Uh, it's your claim that you're 15-16% and you refuse to list which method you used to determine it.

You're also over 60, mostly sedentary if not completely sedentary, and you're 5'8" 180. That puts you in the demographic I put you in.

Of course you can just post a pic of yourself wearing shorts without a shirt on.

Nah, you're just keep trolling with, "Prove that I'm not 15%" without you proving that you are 15%.

I don't do cross fit.

Look jerk off. All I did was state a fact. The rest of this insane, high school drama is because of assumptions you've made and continue to make.

Either answer the question or not, but stop the personal attacks that are designed to deflect from your own stupidity.

Your wife may fall for your fat shaming and manipulation but I'm really not impressed.

Just answer the question or keep making a fool of yourself. I'm sort of partial to the latter tbh.

I've answered your question multiple times already.

You refuse to answer mine: what body fat measurement method did you use to determine you're "between" 15 and 16% body fat?

Btw, I have not fat-shamed anyone. I will shame you for bullshitting.

welcome to my world.

All i did was state a fact "some people who used to identify as Vegans are now coopting the term Plant Based, to represent their diet as one that is vegan food without the other ethical considerations' and it lead to two 10 pages rants from him.


He is an insufferable know it all type when it comes to nutrition who takes offense at the most nonsensical thing. He does not think people should state facts he does not like.

You are clearly using as a slight a constant refrain of him being an over weight 60 year old.

You are mocking him on both instances as if those things singularly or combined discredit him have anything of value to say on this topic.

A
U compare starving people with overweight people thinking the results of actions should be the same which is obviously nonsense .
Compare people with the same calories intake to begin with ffs ….

Now do u believe skipping a meal to eat 2 meals at later hour is good ?
If u think it’s good , well good for you .
Me i know it doesn’t to me at least and it **** over my metabolism being inflated for couple hours afterwards I eat too much while being extremely weak when I didn’t eat for many hours and I have to train in that moment .
Compare to when I just eat small but often throughout the day .,,.


B
Yes sure and will they keep that regime till the end of their life by fasting 12-16 hours per day ?
Look up from the start of what I said .
The trick is to find a diet that is sustainable long term to keep the benefits .

C
I’ll take the bet any day .
It isn’t hard to train and look at calories behind labels .
Your not the only in the world to that and I still do to this day …
Just the concept of putting 500-1k calories in the same ballpark , not taking into account 500 or 1k is extremely different on a 2k daily diet ,
I won’t lose my time much with you .

The important thing is it worked incredibly for me and that’s good enough for me because that is what matters .
Was there a placebo effect?
Who knows but all I know it did worked for me and many others without being obligated to go crazy training madly and go through severe diet , shrug .

I stated that a test indicated I was between 15 and 16% body fat and you said the test was wrong.

I asked you, why do you think that ?

I did that for a very simple reason. 15% body fat at 5'8" 180 isn't a stretch and shouldn't even raise an eyebrow in any fitness community.
Your reaction struck me as odd.

Your subsequent reactions and your attempt to make it personal also strike me as odd.

You haven't shamed me. No one will bother to read the conversation but it's pretty clear who the bullshitter is right now.

Calling me fat in a thread titled 'challenges surrounding obesity' is genius though.

No wonder you have hours a day to burn thousands of calories. No one is fighting for your attention.....

Yes. The sure sign of any expert in any field is their refusal to learn.

First hit off of googling "body fat percentage calculator" gave two different methods, two different results:

https://www.calculator.net/body-fat-...r=92&x=77&y=17

One ~ 15%, one ~ 30% The former is dubbed the "U.S. Navy Method," I think the latter should be the "Navy Seal" method, personally.

I like that one better. Under the Navy Method i am just 'average' and not 'overweight' like the BMI says. lol.

The fact that there's a 5.7 percent spread kind of makes it junk science.

Maybe useful to compare yourself with yourself but there's no way you can tell if you're obese or average so it's useless as a marker of where your health risks are.

Just get a real job with health insurance and go see a doctor once a year.
Like a grown up...lol.

What facts were stated that I didn't like? Bro science facts? Those are not facts.

I am doing neither.

Body fat is dependent on several things. A big one is age.

Since he wants me to play this guessing game on his body fat rather than just revealing the method he used to determine his body fat or posting a pic, I have to use all the things he's mentioned about himself. Old, sedentary, 180 @ 5'8". That is the only reason for me bringing those up - they are key in lean body mass estimation absent other information.



You used the term starvation mode. If this "mode" isn't a comparison to actual starving people, then why bring it up?

A: We're talking about weight loss. In terms of weight loss, it doesn't matter.

