Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:02:34 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, nervegas wrote:
> This is not a matter of "thickness".
> I'm simply overfat. And jiggly. There's a difference. I don't feel the need
> to invoke thickness issues. I'm talking 30 (35?) pounds overweight, not a
> non-defined waist.
I agree with this. The insurance tables tell me that I should
weigh at most 189 lbs. At the moment, that is about equal to my
LBM. So even at my heaviest, 255 lbs. or so, I can "carry" my
weight well enough, but there's still no question that at that
weight I am overfat by anyone's standard.
I weigh 221 right now, and that actually puts me at about 15% BF,
if my LBM estimate is correct. I think it's not far off. I have
just a little bit of "handles" left, and some degree of muscle
definition, even abdominal muscle definition. It's not
comparable to Philip Thrift's accomplishment, but it's not bad.
If I stay at 15% BF indefinitely, I'm satisfied. If I drop to
215 then I will be at 12% BF, which is what Anchell says is a
proper BF and where it should stabilize. That is my "goal": just
six measly more pounds. But the truth is there is no special
reason why I need to be at 12% BF rather than 15% BF.
Ironically, even at 12% BF the doctor's BMI tables would list me
as moderately obese.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|