Oregon trail was awesome.

thavoice;922787 wrote:Hell, it wasnt until I was 17 was there a video game system in the house, and as a kid we never had more that 5-8 channels of TV to watch.

Computer? Only time we had that was for about a week when dad would bring one home from school over christmas break, and at that each of us kid was allowed to play Oregon Trail ONCE per day.
Cell phone? Yeah right.

thavoice;922880 wrote: It was a 'treat' for us to go out to eat and we rarely did so. We would go out to Pizza Hut

LOL @ poor people.

pnhasbeen;974587 wrote:Oregon trail was awesome.

dysentery.

Sonofanump;974941 wrote:dysentery.

That's shitty !!!

friendfromlowry;974470 wrote:Type II diabetes + 50lbs past your ideal body weight = you're not that healthy

I'm assuming you're going off of BMI for that bodyweight calculation?

BMI is bullshit/a joke if you have any kind of muscle mass. You can get someone who falls within that "ideal" range yet clearly has unwanted bodyfat/a gut while someone falls above it yet has 6% bodyfat, a ton of muscle mass and is classified as technically "obese." It's bullshit.

I'm about the same size as him (minus the diabetes) and if my bodyweight goes much lower I'll look like an emanciated distance runner.

Is the US Navy formula the best way to self calculate BF%?

BR1986FB;974980 wrote:I'm assuming you're going off of BMI for that bodyweight calculation?

BMI is bull****/a joke if you have any kind of muscle mass. You can get someone who falls within that "ideal" range yet clearly has unwanted bodyfat/a gut while someone falls above it yet has 6% bodyfat, a ton of muscle mass and is classified as technically "obese." It's bull****.

I'm about the same size as him (minus the diabetes) and if my bodyweight goes much lower I'll look like an emanciated distance runner.

QQ

BMI isn't perfect, but its the best we have. Go spew your cliched knowledge somewhere else.

sleeper;975056 wrote:QQ

BMI isn't perfect, but its the best we have. Go spew your cliched knowledge somewhere else.

I forgot I was talking to the "champion/defender of BMI." :rolleyes: Everyone except you seems to know it has MAJOR flaws. It was valid at a time when people didn't train with weights.

sleeper;975056 wrote:but its the best we have.

Disagree.

BR1986FB;974980 wrote:I'm assuming you're going off of BMI for that bodyweight calculation?

BMI is bull****/a joke if you have any kind of muscle mass. You can get someone who falls within that "ideal" range yet clearly has unwanted bodyfat/a gut while someone falls above it yet has 6% bodyfat, a ton of muscle mass and is classified as technically "obese." It's bull****.

I'm about the same size as him (minus the diabetes) and if my bodyweight goes much lower I'll look like an emanciated distance runner.

I was just going off the formula of 106 multiply by six for each additional inch over five feet. So if he's six feet or whatever, that's 12 inches (x6) = 72 + 106 = 178lbs...putting him roughly 50lbs overweight. But I agree, it does not do justice to those who have ever picked up a dumbbell.

BR1986FB;974980 wrote:I'm assuming you're going off of BMI for that bodyweight calculation?

BMI is bullshit/a joke if you have any kind of muscle mass. You can get someone who falls within that "ideal" range yet clearly has unwanted bodyfat/a gut while someone falls above it yet has 6% bodyfat, a ton of muscle mass and is classified as technically "obese." It's bullshit.

I'm about the same size as him (minus the diabetes) and if my bodyweight goes much lower I'll look like an emanciated distance runner.

I had a buddy apply to the OSHP, and he is a 6'3" 330lber that was competing in Strongman competitions at the time. They told him he'd have to get down to his ideal body weight of 199lb's before he could be considered. Lol....he would be a sickly looking individual at 199lbs.