RE: Okay, I am confused, or, are these people aware the... - 3/15/2013 5:20:03 PM
|
|
|
theSwan
Posts: 48
Joined: 11/12/2012
Status: offline
|
I admittedly scanned through this and I don't think that this is a major point of discussion but...
I wanted to make a real quick mention to the merits of measuring body fat percentage over taking BMI.
It is more difficult to track and measure but it is far more relevant.
Athletes are regularly marked as obese by definition of BMI.
It's a big reason why twenty pounds on one person is entirely different than on another.
How much of that twenty pounds is fat? Muscle? Water?
I have a great scale that I purchased for around 50$ (I think?) that I use every morning to keep track of my body composition.
(Water, bone, muscle, fat.)
I typically use it to track variations in my muscle/fat so I know when I've been letting go at the gym.
Being a smaller person, my weight always remains within a very acceptable range but the distribution of that weight (muscle <--> fat) can vary and is more important to me than the pounds themselves.
I can be 103lbs with 16.5% body fat or 19% and that means two completely different things for my body.
--
A thought on the original poster's questions.
I find that there are very few people who do health in moderation.
Most people seem to not care and are extremely overweight.
Or they take it seriously and are in great shape.
Or they take it extremely and become underweight.
So a lot of our imagery reflects those extremes.
I don't know anyone, personally, who only exercises a bit, watches their diet a bit, and tracks their physical condition a bit.
I know people who are either completely neglecting and want to start healthier habits.
Completely neglecting and don't care.
Completely neglecting after not being able to maintain the diet and are guilting themselves. )=
People who have developed a healthy routine with exercise and food.
People who have a skewed idea of their bodies and care only for health in terms of appearance.
(They tend to run the risk of becoming underweight because they don't care for the monitors of physical health, only for the skewed way they see themselves.)
But no one who is only halfway managing their composition.
Personally, I always hope that people won't jump to conclusions about people who appear underweight.
You can see indications of my ribcage when standing and in certain positions (bridges are a good example), they are very prominent.
But I am not underweight.
I'm being healthy too! (=
As aforementioned, I maintain an athletic muscle/fat ratio and I eat to maintain it.
I do physically demanding things. I have light traces of abs but a very (I think) attractive, soft layer of flesh over my body, thighs that have flesh atop the muscle, and a nice rear.
No real breasts to speak of (32B) but that's more genetic than anything. Even my heavier relatives were never very blessed.
But people often see those ribcage lines and the indicators of abdominal muscles and assume I must live off of lettuce and water.
To me, a healthy body is an attractive body.
That includes in the leaner athletic percentages of body fat to the softer average values.
For women, anything between 14% - 31% is considered healthy, 6% - 24% for men.
Those are pretty big ranges to work with.
< Message edited by theSwan -- 3/15/2013 5:24:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread