- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:14 pm to Displaced
From a pure weight loss standpoint, it isn’t more complicated.
From a body composition standpoint, yeah, it’s more complicated.
From a body composition standpoint, yeah, it’s more complicated.
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:15 pm to DeafJam73
I would argue that the single best parameter for how weight effects health and mortality (as opposed to aesthetics) is a life insurance company build chart. Because they have to pay actual claims based on the actual results of what height and weight is. So an insurance company giving you a preferred rate on a fully underwritten life insurance policy or disability policy at 5'11-215 tells me a LOT more about actual health/mortality RISK than an internet build chart that has the same person listed at obese.
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:15 pm to Salmon
quote:
From a pure weight loss standpoint, it isn’t more complicated.
From a body composition standpoint, yeah, it’s more complicated.
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:15 pm to Jake88
Hey, I'm not 6' so I'm not going to claim to be. I'm not that guy.
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:17 pm to Salmon
quote:His chart isnt even BMI though
From a pure weight loss standpoint, it isn’t more complicated.
for example 5'10" and 170 lbs has you overweight in the ops chart
It is a healthy normal BMI though
eta:
Actually, the chart seems to be mind fricking me
Every height has about 15 lbs missing from any category
For example, if you are 6'0" 178 lbs what are you?
This post was edited on 8/10/18 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:24 pm to lsupride87
Honestly I haven’t even looked at the chart outside of making sure I was still considered “normal” so I could pat myself on the back and feel superior to all the fatties
This post was edited on 8/10/18 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:26 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:Have you ever been at 4.5% body fat?
This statement is so stupid it makes my head hurt. You are saying you didn't have 8 lbs of fat on your body? You were 4.5% bf? Highly doubtful.
I have
It did not feel optimal. I felt weak as I got deeper into some matches
8-10% is where I felt and looked my best from an athletic standpoint
So I can see someone still having some fat but feeling like losing any more weight would make them feel sickly
This post was edited on 8/10/18 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:33 pm to celltech1981
Not many people deadlifting 4 plates at 175 lbs; therefore, the chart is bunk.
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:38 pm to uway
quote:
Not many people deadlifting 4 plates at 175 lbs; therefore, the chart is bunk.
there are plenty of folks that could DL that but i get your point. 405 at 175 means do more work lol
This post was edited on 8/10/18 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:40 pm to Displaced
quote:
It's slightly more complicated than that, with hormones, sugars, etc... But I really hate that thread and don't want to morph into that one.
no it is not anymore complicated than that. Sugar intake has no effect on body composition and you can not find one study that shows that it does once calories are accounted for. In other words you are talking out your arse, period.
Its weekly calories and daily protein that matters. Once daily protein requirement is met, doesn't matter where the rest of calories come from until you get down to below 10% bodyfat. There are over a dozen studies that show this.
Absolutely zero that show what you are saying. I suggest you go read up on the science by reading martin berkham, alan argon, eric helms, lyle mcdonald, greg nuckoles, and layne norton.

Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:50 pm to uway
quote:Are you talking about 225 lbs?
Not many people deadlifting 4 plates at 175 lbs; therefore, the chart is bunk.
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:53 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Are you talking about 225 lbs?
what? 405 at 175 lbs isn't impressive and is pretty standard.
edit: standard isn't right. is pretty common would be a better way to put it.
This post was edited on 8/10/18 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:54 pm to celltech1981
quote:
what? 405 at 175 lbs isn't impressive
What % of the world do you think can do that?
How much training do you think is required for the average person to develop that strength?
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:56 pm to celltech1981
Scruffy didn’t know if he was talking about 4 plates total or on one side. 
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:57 pm to uway
quote:
What % of the world do you think can do that?
How much training do you think is required for the average person to develop that strength?
LINK
about 33% of 175 lb lifters can do that. It took me about 2 years before i hit that weighing 150 lbs as a powerlifter which put me in the top 11% of lifters, still not that uncommon. i was in the bottom 50% of powerlifters.
This post was edited on 8/10/18 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:57 pm to celltech1981
quote:
what? 405 at 175 lbs isn't impressive and is pretty standard.
I can't imagine how someone can become so fricking ignorant
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:58 pm to celltech1981
quote:
LINK
about 33% of 175 lb lifters can do that. It took me about 2 years before i hit that weighing 150 lbs as a powerlifter which put me in the top 11% of lifters, still not that uncommon. i was in the bottom 50% of powerlifters.
quote:
Our strength standards are based on over 11,818,000 lifts entered by Strength Level users.
Kind of a limited sample size, don't you think?
Posted on 8/10/18 at 1:59 pm to celltech1981
No doubt too many fatties out there...but that chart is dumb. im probably around 12-15% body fat(aka not ripped but still look decent) and that chart says im 10 lbs overweight
Popular
Back to top


1







