I'm borderline obese?? what now?!

DeVore

Ok, this is confusing me.

I'm 5'10" (177 cm), 80kg and 40 years old. I'm not in bad shape but I'm no Adonis either. I have been working on getting rid of a bit of a tummy, nothing major but I dont want to let it get a hold...

So, I've been working out lightly but 5 days a week and I'm happy with how things are going. Today I bought a scales which calculates Body Fat, Water and Muscle ratios.

Mine were:

Fat: 25 (should be 21-26 apparently)
Water: 50 (should be >60)
Muscle: 39 (should be >40)


Now according to the charts that puts me well into the "over fat" category and bordering on Obese.

I'm not muscled so I am not surprised I'm on the edge there, and I had just come back from a run and a sauna/jacuzzi so I'm probably a bit dehydrated (even though I drank a bottle of Powerade during it)

But the Fat seems ridiculous, I mean, I'm 12.5 stone and average height.... Is this chart bonkers?

DeV.

gnolan

The main problem with scales that measure body fat is that are invariably incorrect. If you have a few glasses of water a couple of hours before going on it it will more than likely give you a different bodyfat reading. Use a callipers for measuring bf%. You could pick an accumeasure one up off ebay for under a tenner.

Degsy

DeVore wrote: »

Ok, this is confusing me.

I'm 5'10" (177 cm), 80kg and 40 years old. I'm not in bad shape but I'm no Adonis either. I have been working on getting rid of a bit of a tummy, nothing major but I dont want to let it get a hold...

So, I've been working out lightly but 5 days a week and I'm happy with how things are going. Today I bought a scales which calculates Body Fat, Water and Muscle ratios.

Mine were:

Fat: 25 (should be 21-26 apparently)
Water: 50 (should be >60)
Muscle: 39 (should be >40)


Now according to the charts that puts me well into the "over fat" category and bordering on Obese.

I'm not muscled so I am not surprised I'm on the edge there, and I had just come back from a run and a sauna/jacuzzi so I'm probably a bit dehydrated (even though I drank a bottle of Powerade during it)

But the Fat seems ridiculous, I mean, I'm 12.5 stone and average height.... Is this chart bonkers?

DeV.

No way you're obese at 12.5 stone and 5' 10"..i'm the same height,nearly the same age and 15 stone.

Chet Zar

DeVore wrote: »

Ok, this is confusing me.

I'm 5'10" (177 cm), 80kg and 40 years old. I'm not in bad shape but I'm no Adonis either. I have been working on getting rid of a bit of a tummy, nothing major but I dont want to let it get a hold...

So, I've been working out lightly but 5 days a week and I'm happy with how things are going. Today I bought a scales which calculates Body Fat, Water and Muscle ratios.

Mine were:

Fat: 25 (should be 21-26 apparently)
Water: 50 (should be >60)
Muscle: 39 (should be >40)


Now according to the charts that puts me well into the "over fat" category and bordering on Obese.

I'm not muscled so I am not surprised I'm on the edge there, and I had just come back from a run and a sauna/jacuzzi so I'm probably a bit dehydrated (even though I drank a bottle of Powerade during it)

But the Fat seems ridiculous, I mean, I'm 12.5 stone and average height.... Is this chart bonkers?

DeV.

Really don't read too much into it. I don't know where you got your scales but you might as well be standing on a tin can for all the good they are. Also first thing in the morning is the time to weigh yourself, not after exercise as it affects water levels and can skew results.

You don't need a machine to tell you how fat you are. You know by looking in the mirror and how your clothes fit. 80kg at 5'10" sounds ok, but if you don't have a lot of muscle (by your own admission) I'd wager you could stand to lose a few.

I can't recommend using weights enough - if you don't like them you may get to like them (very likely) and if you do then do them. Or at least do some form of bodyweight exercise (push-ups, lunges, squats, etc).

DeVore

I could stand to lose a few pounds, its all on my tummy with a small (really annoying) bit under my chin but otherwise I'm lean as a whippet

I'm trying to build some muscle but also do a fair bit of aerobic workouts too to burn some fat.


I wasnt really taking the scales seriously as I trust the mirror more but I was a bit surprised! All I want from the scales is my weight to be honest but I'll keep track of what it thinks my fat and water and muscle is over time just to see what the spread/range of readings is.

