What's So Great About 90.7kgs?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Gee, another chance to complicate a simple concept seized yet again.

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.[/quote]

I think the point is, even if this is a simple idea, what is the necessity for it? when much more simple methods are availiable, that give a better result? ie. photos and mirrors.

22

[quote]-ironman- wrote:
wushu_1984 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Gee, another chance to complicate a simple concept seized yet again.

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.

I think the point is, even if this is a simple idea, what is the necessity for it? when much more simple methods are availiable, that give a better result? ie. photos and mirrors.[/quote]

I’m not saying break all your mirrors and throw away your camera! I just thought that it would be another tool to put in the tool box.

Mostly I just see the 200lbs comment around the place. But for short people this is quite a high standard and for tall people this is prob too low. I think 30 on BMI is a better standard than the 200lbs.

I know that impressive pics are the best standard.

23

200lbs!? Depends on who your talking to but personally I hit 200lbs and I was still scrawny so it meant nothing to me. Hit 220 and things started looking better. Hit 240 and now I get the “wow do you work out?” 260 is just around the bend for me. A couple more weeks of this shit and it break this sum bitch loose again.

24

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
200lbs!? Depends on who your talking to but personally I hit 200lbs and I was still scrawny so it meant nothing to me. Hit 220 and things started looking better. Hit 240 and now I get the “wow do you work out?” 260 is just around the bend for me. A couple more weeks of this shit and it break this sum bitch loose again. [/quote]

Thats pretty much my point: that 30 on BMI is better benchmark than 200lbs.

Just a quick check at your profile (hope you don’t mind) sees your height at 6’2". So 30 BMI gives about 235lbs for you. Which is about where you were getting “wow do you work out?”.

Anyone else see my point that 30 BMI is a better standard than 200lbs?

25

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
200lbs!? Depends on who your talking to but personally I hit 200lbs and I was still scrawny so it meant nothing to me. Hit 220 and things started looking better. Hit 240 and now I get the “wow do you work out?” 260 is just around the bend for me. A couple more weeks of this shit and it break this sum bitch loose again. [/quote]

You can’t say things like this while I’m cutting, it makes me self conscious. asshole! lol

26

[quote]forlife wrote:
Judging people by weight alone is stupid.

Judging people by BMI alone is also stupid, but less so.[/quote]

In 1986 I was taught…

All between 8-10% BF (all abs in)
Prior to 3.0lbs per inch of height you’re not shit
At 3.0lbs per inch you look big
At 3.5lbs per inch you look huge
At 4.0lbs per inch you are a beast

I have seen few exceptions…but it has held up pretty well over 20+ years.

27

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
forlife wrote:
Judging people by weight alone is stupid.

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

In 1986 I was taught…

All between 8-10% BF (all abs in)
Prior to 3.0lbs per inch of height you’re not shit
At 3.0lbs per inch you look big
At 3.5lbs per inch you look huge
At 4.0lbs per inch you are a beast

I have seen few exceptions…but it has held up pretty well over 20+ years.

[/quote]

See this makes a lot more sense then 200lbs. And is only a small step away from BMI.

28

These are the only times I wish I wasn’t quite so tall(I passed 200 lbs a while ago, and I still look shrimpy). Oh well, time to go eat.

29

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
In 1986 I was taught…

All between 8-10% BF (all abs in)
Prior to 3.0lbs per inch of height you’re not shit
At 3.0lbs per inch you look big
At 3.5lbs per inch you look huge
At 4.0lbs per inch you are a beast

I have seen few exceptions…but it has held up pretty well over 20+ years.

[/quote]

Just because I’m a nerd here is a metric conversion:

Prior to 536g per cm of height you’re not shit
At 536g per cm you look big
At 625g per cm you look huge
At 714g per cm you are a beast

EDIT
PLEASE IGNORE IF NOT A NERD:
Some super nerdage:

3.0lbs per inch gives {Height, BMI}:
{5’4",33}, {5’8",31}, {6’,29.3}, {6’4",27.8}
Average for 13 BMI’s between 5’4 to 6’4" = 30.22

3.5lbs per inch gives {Height, BMI}:
{5’4",38.4}, {5’8",36.2}, {6’,34.2}, {6’4",32.4}
Average for 13 BMI’s between 5’4 to 6’4" = 35.25

4.0lbs per inch gives {Height, BMI}:
{5’4",44}, {5’8",41.4}, {6’,39}, {6’4",37}
Average for 13 BMI’s between 5’4 to 6’4" = 40.29

30

Wushu, I get what you’re saying, BMI is a relative measurement and thus better for benchmarking different body types, just like it’s better to use percentages than absolutes. I think the thing with the 200lb mark though is, as mentioned before it represents a point usually a fair bit above mediocrity, how many people walk around at +200lb that aren’t fat as shit? It’s kind of like 225lbs being a bench press milestone for a lot of people, sure it’s not great but it represents that point where you’ve risen above the sea of mediocrity.

