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]