I have a terrific metabolism, I have spent 20 years scoffing pizza/takeout, litres of coke and bags of jellys a day (yes, a day and plural). So, suddenly I've put on a bit of weight... no real shock there!

I've cut out the jellies (yes G'em, again ;( ) and the soda and I'm cooking my own food and going to the gym (lightly but still, its all good) so I hope to shift this weight before it starts.

I was just a bit shocked that 25+ is considered obese so I thought I'd ask here (figured it was the scales) in case others are in my situation. Thanks for the answers!

DeV.

Chet Zar

DeVore wrote: »

I could stand to lose a few pounds, its all on my tummy with a small (really annoying) bit under my chin but otherwise I'm lean as a whippet

I'm trying to build some muscle but also do a fair bit of aerobic workouts too to burn some fat.


I wasnt really taking the scales seriously as I trust the mirror more but I was a bit surprised! All I want from the scales is my weight to be honest but I'll keep track of what it thinks my fat and water and muscle is over time just to see what the spread/range of readings is.

I have a terrific metabolism, I have spent 20 years scoffing pizza/takeout, litres of coke and bags of jellys a day (yes, a day and plural). So, suddenly I've put on a bit of weight... no real shock there!

I've cut out the jellies (yes G'em, again ;( ) and the soda and I'm cooking my own food and going to the gym (lightly but still, its all good) so I hope to shift this weight before it starts.

I was just a bit shocked that 25+ is considered obese so I thought I'd ask here (figured it was the scales) in case others are in my situation. Thanks for the answers!

DeV.

Great sounds good, but don't think that weights won't burn fat and that only cardio will do it

DeVore

Yes, I learn something new every day. Thanks mate...

I would actually PREFER to be doing weights then aerobic workout (I always feel "gassed" after them) so I'll include more of that in my workout.

DeV.

Sangre

As I'm sure you know, being skinny doesn't equate to being healthy. With your diet someone much heavier could be a lot healthier.

Just stick to measuring tapes and the mirror to judge your "flab" or professionally done body-fat tests. BMI has me well overweight but the mirror tells me I am not.

Chet Zar

DeVore wrote: »

Yes, I learn something new every day. Thanks mate...

I would actually PREFER to be doing weights then aerobic workout (I always feel "gassed" after them) so I'll include more of that in my workout.

DeV.

Sweet. No bother. With weights you are still burning calories - both during and after exercise. Plus you get to look better naked.

Steady state cardio makes me cry a little. I mean, I do love the feeling when you get into a nice groove during a run outdoors, but I can't stand treadmills...man.

Too right. The feeling after a weights workout/hard bodyweight exercise with short bursts of cardio versus the feeling after a run/cycle is huge.

g'em

DeVore wrote: »

But the Fat seems ridiculous, I mean, I'm 12.5 stone and average height.... Is this chart bonkers?

The chart isn't bonkers, but those scales are notoriously unreliable. They generally use bioimpedence as a measurement which is about as reliable as throwing a rock in the air to tell wind direction. Your hydration levels, teh way you stand, your star-sign, the colour of the curtains, all these things can influence it.

There are a few more reliable ways to guage bodyfat, callipers and water baths being among them, but by and large the mirror is your best bet.

Now, having said that if the primary training you do is aerobically based then you more than likely have less than desirable lean mass levels. Coupled with you age (muscle will naturally begin to waste as we get older) this is even mroe of a reason to start doing resistance training. You will not get big and bulky, repeat [/i]not big and bulky[/i] unless you train in a way that's conducive to growing mass.

It'll also help get rid of that belly, although your diet is the first port of call there

DeVore wrote: »

I've cut out the jellies (yes G'em, again ;( ) and the soda and I'm cooking my own food and going to the gym (lightly but still, its all good) so I hope to shift this weight before it starts.

Don't stress over it, you gave them up before, you can do it again cutting out as much processed food is going to help massively, use the mirror and your clothes as a monitoring device and have a look into getting a solid strength training routine into your workouts. You'll only get big if you plan to get big, doing strength work with compound movements and the olympic lifts will increase lean mass, improve balance and coordination, and strengthen you up nicely - add in a good diet and the bodyfat will take care of itself.

DeVore

I have a major issue with treadmills... you could hop from foot to foot and miles will pass under your feet without you really doing anything imho.

