What would you consider heavy?

R

Reaper1242

0
I've been wondering something. I'm looking for opinions.
Here in South Africa and I'm sure in other countries we have guys who are easily over 100kg/220lb. Of course they are fat with no muscle.

Assuming a guy weight trains with say 10-15% bodyfat. At what weight would you consider him to be heavy or big? I'm really just talking body weight here and assuming he's an average 6ft tall.

I myself am 5'11" and currently weigh in at 101kg/202lbs with about 15-20% bodyfat. I'm bulking so that'll change.
 
Its about the same in new zealand. It depends on what you compare big to. If I am 5'8 - 5'9 and 165 pounds then I consider you big.
 
354_l.jpg
 
Is there some rule I missed that says you have to post stats in your sig?
Whatever happened to people answering the question or just leaving it alone?
 
Reaper1242 said:
Is there some rule I missed that says you have to post stats in your sig?
Whatever happened to people answering the question or just leaving it alone?
Click to expand...

That is streamlines sig......

I attempted to get more information about your question. If you are asking if I consider you big compared to the great wall of china then no, if you are asking if your big compared to an ant yes.

Typical really.
 
Phate89 said:
Please. Show me 1 picture of a man that is 11% body fat and a women that is 21% body fat that you think is fat.

According to your own standards, you are well over obese.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand where you get these logic leaps. You don't have enough information to infer a dependent range.

Also, can't I just have an opinion? I'm too tired.
 
"Big" is when your size impedes physical ability. At least as far as your biology is concerned. As long as everything works properly and healthily and can perform, your body is meant to be whatever size it turns out.

As far as body fat is concerned, they aren't even able to accurately calculate that. Hell, they're still learning new things about fat. You can't take a measurement and simply say "You're too big". Too big for what? Too big to be pretty? To big to be healthy? If your body can perform well, you are healthy, if your size doesn't limit you, you aren't too big. If people tell you that you're too big because you don't have ripped abs or because of the number on the scale but everything is working fine and you're obviously not stacking on excessive fat, it's just a shallow meaningless label issued with a lack of proper knowledge.
 
[Focus] said:
I really don't understand where you get these logic leaps. You don't have enough information to infer a dependent range.

Also, can't I just have an opinion? I'm too tired.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to understand how you could think 11% BF and 21% BF is "heavy"
 
Phate89 said:
I'm just trying to understand how you could think 11% BF and 21% BF is "heavy"
Click to expand...

Oh. That's fairly simple - we have different definitions of heavy. For me, "heavy" means heavier than is ideal for general performance, health, and to a lesser extent, aesthetic purposes. So, anyone who is carrying any "extra" body fat.

I would have said about 15% for women, but I don't actually like my women that lean. I should have, though, as that would've been more consistent with my reasoning. :)
 
Last edited:
[Focus] said:
Oh. That's fairly simple - we have different definitions of heavy. For me, "heavy" means heavier than is ideal for general performance, health, and to a lesser extent, aesthetic purposes. So, anyone who is carrying any "extra" body fat.

I would have said about 15% for women, but I don't actually like my women that lean. I should have, though, as that would've been more consistent with my reasoning. :)
Click to expand...

I'll need to dig out the research but I'm pretty sure that people with a little extra 'padding' i.e. those with body fat %'s over 10% and BMI's over 25 not only live longer than those with BMI's of between 20-25 but they also fair better survival rates from serious illnesses, so I don't think you're right with about ideal BF% for health
 
Typhon said:
I'll need to dig out the research but I'm pretty sure that people with a little extra 'padding' i.e. those with body fat %'s over 10% and BMI's over 25 not only live longer than those with BMI's of between 20-25 but they also fair better survival rates from serious illnesses, so I don't think you're right with about ideal BF% for health
Click to expand...

Yeah, I threw health in as an afterthought, to be honest. In an edit. Worrying about health is so Middle Ages. The odds are fairly good that we will have made some very significant progress in the battle against aging well within my lifetime.

But, as far as I can tell thus far, that's a popular misconception. In terms of longevity, it is actually better to be slightly underweight. Not convinced enough to argue the point right now, but it would make a fun topic, no? ^_^

Edit: In my experience, most of the studies on the underweight people are of malnourished female athletes or vegans who live off cookies and potato chips or such, and of course they're not going to be optimally healthy. But if you look at someone who is fit and lean, but who eats right and enough (and is not chronically underfed like the first group) and compare them to someone who is not quite as lean, but still eats right and enough - well, that's something else entirely. Unfortunately, studies are almost never done on people who differ from the norm. And the norm is unhealthy. -_-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top