# need some help, cant find what Im looking for



## KempoGuy06 (Jan 28, 2008)

Im trying to find a chart or graph or something that gives me a body fat % scale. Like what is normal given age, height, weight etc. I look for more than an hour yesterday and found nothing. any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance

B


----------



## morph4me (Jan 28, 2008)

This might be hat you're looking for http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Jan 28, 2008)

morph4me said:


> This might be hat you're looking for http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/


thanks but I dont think thats what Im looking for. if it is than Im obese and my normal weight should be 200 lbs. Im built way to big to be 200lbs. 

of course maybe thats what I thought I want. I dont know. Ill do some more searching

thanks again though

B


----------



## morph4me (Jan 28, 2008)

If I weighed what that says I'm supposed to weigh, I'd look like I was anorexic, but that seems to be the benchmark:idunno:


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Jan 28, 2008)

morph4me said:


> If I weighed what that says I'm supposed to weigh, I'd look like I was anorexic, but that seems to be the benchmark:idunno:


im the same way, 200 lbs and Id probably pass out.

B


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 28, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> thanks but I dont think thats what Im looking for. if it is than Im obese and my normal weight should be 200 lbs. Im built way to big to be 200lbs.
> 
> of course maybe thats what I thought I want. I dont know. Ill do some more searching
> 
> ...


That's the problem with a lot of those charts, and with the Body Mass Index, too.  Way too many charts don't take into account different body types.  I believe, and I'm just going off the top of my head and could be significantly wrong, that a body fat percentage between 8 and 12 percent is generally considered healthy for adult men, and I think it's 16% to 25% for women.  Like I said -- that's just off the top of my head.

Under the BMI and many charts, my "ideal" weight is around 160 to 170 lbs.  But... based on body fat percentages, my best weight is around 200.  HUGE difference, huh?


----------



## buldog (Jan 28, 2008)

The BMI is really limited and not very accurate(IMO).  It does not take into account body type, age, gender or body composition.  While i'm a good bit overweight for my height I'm pretty muscular too. That scale would want me to get down to 140-145 lbs to be in the middle of the normal range.  That is 90 lbs less than what I am now and I would probably look like a concentration camp inmate.   The closest chart I have seen was at a local LA Fitness gym.  It has a sliding scale for age and body fat %.  If I go by that scale I need to lose another 40-45 lbs to be in excellent shape, which is much more realistic.  There are about 200 LA Fitness clubs across the US, check it out on lafitness.com to see if there is one in your area.  They have personal trainers on staff that can measure your body fat and give you an idea of where you need to be.
Hope this helps, good luck.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 29, 2008)

If I recall corectly, I have a book at home that contains a chart which allows you to determine a ball-park weight figure based upon a couple of measurements to determine 'frame' or 'body-type.  I'll have a dig for it when I finish work and see if it's as I remember (I haven't looked at it for about twenty-five years so my memory might be a bit off ).


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 29, 2008)

Well, I found the book but I don't think it'll help much.  It bases it's weight assessments on height and frame size (determined by measuring the wrist).  Not a bad guide but it's an old book  and the tables only go up to 6' 1" for men (191lb for a large frame).


----------



## kidswarrior (Jan 29, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Well, I found the book but I don't think it'll help much.  It bases it's weight assessments on height and frame size (determined by measuring the wrist).  Not a bad guide but it's an old book  and the tables only go up to 6' 1" for men (191lb for a large frame).


See, now that just makes me want to hurt some pious medical 'professionals'. At 6' and 190, the dr. told me to lose 10 pounds. At 208, another dr in passing put me down as mildly obese. I was doing more and more MA during this time, and thighs, chest, upper arms were all growing. Was it muscle or fat? Don't know, and didn't really care, just believe(d) I needed the mass to sustain the stuff I was doing. Now at 240, I probably should lose 10 pounds, but not any more than that, I don't believe. 

I think in the West we put way too much emphasis on numbers. Weight, BMI, bank accounts, the year of and how much our car(s) cost, how much we're paid (especially in comparison to ________________ whoever we're competing with), and of course (drum roll, please)....AGE. They're all just numbers. As long as I have wheels, health care, a job I love/hate, my childhood sweetheart (36 year anniversary Weds--she'd kill me if she knew I wrote this ), a great daughter, a raggedy dog, and can still write and fight, what do the numbers matter?

Oh, and I never slapped any of the doctors who were so mean to me.  Then again...if I had it to do over... :btg:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 30, 2008)

I have to agree with your thoughts on the 'numbers game' there, *Kds*.  Trying to fit yourself into a 'mould' determined by someone elses conceptions is a sure fire recipe for discomforture and unhappyness.

For example, at the moment, there is no hiding from the fact, I *am* fat.  It's only taken three years to grow quite a sizeable tum with my missus's cooking.  'Friends' have started poking fun at my new girth but that's about the only negative (other than not fitting in my trousers )  I can find to speak of on it as I've never felt happier in myself than I do now.

