Isn't 200lbs a Bit Low?
08-16-15, 10:51 AM
#26
Senior Member
The Baron is right. It's not about height/weight, it's about body composition. You could have two individuals who are 200 pounds and 6 feet tall. The first could be a couch spud with very little muscle to speak of, low bone mass and density, and 28% bodyfat. The second might be a serious cross-training amateur athlete with well defined musculature, above average bone mass and density, and 15% bodyfat. You can look at standard height/weight tables (like BMI) and these two individuals get the same number and are considered equally fit even though with one glance it would be obvious that this is not the case.
On the flip side, you have individuals who have above average body fat but because they have below average lean mass (muscle, bone and connective tissue) they still have what it considered and "excellent" BMI. Some for whom cycling is their only form of exercise may fall into this category as they will tend to have very low lean mass, especially in the upper body, and possibly low bone density. So even if their BMI is in the low normal range, considered desirable, their muscle to body fat ratio may be poor. The term "skinny fat" is sometimes used to describe individuals who are at a below average weight for their height but who are still carrying an unhealthy amount of fat.
My biggest problem with BMI being a standard measure of fitness is that it encourages weight loss (any weight, not just excess fat) over improvements in body composition and real improvements in fitness. For example: if in a year a 200-pound person begins a program of better nutrition and regular cross training (engaging in two or more complementary activities to address a wider range of fitness parameters) and over a year loses 10 pounds of excess fat while gaining 10 pounds of muscle there would be a 10% positive shift in body composition (lean to fat ratio) but their BMI would be exactly the same. At the same time, another 200-pound individual who simply stopped working out and lost 10 pounds of lean mass while maintaining the same amount of body fat would actually show an improvement in BMI.
On the flip side, you have individuals who have above average body fat but because they have below average lean mass (muscle, bone and connective tissue) they still have what it considered and "excellent" BMI. Some for whom cycling is their only form of exercise may fall into this category as they will tend to have very low lean mass, especially in the upper body, and possibly low bone density. So even if their BMI is in the low normal range, considered desirable, their muscle to body fat ratio may be poor. The term "skinny fat" is sometimes used to describe individuals who are at a below average weight for their height but who are still carrying an unhealthy amount of fat.
My biggest problem with BMI being a standard measure of fitness is that it encourages weight loss (any weight, not just excess fat) over improvements in body composition and real improvements in fitness. For example: if in a year a 200-pound person begins a program of better nutrition and regular cross training (engaging in two or more complementary activities to address a wider range of fitness parameters) and over a year loses 10 pounds of excess fat while gaining 10 pounds of muscle there would be a 10% positive shift in body composition (lean to fat ratio) but their BMI would be exactly the same. At the same time, another 200-pound individual who simply stopped working out and lost 10 pounds of lean mass while maintaining the same amount of body fat would actually show an improvement in BMI.
Last edited by GravelMN; 08-16-15 at 11:01 AM.
08-16-15, 11:16 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,325
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Liked 4,332 Times
in
2,788 Posts
Not a clyde so you may hate me. I got the awareness at age 19 as a freshman that I (at 6'1/2") should never weigh more than 160 pounds, that my body could not handle it and I would suffer. (I was about 165 when that awareness came.) 155 for a high winter weight is about right. Enough insulation to be comfortable. 150 in the summer when I am in form. I raced at 145. At 145 I wasn't anorexic. I did have virtually no fat, maybe a 1/4" around my belly. And I felt so good it was almost like being high.
40 years later, the weight numbers haven't changed. I don't always hold to them, but the relationship between how I feel and what I weigh is the same. My torso has shrunk a full inch so I look like I have more fat all the time. Oh well. I have come to realize I have a very reliable gauge as to when I need to lose weight that doesn't involve a scale - when I start getting compliments on how I look. Those compliments start about two pounds short of that number I should never exceed.
I get there are a vast range of body types. Still I wonder if those who choose to be far heavier than me have ever known the joy of being really fit and trim. I will always consider that little awareness I got 43 years ago a gift.
Ben
40 years later, the weight numbers haven't changed. I don't always hold to them, but the relationship between how I feel and what I weigh is the same. My torso has shrunk a full inch so I look like I have more fat all the time. Oh well. I have come to realize I have a very reliable gauge as to when I need to lose weight that doesn't involve a scale - when I start getting compliments on how I look. Those compliments start about two pounds short of that number I should never exceed.
