What's So Great About 90.7kgs?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

I find it really funny that a lot of people on the site obsess with the 200lbs marker. “What’s so special about 90.7kgs?” is what most of us Europeans think when we see this.

I like to using the BMI as guide for muscularity. BMI is a lot less mystical for those of us using metric:

BMI=(weight in kgs)/(height in metres squared)

(Just convert your numbers to metric first and use above, or use some sort of online calculator)

A good marker for a beginner would be to hit overweight, 25, on BMI with a reasonable body-fat (<20%). A person could be considered intermediate to advanced if they were obese, 30, on BMI with a reasonable body-fat (<20%). One could also use 27.5 BMI as an extra target along the way. I use 20% since even when bulking I wouldn’t like to go over the 20% mark.

This also allows for better comparison between different people. Say we have 2 people with similar body-fats (both ~15%):

John 176lbs 5’4" = 80kgs 1.63m
Jack 203lbs 6’0" = 92kgs 1.83m

Who is more muscular? If we look at BMI we see John’s BMI is 30, Jack’s BMI is 27.5. Without any extra info I would probably say Jack is less muscular.

Obviously pictures and measurements of chest, arms, legs, waist etc. would tell a lot more about muscularity than BMI but when all one has is height and weight (and an approx. body-fat) BMI will tell you more than just looking at the weight by itself.

Now in terms of training markers I’ll use myself as an example:

When I started out I was 75kgs at a height of 1.8m. BMI says you are overweight when you hit 25. So my beginner target weight was 25*(1.8^2)=81kgs at a reasonable body-fat (<20%, though I personally wanted <15%).

The next goal for me in terms of muscle mass would be to be obese by BMI, 30+, but with a reasonable body-fat (<20%). 30 on BMI translates to 30*(1.8^2)=97.2kgs.

I’m currently 92kgs. That sits above 200lbs but using BMI I have not yet reached an intermediate to advanced level. For my height 200lbs is not big enough. This is reflected if you met me in person as its not yet completely obvious that I lift weights.

So people forget about the 200lbs marker. When looking for muscle mass goals take into account your height and aim for BMI targets not just weight targets. The BMI target of obese is a better standard than 200lbs. Some people will reach 200lbs quite easily, others will find it very difficult. People with BMI 30 and reasonable body-fat will look like they lift weights more so than someone who is 200lbs.

2

Uh, what?

3

Maybe you should cruise around a European site then?

200lb just seems to be around the time when you’re no longer scrawny.

It varies by height of course, but for most folks you have some muscle and it shows around there.

4

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
Maybe you should cruise around a European site then?

200lb just seems to be around the time when you’re no longer scrawny.

It varies by height of course, but for most folks you have some muscle and it shows around there. [/quote]

I wasn’t bashing the imperial system. I was just offering up a better standard via BMI.

EDIT

Also height matters a lot. A person at 5’3" and 200lbs would probably be of Pro standard. A person at 6’4" and 200lbs would probably look scrawny.

5

[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Maybe you should cruise around a European site then?

200lb just seems to be around the time when you’re no longer scrawny.

It varies by height of course, but for most folks you have some muscle and it shows around there.

I wasn’t bashing the imperial system. I was just offering up a better standard via BMI.[/quote]

BMI is one of the biggest loads of bullshit in the fitness industry IMO.

Sorry, had to be said.

6

[quote]SSC wrote:
BMI is one of the biggest loads of bullshit in the fitness industry IMO.

Sorry, had to be said.[/quote]

Certainly in terms of marking actual obesity BMI is terrible.

But if you just use it as a measure of weight relative to height then it is quite good.

7

Also maybe some of you don’t know where BMI comes from:

All humans are approximately the same density, that is bodyweight divided volume. It is cumbersome to measure someone’s volume but it is easy to measure someone’s bodyweight.

Based on an assumption that BW/Vol = Constant one can see that BW = Vol * Constant. So that BW can represent volume in terms of comparing other humans.

So:
BW = VolConst = HeightWidthDepthConst
BMI = BW/Height^2
= HeightWidthDepthConst / Height^2
= (WidthDepth / Height)*Const

So BMI is seen as a measure of the Width times Depth of a person per unit height. So in this way if Bodyfat is low it can give a height adjusted measure of muscularity.

EDIT

So BMI gives Cross-sectional area of a person relative to height.