B: There are many people who fast 20-22 hours a day and have been doing it for many years and plan to do it for the rest of their lives. Some are physicians. It's literally the oldest eating lifestyle in existence.

C: Sure. Hang out in H&F for a spell, and you'll see how terrible people are at counting calories. People put cooked spaghetti into a measuring cup. That's not accurate, but it's what's on the back of the label.

Why are you bringing up cutting on a 2000 calorie diet? Are you a female?

Well, any legit body fat test will not read out "between 15 and 16%."


It isn't odd. For a sedentary 65-year-old at 180 5'8", it is not at the top of the bell curve.


Priorities.

You mean the part about you teaching that because a pro NFL running back has high lean body mass that every old couch potato also has high lean body mass? Yeah, okay.

Havent read anything in this thread yet but just wanted to comment if anyone is looking to lose weight, consider meal replacement powders. These make it impossible to screw up your calorie count and are easy to be consistent with. I was 6' 175lbs skinnyfat so basically just had a gut. Started consuming literally nothing but meal powders. I'd skip breakfast and just have lunch/dinner, with my last meal about 6 hours before bed time. I dropped down to 155 over a span of 4 months or so losing on average 2 lbs per week. I broke a few times and had a pizza or McDonald's disrupting results but eventually got used to it. While I couldnt see any changes in the mirror (a common psychological effect) I had to replace all of my pants and polo's because none of them fit anymore so that was good enough for me to trust it was working (not to mention huge losses on the scale beyond margin of error). I finally ended the diet and maybe have 1 MRE per day out of laziness and gained back about 6 lbs but have plateaued there and am comfortable with my solid food diet now for the last 4 or 5 months.

I never asked your opinion on what my bod fat percentage might be. I was attempting to make a point regarding the actual conversation we were trying to have on the usefulness of BMI as a marker for certain health risks.

The report I have doesn't say 'between 15 and 16 percent'. It has a decimal.
You're still not answering the simple question.

You've made so many wrong assumptions so far I'm really more inclined to trust that number more now than before you tried to prove you were better than an old man.

Of course you're a fool so and that's true when I agree or when I disagree with you so it's best if I just treat you like the man/child you are and not take anything you say seriously.

As you can see, the results are all over the place.

The difference between 15.5% body fat and 25.4% body fat is nonsensical.

Even assuming the test is off by 6 points 21.5 is still healthy and 25.4 is not.

So...useless for predicting health risks.

Whatever. Deny all you want but your harping on 'your old and clearly obese' over and over was clearly a slight.

And (sadly) being in the senior brackets is only mildly indicative in regards to being more obese as everyone over 35 has raced to catch up due to obesity norming.

Agreed, i rely on my physicals and Dr to give me the detailed data.

These online tools, as you said are good measuring yourself versus yourself over time just to see how things change, and as i said, as a trigger to look for more detailed data or to ask questions if it is giving you results in any of the 'trouble' ranges.

The variance is wide and it needs to be for such a tool as there are so many factors such as frame or body type, muscle versus fat, that these simple tests cannot properly consider.

Boys, boys, you're both handsome.

Eat a Snickers.

That's not the worst Idea that's been floated here.

Yeah, well, welcome to internet forums where anyone is allowed, and even encouraged, to comment without first being asked.

Doesn't appear to be so since I called it from go.

Oh sure, sure.gif.



No, it wasn't a slight, and your chart is evidence that you don't understand what I was pointing out, so I don't fault you for acting like an ailurophile.

A 60-year-old at x weight will have less lean body mass than that same person would have at 30 and at the same weight. As a person ages, they lose lean body mass. It has nothing to do with obesity and it has a name: sarcopenia.

I see you're still not tired of making yourself look stupid.

Well, instead of the ad hominem, you could point out what you disagree with.

My mistake .
I though it was obvious that even fat person could go into a « starvation mode/cycle » .
But I guess it’s impossible even if a fat person do not eat for days ….

2k is a fine number to speak in general terms .
Which I though was the goal of this discussion .

« The minimum recommended calorie intake is 1800 for both sexes. »

https://www.news-medical.net/health/...t-Per-Day.aspx

But when u start to make a point about knowing some physicians that would fast their entire life at 20hours per day and seem that should show it’s a great point to make a representation of a majority of people which of course it doesn’t .
I’m not surprise of your kind of questioning .

There's nothing to agree or disagree with.

At this point it's clear that you know nothing about fitness as it relates to actual health.

You don't even understand what fitness is, as normally practiced in a professional environment. It's never about competing with others, it's about improving yourself.