriction (negative health return on extra calories eaten) and having to eat more to maintain that muscle mass. There are no specific studies addressing mortality of lean but heavy individuals that I could find. So we can only speculate. That BMI is correlated with mortality is not helpful when addressing very rare individuals who have overweight BMI but are lean. They are very much out of the normal continuum of fitter vs. fatter people, that the findings for the general population cannot be applied to them directly. One article that sheds light on this subject is this: Interesting study. Here's a direct link: http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/c.../full/10/5/361 Unfortunately, it was a pretty small study, and their confidence intervals were not very useful (IMO). In particular, Table 2 seems to indicate that men have a lower mortality if their Body Fat Percentage is greater than 17.1% - the lowest relative risk was seen at BF 17.1% - 19.7%. This is a healthy BF range, but certainly not an "athletic" percentage. It seems to imply that having an athletic BF % increases one's health risks, but the confidence intervals in each quintile are quite broad, and the number of deaths recorded are pretty low. Hopefully, this is NOT the case...otherwise I might need to put on some fat mass! GG ``OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the association between various measures of adiposity and all-cause mortality in Swedish middle-aged and older men and women and, additionally, to describe the influences of age and sex on these associations. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A prospective analysis was performed in a cohort of 10,902 men and 16,814 women ages 45 to 73 years who participated in the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study in Sweden. Baseline examinations took place between 1991 and 1996, and 982 deaths were documented during an average follow-up of 5.7 years. All-cause mortality was related to the following variables measured at baseline: body mass index (BMI), percentage of body fat, lean body mass (LBM), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), with adjustment for age and selected covariates. Body composition data were derived from bioelectrical impedance analysis. RESULTS: The association between percentage of body fat and mortality was modified by age, particularly in women. For instance, fatness was associated with excess mortality in the younger women but with reduced mortality in the older women. Weaker associations were seen for BMI than for percentage of body fat in both sexes. Placement in the top quintiles of waist-to-hip ratio, independent of overall body fat, was a stronger predictor of mortality in women than in men. The observed associations could not be explained by bias from early death or antecedent disease. DISCUSSION: The findings reveal sex and age differences for the effects of adiposity and WHR on mortality and indicate the importance of considering direct measures of adiposity, as opposed to BMI, when describing obesity-related mortality risks. PMID: 12006635 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]'' -- 223/173.3/180 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"GaryG" wrote in message news "RRzVRR" wrote in message ink.net... Tom G wrote: "RRzVRR" wrote in message ink.net... Tom G wrote: It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds of bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle in that, tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful items like extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc., it wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and tear. You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with crisis' better, but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit because theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight causing extra stress. The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame (bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact (read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better suspension, transmission and safer bumpers. Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler and maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of it's design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what expense? A sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile. To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the health benefits. Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI 26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost being possible joint stability and tendon strength. Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound of fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day, and food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes (you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?). Good point. As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the "Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have much bodyfat. This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue. Muscle weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether the extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500 lbs will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top, it still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it can. I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in the reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are saying, on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently. Any increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life span in the end. I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%. They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the general public. I think those studies can be done, and hopefully will be. The data is probably already there from previous studies..it's just a matter of finding an exercise physiologist grad student who can parse it out, and it wouldn't require a government-funded experiment. That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem. Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self limiting. I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push so much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so through damage and pain in the end. I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so. Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average, dumbed-down science assumption. Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study ( http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1 million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and mortality. I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for pro US football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've not seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone. Just an observation in my own life of people around me says that slim is better than larger muscles and overfat. Less injuries, and better quality of life into old age. As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are not one and the same. But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle building activities have a very either/or image -- either you don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder. Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But you will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems they were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames. Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and 5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin -- it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the "Normal" BMI range. Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and harder to achieve! Haha. I know what you mean. Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed further than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't it? Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say, over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus greater bone density, plus later in life having injury prevention, not to mention mobility, etc. The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or haven't looked into researching their population. Agreed...hopefully, that research will soon be undertaken. I imagine it would make a good doctoral thesis, and the data is probably already there from previous studies. I have heard people question the value of the index for years. You would think that the government would take more interest to correct the 1 size fits all description. GG -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom G" wrote in message
news:iqSId.151942$6l.103242@pd7tw2no... "GaryG" wrote in message news "RRzVRR" wrote in message ink.net... Tom G wrote: "RRzVRR" wrote in message ink.net... Tom G wrote: It would be similar describing a family car with 200 extra pounds of bricks in the trunk. It would be an overall strain on the vehicle in that, tires would show increased wear, brakes, more fuel needed, sluggish steering, less speed. If the extra weight was 200 lbs of useful items like extra fuel, tools, emergency items, cartop racks, extra tires,etc., it wouldn't make any difference to the vehicle in the way of wear and tear. You may be able to have a safer trip and be able to deal with crisis' better, but all of the supporting structure of the car would not benefit because theitems are useful to have. It still boils down to extra weight causing extra stress. The difference between your car analogy and the body is that the added weight and stress from muscle mass makes the body's frame (bone density) stronger, it also makes the body safer from impact (read about LBM and aging) and gives it better performance (and LBM and aging). Instead of loading a car trunk with weight, it would be more like adding better a stronger frame, better suspension, transmission and safer bumpers. Superior in strength and indestructable, but still a gas guzzler and maintenance expensive which would begin to contradict the intent of it's design. Over building features is safer and rugged, but at what expense? A sherman tank needs 1 gallon of fuel to travel 1 mile. To use your analogy, it is much healthier for the body to be a fuel guzzler. Its the fact that an unfit body doesn't use up fuel efficiently that cause many health problems. Some of the benefits of muscle mass are that it aids in glucose uptake from the blood, triglycerides storage and cholesterol lowering. You want those muscles to take up as much fuel as possible for the health benefits. Its a question of degree that's the issue. At what point does the costs overcome the benefits: 10, 20, or 30+ extra pounds of muscle extra pounds of muscle mass vs. joint safety. On a person starting with a "Normal" BMI (lets say 175 at 6'0", BMI: 23.7 and a fit BF% of say 15%) the benefits of 10 extra pounds of muscle mass (BMI: 25.1 or "Overweight") of course out weighs the benefits of 10 extra pounds of fat, but it also out weighs the benefits of not having the extra mass due to the reasons I listed in my last post. I would even say that 20-30 extra pounds of muscle mass, (which would bring the same persons to BMI 26.4-27.8), would still be of greater benefit than not having the muscle mass. But 30+?... I would think that starting in that zone the added cost may start to become too great. The cost being possible joint stability and tendon strength. Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound of fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day, and food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes (you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?). Good point. As I mentioned, the men I've seen with BMI numbers that put them into the "Overweight" category but with lean BF%, are like the scenario above -- carrying around extra pounds of LBM. They would have to lose all BF and some muscle mass to be in the "Normal" range. These men aren't that unusually muscular (by body building standards) they're just very fit and don't have much bodyfat. This is what we were trying to determine with the weight issue. Muscle weight is more useful and more efficient than fat of course. But whether the extra weight is muscle or fat, still requires extra work from other supporting structures of the body. Do you think a fat person of say 500 lbs will not build strong leg muscles, joints, and bones to support the increased weight? It won't matter what kind of weight is put on up top, it still must be carried around and the body will compensate as best it can. I think it is possible that the BMI has taken this into account in the reason why I should be 155 instead of my current 180. Maybe they are saying, on average, I would typically be designed to carry 155 most efficiently. Any increase in weight of muscle or fat may not matter if it shortens life span in the end. I don't think the governments studies have, or will in the near future, consider looking at those with higher BMI and low BF%. They're far too busy trying to wake up the general population to the risk of being obese and the harm body fat creates. But as far as frame being designed to carry a safe weight, I think its dependent upon how low a bodyfat you carry and maintain since we're not talking about people who do steroids, but the the general public. I think those studies can be done, and hopefully will be. The data is probably already there from previous studies..it's just a matter of finding an exercise physiologist grad student who can parse it out, and it wouldn't require a government-funded experiment. That said, there is a danger to joints when muscle mass become unnaturally large (read: if you take steroids to create more muscle mass greater than the body would naturally). Someone who trains hard and grows mass naturally really wouldn't have a problem. Most people can not build a lot of muscle mass, so it is self limiting. I myself have tried to build as much mass as possible, but alas, my bone structure is only average, and seems to be designed to be able to push so much weight and no more. Any increase in lbs on the bar causes increased wear and tear and I have to back off otherwise I will be forced to do so through damage and pain in the end. I believe that most people could put on muscle mass and lower their BF% enough to through off the "Normal" BMI health assumptions/assertions. The issue is that the population in general doesn't or won't take the time and effort to do so. Therefore the BMI standards are at best an on-the-average, dumbed-down science assumption. Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study ( http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1 million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and mortality. I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for pro US football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've not seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone. Just an observation in my own life of people around me says that slim is better than larger muscles and overfat. Less injuries, and better quality of life into old age. As far as not being able to build a lot of muscle mass... Your ability to put on muscle mass isn't so much related to your bone structure but your genetics (hormones, ligament, tendon connecting points and the amount of type II muscle fiber you have in a given muscle) and of course your training. Increasing the amount of weight you train with wouldn't cause damage if you trained safely. Don't forget that strength and muscle size are not one and the same. But the real issue that you're writing about seems to be what a person would consider "a lot of muscle." It seems many people who don't train or who are not around people who do muscle building activities have a very either/or image -- either you don't WT and have a very slight and lean body, or your do train and look like a muscle beach side-show. Not everyone who lifts weights for muscle mass is the image of a competition bodybuilder. Some people can put on an impressive amount of muscle naturally. But you will notice that they are naturally big guys to begin with. It seems they were designed to carry lots of muscle due to there large frames. Its a matter of what you consider "lots" and your image of someone who has muscle mass. I can give you a real example of what I'm talking about. One of the leanness men I've tested was a shorter than me and had what I would consider a small bone frame. He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and 5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin -- it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the "Normal" BMI range. Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and harder to achieve! Haha. I know what you mean. Steroids push the body further than it was designed to be. But the internal organs, bones, and other supporting structures are taxed further than they are designed for as well. A large muscular person may be at a disadvantage similar to an obese person. It's always a trade off, isn't it? Not every well trained person is large. A muscular person isn't always the stereo-typical body builder image (see the example above). But no, I don't think you can say a muscular person is at anywhere near the disadvantage an obese (or I would say, over-fat) person is at due to the greater benefits of: 1) not having as much bodyfat which produces range of known and suspected hormones and hormone-like substances (many of which they believe are cancer producing) and, 2) the benefit of muscle mass aiding in glucose update and cholesterol clearing, plus greater bone density, plus later in life having injury prevention, not to mention mobility, etc. The trade-off is having to work safely and smart to get that muscle mass, or not. Do you run some risk in injuring yourself training? Sure, but that's where the smart comes in. Can you be in the "Normal" BMI range, be well trained and have a good amount of muscle mass? Sure. But, those who train more or who have the genetics that allow them to have more muscle mass aren't at greater risk because their BMI numbers aren't in line with the current research. The