I get there are a vast range of body types. Still I wonder if those who choose to be far heavier than me have ever known the joy of being really fit and trim. I will always consider that little awareness I got 43 years ago a gift.
Ben
08-16-15, 11:27 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,325
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Liked 4,332 Times
in
2,788 Posts
My biggest problem with BMI being a standard measure of fitness is that it encourages weight loss (any weight, not just excess fat) over improvements in body composition and real improvements in fitness. For example: if in a year a 200-pound person begins a program of better nutrition and regular cross training (engaging in two or more complementary activities to address a wider range of fitness parameters) and over a year loses 10 pounds of excess fat while gaining 10 pounds of muscle there would be a 10% positive shift in body composition (lean to fat ratio) but their BMI would be exactly the same. At the same time, another 200-pound individual who simply stopped working out and lost 10 pounds of lean mass while maintaining the same amount of body fat would actually show an improvement in BMI.
Ben
08-16-15, 12:33 PM
#29
Banned.
As has been eloquently explained earlier in the thread, BMI was developed as a tool to look at populations, not individuals. It is perfectly possible to be very fit, lean and healthy with a BMI above 25.
however, while it is perfectly possible, it is also statistically anomalous. That is, most people who are 6ft tall and weigh over 200lbs are not muscular, they are fat. I am a shade over 6'3" and, at age 60, I currently weigh 201lbs. I'm distinctly overweight, I have poor muscle definition, you can't see my abs, were I really fit I'd weigh around 185 and still have around 15% bodyfat. And while I'm no linebacker, nor am I lightly built. I have shoulders that look about three feet wide.
So to answer the Baron's question, no: 200lbs is not too light. We'd like to think so, and we are encouraged to think so because we look around and see so many people who are grossly overweight. Fat is the new normal. Bit however normal it is, it's still fat and it isn't good for us. And this has nothing to do with age. One has trouble maintaining the same muscle mass as one gets older, but there's no law of nature that says we have to replace lost muscle with fat. We do that simply by reducing our activity levels and/or eating too much. It is not inevitable that we should weigh more at 60 than we did in high school.
however, while it is perfectly possible, it is also statistically anomalous. That is, most people who are 6ft tall and weigh over 200lbs are not muscular, they are fat. I am a shade over 6'3" and, at age 60, I currently weigh 201lbs. I'm distinctly overweight, I have poor muscle definition, you can't see my abs, were I really fit I'd weigh around 185 and still have around 15% bodyfat. And while I'm no linebacker, nor am I lightly built. I have shoulders that look about three feet wide.
So to answer the Baron's question, no: 200lbs is not too light. We'd like to think so, and we are encouraged to think so because we look around and see so many people who are grossly overweight. Fat is the new normal. Bit however normal it is, it's still fat and it isn't good for us. And this has nothing to do with age. One has trouble maintaining the same muscle mass as one gets older, but there's no law of nature that says we have to replace lost muscle with fat. We do that simply by reducing our activity levels and/or eating too much. It is not inevitable that we should weigh more at 60 than we did in high school.
Last edited by chasm54; 08-16-15 at 12:38 PM.
08-16-15, 01:13 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,210
Bikes: Firefly custom Road, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Depends on body type, and what you like to do.
6'3.5 for me. 212-215. Doctor two years ago told me to stop trying to lose weight. When I pointed out the BMI number (26 for me) his response was "they haven't seen you". I went from 260 to 205, and then came up again, but it is muscle. I lose 3 inches of waist and two inches of neck.
How do I know it's muscle? I did a full body composition exam as part of my physical (and stress test etc.). My arms and torso are 110% of predicted muscle mass. My legs 125%. Body fat is 13%, visceral fat is a 7 (apparently it needs to be under 10 for optimal health). Doctor said perfect for me would be 3-5 pounds less fat. But then he shrugged and said I was in ideal health. So there you go.
6'3.5 for me. 212-215. Doctor two years ago told me to stop trying to lose weight. When I pointed out the BMI number (26 for me) his response was "they haven't seen you". I went from 260 to 205, and then came up again, but it is muscle. I lose 3 inches of waist and two inches of neck.
How do I know it's muscle? I did a full body composition exam as part of my physical (and stress test etc.). My arms and torso are 110% of predicted muscle mass. My legs 125%. Body fat is 13%, visceral fat is a 7 (apparently it needs to be under 10 for optimal health). Doctor said perfect for me would be 3-5 pounds less fat. But then he shrugged and said I was in ideal health. So there you go.
