I am forty pounds lighter than you, therefore if you aren't fat, I'm not fat.
May 18, 2011 1:24 PM   Subscribe

Fitness Filter: A male friend of mine is just about the same height as me and weighs 40 lbs more. Can muscle mass/being a dude really justify this weight discrepancy?

The web is riddled with what seems to be gross inaccuracies. We are in a good natured health and fitness competition. In the last year and a half, he has lost 95 lbs and I have lost 54. We are both 5'8 he is at 202, I'm at 162.

He is undeniably fitter than me: runs, lifts, bikes all that, but still definitely has some fat he wants to lose. I am not as fit, but am within a handful of lbs to a normal bmi. He is not, probably because of the muscle. Or is it? He has been giving me kind of a hard time lately, but I think its partly fueled by his perception of what a lean lady looks like vs. his perception of what a lean dude looks like.

So, give me the skinny (hah)on how body composition works. How much more dense is muscle? What does body water percentage mean?
posted by stormygrey to Health & Fitness (23 answers total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
Even if you guys get access to a good method to measure bodyfat percentage, you as a woman should have a higher one. As a woman you will have fat in places he doesn't (hello, breasts), and he likely has a Lot of that in muscle. Still, you have a perfect counter argument that you're closer to a healthy BMI than he is. Someone else may come in with a number for the difference in fat vs muscle density, but it's certainly more dense - one of the women at my Y has gained 5 pounds of muscle while losing 5 pounds of fat, and looks so much slenderer - without having "lost" a pound on the normal scale.
posted by ldthomps at 1:32 PM on May 18, 2011


I'm not sure that the overall abstract concept of "fitness" corresponds well with weight or amount of body fat.

I know quite a few people who, by appearances, seem like they are probably less physically fit than I am. To not mince words, basically because they're fatter than me. And yet they've run marathons whereas I can barely get two miles in before I'm a huffing puffing red-faced mess.
posted by Sara C. at 1:35 PM on May 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


BMI doesn't measure fitness.

I know that sounds like a glib answer, but it's worth stating that fit and fat are not opposites.

BMI measures body composition, and even for that it's much less useful than knowing your actual percentage of fat vs muscle.

I don't think I answered your question, though. Sorry.
posted by sportbucket at 1:37 PM on May 18, 2011


Response by poster: Ok, yes. I know I used fitness a lot, but really between me and him, its mostly about being silly and getting hot. That is hard to say aloud so I used a euphemism, but we say things like, "one more set for the ladies!". (Though, I'm not interested in the ladies, so sometimes we do "one more mile so they stare at my ass) Yes, I know we are crass, its kinda fun.
posted by stormygrey at 1:40 PM on May 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


What size are you? You could be a tight-bodied 4 or a loose 14 with that height and weight. He's probably got less body fat but do you really want to be in the low single digits?
posted by Ideefixe at 1:43 PM on May 18, 2011


Yeah, muscle mass and crap can account for the difference. I think the important thing is not the scale weight but how you look. If you are at a body fat percentage that's healthy and fit (18-25% for women, about 10% less than that for men) then don't worry about the scale weight.

You guys can both look in the mirror--if he looks like he's carrying more fat than you in proportion to his muscle, then he's fatter.

Point out to him that it is a lot harder for a chick to get to the leanness he might see on T-Nation or whatever fitness magazines than it is for a man to get to a similar level of leanness (not bodybuilder, just abs). A woman with super-duper abs and striations and cuts is probably a woman who is maniacal about her diet and stopped menstruating a while ago.
posted by Anonymous at 1:48 PM on May 18, 2011


I know I used fitness a lot, but really between me and him, its mostly about being silly and getting hot.

Nothing wrong with that! Lot's of people successfully use the "look good nekid" excuse to exercise.

Unfortunately, to have an athletic /gym body is a heckuva of a lot harder for woman to attain than it is for a man.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:50 PM on May 18, 2011


I hate to impugn a stranger on no evidence, but do you personally witness his weigh-ins?

Some guys exaggerate their weight upwards, telling people what they think they "should" weigh. Scale says 187, which rounds up to 190. Two days later, when asked about his weight, he just takes the midpoint between what that scale said (190) and where he'd like to be next month (220), which is practically now anyway, so not really a lie.

Voila! 202.
posted by General Tonic at 1:52 PM on May 18, 2011


Find university with a BodPod. Pay $25 each or whatever. Argument settled.
posted by mmdei at 1:54 PM on May 18, 2011


You both know that different people have different body types they're attracted to, right?

I recently went out with someone who was already thinner than my usual "type" and who kept going on and on about how they needed to lose weight. It was a real turnoff and one of the reasons I wasn't really that into the person.