31

bodyfat is too much of a variable. It depends where people store it, and even with a shoe(lol) it’s difficult to tell exactly person to person.

32

[quote]JLu wrote:
Wushu, I get what you’re saying, BMI is a relative measurement and thus better for benchmarking different body types, just like it’s better to use percentages than absolutes. I think the thing with the 200lb mark though is, as mentioned before it represents a point usually a fair bit above mediocrity, how many people walk around at +200lb that aren’t fat as shit? It’s kind of like 225lbs being a bench press milestone for a lot of people, sure it’s not great but it represents that point where you’ve risen above the sea of mediocrity.[/quote]

I was just offering up 30 BMI as a bench mark for mediocrity as well. How many people with 30+ BMI aren’t fat as shit?

200lbs may be a good benchmark for people of average height but 30 BMI is a good benchmark for people of any height.

EDIT

BlueCollarTr8n’s 3lbs per inch is a good standard for above mediocrity as well.

33

[quote]Wushu_1984:
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. [/quote]

You just literally answered your own question and then complicated it again with a statement that makes no sense. How would BMI tell you more than what mirror images and pictures show? Why would you complicate something so simple instead of just using your OWN EYES to tell the difference? Here’s an example:

“Damn, I’m still not big enough. Looks like I need to gain more weight.”

People these days.

34

[quote]One Sexy Korean wrote:
Wushu_1984:
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.

You just literally answered your own question and then complicated it again with a statement that makes no sense. How would BMI tell you more than what mirror images and pictures show? Why would you complicate something so simple instead of just using your OWN EYES to tell the difference?
[/quote]

I didn’t say that BMI would tell you more than what pics and mirror would show. I said BMI would tell you more than bodyweight by itself.

My original post wasn’t the clearest but my subsequent posts and discussion with others clarified it better.

I’m talking about 200lbs and how its not a good benchmark for above mediocrity. I was suggesting 30 BMI as a better benchmark.

BlueCollarTr8n’s post in the thread gives 3lbs per inch of height as a good benchmark to replace 200lbs.

35

[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
One Sexy Korean wrote:
Wushu_1984:
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.

You just literally answered your own question and then complicated it again with a statement that makes no sense. How would BMI tell you more than what mirror images and pictures show? Why would you complicate something so simple instead of just using your OWN EYES to tell the difference?

I didn’t say that BMI would tell you more than what pics and mirror would show. I said BMI would tell you more than bodyweight by itself.

My original post wasn’t the clearest but my subsequent posts and discussion with others clarified it better.

I’m talking about 200lbs and how its not a good benchmark for above mediocrity. I was suggesting 30 BMI as a better benchmark.

BlueCollarTr8n’s post in the thread gives 3lbs per inch of height as a good benchmark to replace 200lbs.[/quote]

How would 200 lbs NOT be a good benchmark, especially for people 6 feet and above? I’m 6 foot 2 inches, and I had to reach up to 235+ lbs JUST to look like I lift in a shirt. 250-260 lbs is when I’ll probably be filled out and have the density that I want. More people look more filled out 200+ in bodyweight, that’s why they go by that.

What I don’t understand is why would you need to figure out “3 lbs per inch of height” and “BMI calculations” instead of just using your eyes. Your eyes can distinguish bodyweight by itself a LOT better than some BMI. Because what you’re telling me is that somebody ought to listen to a BMI calculator over their own eyes when judging their bodyweight. That makes no sense. If I see myself gaining more fat in my gut, sides, anywhere else on my body than lean muscle, then it’s time to make a few changes such as implementing cardio, etc. etc.

No piece of equipment is a better judge than yourself. You don’t need something else to tell you what you are, just simply look for yourself and make your own assessments.

36

This thread just reminded me that it’s been a couple months since I weighed myself. Think I’ll do it tonight after training. I usually weigh myself more often when gaining, but it isn’t as important as the mirror and I’ve had a lot on my mind so it hasn’t occurred to me.

37

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
200lbs!? Depends on who your talking to but personally I hit 200lbs and I was still scrawny so it meant nothing to me. Hit 220 and things started looking better. Hit 240 and now I get the “wow do you work out?” 260 is just around the bend for me. A couple more weeks of this shit and it break this sum bitch loose again.

