Fat loss progress



"Joe Humble" <[email protected]> wrote
> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
\>>If you were 5'10" and 195 pounds at 9% trying to get to 7%, i'd say you
>>were a bodybuilder. At 5'10" and 141 pounds at 9% trying to get to 7%,
>>you have an eating disorder/body dysmorphic syndrome, and need to see a
>>psychiatrist.
>>
>>And, no, I'm not joking. You need professional help.
>
> Don't those silly weight charts show 147 as the perfect bodyweight for
> 5'10"?

Depends on whose silly chart you use. One that has some basis in being able
to function effectively...the US Army's...has 185 pounds as the desirable
weight for his age and height.

> 9% to 7% is going to probably cut deeply into both muscle and fat. He
> may just not be aware he'll need to get to, I'm not getting my
> calculator, like 115 lbs or something.

No. Nine percent of 141 is around 13 pounds of fat. He'll be dead before
115.

It's probably all moot. He's using a Tanita scale. He's probably at 27% body
fat.

David
 
Joe Humble wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2005 03:08:31 -0800, "David Cohen" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> On the other hand, I went and bought some more fish oil supplements for
> >> EFA's. I'm taking 6 capsules 3xday w/ meals. I had also started taking
> >> 750mg Calcium Bis-Glycinate 3xday the other week.
> >
> >If you were 5'10" and 195 pounds at 9% trying to get to 7%, i'd say you
> >were a bodybuilder. At 5'10" and 141 pounds at 9% trying to get to 7%,
> >you have an eating disorder/body dysmorphic syndrome, and need to see a
> >psychiatrist.
> >
> >And, no, I'm not joking. You need professional help.
> >
> >David
>
> Don't those silly weight charts show 147 as the perfect bodyweight for
> 5'10"?
>

Yes, lowest they show is 132 lbs, based on BMI. BMI of 19 is usually
the low end of the healthy range. Some charts even have the healthy
range as low as 18 esp. for younger people and smaller framed people.

> 9% to 7% is going to probably cut deeply into both muscle and fat. He
> may just not be aware he'll need to get to, I'm not getting my
> calculator, like 115 lbs or something.
>

To get from 9% to 7%, I would need to get to only 135 lbs even with
some muscle loss accounted for. That's well above the estimated 115
lbs. No one would ever need to lose 26 lbs just to drop 2% bodyfat.
Even with 1/2 muscle and 1/2 fat loss, I would still be close to the
132 lbs.

One of the ONLY times someone would weigh 115 lbs at that height is if
they have a very small frame. I have a larger frame than that, though,
so I don't have to get that low.

>
> --
> Is this thing on?
 
Joe Humble wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2005 03:08:31 -0800, "David Cohen" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> On the other hand, I went and bought some more fish oil supplements for
> >> EFA's. I'm taking 6 capsules 3xday w/ meals. I had also started taking
> >> 750mg Calcium Bis-Glycinate 3xday the other week.
> >
> >If you were 5'10" and 195 pounds at 9% trying to get to 7%, i'd say you
> >were a bodybuilder. At 5'10" and 141 pounds at 9% trying to get to 7%,
> >you have an eating disorder/body dysmorphic syndrome, and need to see a
> >psychiatrist.
> >
> >And, no, I'm not joking. You need professional help.
> >
> >David
>
> Don't those silly weight charts show 147 as the perfect bodyweight for
> 5'10"?
>

Yes, lowest they show is 132 lbs, based on BMI. BMI of 19 is usually
the low end of the healthy range. Some charts even have the healthy
range as low as 18 esp. for younger people and smaller framed people.

> 9% to 7% is going to probably cut deeply into both muscle and fat. He
> may just not be aware he'll need to get to, I'm not getting my
> calculator, like 115 lbs or something.
>

To get from 9% to 7%, I would need to get to only 135 lbs even with
some muscle loss accounted for. That's well above the estimated 115
lbs. No one would ever need to lose 26 lbs just to drop 2% bodyfat.
Even with 1/2 muscle and 1/2 fat loss, I would still be close to the
132 lbs.

One of the ONLY times someone would weigh 115 lbs at that height is if
they have a very small frame. I have a larger frame than that, though,
so I don't have to get that low.

>
> --
> Is this thing on?
 
"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Depends on whose silly chart you use. One that has some basis in being
> able to function effectively...the US Army's...has 185 pounds as the
> desirable weight for his age and height.
>

Cool, I didn't know that. I'll tell my insurance company to go to hell.

Hugh

--
Suicide is an option.
 
