How much do you weigh?



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Per Elmsäter wrote:
>
> > OK so on the athletics scale I had 10% bodyfat. On the normal scale I had 18% bodyfat. We
> > finished it off with the tweesers. On the legs I had 12mm ( bikers
legs,
> > right) On the tummy 32mm and the breasts were 22 mm. This added up I
think
> > to something like 22% bodyfat.
> >
> > So now I'm all confused.
>
> Just to confuse you some more, here is another calculation method from the YMCA:
>
> Men's %Fat = (-98.42 + 4.15*waist - .082*weight)/weight
>
> (waist in inches, measured at the navel, weight in pounds)
>
> This is supposed to be pretty accurate.
>
> And the reason for the "athlete" vs. "normal" setting on the scale: someone who has been doing
> aerobic training for years has a higher blood volume than an untrained person.

As I understand it, the most accurate method of determining body fat percentage is by using a tank
of water and measuring the displacement.

Robin Hubert
 
"Terry Morse" wrote in:
> Just to confuse you some more, here is another calculation method from the YMCA:
>
> Men's %Fat = (-98.42 + 4.15*waist - .082*weight)/weight
>
> (waist in inches, measured at the navel, weight in pounds)

Do you have to multiply by 100 to get percent? I used the formula above and got a result of 0.1176

Art Harris
 
On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 18:48:23 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>OK so on the athletics scale I had 10% bodyfat. On the normal scale I had 18% bodyfat. We finished
>it off with the tweesers. On the legs I had 12mm ( bikers legs, right) On the tummy 32mm and the
>breasts were 22 mm. This added up I think to something like 22% bodyfat.

Which suggests that the 18% is probably accurate, but that your fat distribution is not "average"
(hardly surprising). It also suggests that maybe you should be considering losing a little on the
upper body, but that you're probably in no mortal danger due to excess body fat, so there's no need
to get in a knot about it.

I'd rate that pretty satisfactory.

If you want to reduce the reading, my suggestion would be to cut down on added fat in your diet
(chips, fries, butter and such) and do a circuit class at least once a week. And anyone who takes
advice from folks on Usenet is bound to get their money's worth :-D

But this regime worked for me. Well, I did at least an hour's aerobic exercise every day for six
months, however I wanted to lose some serious weight and fast. Which I did. But once the weight was
down, once a week plus cycling was sufficient for maintenance.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
Eric wrote:
>
> Well, that's why I'm asking. I really don't want to bother with being as fit as Muhammad Ali at
> his peak. I don't have the time or patience to work out that much, and I think that food is more
> than something to keep me alive. I ride a touring frame, use Shimano components, and I'm more
> intrested in the joy of riding than being able to keep up with Lance Armstrong.
>
> I guess what I'm asking is simply, am I some sort of freak because I ride for the fun of doing it?
> Am I the only one out there who doesn't really care if it takes me a 1/2 hour to climb a 10% grade
> for a mile? Am I the only bicyclist left who has hairy legs?

Sounds to me like you're overly worried about your image. Don't be.

Bicycling isn't racing and training. Or rather, it isn't _only_ racing and training. Bicycling is
taking rides on country roads with friends, or a relaxing cruise down to the library, or getting
some good exercise on the way to work. It's parents cruising around the neighborhood with their
kids. It's the challenge of riding all the way to Aunt Mabel's house. It's pedaling over to the
wetlands to see different birds for a change. It's learning what every back street in your town
looks like. It's a Monday evening trip to the ice cream stand with the family. It's camping out at
the state park 40 miles away. It's hauling $75 worth of groceries home without using your car.

I suggest you look at the following: the book Bike Cult by David Perry, and any of the Encycleopedia
publications. You'll see enough variety to cure you of the Bicycling magazine "Speed Racer" image!
You'll see pictures of people riding in military uniform, in straw hats and long dresses, in
knickers and sport coats. You'll see people on bikes of every imaginable type - and several
unimaginable types.

Then take a look at the picture books of drawings by Frank Patterson, the greatest cycling artist
ever. You'll see romantic pen-and-ink drawings of ordinary people riding through beautiful
countrysides just to enjoy that beauty.

Again, you don't have to look like Bicycling's cover boy of the month. I certainly don't - and I bet
I enjoy cycling more than whoever's on that cover right now!

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
[email protected] (Eric) wrote let it be known in
news:[email protected]:

> This got me thinking… I haven't ever done any BMI calculations on myself, but according to some of
> the web calculators, my 5' 11" frame is considered obese at 220 pounds.

I'm 6'1" and, during biking season, my weight ranges between 210 and 217lbs. My goal is to
get down to 200 even this year, but it hasn't happened over the past few years so I don't
know if I'll make it. Like you, I bounce up a little during the winter months. right now I
am around 221, trying with all my might to keep it below 225 before Spring gets here!