problem is that the BMI numbers aren't or haven't looked into researching their population. Agreed...hopefully, that research will soon be undertaken. I imagine it would make a good doctoral thesis, and the data is probably already there from previous studies. I have heard people question the value of the index for years. You would think that the government would take more interest to correct the 1 size fits all description. The problem is that BMI is a reasonable surrogate for "fatness" for a large percentage of the population (probably 90%+). It's also very simple and fast to calculate (requiring only height and weight). Compare the ease of calculating BMI vs. calculating Body Fat Percentage. First, you have to decide on which method to use (body circumference, calipers, bio-impedance, DEXA, dunk tank, etc.). Then, you have to make those measurements, or arrange for a test (which can be time-consuming, and expensive), and in the end analysis, the body fat percentages are all estimates, subject to error. Until an easy, repeatable, way of quickly and cheaply estimating Body Fat Percentage comes along, I think we're stuck with BMI. GG -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
GaryG wrote:
Interesting question, but I'm not sure I agree that "10 extra pounds of muscle" would confer benefits. Clearly, it's better than 10 extra pound of fat, but is it better than the "normal" 175 lbs (BMI 23.7)? I'm not so sure. That 10 extra pounds of muscle requires additional food each day, and food consumption has been associated with a number of disease processes (you're presumably familiar with the studies on Calorie Restriction?). But when I read about those studies I often wonder if the benefit is truly coming from calorie restriction, or from the body having less bodyfat due to the calorie restriction. Oversimplified, perhaps, but certainly not "dumbed down". This study ( http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/341/15/1097 ) included over 1 million subjects, and found a strong correlation between BMI and mortality. I've seen other studies that indicate a higher level of mortality for pro US football players (guys with lots of LBM). And, while I would like to believe that low BF/high LBM is "healthiest" (independent of BMI), I've not seen any studies that indicate that it's better than low BF/BMI alone. As someone who's done research (not medical research, media research) I know that it matters a great deal who your population is, what pool of people you've selected base your research on. Assumptions made on the general population don't always apply to individuals who different than the average. And that's what I'm pointing out. There are people, who due to their genetics and activities are not the average, and therefore the assumptions based to the average probably do not apply. As far as football players goes, not a lot of them are very lean. Running backs maybe, but a tackle, no? He ended up testing at around 5-6% BF but his BMI was just over "Normal" -- so he must have been at around 155, and 5'5" or in that general range (and yes his skin was very thin -- it was almost like pulling away an rubber glove). To see this guy in street cloths you wouldn't think of him as being very trained but maybe just fit n' lean. In fact he doesn't do all that much WTing. But like the bigger guys you have in mind, he too would have to lose all BF and some LBM just top fall into the "Normal" BMI range. Was he a young guy? As I get older, that 5-6% BF seems harder and harder to achieve! Fairly young, late twenties. He had never had a problem with weight (was a wrestler in high school and remembers how surprised he coaches were to his low BF% what little trouble he had maintaining it) and didn't seem to worry all that much about staying lean, but tried to "eat healthy" (though we didn't really talk about what sort of diet he followed) and be active. He was just someone who had been dealt a good genetic hand and had always eaten well and exercised. If you exercise, get lean, and are lucky enough to have some extra LBM it just doesn't make sense to try to hit a BMI number at the cost of losing muscle mass. And likewise it doesn't make sense (to me) to not train in a way that would be beneficial to in an effort to avoid falling out of the BMI "Normal" range. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ignoramus9778 wrote:
That BMI is correlated with mortality is not helpful when addressing very rare individuals who have overweight BMI but are lean. They are very much out of the normal continuum of fitter vs. fatter people, that the findings for the general population cannot be applied to them directly. Yet, my experience is that people with overweight BMI numbers but have low BF% are not all that rare. I know many. Then, again I know a lot of people who WT. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Tom G wrote:
Agreed as well. But if the body was at optimum weight, less emphasis would be placed on having to do activities to burn extra calories. Glucose and cholesterol problems are usually not troublesome to the naturally trim people that may do far less exercise than others. I was about to post this in my message... I don't remember where or what the percentage was, but I remember being shocked at the percentage of people who were Type II diabetic and where not overweight. .... but decided to look around to see if I could find some numbers and accidentally came across this from the Mayo clinic website: http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=WO00041 The BMI is a good but imperfect guide. Muscle weighs more than fat, for instance, and women and men who are very muscular and physically fit can have high BMIs without added health risks. Because of that, waist circumference is also a useful tool to assess abdominal fat. In general, men are considered overweight if their waist measurement is greater than 40 inches. And women, in general, are overweight if their waist measurement is greater than 35 inches. To bad they didn't offer any numbers or research to back that up. Yes, it is a question of degree. 