David Cohen wrote:
> "Joe Humble" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped]
> David

I need to note as well that
I've been calipered by different trainers before at the same time when
using this scale, and the results have always agreed within 1% to the
scale readings. So, the scale is pretty right on. Athlete mode gives me
4.0%. I'm not an athlete, so this number most certainly isn't right.
 
Hugh Beyer <[email protected]> wrote:

>"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Depends on whose silly chart you use. One that has some basis in being
>> able to function effectively...the US Army's...has 185 pounds as the
>> desirable weight for his age and height.
>
>Cool, I didn't know that. I'll tell my insurance company to go to hell.

Insurance companies are getting smarter. Our new health insurance
administrator offers wellness benefits for maintaining a BMI below a
certain level, but before I could complain about the problems with BMI
amongst those with athletic builds, I was informed that the company
will allow you to opt for BF% readings by caliper or DEXA.
 
"Pentastar" <[email protected]> wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
>> "Joe Humble" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped]
>> David
>
> I need to note as well that
> I've been calipered by different trainers before at the same time when
> using this scale, and the results have always agreed within 1% to the
> scale readings. So, the scale is pretty right on. Athlete mode gives me
> 4.0%. I'm not an athlete, so this number most certainly isn't right.

If kite flying becomes an athletic event, you could be an athlete.

Wait for it. it's coming...

Yes.

That's right.

You could be the kite.

Worth the wait :)

David
 
"David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's probably all moot. He's using a Tanita scale. He's probably at 27%
body
> fat.

Those BF scales are **** for anyone that has meat to them. My scale says
32%, but the calipers say 11.
 
John wrote:
> "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > It's probably all moot. He's using a Tanita scale. He's probably at 27%
> body
> > fat.
>
> Those BF scales are **** for anyone that has meat to them. My scale says
> 32%, but the calipers say 11.

You're probably using the regular mode.
That's why they have athlete mode. To account for bodybuilders.

I was at the gym the other week, and they had a scale over there. I and
two of my other friends checked our BF%'s on them. Now, this was done
in the later part of the day (when the readings are supposed to be
done).

One had a been working out for several+ years with weights and had been
measured at 6 or so %BF with calipers. He's 5'6". Using regular adult
mode (the mode I use), his fat% came back as 13-14% at 160 lbs.
But when we switched it to Athlete mode, his fat% came back at between
6-7%, which is more his true fat%.

Another person used it as well. He was 6'0". His weight came back as
192 and 19% or so BF in normal adult mode. He had been lifting for 2
years. When switching to athlete mode, his fat% came back as 13, which
he thought had been more like his true fat% before he checked it on
there.

Then I used it next. In normal adult mode, it came back at only 8.2% at
a weight of 142. This was in the late afternoon as I mentioned (I
usually take daily readings in the morning). I tried athlete mode, and
it said 2.8%.
Now, mind you, I hadn't been working out before really, so the 8.2%
(equiv. to the 9.0-9.5% morning reading on mine) is more like my true
body fat percentage.
The normal adult mode, which some refer to as couch potato mode, is for
people who don't work out or exercise much.

So, if you're a weightlifting and have been for a while, and you use
that scale to check your fat%, use that Athlete Mode. It should give
you a result closer to your true bodyfat%.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Pentastar" <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Cohen wrote:
> > Pentastar wrote:
> > > 21 years old,.5'10"
> > > On my fat loss program, I'm now currently at 141 lbs and 9.2% body fat
> > > according to Tanita Scale using regular adult mode at sedentary
> > > activity level setting. Goal is 7% BF.
> > >
> > > How do you tell when your leptin levels drop and that it's time to
> > > refeed?
> >
> > At 5'10" and 141 pounds, you can tell it's time to refeed because a
> > light breeze blows you into the next county.
> >
> > David
>
> Clap:::Clap:::Clap:::LOL ;-D LOL:::Clap:::Clap:::Clap

But he's not kidding. You don't need fat loss, you need to increase your
LBM.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Pentastar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> To get from 9% to 7%, I would need to get to only 135 lbs even with
> some muscle loss accounted for. That's well above the estimated 115
> lbs. No one would ever need to lose 26 lbs just to drop 2% bodyfat.
> Even with 1/2 muscle and 1/2 fat loss, I would still be close to the
> 132 lbs.

Making you a walking stick figure. No one hear is going to advise you
that this is a goal worth following.

>
> One of the ONLY times someone would weigh 115 lbs at that height is if
> they have a very small frame.

Or they were in a concentration camp. Small frame or not, no man should
weight 115lbs at 5'10 period, unless you cut off both legs and arms.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back