08-17-15, 05:17 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I read somewhere once, and now it's my go-to reference, that what really matters is %-body fat. Basically speaking that magic number is 25% for women and 20% for men.
BF% can be ascertained by various online calculators. And it's based on body ratios: chest, waist and hip circumferences. Women also need to measure biceps, I believe. Weight can be misleading. Lots of guys can have 15% BF while weighing well over 200 lbs. And a fit taller woman, with 20% bf, can easily weigh 150lbs if she is well proportioned.
Weight does matter, however, in joint wear. This is especially true with knees. Heavier people tend to beat up their knees. But, people who cycle a lot should have stronger knee muscles, which can help significantly.
Oh, and of course, bikes. Most bikes, especially bike wheels, cannot take much weight. A 200-plus pound guy should not be riding 23mm tires on rough roads, IMO.
BF% can be ascertained by various online calculators. And it's based on body ratios: chest, waist and hip circumferences. Women also need to measure biceps, I believe. Weight can be misleading. Lots of guys can have 15% BF while weighing well over 200 lbs. And a fit taller woman, with 20% bf, can easily weigh 150lbs if she is well proportioned.
Weight does matter, however, in joint wear. This is especially true with knees. Heavier people tend to beat up their knees. But, people who cycle a lot should have stronger knee muscles, which can help significantly.
Oh, and of course, bikes. Most bikes, especially bike wheels, cannot take much weight. A 200-plus pound guy should not be riding 23mm tires on rough roads, IMO.
I completely agree with the body fat percentage comments, but don't completely agree with the tire comment.
For me the BF% is the most important measurement... don't even bother calculating my BMI. Last August my BF% was over 40%. I've now got it down to 21%. So articles I've found, make BF% adjustments for age... so for men over 50, the acceptable BF% goes up to 25%. So now I'm acceptable... currently my goal is to get to 20% or a little lower...
As for the 23mm tires... I guess it depends on you definition of "rough". I have 23mm tires on my Giant Propel and haven't had any issues, even on some rougher sections of roads... I've was in the 240 pound range when I bought the Propel..
08-17-15, 06:40 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2,401
Bikes: 2012 Surly LHT, 1995 GT Outpost Trail
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
BMI was created as a method to track the overall fitness of a large population over time. It was *never* intended to be applied to individuals, and anyone who does so is grossly misusing it. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference in applications and so nearly everyone misuses it.
08-17-15, 07:01 AM
#33
Senior Member
Depends on body type, and what you like to do.
6'3.5 for me. 212-215. Doctor two years ago told me to stop trying to lose weight. When I pointed out the BMI number (26 for me) his response was "they haven't seen you". I went from 260 to 205, and then came up again, but it is muscle. I lose 3 inches of waist and two inches of neck.
How do I know it's muscle? I did a full body composition exam as part of my physical (and stress test etc.). My arms and torso are 110% of predicted muscle mass. My legs 125%. Body fat is 13%, visceral fat is a 7 (apparently it needs to be under 10 for optimal health). Doctor said perfect for me would be 3-5 pounds less fat. But then he shrugged and said I was in ideal health. So there you go.
6'3.5 for me. 212-215. Doctor two years ago told me to stop trying to lose weight. When I pointed out the BMI number (26 for me) his response was "they haven't seen you". I went from 260 to 205, and then came up again, but it is muscle. I lose 3 inches of waist and two inches of neck.
How do I know it's muscle? I did a full body composition exam as part of my physical (and stress test etc.). My arms and torso are 110% of predicted muscle mass. My legs 125%. Body fat is 13%, visceral fat is a 7 (apparently it needs to be under 10 for optimal health). Doctor said perfect for me would be 3-5 pounds less fat. But then he shrugged and said I was in ideal health. So there you go.
I would have to get seriously sick to gwt down to 200.
I break wheels, and had other odd weight / force related issues since I was 220. Some of it is weight, some of it seems to be strength, most of it however is that I do decent mileage (2-5k) a year and road or trails are rough. Hit a pothole at speed and it is hard on wheels. Light weight equipment is just not for me unless I take a sudden interest in walking long distances in bike shoes. Admittedly, I use mountain bike shoes, with crank brothers so I can walk when necessary.