Again, I'm not an expert but I cant see how its the same thing as running when you dont have to do any work to move your front foot to the back.... (Maybe I'm poking a sleeping bear of a topic but I cant see that the machine isnt doing at least SOME of the work for you).

I will say this though, in terms of losing weight... my personal experience and that of friends of mine has been that cycling up and down a few hills loses you weight pretty damned fast and if I wasnt scared of being KILLED here in Malta, I would be on the road every day but it would be suicide here!

DeV.

DeVore

@G'em... Thanks... yeah I keep things simple, I was eating rubbish (though I had improved and retained that improvement from before at least partially) but since being in Malta I have radically cleaned up the diet and even this light work out I do should reverse things.

Eat less crap, do a bit more (or at least some!) exercise. Simples!

I'm just lucky I have a metabolism from hell or I would be a balloon by now...

DeV.

captainscarlet

That measurement has to be wrong, im 21, 5'9'' and around 12 stone and i need a belt for 32'' jeans. But as for exercise, it shouldnt be too difficult to drop some excess weight and gain some muscle.

I know it sounds a bit girly, but some workout DVDs might be a good idea. I tried the new Davina fit one and i was sweatin like a pig after it.

g'em

ooooh I forgot you're in Malta now, I'll be there this summer, must go for a drink

Cycling outdoors is a great weight loss tool because there's so much more resistance involved - it's still cardio, but it's better cardio as there's a conditioning element to it that running doesn't have

the_syco

Unless you have suddenly piled on pounds since the LAN, there's no way in hell you'd be classed as "boderline obese".

DeVore wrote: »

I have a major issue with treadmills... you could hop from foot to foot and miles will pass under your feet without you really doing anything imho.

Increase the heart rate. Walk/jog for 2 minutes, and then up the speed a bit for a minute, and then back down to normal fast walk, then when you get your breath back, up the speed again.

Me, I do a fast walk @ 8km/hour for 3 minutes, then run like hell @ 17km/h for a minute, then back to 7km/h to get my breath back for 6 or 7 minutes, and then run like hell @ 13km/h for half a minute, and then back to 6km/h for a few more minutes, before hitting the "cool down" button on the threadmill. You may be a bit fitter, so you may increase this, but in 15 minutes I'd feel more tired than from walking quickly for an hour or so.

DeVore wrote: »

I will say this though, in terms of losing weight... my personal experience and that of friends of mine has been that cycling up and down a few hills loses you weight pretty damned fast and if I wasnt scared of being KILLED here in Malta, I would be on the road every day but it would be suicide here!

DeV.

Um, bicycle machine?

Degsy

g'em wrote: »

ooooh I forgot you're in Malta now, I'll be there this summer, must go for a drink

Cycling outdoors is a great weight loss tool because there's so much more resistance involved - it's still cardio, but it's better cardio as there's a conditioning element to it that running doesn't have

Seriously,you'd wantto be out of your mind to try cycling in malta..remember,sole ownership of the road is conferred on all drivers when they purchase thier cars..manys the time you'll hear shouts of "MOOR HOOR DO SURMACH" accompanied by screeching brakes and frantic beeping!:D

Oryx

You know the way you build up a mental picture of someone from reading their posts on here..? Well my image of you Dev has changed radically since reading this thread. In a good way, natch. Youre at least 10 years younger than I thought, for starters.:)

And agree on the roads in Malta are hellish. I once had a dive instructor taking us to a dive site drive on the wrong side of the road just to see how long he could do it for.

Id use those scales for weight and disregard everything else it does. Use the mirror and a measuring tape to check progress, unless youre into serious muscle building fat cutting territory, when you might consider getting accurate measurements then. For us lesser mortals, I think you get a reasonable idea of your progress from how you look.

DeVore

Cant believe I'm going to link this up but this is me acting as Jim Blaney in the Covies and getting (some) of my kit off (about 2 mins in). Looking at that I have definitely lost a bit since then.... I'm actually kinda happy and pleased now.



But do not look at the man boobs. Ignore the man boobs.


Oryx... I hate to shatter your illusions hahah...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5jYerQ99dE

DeV.

hunnymonster

the_syco wrote: »

Um, bicycle machine?

spinning bike / turbo trainer and spinnervals dvd. It's an interval based workout for a stationary bike. More boring than cycling outdoors but sounds a whole pile safer than road biking in Malta. Is there much mountain biking/trail cycling locally?

bubblyone

DeVore wrote: »

Ok, this is confusing me.

