@boink - no offense taken; sorry for singling you out
Lesson of this story: a) communicate b) work out what to communicate about by asking the people of this forum!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jinn
You're wrong. I'm no longer on your side if you think someone 5'5" and 160 lbs is morbidly obese. Overweight, sure, but not even close to obese. Perhaps you're thinking kilos?
|
160lbs is approx 80kg, in my girlf's case her body shape (most fat in the middle, less on the bum and thighs) would give her a percent body fat of between 35 and 40% (linear guess from her real dimensions). Is that healthy? Not according to every source I've checked on the web it's not. 160kg would be unimaginable on someone that size. In fairness I did exaggerate a bit by using the word "morbid". More info here and elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage
These figures vary by about 5% from country to country - in the UK, 30% and 32% seem to be the upper limits.
Didn't I mention body shape already? You can't possibly go by weight only, and since she's had both IR and caliper methods I put some authority on those numbers (i.e. doctor and gym trainer) rather than guessing across the web.
Also, if you look above you'll see that my main problem was not how she looked (although that does matter, for sure) but rather than she wasn't motivated to do anything about it despite knowing it's unhealthy for her.
Not sure this adds anything to the main issues of the post, but I think it's good to try to get my case across if we're going to start debating what's healthy and what isn't.