Not a clyde so you may hate me. I got the awareness at age 19 as a freshman that I (at 6'1/2") should never weigh more than 160 pounds, that my body could not handle it and I would suffer. (I was about 165 when that awareness came.) 155 for a high winter weight is about right. Enough insulation to be comfortable. 150 in the summer when I am in form. I raced at 145. At 145 I wasn't anorexic. I did have virtually no fat, maybe a 1/4" around my belly. And I felt so good it was almost like being high.
40 years later, the weight numbers haven't changed. I don't always hold to them, but the relationship between how I feel and what I weigh is the same. My torso has shrunk a full inch so I look like I have more fat all the time. Oh well. I have come to realize I have a very reliable gauge as to when I need to lose weight that doesn't involve a scale - when I start getting compliments on how I look. Those compliments start about two pounds short of that number I should never exceed.
I get there are a vast range of body types. Still I wonder if those who choose to be far heavier than me have ever known the joy of being really fit and trim. I will always consider that little awareness I got 43 years ago a gift.
Ben
40 years later, the weight numbers haven't changed. I don't always hold to them, but the relationship between how I feel and what I weigh is the same. My torso has shrunk a full inch so I look like I have more fat all the time. Oh well. I have come to realize I have a very reliable gauge as to when I need to lose weight that doesn't involve a scale - when I start getting compliments on how I look. Those compliments start about two pounds short of that number I should never exceed.
I get there are a vast range of body types. Still I wonder if those who choose to be far heavier than me have ever known the joy of being really fit and trim. I will always consider that little awareness I got 43 years ago a gift.
Ben
Thats one of the best thingss about this forum.
BMI was created as a method to track the overall fitness of a large population over time. It was *never* intended to be applied to individuals, and anyone who does so is grossly misusing it. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference in applications and so nearly everyone misuses it.
08-17-15, 08:19 AM
#34
Senior Member
BMI was created as a method to track the overall fitness of a large population over time. It was *never* intended to be applied to individuals, and anyone who does so is grossly misusing it. Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference in applications and so nearly everyone misuses it.
The BMI was originally developed at the University of Minnesota as a way for the life insurance industry to predict morbidity and mortality across a given population. The sample size must be large enough that the above and below average will balance out. Even the BMI's developers have publicly stated that it was never intended to be used as a tool to measure the fitness of an individual and should not be used as such. But it's fast, easy, cheap and can be done by anyone who can follow two lines on a chart (or enter two numbers on a computer) so the health care and health insurance industries have glommed onto it as being "close enough" for "most" patients. Honestly, a well trained medical professional could tell you more about your real level of fitness from having you stand in your underwear with your arms outstretched for 5 seconds than you will ever get from the BMI. As a hyperbolic demonstration of just how sloppy BMI is at measuring fitness, consider that if you are overweight and have an arm amputated your BMI actually improves.
08-18-15, 03:36 PM
#35
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID
Posts: 28
Bikes: 2015 Trek 1.1
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In today's world, especially here in the US, it seems to me that 200lbs is actually a good weight for anyone over 6-foot. It's not a cop out, but seriously--there are lots of very fit tall men weighing between 200-220 lbs.
Women: 160# is actually pretty svelt in today's world as well. A sexy, curvy lady anywhere near 5'5" is going to weigh over 150 pounds for sure, especially if over 40.
Just a thought.
Women: 160# is actually pretty svelt in today's world as well. A sexy, curvy lady anywhere near 5'5" is going to weigh over 150 pounds for sure, especially if over 40.
Just a thought.
08-18-15, 05:48 PM
#36
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,509
Bikes: 3 good used ones
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I completely agree with the body fat percentage comments, but don't completely agree with the tire comment.
For me the BF% is the most important measurement... don't even bother calculating my BMI. Last August my BF% was over 40%. I've now got it down to 21%. So articles I've found, make BF% adjustments for age... so for men over 50, the acceptable BF% goes up to 25%. So now I'm acceptable... currently my goal is to get to 20% or a little lower...
As for the 23mm tires... I guess it depends on you definition of "rough". I have 23mm tires on my Giant Propel and haven't had any issues, even on some rougher sections of roads... I've was in the 240 pound range when I bought the Propel..
For me the BF% is the most important measurement... don't even bother calculating my BMI. Last August my BF% was over 40%. I've now got it down to 21%. So articles I've found, make BF% adjustments for age... so for men over 50, the acceptable BF% goes up to 25%. So now I'm acceptable... currently my goal is to get to 20% or a little lower...