25 lbs of extra muscle for me is probably more beneficial and less taxing than carrying the same amount of fat weight. But I don't really know that I could say that I am healthier than a person who only is 155 lbs just because I have more muscle. I think that you are or would be. Muscle burns more calories and helps in other body regulations for sure, but more food is needed to maintain the muscle size and also the calories required to do the work of building more muscles. I may have to indeed eat twice as much food than a person that is 155, but probably eating the same amount as a person that is steadily growing fatter by a few pounds a year. I think the slender person at 155 would live longer than I would even though I am more muscular. But I would probably live longer than a person my size that is chubby and carrying the extra 25 lbs as fat. The point you made about joint and tendon stability kind of goes along with my theory that extra weight taxes other supporting structures because of them being designed for a certain size limit. It is hard to know at what point that the strength component starts to cancel out effeciency due to increased size and stress on other areas. 20 or 30 extra pounds of muscle may be ideal, or not, over what BMI considers ideal weight. If I received a dollar for every time I have heard, "I don't want to lift too much, because I don't want to be huge". My canned response is: "You should be so luck." I know what you are saying about the cancer causing things. That may partially be due to over consuming any food. More food will naturally increase bad inputs as well as tax the body to cause this. This is why I wonder about how beneficial it is to exercise a lot so a person can eat more food. Also about the injury prevention topic. I seem to see 2 types of people with accumulated injuries. Those that do nothing all their lives, and then the few times that they need to do something that requires fitness hurt themselves and take much longer to heal. And then there are the fitness fanatics that seem to be always nursing an injury. It seems to me that those slim guys that are active, but not overly so remain injury free well into old age. What purpose is it to exercise excessively most of your life, to end up hurting in old age due to accumulated injury? That is not much different then the inactive fat person in the end. I don't believe that exercise would end up causing more accumulated injury problems than not exercising would. Are there those who injure themselves exercising extensively? You bet. And I've talked to several (especially runners) and almost every one of them have told me in some way that they brought the injury upon themselves due to foolishness or not educating themselves. Running while injured, adding too many miles to fast, etc. Likewise, I've injured myself by doing a WT move wrong -- but that was before I spent the time to learn how WT correctly. And that's why most my explanations in training people usually start with "you can hurt your BLANK by doing this move wrong." And that is why I question BMI. I work out to achieve best fitness in the least amount of time and effort. I don't think I exercise too much, but the index says I'm fat, and this has been brought up in my driver's licence medical exam. I need to get a medical every 2 years to maintain my class 3 and 4 licence. When the Doctor told me that I am overweight according to BMI, I was not very happy. I'm sure that if anyone reads my charts, there are no side notes saying,"patient is overweight, but carries an above average amount of muscle mass due to exercise and weight training". To the insurance companies, I'm just fat, and at greater risk for diseases associated with obesity. And that's my REAL problem with the whole BMI issue. While I'm not worried about health effects due to having too much muscle (or the eating that would be required to maintain it); I am very worried about the government or an insurance company punishing me because I don't fit into a guideline that doesn't apply to everyone. I do think that if they could find an economical and accessible way for everyone to use BF% I think that they would be using it as a means to do research and to educate the public. Its because the BMI only needs a scale and a height measurement (which most households have and every doctors office has) and a calculator that the BMI is being used. Or so I would like to believe. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"RRzVRR" wrote in message
ink.net... Tom G wrote: Agreed as well. But if the body was at optimum weight, less emphasis would be placed on having to do activities to burn extra calories. Glucose and cholesterol problems are usually not troublesome to the naturally trim people that may do far less exercise than others. I was about to post this in my message... I don't remember where or what the percentage was, but I remember being shocked at the percentage of people who were Type II diabetic and where not overweight. ... but decided to look around to see if I could find some numbers and accidentally came across this from the Mayo clinic website: http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=WO00041 The BMI is a good but imperfect guide. Muscle weighs more than fat, for instance, and women and men who are very muscular and physically fit can have high BMIs without added health risks. Because of that, waist circumference is also a useful tool to assess abdominal fat. In general, men are considered overweight if their waist measurement is greater than 40 inches. And women, in general, are overweight if their waist measurement is greater than 35 inches. To bad they didn't offer any numbers or research to back that up. With respect to waist circumference, there is good evidence to back up the contention that it is unhealthy to have a large waist. Yes, it is a question of degree. 25 lbs of extra muscle for me is probably more beneficial and less taxing than carrying the same amount of fat weight. But I don't really know that I could say that I am healthier than a person who only is 155 lbs just because I have more muscle. I think that you are or would be. Muscle burns more calories and helps in other body regulations for sure, but more food is needed to maintain the muscle size and also the calories required to do the work of building more muscles. I may have to indeed eat twice as much food than a person that is 155, but probably eating the same amount as a person that is steadily growing fatter by a few pounds a year. I think the slender person at 155 would live longer than I would even though I am more muscular. But I would probably live longer than a person my size that is chubby and carrying the extra 25 lbs as fat. The point you made about joint and tendon stability kind of goes along with my theory that extra weight taxes other supporting structures because of them being designed for a certain size limit. It is hard to know at what point that the strength component starts to cancel out effeciency due to increased size and stress on other areas. 20 or 30 extra pounds of muscle may be ideal, or not, over what BMI considers ideal weight. If I received a dollar for every time I have heard, "I don't want to lift too much, because I don't want to be huge". My canned response is: "You should be so luck." I know what you are saying about the cancer causing things. That may partially be due to over consuming any food. More food will naturally increase bad inputs as well as tax the body to cause this. This is why I wonder about how beneficial it is to exercise a lot so a person can eat more food. Also about the injury prevention topic. I seem to see 2 types of people with accumulated injuries. Those that do nothing all their lives, and then the few times that they need to do something that requires fitness hurt themselves and take much longer to heal. And then there are the fitness fanatics that seem to be always nursing an injury. It seems to me that those slim guys that are active, but not overly so remain injury free well into old age. What purpose is it to exercise excessively most of your life, to end up hurting in old age due to accumulated injury? That is not much different then the inactive fat person in the end. I don't believe that exercise would end up causing more accumulated injury problems than not exercising would. Are there those who injure themselves exercising extensively? You bet. And I've talked to several (especially runners) and almost every one of them have told me in some way that they brought the injury upon themselves due to foolishness or not educating themselves. Running while injured, adding too many miles to fast, etc. Likewise, I've injured myself by doing a WT move wrong -- but that was before I spent the time to learn how WT correctly. And that's why most my explanations in training people usually start with "you can hurt your BLANK by doing this move wrong." And that is why I question BMI. I work out to achieve best fitness in the least amount of time and effort. I don't think I exercise too much, but the index says I'm fat, and this has been brought up in my driver's licence medical exam. I need to get a medical every 2 years to maintain my class 3 and 4 licence. When the Doctor told me that I am overweight according to BMI, I was not very happy. I'm sure that if anyone reads my charts, there are no side notes saying,"patient is overweight, but carries an above average amount of muscle mass due to exercise and weight training". To the insurance companies, I'm just fat, and at greater risk for diseases associated with obesity. And that's my REAL problem with the whole BMI issue. While I'm not worried about health effects due to having too much muscle (or the eating that would be required to maintain it); I am very worried about the government or an insurance company punishing me because I don't fit into a guideline that doesn't apply to everyone. That is a real problem for many people. Unfortunately, life (insurance) is not always fair, and some of us can find ourselves paying higher insurance rates for many reasons (e.g., I pay a higher rate, even though I exercise and have a "normal" BMI, because my father who smoked, died from a heart attack at age 47). I do think that if they could find an economical and accessible way for everyone to use BF% I think that they would be using it as a means to do research and to educate the public. Its because the BMI only needs a scale and a height measurement (which most households have and every doctors office has) and a calculator that the BMI is being used. Or so I would like to believe. Yes - BMI does have a significant advantage in that it is very easy to calculate. Perhaps if the insurance companies could be induced to use the "Navy" method of estimating body fat, as a backup procedure for those with high BMI's, it could help to weed out folks with high BMI/low BF from being seen as "overweight". The US Dept. of Defense does this, as part of their personnel assessment and evaluation programs. Folks who don't pass their BMI standards are measured for body fat, using a few circumference measurements. If their body fat is estimated low enough using this method, they "pass"...otherwise, they are considered "overly fat". FWIW, the "Navy" body fat calculation is built into my WeightWare program, and you can find it online at http://www.he.net/%7Ezone/prothd2.html -- GG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This morning with Steve Roberts on NPR | Pat | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | December 16th, 2004 01:09 AM |
We may be screwed | That T Woman | General Discussion | 2 | December 7th, 2004 10:03 AM |
Weight Watchers Targets the Atkins-Weary | Prairie Roots | Weightwatchers | 47 | August 21st, 2004 12:48 PM |
Weight Watchers Targets the Atkins-Weary | Laura | Weightwatchers | 17 | August 18th, 2004 02:17 AM |
Study credits Weight Watchers with helping many to keep weight off | Neutron | General Discussion | 4 | May 30th, 2004 03:46 PM |