For my height, the BMI for 'obese' is up around 229lbs, which I was over a few years ago
when I started biking again (for one short Winter I topped out at 245 before I got afraid to
look at the scale anymore). Now, during the summer, I feel pretty fit at 210, biking over
3,000 miles per year and keeping up with all but the fastest riders in the groups I
frequent. I've got great oxygen capacity, and with the muscle mass in my thighs can bike all
day long without tiring. With my size, all the little 130 pound 'waifs' like to pull in
behind me for a rest after spending their effort on a short sprint. :)

I do know, though, that that extra 20-30lbs is all that is keeping me away from riding with
the faster riders in this area. I'd really love to see 180, but I just love my post-ride
nachos and beer a little too much!

--

Curt Bousquet moc.enilnacs@PTNN < Reverse for email

Road biking in Southern VT and Western Mass.

My 2002 bike log: http://www.scanline.com/bikelog/2002.html
 
As I said the "average male" stops growing at around 21yrs old. "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 23:51:41 GMT, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >How much did you weigh at 21 yrs old? If you were not over weight then,
then
> >that should be your weight now.
>
> I've grown nearly 2" in height and put on 4" round the chest since then!
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.
 
Harris wrote:

> "Terry Morse" wrote in:
> > Men's %Fat = (-98.42 + 4.15*waist - .082*weight)/weight
> >
> > (waist in inches, measured at the navel, weight in pounds)
>
> Do you have to multiply by 100 to get percent? I used the formula above and got a result of 0.1176

Yes, a result of 0.1176 is 11.76%.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Feb 2003 06:57:55 -0800, [email protected] (Eric) wrote:
>
> >Am I the only bicyclist left who has hairy legs?
>
> Shhhh! You'll wake Fabrizzio!

Well seeing how the Tour de Langkawi in Malaysia is in full swing right now, we won't have access to
the internet for awhile yet, but let's just say this: if you're still going around with hair on your
legs at this time of the year, then it looks as though your 2003 season may be a write off.
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
> Bicycling isn't racing and training. Or rather, it isn't _only_ racing and training. Bicycling is
> taking rides on country roads with friends, or a relaxing cruise down to the library, or getting
> some good exercise on the way to work. It's parents cruising around the neighborhood with their
> kids. It's the challenge of riding all the way to Aunt Mabel's house. It's pedaling over to the
> wetlands to see different birds for a change. It's learning what every back street in your town
> looks like. It's a Monday evening trip to the ice cream stand with the family. It's camping out at
> the state park 40 miles away. It's hauling $75 worth of groceries home without using your car.
>

Frank, those are exactly the kind of riders that I am constantly yelling at to get out of my way.
They seem to be totally oblivious to real roadies like me who need road space when out training.

If you have time to look at silly birds or stuff then you have time to share the road with
elite riders.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 18:48:23 GMT, "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >OK so on the athletics scale I had 10% bodyfat. On the normal scale I had 18% bodyfat. We
> >finished it off with the tweesers. On the legs I had 12mm ( bikers
legs,
> >right) On the tummy 32mm and the breasts were 22 mm. This added up I
think
> >to something like 22% bodyfat.
>
> Which suggests that the 18% is probably accurate, but that your fat distribution is not "average"
> (hardly surprising). It also suggests that maybe you should be considering losing a little on the
> upper body, but that you're probably in no mortal danger due to excess body fat, so there's no
> need to get in a knot about it.
>
> I'd rate that pretty satisfactory.
>
> If you want to reduce the reading, my suggestion would be to cut down on added fat in your diet
> (chips, fries, butter and such) and do a circuit class at least once a week. And anyone who takes
> advice from folks on Usenet is bound to get their money's worth :-D
>
> But this regime worked for me. Well, I did at least an hour's aerobic exercise every day for six
> months, however I wanted to lose some serious weight and fast. Which I did. But once the weight
> was down, once a week plus cycling was sufficient for maintenance.
>

I'm satisfied enough by the results. They were just a bit confusing. I've already lost 22 pounds
by cutting out fats like you suggest. In the last six months I've been rock steady on the scale
but my belllyline keeps on shrinking. That means my BMI is still the same but my %bodyfat is
steadily diminishing. This of course is due to working out and riding my bike now, more than I've
ever done before.

--
Replace the dots to reply

Perre
 
"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Per Elmsäter wrote:
>
> > OK so on the athletics scale I had 10% bodyfat. On the normal scale I had 18% bodyfat. We
> > finished it off with the tweesers. On the legs I had 12mm ( bikers
legs,
> > right) On the tummy 32mm and the breasts were 22 mm. This added up I
think
> > to something like 22% bodyfat.
> >
> > So now I'm all confused.
>
> Just to confuse you some more, here is another calculation method from the YMCA:
>
> Men's %Fat = (-98.42 + 4.15*waist - .082*weight)/weight
>
> (waist in inches, measured at the navel, weight in pounds)
>
> This is supposed to be pretty accurate.
>

Could be. It put me at 17.5 % I was a little uncertain of the math there but I did it like this
Waist = 34.65 "" Weight = 176,17 lb ( funky numbers 'cause they were converted from metric ;)

( ((-98.42 + (4.15*waist)) - (.082*weight))/weight ) *100

> And the reason for the "athlete" vs. "normal" setting on the scale: someone who has been doing
> aerobic training for years has a higher blood volume than an untrained person.

