Eeek!! Body Stats Worrying??

NWLondoner

I have just brought some Analyser scales and was shocked at the results :shock:

Age 30 185cm High

Weight 60.06kg
Body fat % 5.9
Body Water 68.9%
Muscle Mass 50%
BMI 17.7

I know that these will never be 100% accurate but still.

nolf

Thats a very very low weight compared to your height.
A BMI of 17.7 is well into the dangrously underweight area.

I'm the same height as you and weigh 65kg and would worry if I lost more weight.
You weigh about the same as Andy Schleck at grand tour weight (same height).

mask of sanity

Don't quote me on this but I've heard that BMI is a pretty useless piece of data. I think it gets distorted by muscle mass etc. The fat % is a better indicator but even then you get different kinds of fat, some of which is pretty essential. But I think 5% is pretty low! (I'm probably near to that as I'm about 6 foot four and a bit and weigh just shy of eleven stone). Would I be right in assuming you're a good climber NWLondoner?

NWLondoner

mask of sanity wrote:

Would I be right in assuming you're a good climber NWLondoner?

Thats just it i'm NOT LOL

Just don't have it in the legs :oops:

Skippy2309

I would say your very light for your size, but saying that I am 178cm and 75kg (only 8% fat) have been upto 88kg but really didnt need all the size.

BMI is rubbish IMHO, what you got to look at is body constitution in terms of muscle mass and body fat %.

Do you find you get ill a lot... if you do you need to up your intake of food, I have been down to 3% when you get under 6% you get ill all the time, running nose coughs etc...


As long as you are happy does it really matter what the scales say?

Mister W

You'll never get anything more than a vague guess at anything other than weight from a set of scales. The way they attempt to measure body fat is very inaccurate.

simple_salmon

Mister W wrote:

You'll never get anything more than a vague guess at anything other than weight from a set of scales. The way they attempt to measure body fat is very inaccurate.

Assuming it's Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis the accuracy is around +/- 5%; not a million miles away from the accuracy of skinfolds.

BIA from scales is best used for anaylsing trends in changing BF values than absolute values. Having said that the low BMI and BF values of the OP would suggest some caution regarding his health.

Even more so if he is a she.

bompington

Height, 174cm. Weight, 80kg. Body fat, ??!!
I climb like a walrus.

But I'm happy.

Nuggs

What's all this cm and kg stuff then?

teagar

bompington wrote:

Height, 174cm. Weight, 80kg. Body fat, ??!!
I climb like a walrus.

But I'm happy.

I'm 171 and weigh 52kg...

I'm heathly, and eat what i want.

Homer J

NWLondoner wrote:

I have just brought some Analyser scales and was shocked at the results :shock:

Age 30 185cm High

Weight 60.06kg
Body fat % 5.9
Body Water 68.9%
Muscle Mass 50%
BMI 17.7

I know that these will never be 100% accurate but still.

You a size zero? I'd forget the numbers, if you feel fit and healthy don't worry about it

Bhima

nolf wrote:

You weigh about the same as Andy Schleck at grand tour weight (same height).

Nah, he weighed 65kg this year. His brother Frank weighed 62/63kg. Source: There's a youtube video interview somewhere.

Frank the tank

I've put on about a stone and a half in three months since I've hit this mental block. I really need to get my head around it all.

bompington

Nuggs wrote:

What's all this cm and kg stuff then?

CIA World Factbook wrote:

the International System of Units is the official system of measurement for all nations except for Burma, Liberia, and the United States

Been spending too much time in these 3 banana republics then?

FCE2007

NWLondoner wrote:

I have just brought some Analyser scales and was shocked at the results :shock: ...

Me too - the f'kers didn't work and I lost the receipt :evil:

N0bodyOfTheGoat

178cm, ~90Kg here. Par for this time of year (SAD results in major carb cravings, resulting in typically an extra 6Kg to carry round in winter).

Bill D

I'd forget about BMI if you are a fit regular cyclist and are within the range 17 to 25. But anyone at or near 17 could usefully put on some muscle to improve their strength: that could be why NW Londoner doesn't have the legs to climb well. The procedure for putting on muscle, if you are male, is as follows:
1. take your waist measurement (in either inches or centimetres).
2. eat a bit more, whilst at the same time increasing your physical work rate.
3. continue with no. 2, but check weekly that your waist measuement hasn't increased.

Nearly all men put on excess fat around their waist (look around you). If you are being really active then an extra kilo or five of muscle will be good for you.

jgsi

Bill D wrote:

I'd forget about BMI if you are a fit regular cyclist and are within the range 17 to 25. But anyone at or near 17 could usefully put on some muscle to improve their strength: that could be why NW Londoner doesn't have the legs to climb well. The procedure for putting on muscle, if you are male, is as follows:
1. take your waist measurement (in either inches or centimetres).
2. eat a bit more, whilst at the same time increasing your physical work rate.
3. continue with no. 2, but check weekly that your waist measuement hasn't increased.

Nearly all men put on excess fat around their waist (look around you). If you are being really active then an extra kilo or five of muscle will be good for you.

Agreed...
were you shocked in a good or bad way?
GPs will use BMI scale sensibly of course.. some on here seem to have their get out clauses ready to hand
A GP would probably say immediately that you are underweight, but if you are healthy and feeling strong then ... is there a problem?
If you have 'colds' or man flu week after week and drive people insane with your sniffing... then maybe you need to be thinking of giving your body a little assistance.

NWLondoner

The fact that since the end of Sept i have had a string of cold and flu's and have not rode much since then is an indication LOL

Sadly increasing my eating is not an option :? Damn IBS


I have changed my vitamin/mineral/supplement intake and this does seem to have worked so far.

Mister W

simple_salmon wrote:

Mister W wrote:

You'll never get anything more than a vague guess at anything other than weight from a set of scales. The way they attempt to measure body fat is very inaccurate.

Assuming it's Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis the accuracy is around +/- 5%; not a million miles away from the accuracy of skinfolds.

BIA from scales is best used for anaylsing trends in changing BF values than absolute values. Having said that the low BMI and BF values of the OP would suggest some caution regarding his health.

Even more so if he is a she.

Maybe if it's a professional device and the test is administered by a expert but I seriously doubt that a cheap set of scales will provide anywhere near that level of accuracy. On most of them you can significantly change the body fat reading by drinking a glass of water!

Pross

Jeez, I thought I was light when I cycled regularly in my early 20's (6'1" and 10 stone 10lb) at least you can help yourself to any food on offer whilst some of us are watching our weight! :shock:

amaferanga

simple_salmon wrote:

Mister W wrote:

You'll never get anything more than a vague guess at anything other than weight from a set of scales. The way they attempt to measure body fat is very inaccurate.

Assuming it's Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis the accuracy is around +/- 5%; not a million miles away from the accuracy of skinfolds.

BIA from scales is best used for anaylsing trends in changing BF values than absolute values. Having said that the low BMI and BF values of the OP would suggest some caution regarding his health.

Even more so if he is a she.

Do you mean +/-5% in the body fat reading (so a person with a reading of 10% body fat could have anywhere between 5-15%)? I could believe that, but not that its a 5% error on the measurement (i.e. 5% body fat reading could actually be 4.75-5.25% body fat)