BMI is a joke. I'm considered overweight @ 6'1" 213. To meet the mark I'd be 185. That ship sailed1989.

My results say

 

YOU'RE STILL ALIVE?

You know I am, I am not named Sumo for nothing. I did lose like 155 pounds though. Although my BMI is still crazy, I feel good, get around good and get to do what I want, Basketball!!!!!

Agreed. Fact remains it is impossible to lose weight if you take in more than you burn.

 

Yes, the question remains, how much does he burn at rest? I'd assume at that size, even completely sedentary, he needs at least 1800-2,000+ just to keep provide energy for vital functions (brain, breathing, etc.) On top of that, he's so active, his body will not, in my unqualified opinion, burn fat. It is preserving it, even though it is so low and he is active.

Edited September 4, 201511 yr by mexitucky

I'm obtuse. So there's that.

And obscure, oblivious, obsolete, obtrusive and somewhat oblong

While I'm obviously not a huge fan of the BMI I think too many are quick to dismiss it because they don't like the results. IMO, it's due to the mind set of Americans and what we have come to accept as normal.

 

For anyone that says "at my height I'd have to be at X weight and there's just no way", I challenge you to look at someone that is your height, in shape, and 10-15% body fat. I'm not talking about someone with a ton of muscle mass but someone that is fit. I think you would be surprised.

 

My biggest problem with the BMI is it completely ignores lean muscle mass and body fat % in the calculation. If it took that into account it would be more useful tool. The biggest issue there is getting an accurate body fat measurement.

 

To add to it, just because someone has a really low BF% doesn't mean they are healthy. Someone that is 5'9", 250lbs and 5% body fat isn't good. Look at most of the bodybuilders in the top weight classes. For a human structure to have that much weight on it just isn't healthy.

Some of you who still play by the, "you have to eat 6 small meals a day to keep metabolism high" garbage need to take a look at leangains.com and all the literature that supports intermittent fasting. I have been intermittent fasting myself now for over 5 years, in the first year I lost 66 lbs and have kept it off every since.

Some of you who still play by the, "you have to eat 6 small meals a day to keep metabolism high" garbage need to take a look at leangains.com and all the literature that supports intermittent fasting. I have been intermittent fasting myself now for over 5 years, in the first year I lost 66 lbs and have kept it off every since.

 

12pm-8pm.

I have actually modified my eating window from 4pm-8pm each day. Never have to worry about what is for breakfast or what is for lunch, works great.

I have actually modified my eating window from 4pm-8pm each day. Never have to worry about what is for breakfast or what is for lunch, works great.

 

I like 12 to 8. Actually love it. I tried 6 small meals and always felt hungry. 2 Big meals at 12 and 8, or even grazing for that 8 hours to hit my macros....feels good. Having a big dinner helps fasting until noon the next day.

Yes, the question remains, how much does he burn at rest? I'd assume at that size, even completely sedentary, he needs at least 1800-2,000+ just to keep provide energy for vital functions (brain, breathing, etc.) On top of that, he's so active, his body will not, in my unqualified opinion, burn fat. It is preserving it, even though it is so low and he is active.

 

So, hypothetical, one burns 2000cal. In rest and let's say another 1000 during daily activity. Is consuming 2000 calories. One is at a 1000 calorie deficit. Where do you think those extra calories are coming from. The bodies burning something. My qualified opinion is that most is from stored fat. Hence weight loss.

So, hypothetical, one burns 2000cal. In rest and let's say another 1000 during daily activity. Is consuming 2000 calories. One is at a 1000 calorie deficit. Where do you think those extra calories are coming from. The bodies burning something. My qualified opinion is that most is from stored fat. Hence weight loss.

 

He's not eating 3000 calories though. I'm just saying that fat loss isn't linear like that. Once Leptin and Ghrelin get involved among other hormones, fat loss slows when the deficit is more severe. It just does. Lyle McDonald has all of the science.

BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald : BodyRecomposition

 

He explains it in all of his books and a bunch of his articles. He explains the science much better than any of us can.

I would have to weigh less than 155... that's funny..........

6ft 181 and I'm normal. Everyone remember I'm normal.

He's not eating 3000 calories though. I'm just saying that fat loss isn't linear like that. Once Leptin and Ghrelin get involved among other hormones, fat loss slows when the deficit is more severe. It just does. Lyle McDonald has all of the science.

BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald : BodyRecomposition

 

He explains it in all of his books and a bunch of his articles. He explains the science much better than any of us can.[/Q

Didn't say consumed 3000. Said burned 3000. Funny thing about nutrition and exercise science. You can find a bunch of different philosophies, most contradictory of the others. I will maintain that the,equation of less in than out is the key to weight loss. I find that a majority of those who disagree are simply in denial.