Anyhow, sorry to *Kempo* for not finding an answer for him and huge congrats to *Kds* on his upcoming anniversary - give your missus a hug and a kiss from us my friend :tup:.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jan 30, 2008)

morph4me said:


> If I weighed what that says I'm supposed to weigh, I'd look like I was anorexic, but that seems to be the benchmark:idunno:



This was what I was trying to say in my meandering post, KempoGuy. Sometimes we just have to give ourselves permission to be ourselves.

jks and sukn, among others (as morph), I think are saying the same kind of thing.



			
				sukerkin said:
			
		

> Anyhow, sorry to *Kempo* for not finding an answer for him and huge congrats to *Kds* on his upcoming anniversary - give your missus a hug and a kiss from us my friend :tup:.


 Thank you, sir.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Jan 30, 2008)

hey thanks for all the help. Liek everyone said you cant use standards, my frame is no where nere standard size. Like i said before my weight is supposed to be (according to those standards anyway) at about 200 pounds. I havent weighed less than 220 since my freshman year of high school about 8 years ago. 

My question is, if I were 6'4 at 250lbs with a 10% or less level of body fat, would a doctor consider me obese if he did not know the BF%? Because all they go on is height and weight, so i was wondering?

B


----------



## searcher (Jan 30, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> My question is, if I were 6'4 at 250lbs with a 10% or less level of body fat, would a doctor consider me obese if he did not know the BF%? Because all they go on is height and weight, so i was wondering?
> 
> B


 
A doctor can't make a call on whether or not you are obese without checking your body fat.   The BMI charts are a joke and not realistic.   If you are wanting to find out if you are obese or not, go to a gym and have a personal trainer check your body fat.   They will be able to tell you where you are at.   The range you are shooting for is 14-17% for normal.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 30, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> thanks but I dont think thats what Im looking for. if it is than Im obese and my normal weight should be 200 lbs. Im built way to big to be 200lbs.
> 
> of course maybe thats what I thought I want. I dont know. Ill do some more searching
> 
> ...



This is the standard BMI charts.

And yes, on it I have 36.89 BMI which makes be Obese which starts at 30. 

The problem with BMI is that it is a direct weight to height relationship. It does not consider % body fat or how much is muscle.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Jan 31, 2008)

searcher said:


> A doctor can't make a call on whether or not you are obese without checking your body fat.   The BMI charts are a joke and not realistic.   If you are wanting to find out if you are obese or not, go to a gym and have a personal trainer check your body fat.   They will be able to tell you where you are at.   The range you are shooting for is 14-17% for normal.


ok ill do that. thanks.

14%-17%...hmm...not there yet but it is dropping

B


----------



## Laurentkd (Jan 31, 2008)

You also have to look at HOW you are measuring your % body fat.  Most of the scales and hand held devices are not at all accurate because they are based on how quickly electrical current moves through your body, which is largely dependent on your hydration level at the time.  Caliper skin fold tests are the way to go.  Unless you have access to a bod-pod, a crazy egg thing you get inside in order to weigh yourself (still usually only seen at universities or research facilities), or do underwater weighing (which again you really need to have a buddy at a univeristy to that).  And then of course the only 100% accurate way to measure body fat is an autopsy, and you probably want to put that off for now. 
Find a TRAINED person who can measure your body fat with calipers and have them do it a couple times to get an accurate reading.  That is going to be your best bet for measuring your % body fat (which is a great way to measure fitness goals in my opinion, much better than BMI, and much better than just looking at weight).


----------



## thardey (Jan 31, 2008)

Laurentkd said:


> You also have to look at HOW you are measuring your % body fat.  Most of the scales and hand held devices are not at all accurate because they are based on how quickly electrical current moves through your body, which is largely dependent on your hydration level at the time.  Caliper skin fold tests are the way to go.  Unless you have access to a bod-pod, a crazy egg thing you get inside in order to weigh yourself (still usually only seen at universities or research facilities), or do underwater weighing (which again you really need to have a buddy at a univeristy to that).  And then of course the only 100% accurate way to measure body fat is an autopsy, and you probably want to put that off for now.
> Find a TRAINED person who can measure your body fat with calipers and have them do it a couple times to get an accurate reading.  That is going to be your best bet for measuring your % body fat (which is a great way to measure fitness goals in my opinion, much better than BMI, and much better than just looking at weight).



Always wondered about that. For the caliper tests I've been around 25% which makes sense, 'cause I've got that "overall padding" that happens when my body type gets fat. However, I sink like a rock in water. I have a large lung capacity (huge ribcage), and even when I inhale all the way, only the top of my head (over my eyes) stays above water. When I exhale, I drop fast. Even in saltwater, wearing a size large 3.5mm shorty wetsuit I am slightly negatively buoyant. 

I fit a lot of weight into my relatively small frame. People often mistake my 245 lbs. for about 200. Could it be possible that I don't have a lot of internal fat, but that I carry it on the surface? I know in Agriculture, a lot of the "marbling" that makes a steak juicy is from fat stored within the muscle. Or would the density be affected by dense bones or something?


----------