As for the 23mm tires... I guess it depends on you definition of "rough". I have 23mm tires on my Giant Propel and haven't had any issues, even on some rougher sections of roads... I've was in the 240 pound range when I bought the Propel..
08-18-15, 09:35 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,109
Bikes: s-1
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
under 200 is very doable with excellent muscle mass, it just requires what we used to think were very lean numbers.
6' down from 225 to 195, doctor has worked with me and said lean mass is 160ish so healthy fit weight at 10-15% body fat is 180ish. seems like a real goal if I was being strict, but I'm not, and have plateaued for probably 4 weeks. truth be told I think I look good now and even though I've been riding more than ever, I haven't been as committed to the diet, and I've been enjoying my beers lol. that pretty much kills progress.
+1 your body adapts to the type of work, and if you don't either start doing intervals or uber watch you diet, you're gonna stall. it's the name of the game. keep pushing and congrats on your loss!
6' down from 225 to 195, doctor has worked with me and said lean mass is 160ish so healthy fit weight at 10-15% body fat is 180ish. seems like a real goal if I was being strict, but I'm not, and have plateaued for probably 4 weeks. truth be told I think I look good now and even though I've been riding more than ever, I haven't been as committed to the diet, and I've been enjoying my beers lol. that pretty much kills progress.
+1 your body adapts to the type of work, and if you don't either start doing intervals or uber watch you diet, you're gonna stall. it's the name of the game. keep pushing and congrats on your loss!
08-18-15, 10:13 PM
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Ravensdale WA
Posts: 14
Bikes: Huffy Durasport 441 seires / Giant Cypress
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I am 6' 5" 190. I have a belly I want to get rid of. I was 150 when I was young. I was too thin and could not put on weight. At around 30 I was 165 and that was good for me. I looked a little thin but felt good. By 50 I was 200. Recently I was 210. I have changed my diet and that's why I took up riding again. I will be happy at around 165 or 170.
08-19-15, 08:05 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,719
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
72 y/o and 6'2". When I hit 242 in Jan 2014 I told myself enough is enough. Set my goal at 199 and hit it in mid November. Then let my body catch up and I've been happy as a clam stable at 205 max ever since. This weight is where I should be.
08-22-15, 09:06 AM
#40
Senior Member
supposedly a new tool says to take your inches in height and divide by 2 and that is the appropriate waist size you should have. which sounds to me a little better than looking up BMI. some people might have a thicker back that would increase it an inch or two. but it sounds about right.
08-22-15, 10:12 AM
#41
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Ravensdale WA
Posts: 14
Bikes: Huffy Durasport 441 seires / Giant Cypress
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
supposedly a new tool says to take your inches in height and divide by 2 and that is the appropriate waist size you should have. which sounds to me a little better than looking up BMI. some people might have a thicker back that would increase it an inch or two. but it sounds about right.
08-22-15, 10:20 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,210
Bikes: Firefly custom Road, Ira Ryan custom road bike, Ira Ryan custom fixed gear
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
supposedly a new tool says to take your inches in height and divide by 2 and that is the appropriate waist size you should have. which sounds to me a little better than looking up BMI. some people might have a thicker back that would increase it an inch or two. but it sounds about right.
08-22-15, 10:49 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 765
Bikes: Fitz randonneuse, Trek Superfly/AL, Tsunami SS, Bacchetta, HPV Speed Machine, Rans Screamer
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
More recently I used the 15% tire sag rule to calculate the minimum tire size that would support my weight without exceeding rated pressure. Turns out that happens at about 28mm. The 23mm tires were a loss in performance. 36 spokes, zero dish (long story) and 42mm tires should hold up.
08-22-15, 11:24 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 62
Bikes: Gary Fisher Mamba (circa 1995 or so), 2012 KHS CX300
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Man y'all are tall! I'm a shade over 5'5", and I weigh 194 as of this morning. I'm built like a short linebacker--very broad shoulders, 48" chest, 34" waist, big legs. I'm fairly healthy at that weight, I think, my BP is on the low end of normal, my resting heart rate is in the low 50s, I teach high intensity indoor cycling 2-3 times a week, lift weights, do yoga, walk a lot, etc.
I honestly think that people should concentrate on being healthy, not how much you weigh....
I honestly think that people should concentrate on being healthy, not how much you weigh....
