If muscle weighs more than fat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zoom-zoom

Well, for one...fat doesn't make milk, otherwise women with A cups wouldn't be able to breastfeed. ;)

---

Fat doesn't make babies either ... my point was that when fat is broken down for nutrition, it's carried by the bloodstream, and I'm not aware of any advantage in fat being deposited near the organ it's supposed to be feeding. If that were the case then our brain would be near our lungs, right? :) And if the idea has to do with physically insulating the organ from traumatic injuries, then it would be even more important around the breasts than in the abdominal area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kcmpls

A friend of mine was training for an Ironman Triathlon and was in awesome shape. She went into the doctor and was weighed. Her weight was well above what it should be, because she was all muscle. The doctor told her to lose weight! She had very little fat on her, but the doctor couldn't see beyond the BMI. She changed doctor.

---

Oh I have a tough time with this, too! I don't even care what the BMI number is anymore, because it absolutely does not take muscle into account. It makes me LAUGH out LOUD when I hear about hard-core athletes with BMI's over 30...their bodies are hard as ROCKS, but according to their BMI, they are OBESE!! Yeah, RIGHT! I think the BMI measurement works for the "average guy/gal", but is totally skewed when applied to an athlete. It's quite discouraging to a person who is trying to become an athlete, too...the scale goes up, and with it, BMI, but fat is going DOWN...!

Oakleaf and NYbiker - that's what I meant, you're right.

Though I do wish I could get rid of belly fat more quickly. My legs look pretty good, not happy with the gut.

I've lost some fat this summer, though probably not much weight. I lose fat around my waist pretty quickly, but there are stubborn spots of belly and inner thigh fat. Less of either now than a year or so ago. Let's try to keep it that way.

I used to console myself with the larger scale number by reminding myself that i ride over 100 miles a week and that it's "just muscle". Even so, i didnt like the way i looked in photos and felt that i should look...smaller. After paying closer attention to my eating habits, i realized that i was consuming a lot more calories than i needed but justified them by telling myself that they were "burned off" on the bike. For example, i would eat 2 packets of oatmeal before a 30 mile ride, a Cliff bar during, and a big lunch following (to "refuel"). I was so afraid of bonking or not fueling properly afterward that i actually went too far in the other direction, and gained around 6 pounds over a year. Now i'm more careful not to overestimate my caloric needs and I'm seeing the number on the scale go DOWN even as my legs are getting stronger.

I thought the "belly fat" issue was due to the OMENTUM, which is deep visceral fat meant to protect internal organs, and regulate hormones/enzymes in the liver(For the exact explanation see Dr. Oz's website) ....and whether or not your an "apple" vs "pear"...and I'm sure all of you already know that being an apple shape can possibly lead to heart disease and diabetes....so from what I remember Dr. Oz saying, the Omentum starts off like a small laced doily, but as you gain it grows, and releases more insulin, and estrogen directly into the liver, which is very bad....and it becomes stubborn to decrease the omentum once it has enlarged, BUT can be done.....Be patient and keep MOVING and eating "CLEAN" !

Someone once said the BMI was a little thing some mathematician came up with but with no intention of applying it to health care. It does sound plausible. I used to train women in a gym and they'd all come complaining about gaining weight but being able to wear smaller sizes after a few months at our gym. I'd tell them to stop looking at the scales and just rely on body measurements and their clothes. Muscle is really important for women because its responsible for our metabolism and bone health. We start losing muscle after the age of 30 so it makes sense to build as much of it as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Susan

A guy referred to me at our weekend ride, saying it was no wonder I could outride the guys on a climb being such a "small woman".

I'm 5'4'' and weight 140 pounds, still struggling to get into an acceptable BMI range...

---

How is 5'4" and 140 not in an acceptable BMI range? I wouldn't put much stock in BMI anyway: according to that metric, most athletes are obese.

I had my annual appt last week. And my doc, who is very blunt and has terrible bedside manners (one of the reasons I love her) actually approved of my weight! She looked at my height, my weight and said "technically, you are over a healthy BMI. But, I can look at you and see that you are very fit--it's one of those rare times I throw out the bmi. Good work."

:) She's an athlete too.

Scales are evil! I never weigh myself! I've been in a size 8/10 forever. When I started lifting weights 20 years ago, I put about 15 pounds on. At 5'5 135lbs, I am quite muscular, and am surprised at 50 that I really have not lost as much as the stats all predict. I guess I have good muscle memory.

Remember, muscle BURNS fat. Weight lifting is of huge benefit to woman as it can ward off osteoporosis. Weight lifting is an impact activity like hiking. This is why I do not exclusively focus on cycling, as it is non-impact.

If you FEEL good, that is all that matters!

Just echoing what others have said about BMI. It really isn't the best measure of how healthy you are or aren't. It's a statistical measure meant to be applied to large populations, not to analyze individuals.

In my case, I recently had a DEXA scan to measure my body composition. From that I learned that, assuming no loss of lean body mass, even getting down to 18% body fat (in the "Athletic" range for women by most measures), I would still be categorized as Obese. I wouldn't get myself out of that category until getting down to 13.5% body fat, dipping close to the Essential Fat level and probably not very sustainable/comfortably livable. Even then, my BMI would still be 29.8...so just barely out of BMI's Obese category.

I'm not suggesting that my situation is the norm (at all). I realize that I'm something of an anomaly--with my big bones, big muscles and average height (just under 5'5"). I'm just pointing out that BMI is not the end-all be-all of body measurement or analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue_angel

How is 5'4" and 140 not in an acceptable BMI range? I wouldn't put much stock in BMI anyway: according to that metric, most athletes are obese.

---

Oh, you are right, I didn't do the math properly going from metric to your standard measures. 5'4'' and 140 is in an acceptable BMI range, but my BMI is 26. ;)
I don't put much stock in BMI or even the scale, but I am much heavier than I look.

A woman on another board has won many competitions in the dead lift. She is solid muscle, but her BMI shows her as obese. For that reason, she's unable to get life insurance. Crazy.