You can’t say things like this while I’m cutting, it makes me self conscious. asshole! lol[/quote]

lol No Waylandah, I’m not the asshole. If anyone its Gerdy for being such a year-round lean bastard. I had to tighten things up (just like your are dood!) and clear the way for the next phase. I’m frickin’ looking forward to it. Lifting peanuts all over again. OOH WEE! I can’t wait.

38

[quote]One Sexy Korean wrote:
How would 200 lbs NOT be a good benchmark, especially for people 6 feet and above? I’m 6 foot 2 inches, and I had to reach up to 235+ lbs JUST to look like I lift in a shirt. 250-260 lbs is when I’ll probably be filled out and have the density that I want. More people look more filled out 200+ in bodyweight, that’s why they go by that.

What I don’t understand is why would you need to figure out “3 lbs per inch of height” and “BMI calculations” instead of just using your eyes. Your eyes can distinguish bodyweight by itself a LOT better than some BMI. Because what you’re telling me is that somebody ought to listen to a BMI calculator over their own eyes when judging their bodyweight. That makes no sense. If I see myself gaining more fat in my gut, sides, anywhere else on my body than lean muscle, then it’s time to make a few changes such as implementing cardio, etc. etc.

No piece of equipment is a better judge than yourself. You don’t need something else to tell you what you are, just simply look for yourself and make your own assessments. [/quote]

All I am trying to do is suggest a better benchmark for above mediocrity than 200lbs, that is 30 BMI (at a reasonable body-fat), then BlueCollar suggested 3lbs per inch height (at 8-10% body-fat).

These figures are just rough guidelines, nobody claimed these were better than looking in the mirror and using your own eyes to judge.

I have no bone to pick with mirrors, only with 200lbs as a generic benchmark for lifters. I just think those of us in “the intelligent and relentless pursuit of muscle” would use a more intelligent benchmark than 200lbs.

BMI of 30 and 3lbs per inch are much better than 200lbs and I haven’t read anyone disagree with this in this thread.

Aside: Another 6’2" guy who hit 235 before he looked like he lifts in a shirt. (235/(74^2))*703.06958 = 30.17.

39

[quote]wushu_1984 wrote:
PLEASE IGNORE IF NOT A NERD:
Some super nerdage:

3.0lbs per inch gives {Height, BMI}:
{5’4",33}, {5’8",31}, {6’,29.3}, {6’4",27.8}
Average for 13 BMI’s between 5’4 to 6’4" = 30.22
[/quote]

Wushu, I like your rule, especially the thought of aiming for “obesity” as a goal.

Upping the nerdage level a bit (fair warning!)…

I’ve wondered before about the various lbs/inch values people toss around, like 3 lbs per each inch of your height vs. 5-10 lbs per inches of height difference when comparing people. Wushu’s comparison to 3 lbs/in shows his BMI rule is not too different but has some different trend with height.

Specifically, the rules agree for a 5’10" height, where both say 210 lbs is “big”. Wushu’s rule says your weight should scale like height squared to keep the same look, and at 5’10" and 210 lbs, that translates into 6.0 lbs/inch.

On the other hand, a physicist can’t help but say “consider the spherical human”, and define a “Body Sphericity Index”:

BSI = Mass (kg) / (Height (m))^3 or
BSI = 27700 * Weight (lbs) / (Height (inches))^3

If you shrink someone keeping all proportions the same, they’ll have the same BSI. (And if they are spherical, BSI = 524).
If I pick BSI = 17 as the cutoff for “bigness”, this matches Wushu’s rule and the 3 lbs/inch rule for a 5’10" guy. But changes in height translate into 9.0 lbs/inch.

40

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
200lbs!? Depends on who your talking to but personally I hit 200lbs and I was still scrawny so it meant nothing to me. Hit 220 and things started looking better. Hit 240 and now I get the “wow do you work out?” 260 is just around the bend for me. A couple more weeks of this shit and it break this sum bitch loose again.

You can’t say things like this while I’m cutting, it makes me self conscious. asshole! lol

lol No Waylandah, I’m not the asshole. If anyone its Gerdy for being such a year-round lean bastard. I had to tighten things up (just like your are dood!) and clear the way for the next phase. I’m frickin’ looking forward to it. Lifting peanuts all over again. OOH WEE! I can’t wait. [/quote]

Yah same here man, 6-8 weeks until the TRINITY OF EVIL!!! haha