I'm 5'10" (177 cm), 80kg and 40 years old. I'm not in bad shape but I'm no Adonis either. I have been working on getting rid of a bit of a tummy, nothing major but I dont want to let it get a hold...

So, I've been working out lightly but 5 days a week and I'm happy with how things are going. Today I bought a scales which calculates Body Fat, Water and Muscle ratios.

Mine were:

Fat: 25 (should be 21-26 apparently)
Water: 50 (should be >60)
Muscle: 39 (should be >40)


Now according to the charts that puts me well into the "over fat" category and bordering on Obese.

I'm not muscled so I am not surprised I'm on the edge there, and I had just come back from a run and a sauna/jacuzzi so I'm probably a bit dehydrated (even though I drank a bottle of Powerade during it)

But the Fat seems ridiculous, I mean, I'm 12.5 stone and average height.... Is this chart bonkers?

DeV.

I really really don't trust the bioimpedance devices. They're based on the water content in your tissues so kind of assume the rest. If you were dehydrated I'm fairly confident it overread your fat. That is in addition to the fact that they can easily be out by 5% anyway! Calipers are more reliable (in the right hands) or even have a look at your waist-hip ratio/waist circumference.

DeVore

I used to have a 32 waist but that has stretched to 34 now... however I now use a belt with my 34 jeans but that could easily be the fabric stretching over time

I'm going to keep a record of what this thing says about me over the next few days, see what its variance is. Bring some science to this (in a Mythbusters sort of pseudo scientific way! )

DeV.

bubblyone

That sounds reasonable! Your waist size is in the healthy range anyway...http://www.health.gov.au/internet/healthyactive/publishing.nsf/content/healthy-weight so I wouldn't panic! Definitely pinch of salt required with the impedance devices. Know they've overestimated me vs Dexa and calipers in the past

Spiritoftheseventies

Dont obsess too much about it. Along as stay within your BMI you will be fine.

DeVore

The subject line might have been a bit whimsical... I'm not the kind to obsess over much in terms of "me". I tried it again a few hours later (after a diet sprite) and it had varied by 1.5% so I'll keep tracking it and see what its standard deviation is (roughly).

Gotta love this forum though, thanks to all the replies.

DeV.

itsallaboutheL

DeVore wrote: »

The subject line might have been a bit whimsical... I'm not the kind to obsess over much in terms of "me". I tried it again a few hours later (after a diet sprite) and it had varied by 1.5% so I'll keep tracking it and see what its standard deviation is (roughly).

Gotta love this forum though, thanks to all the replies.

DeV.

DeV,

Is it simply that you were worried about being fat and want to be assured that you are in fact not, or are you trying to make a change??

If it's the latter, then throw up your current program and diet in detail and someone will be along fairly sharpish!:)

This is pretty much standard reply to anyone posting about fatloss etc. here, maybe everyone's afraid of daddy lol

DeVore

Its not really about fatloss, I was just quite surprised that someone like me (clearly NOT borderline obese) would fall into that category according to this scales (and apparently others like it).

I'll post up what I'm doing if people are interested but I wasn't really asking for help as such (though I have learned something usefull about weights vs aerobic workouts). I used to be a fairly serious athlete so training is something I would have done a fair bit of but it would have been general fitness and specific explosive training for the 100m...

I think its worth exploring how inaccurate this scales is, scientifically (or at least as stringently as a single datapoint will allow!)

I dont need other people to tell me that to lose weight I should cut out the bags of jellies, 2L of coke and two bars of chocolate I would consume daily before bed and that some exercise wouldnt hurt my increasingly fat ass

DeV.

the_syco

DeVore wrote: »

I used to have a 32 waist but that has stretched to 34 now...

Wanker :P 40" waist here BMI used to say I was something along the lines of morbidly obese when the waist was at 34", so I ignore what it says :pac: - seems it didn't like tall people.

Oh, and lol @ the video. Never saw that show before.

Spiritoftheseventies

Really stop obsessing. Its not rocket science. so you put on two inches on your belly. Nithing to worry about at the moment. Eat healthilly, excercise the rest takes care of yourself.

Mellor

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055653860

How did the above go/

bubblyone

DeVore wrote: »

I

I think its worth exploring how inaccurate this scales is, scientifically (or at least as stringently as a single datapoint will allow!)