Makes sense too, since I'm probably somewhere inbetween aerobically.

Thanks.

> --
> terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
 
"Jon Isaacs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And about those shaved legs, yeah, I got hairly legs. Jobst has often
pointed
> out that there are no real reasons for cyclists to shave their legs, only myths.

Yea but ol Jobst is stuck in the old days of 32 spoked hand built wheels that are totally
unstuitable for today's riding.
 
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jon Isaacs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > And about those shaved legs, yeah, I got hairly legs. Jobst has often
> pointed
> > out that there are no real reasons for cyclists to shave their legs,
only
> > myths.
>
>
> Yea but ol Jobst is stuck in the old days of 32 spoked hand built wheels that are totally
> unstuitable for today's <snip>

"posing"

Robin Hubert
 
> Yea but ol Jobst is stuck in the old days of 32 spoked hand built wheels that are totally
> unstuitable for today's riding.

32 spokes?! When did Jobst abandon 36?

Art Harris
 
> > Just to confuse you some more, here is another calculation method from the YMCA:
>
> ( ((-98.42 + (4.15*waist)) - (.082*weight))/weight ) *100
>

Does anyone have a link to these calcs? Want to have a look at the female one (and also see if they
have been converted to metric for most of the rest of the world)

Ta

Jean
 
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:

> You're right about BMI being inaccurate. You can be classified as "obese" while actually having a
> low body fat %. You can also be classified as "normal" or even "underweight" while actually have a
> relatively high body fat %. I agree with your advice to get a body fat reading. This is a much
> better indicator of healthy weight than BMI.

No, it's just as big a crock of BS as is BMI.

BMI is worthless, fundamentally mathematically flawed. The system uses height as a simple divisor in
deriving an index of comparison-- but weight increases as the cube of height! Someone 5'0" and 100
lbs can have exactly the same proportions and body composition as someone 6'0" and 173 lbs, or
someone 7'0" and 274 lbs. But according to BMI nincompoops, the five-footer is at the low end of the
normal range, the six-footer is at the high end of the normal range, and the seven-footer is
overweight. Mind you, these imaginary people are identical except for scale.

During the only period of my life in which I would have qualified as "normal" BMI-wise, was when I
measured 6'9" and less than 230 lbs. That was not the high end of normal weight (as suggested by
BMI), it was ghastly skinny.

Body fat percentage is, if anything, even worse than BMI as an indicator of "correct" weight.
Compare the elite athletes who compete in marathons and triathlons to those who are the best in the
world at strongman events or sumo wrestling. It would be a laughable error to characterize the
scrawny athletes as fitter or healthier than the fatter ones, though the use of body fat percentage
as a sole criterion would lead you to just such a conclusion.

The fact is that different bodies are different, and no single formula is an accurate indicator of
health and fitness.

Chalo Colina
 
Bluto wrote:

> Body fat percentage is, if anything, even worse than BMI as an indicator of "correct" weight.
> Compare the elite athletes who compete in marathons and triathlons to those who are the best in
> the world at strongman events or sumo wrestling. It would be a laughable error to characterize the
> scrawny athletes as fitter or healthier than the fatter ones, though the use of body fat
> percentage as a sole criterion would lead you to just such a conclusion.

Ah yes, the "I'm fat, but I'm fit" delusion. You can be obese and strong, but you can't be obese
and healthy:

http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/unders.htm#Healthrisks
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
 
"Harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> 32 spokes?! When did Jobst abandon 36?

Come you guys, you know how bad you would look riding stuff like a Mavic CXP or MA3 with 32 -
14/15 gauge spokes. That was ok back in the '80s but now you need wheels like the Mavic Cosmic
Carbone SSC or Spinergy Tilium Carbon.

Show up for the first time at one of my group rides with something lame like 32 spoked Mavic Open
Pros and I will be thinking 'ok, we're going to drop this newcomer real quick'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cycler6n
how much does your bike weigh?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
jhuskey
jhuskey
RapDaddyo
How much does a CompuTrainer Pro weigh?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Power meters
NomadVW
NomadVW
B
How much does a hen-weigh (OK, a crankset) ?
Replies
2
Views
570
Cycling Equipment
Bob
B
forrest brown
How much does your MTB weigh
Replies
9
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
jaz
jaz
Carrera
How Much Do You All Weigh?
Replies
151
Views
26K
Cycling Training
halien
halien
j_erhardt
Why does my bike weigh so much?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
j_erhardt
j_erhardt
sparknote_s
How much does your bike weigh?
Replies
22
Views
3K
Bike Cafe
rayner
rayner
B
How much does Paint weigh?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
x
X
B
How much does Paint weigh?
Replies
13
Views
592
Cycling Equipment
(Pete Cresswell)
P
DesertRider
How much do you spend on repairs because your bike does'nt weigh enough?
Replies
26
Views
3K
Cycling Equipment
DesertRider
DesertRider
Top Bottom Back