 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2005Is this accurate?
S/one here posted a link to a website where you could calculate your body fat using the 'Navy' method: http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html After filling in the boxes, it takes you to a page to 'calculate your protein requriements'. On this page there's a line that reads: "Your 'Ideal' weight is: 107 pounds" I've read the post by the freelance model where everybody's fretting about her being underweight, as she is 5'4" & weighs 105lbs. I'm 5'2" so I probably wouldn't be underweight at 107 but it'll be quite close (BMI below 20). Yet they call it my 'Ideal' weight. I'm wondering where they get their info from, can this be true or is it perhaps the ideal weight for Navy recruits? Or do I really have to lose 24lbs? > S/one here posted a link to a website where you could calculate your body > fat using the 'Navy' method: http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > perhaps the ideal weight for Navy recruits? > Or do I really have to lose 24lbs? Write to the author of the calculator. I am also puzzled by this calculation.  Signature223/173.2/180 >S/one here posted a link to a website where you could calculate your body >fat using the 'Navy' method: http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >perhaps the ideal weight for Navy recruits? >Or do I really have to lose 24lbs? Well, I don't know what to make of this site. I went there and filled in the first page, and it told me my bodyfat percentage was 20%, based on my measurements, and that the recommendation is 22%. Then when I filled in my weight, 134, it went on to tell me that my lean body mass is 107 (80% of 134), and to tell me that my ideal weight is 131. To achieve their recommended body weight of 131 with their recommended bodyfat percentage of 22%, I would need to lose 5 lbs of lean body mass and gain two pounds of fat. How would this be a good thing??? Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 >>S/one here posted a link to a website where you could calculate your body >>fat using the 'Navy' method: http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > bodyfat percentage of 22%, I would need to lose 5 lbs of lean body > mass and gain two pounds of fat. How would this be a good thing??? LOL... oh, that's just too much. I'llhave to go enter my stats in to see what it says. > S/one here posted a link to a website where you could calculate your body > fat using the 'Navy' method: http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > perhaps the ideal weight for Navy recruits? > Or do I really have to lose 24lbs? I'm the someone who posted that link. The "Navy" formula used by that web page to estimate body fat percentage is backed up by quite a bit of scientific research, so the results are presumably reliable. But the Navy method for estimating body fat has nothing whatsoever to do with "Ideal" weight, and the web site (which is promoting the "Zone" diet) does not say how they calculate ideal weight. I suspect they may be using some form of the "Devine" formula. This formula was originally developed to help set dosage levels for medical treatments, but has been picked up and (mis)-used as a way of calculating ideal weight. For short women in particular, the weights it suggests as "ideal" are known to be unreasonable. FWIW, "Ideal Weight" formulas are inherently controversial. Many are based on poor science, or popularity, or old insurance company tables. The halls.md website has some interesting ways of comparing different "Ideals", and some interesting comments on the issue: http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm The same site discuses the history behind "Ideal" weight formulas, and the specific problems associated with the "Devine" formula: http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/devine.htm SignatureGG http://www.WeightWare.com Your Weight and Health Diary GaryG schreef: > FWIW, "Ideal Weight" formulas are inherently controversial. Many are based > on poor science, or popularity, or old insurance company tables. The > halls.md website has some interesting ways of comparing different "Ideals", > and some interesting comments on the issue: > > http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm It says my 'ideal' weight is 68 kg. Looks like my goal is spot-on! On http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/medical.htm, it also says that the 'in normal range ideal weight' for women is a BMI of 19.1-25.8, which means that at 25.5, I'm already normal! (Well, at least my *weight* is. ;-) Berna (101.5/76.4/~68 kg) Signature( )_( ) Berna M. Bleeker-Slikker / . . \ berna.bleeker@gmail.com \ \@/ / http://www.volksliedjes.nl > GaryG schreef: >> FWIW, "Ideal Weight" formulas are inherently controversial. Many are based [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Berna (101.5/76.4/~68 kg) I just took the time to enter my stats. It says my body fat is 25% (where the tanita still registers 31%, although generally it is only able to calculate the lower half of my body, which does contain the most fat. I haven't used the calipers in ages to calculate my body fat). It also says my ideal weight is 128 lbs. (I'm 5'3"). Ideally, yes, I look and feel good at 128. So, I can't argue there. Although, if I change their calculated BF number to what my tanita says, then it drops my ideal weight to 120lbs. Now, I've been as low as 124 (3yrs ago before my bulking/muscle growth phase and subsequent weight gain) and at 124 I was quite skinny and in size 4 clothing. Ideal - that's a very realitive term here. The calculation of "ideal weight" in this site all depends what you put in as your current bodyfat percentage. The higher the percentage of BF you enter now, the lower your ideal weight will be. That is where the calculation flaw resides. > The calculation of "ideal weight" in this site all depends what you put