DeV.

And that's why I think it's really useful that you did post. They are definitely prone to error and can be upsetting or falsely reassuring depending on what number they spit out! Personally, think they would have more use as a means of tracking a trend if one were dieting-assuming you could keep hydration etc the same each time you used it.

DeVore

Mellor, do you know, I had completely forgotten about that thread!?

Clearly, it didnt "go". too well... shooting that film and a play I was in and christmas wrecked my rhythm and the diet went to hell along with the exercise regime.

I rescued some of the diet but it was a salient lesson in how changes in your life can wreck your efforts if you dont pay attention to them.

I took this opportunity when in Malta to make some positive changes and so far so good.

DeV.

DeVore

So, now I'm ACTUALLY obese...lol.

I tried it this morning and my body fat has risen to 28.8 from 25.4 over night. Must have been munching lard through the night. :)

Considering that I doubt I varied much over night, thats a variance of 12% from the most common reading of 25.5.

I think this supports whats been said on this thread, that these impedance devices are highly variable. I'm also suspicious of its baseline too, because while I have bit more fat on me then I would like, at 12.5 stone I wouldn't consider its reading to represent reality!

DeV.

sas

DeVore wrote: »

I used to have a 32 waist but that has stretched to 34 now... however I now use a belt with my 34 jeans but that could easily be the fabric stretching over time
DeV.

Not sure if you are basing your waist measurement on your jeans but the waist measurements on clothing (especially Jeans) tend to flatter.

E.g. all my Jeans are 34 waists. I took a tape to the waists on 2 pairs. 1 was actually 38 and the other 40. I then measured my waist using a tape and it's 40 - 42 depending on where I measure (I'm not familiar with where you should measure from)

Seeing as someone further down pointed out you are in the healthy range based on your jeans size I thought this may be useful. It was something I only became aware of recently.

As an aside, I'm now doing something about it.

bbor005

DeVore wrote: »

So, now I'm ACTUALLY obese...lol.

I tried it this morning and my body fat has risen to 28.8 from 25.4 over night. Must have been munching lard through the night. :)

Considering that I doubt I varied much over night, thats a variance of 12% from the most common reading of 25.5.

I think this supports whats been said on this thread, that these impedance devices are highly variable. I'm also suspicious of its baseline too, because while I have bit more fat on me then I would like, at 12.5 stone I wouldn't consider its reading to represent reality!

DeV.

Too many pastizzi?

I'm Maltese (but living in Ireland), and I know exactly what you mean about cycling in Malta. There was a big case involving a morning cyclist being killed in a hit and run case a few months back. Ireland, comparatively speaking, is a walk in the park!

J-Fit

DeVore wrote: »

So, now I'm ACTUALLY obese...lol.

I tried it this morning and my body fat has risen to 28.8 from 25.4 over night. Must have been munching lard through the night. :)

Considering that I doubt I varied much over night, thats a variance of 12% from the most common reading of 25.5.

I think this supports whats been said on this thread, that these impedance devices are highly variable. I'm also suspicious of its baseline too, because while I have bit more fat on me then I would like, at 12.5 stone I wouldn't consider its reading to represent reality!

DeV.

Hopefully this now proves to you how unreliable these machines are. If there was any consistency in the readings they give out, I'd say go ahead and use it because all you'd need is a reference point to know whether you're going up or down but it can't even offer that so you're better off sticking to the bog standard weighing scales and the calipers, though your scales weight will mean less if you begin resistance training. Calipers have a decent test re-test reliability so even if they are not accurate, you will get consistent readings over time. You just need someone to do the tri and subscap areas and your away.

DeVore

bbor005 wrote: »

Too many pastizzi?

I'm Maltese (but living in Ireland), and I know exactly what you mean about cycling in Malta. There was a big case involving a morning cyclist being killed in a hit and run case a few months back. Ireland, comparatively speaking, is a walk in the park!

Funny, I'm an irishman in Malta. I have to say, I do like the pastizzi, but i'm generally being good! (Pastizzi for the Irish here, are pastrys filled with all kinds of yummy, and hence, bad, things )...

But at least here vegetables are delivered by the people who grew them, daily.... I know I can get that in Ireland but they deliver them to your door here... and well, I'm very very lazy you see.

Which may be the reason this thread exists

DeV.