Obese? Really?

Sorry, I am out of the loop on my bike terms...
What is an AI?
In any case I think our perceptions of someone who is healthy and who isn't are really screwed up sometimes.

AI=American Idol.

Silly me!:o
I don't have a TV. I was thinking that they were calling some woman who won a bike race fat!!

What???

Crazy... just read Darcy's last post, as well as this whole thread...

How do people define overweight socially anyways? By crap opinions of naval-gazing media "personalities".

As a society/global community, we really do have to get away from the weight goals and set fit goals. If we have fit goals (and a balanced diet) and try to achieve them the weight stuff will usually take care of itself.

Niciole, I did the BMI thing earlier this year. My son has just finished a Health and fitness tertiary qual, and they were looking at the BMI and discussing its flaws, and which group of people it was best suited to as a tool for measuring. Women wasn't one of those groups...

I am 5'10" and now weigh 99kg... that means I am just a few kgs away from being overweight, instead of obese! Even at 110-5kg when I started biking, I didn't see myself as what I had in my head of "obese". I didn't lose any weight the first year, but I did drop two dress sizes and still I was obese!

Its a standing joke at work now, I tell the diet crazy girls I can't have something cause I am aiming to be overweight, and no longer obese... one of the girls has no weight that needs losing but is a very fit toned sportswoman - shes overweight according to BMI and thinks, like me, that its amusing.

I guess the whole issue of what society sees as overweight is what tempted me to take this test in the first place. I just wanted a so to speak medical evaluation of my weight, etc...
I think that our views are often skewed by the media. Like I said in the beginning, I'm not necessarily saying that I couldn't afford to eat a little better or tone up a bit. I don't necessarily think I need to lose weight. I think for the most part it wouldn't kill us all to be a little healthier. I was hoping to find a goal to work towards. Something achievable, as I said I really like numbers!!
On a side note...
I too went to work and told my all female office that I was obese, and we all joke about it.

My Mercedes is 38 years old and it has "antique" car insurance.

I'm 44 years old...what's that make me? Older than an Antique???:eek:

I think your experience underscores the short comings of the machine's inventor...

I'm calculating your BMI as 23.3 based on your height and weight- that is normal (BMI <25 is normal, 25-30 is overweight, 30+ is obese).

Did they calculate your body fat percentage? If so, how did they do it? Body fat percentage measured by calipers and someone who knows what they're doing is more accurate than BMI. Body fat percentage measured by one of those scales you stand on that measures electrical current is notoriously inaccurate (various things like hydration status will change the numbers).

Either way, focus on living as healthfully as possible and don't worry about the numbers.

Do you have any idea what the machine was measuring? My guess is that it was some sort of bioelectrical impedance analysis machine. Simply put, it measures electrical resistance from one side of your body to the other. Fat has a low water content, so it's a poor conductor. Muscle is high in water content, so it conducts very well.
The machine sends a pre-determined amount of electrical current from one electrode to the other and measures the resistance. The more resistance there is, the higher your bodyfat is. The problem is that the machines are very sensitive- you can't just walk in off of the street and get an accurate reading.
Ideally, you will not have exercised for 24 hours, have not eaten for 12 hours, are well-hydrated, and have an even distribution of bodyfat/muscle between the electrodes- if it's a hand-held device, it's reasuring resistance from hand to hand, if it's a scale-type device, it's measuring from foot to foot. Now, think of how women differ as far as upper and lower body fat...

So, if you had been exercising, eating, a little dehydrated, or a little dis-proportionate in your fat distribution, then the machine is going to overestimate you. The best way to get bodyfat analyzed is with a DEXA machine or Bod Pod. Next best would be skinfold measurements, but you have to be VERY picky about who takes the measurements. I'd recommend calling up your local University and looking to see if they have an Exercise Science department. There, you'll find people that do skinfold measurements on a regular basis, and who know the exact sites to measure (critical for accuracy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echidna

Look at it this way: the lowest cutoff for clinically "obese" is 30% bodyfat.
If they estimated your bodyfat to be EXACTLY 30%, that would mean that yor fat-free mass would be 113 pounds, and if you were 15% bodyfat (about the lowest that a female should be at unless they're in contention for Olympic gold), you would weigh 130. That is to say, if they were correct (and you are currently obese), you would be fit, lean, and healthy at 130#. Now imagine yourself down 32#. Would you be lean and fit, or would you be emaciated? If it's the latter, which sounds correct, you've just mathematically proven that you are not "obese" at your current weight.

---

I think that the point of this comment, that the label is surely inaccurate in this case and that isn't something to worry about, but I disagree with the idea that we can calculate our health with numbers on a chart or devices of dubious accuracy. I am 5'10" and 130ish pounds and wouldn't say I'm emaciated by any means. I have a thin frame, but a lot of muscle. A similar machine, BTW, rated my body fat at 27.5%. You can be the 'correct' weight according to all of the scales and be quite unfit; very fit people can end up mis-labeled because the scales are built to the average, not the fit.

It sounds like you know that you are a strong and fit woman. I'd trust that voice over the calculation of some quacky machine.

Anne

I'm not sure if I am overstepping my bounds by posting, as I am fairly estrogen-deficient, but I was doing some research for my wife and I came across this thread.

I remember when I was in college, I got a fairly thorough assessment of my body fat, done with calipers that pinch for fat all over the place, and I was told that I was about 7.5%.

Sadly, those days are just a memory and I am in the high 20s now (but getting better).

Getting back to the glory days, though, I am 5' 11" and weighed about 185-190 at the time. I was not huge, by any stretch of the imagination, but fairly muscular and athletic. I went to participate in one of those pharmaceutical experiments that college students love so much (or is that just in Texas?) and I was told that I could not participate because I was overweight (based on BMI). I challenged them to find the fat on me, but they were not interested.

My wife has the same problem. She has very large, well muscled legs. Yes, she could stand to lose some weight, just like me, but she is 5' 8" and I can't see her ever weighing under 164, which means that the calculators will always have her as overweight.

We try to focus more on cholesterol, blood pressure and fitness in general. Yeah, we need to lose a few pounds, but we know that from looking in the mirror and looking at our fitness goals (we'd like to be 2 mph faster on the bikes).

When I was in college, my goal was 205 lbs. If I could hit that at the same 7.5% body fat (or even 15%), I'd challenge anyone to say I was bordering on obese, but that is what the charts say. Of course now is a different story.

Great site and great community, by the way.