in > as your current bodyfat percentage. The higher the percentage of BF you > enter now, the lower your ideal weight will be. That is where the > calculation flaw resides. I don't intend to defend the website, but that "flaw" makes perfect sense to me. If a higher percentage of one's weight is fat, they do need to lose more weight. I would guess the website is giving an "ideal" weight based upon an "ideal" bodyfat percentage. With this system, those whose current bodyfat % is below "ideal" will get weird results. IME the flaw of the website would be in ignoring the possibility of gaining lean mass and the probability of losing lean mass when dieting. But like you say, it all matters how you define "ideal." Sumo wrestlers and ballet dancers will never agree. -- Matthew 185/177/160 To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit. ">>> FWIW, "Ideal Weight" formulas are inherently controversial. Many are based >>> on poor science, or popularity, or old insurance company tables. The >>> halls.md website has some interesting ways of comparing different [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > enter now, the lower your ideal weight will be. That is where the > calculation flaw resides. This website says my 'ideal weight' is 120, which pretty much agrees with what I had in mind as a possible goal. There's quite a difference between 107 & 120. According to the Met tables, I should be 121-135 but they allow for 3lbs of clothing so 120 is still in range. At the bottom, the 'Devine Formula' mentioned in Gary's post gives 110, sounds like the other site is using it as Gary says. According to this page, that formula dates back to 1974. I wonder what that means, were people supposed to be slimmer in the 70s? Quoting "Polar Light" <tp123456@nospam.com>: >According to the Met tables, I should be 121-135 but they allow >for 3lbs of clothing so 120 is still in range. If you read the fine print, you'll see that they also allow for an inch high heel assuming you're a female. So subtract an inch if you're not in heels (and want to go by their charts). IMO (and general observations). unless you're fairly muscular, the lower end of the chart is where one would want to be for optimal appearance. Anywhere in the stated ranges would likely be 'good enough' in terms of health (as far as I know). > that formula dates back to 1974. I wonder what that means, were people > supposed to be slimmer in the 70s? It was the LSD. Picture yourself in a boat on a river With tangerine trees and marmalade skies Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly A girl with kaleidoscope eyes --John Lennon And before someone else posts it to correct me: http://www.snopes.com/music/hidden/lucysky.htm > S/one here posted a link to a website where you could calculate your body > fat using the 'Navy' method: http://www.he.net/~zone/prothd2.html [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > perhaps the ideal weight for Navy recruits? > Or do I really have to lose 24lbs? That doesn't sound right. But - I put very little credibility into systems that tell you a single pount weight. We are all very different. Our body shapes and composition are very different. Heck - for me, I'm 5'3" and find that a size 6 is big on me at 130lbs. But there have been other's in here that we've compared stats and measurements and found that someone who is also 5'3" and 108 lbs is wearing a size 10. Why - well, body composition. I'm pretty muscular. The other probably is not. There's also bone density. I may have very dense/heavy bones, where someone else may have very light bones. My suggestion to you is to find a look and size you are comfortable with. Accept some of your own personal flaws. For instance, I've accepted that I'll have have skinny thighs or big boobs. We are not perfect. We do what we can. Find your comfort zone. Stick with a range of weight. Usually a 5 to 10lb range where your ideal weight is somewhere in the middle to low end of the range. But what that weight number actually is, will be unique to you. > That doesn't sound right. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Heck - for me, I'm 5'3" and find that a size 6 is big on me at 130lbs. US size 6 is also big on me. > But there have been other's in here that we've compared stats and > measurements and found that someone who is also 5'3" and 108 lbs is > wearing > a size 10. Sounds impossible, are you sure it was a US size 10? UK size 10 is a lot smaller, probably like a US size 4-6 > Why - well, body composition. I'm pretty muscular. The other > probably is not. There's also bone density. I may have very dense/heavy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Accept some of your own personal flaws. For instance, I've accepted that > I'll have have skinny thighs or big boobs. I could never have big boobs without 'help' ;-) >We are not perfect. We do what > we can. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > range where your ideal weight is somewhere in the middle to low end of the > range. But what that weight number actually is, will be unique to you. I was just wondering where these guys get their info from, like the calculator says my lean body mass is 88lbs, I should have 22% bodyfat & my 'ideal weight' is 107. Unless I'm wrong, doing the math I'd have 17.75% bodyfat at 107, not 22% as they say. Something seems to be amiss... > I was just wondering where these guys get their info from, like the > calculator says my lean body mass is 88lbs, I should have 22% bodyfat & my > 'ideal weight' is 107. Unless I'm wrong, doing the math I'd have 17.75% > bodyfat at 107, not 22% as they say. Something seems to be amiss... If US size 6 clothing is loose on you - you are in your ideal body weight range. No worries there. I'd say this site has alot of erroneous information in it somewhere. I'd delete the link and not think about it again. :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.