8

because america’s educational system sucks and we dont want to do a god damned algebra equation to figure out whether someone is big or not

start at 6’ft and add or minus 10 pounds for going down or up an inch respecitvely.

so if im 6’ft 200 and your 5’8 180 and i want to see how we compare id go up 4 inches and go up 40 pounds which means a 5’8 180 person is equivelant to a 6 ft 220 pounder.

9

[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Maybe you should cruise around a European site then?

200lb just seems to be around the time when you’re no longer scrawny.

It varies by height of course, but for most folks you have some muscle and it shows around there.

I wasn’t bashing the imperial system. I was just offering up a better standard via BMI.

EDIT

Also height matters a lot. A person at 5’3" and 200lbs would probably be of Pro standard. A person at 6’4" and 200lbs would probably look scrawny.[/quote]

6’3 and 5’3 are two extremes of both being tall and being short. when we discuss 200 pounds its typically with more common heights. obviously a 5’9 200 pounder will look bigger than a 5’10 200 pounder and so on.

its not an exact science, its a rule of thumb.

10

Fair enough idea, but to those of us on this side of the pond it’s easier to just deal with pounds (makes it a little easier to relate).

200 pounds aside (which I don’t get why anyone still takes that EXACT number seriously), I’ve always assumed it went without saying that if you’re the type of person who is much shorter/taller than average, you throw your height in when giving your weight as well to give a little more context.

Or just give your height along with your weight to begin with and fuck converting it. You limeys will just have to deal with it.

Or judge yourself by what the mirror tells you as opposed to the scale - because at the end of the day, that’s what really matters. I always take estimations of bodyfat percentage with a grain of salt, since people who haven’t measured themselves at different levels are usually pretty shitty judges of it to begin with.

11

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
because america’s educational system sucks and we dont want to do a god damned algebra equation to figure out whether someone is big or not

start at 6’ft and add or minus 10 pounds for going down or up an inch respecitvely.

so if im 6’ft 200 and your 5’8 180 and i want to see how we compare id go up 4 inches and go up 40 pounds which means a 5’8 180 person is equivelant to a 6 ft 220 pounder.[/quote]

Again I’m not arguing Imperial vs. Metric I was just converting 200 to metric to highlight how arbitrary a standard it is.

BMI is not dependent on the units you use so long as you use the appropriate form (they have imperial version that has some extra numbers in it). I just thought that BMI would give a good height independent standard for muscle goals.

I hadn’t come across the 10 pound per inch rule of thumb. Still BMI is better for comparisons in my opinion. It’s most likely that rule of thumb was even derived from the BMI formula.

12

Why not just use a mirror, or photos?

13

It would make more sense to have the “benchmark” at 220lb. That’s a hundred kilo’s.

14

Judging people by weight alone is stupid.

Judging people by BMI alone is also stupid, but less so.

15

[quote]-ironman- wrote:
Why not just use a mirror, or photos?[/quote]

True, photos/mirror are great makers for progress.

I think BMI is useful for setting up targets more so than just bodyweight by itself. Too often people use bodyweight goals without much regard to heights the most common one being the 200lbs marker.

I was trying to make a case for BMI based markers being a better standard. When you set a BMI target it is directly comparable to others BMIs since it takes into account of your height (obviously body-fat variations will still be an issue).

16

[quote]-ironman- wrote:
Why not just use a mirror, or photos?[/quote]

No kidding.

Come on folks. If you look like you are strong chances are you just might be.

17

Gee, another chance to complicate a simple concept seized yet again.

18

[quote]SSC wrote:
wushu_1984 wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Maybe you should cruise around a European site then?

200lb just seems to be around the time when you’re no longer scrawny.

It varies by height of course, but for most folks you have some muscle and it shows around there.

I wasn’t bashing the imperial system. I was just offering up a better standard via BMI.

BMI is one of the biggest loads of bullshit in the fitness industry IMO.

Sorry, had to be said.[/quote]

And very well said indeed.

19

[quote]yusef wrote:
Ha YES! I’m so sick of having to divide everything by 2.2 in my head to get an image when someone mentions a lift or bodyweight on here.

I’m almost obese at 87kg. Banging.

Long live the kilogram.[/quote]

So instead of you dividing everything by 2.2 you would rather everyone calculate their own BMI?

20

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gee, another chance to complicate a simple concept seized yet again.[/quote]

Come on, it’s not that complicated. It’s just your BMI.

It’s a number which (I thought) most people are familiar with. It’s not like I gave some sort of Wilk’s Coefficient type inverse fifth degree polynomial.