I understand using "attractiveness" as a shorthand for a lot of complicated psychological issues that the two of you are understandably battling, as many people who are trying to lose weight are also battling. And sure, there's no harm in joking about it. But if the competition to become hotter is getting to the point where you have to write an AskMe about officially accepted metrics for determining who is winning the hotness contest, you're taking this far too seriously.
posted by Sara C. at 2:06 PM on May 18, 2011


Response by poster: To clarify, I'm at about 22.5% body fat. He won't measure his for some reason, not in front of me anyway.

Also, I don't like the pudge beneath my belly button, its gross and not healthy. That is not shorthand. Its both about looking good and being healthy. Extra fat on your body is not healthy or attractive, and sure plenty of guys wanted to bone me when I was 215, but to me, my body shape wasn't as attractive and seriously not as healthy as it is now or it will be when more fat is gone.
posted by stormygrey at 2:27 PM on May 18, 2011


Short answer: Yes, he can be 40lbs heavier than you and still fit. He's male, you're female, so he can naturally carry more (heavier/denser) muscle than you. So that 40lbs of muscle won't look to be as much mass, and can be healthy.

BTW, BMI charts are crap. If you happen to have the exact 'average' body shape & size that the charts were calculated for, then it's probably not too inaccurate. Otherwise it's going to be wrong. (I'm a 6'1" @ 245lbs, the BMI charts claim I'm obese at 32% BF, but the chart has no clue that I'm a muscular viking and much closer to 20% than 30%)

You want to get a real bodyfat % test. You can usually find the dunk-tank versions in most cities for a reasonable price ($50). That will give a good-enough BF % measurement. The caliper test you get at most gyms is OK when performed by a skilled technician, but that's at best. At worst, it's no better than the BMI charts.

Bodyfat % means literally that - how much of your body is composed of fat. You body is primary muscle and fat, with some organs and a skeleton. Muscle and fat account for most of your weight, and they have different densities. So by measuring your weight and your volume (displacement in water for the dunk test), we can calculate your density. From that density number we can then determine what % of muscle+fat will give the same result and Viola! Your BF %.

Now you know your BF %, but what does it mean? As mentioned before, the percentages are different between men & woman, but are also not strictly indicative of fitness either. In fact, nobody really has a universally accepted definition of "fit". You can have low BF % and be a beanpole, a marathon runner, a bodybuilder, or a POW. You could also have a high BF % and be all the above as well.

One popular comment about being fit is "looking good naked". This is a pretty accurate scale as form follows function, and most of us appreciate the look of a fit body.

At my gym, we have 'leaning challenges', and everyone votes on the before & pics to select the most improved. Pretty simple, and escapes all these hard to quantify issues. We're not selecting the hottest members, but those who improved the most, whether it's losing fat or gaining muscle.
posted by jpeacock at 2:28 PM on May 18, 2011 [2 favorites]


You don't mention anything about whether he's thicker than you, and that seems like an important piece of the puzzle: he could be really muscley, or he could just be all-over big. Do you both wear the same size in unisex clothes (T-shirts, sweatpants)? Since men and women carry their weight differently, it can be sort of hard to judge the size of members of the opposite gender.

(On preview: your original question seemed pretty healthy to me, but your most recent follow-up about your stomach pudge sounds sort of alarming and ooky. I have The Pudge too, despite having a "normal" BMI and working out almost daily, and mine's not attractive, but my options are either surgery or acceptance. If you are heavy and lose a lot of weight, and you are past your mid-twenties or so, your stomach is unlikely to ever flatten out completely, no matter how fit you are.)
posted by Metroid Baby at 2:44 PM on May 18, 2011


I wish I could find this website (originally posted on MeFi somewhere) where you can see a matrix of real pictures of men and women who are your height and weight. It's staggering how 5'8" 160lbs. can manifest itself in so many different ways. It goes to show that even such quantifiable "constants" can't really be compared. For example, I'm 5'0", 135 lbs and I'm tiny. I know women who have a foot of height on me and weigh much less than I do...or women who are my height/weight and look very different body-composition-wise...how is all this possible, I don't know, but it's undeniably what is.

In other words, you're you and made of your stuff.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:45 PM on May 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Here is the chart that iamkimiam mentions.
posted by keep it under cover at 2:53 PM on May 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


iamkimiam might also be referring to the BMI Project.
posted by Andrhia at 2:56 PM on May 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


I don't think the tummy pudge sounds all that alarming. For most women, that hormonally charged fat is hardest to lose. 22.5% bf is great for "normal" women--if you were a fitness model or bodybuilder, it would be on the high side, but bf in the teens is incredibly hard to maintain.

Here's a fun little site where you can plug in a bf number and see the body type.
posted by Ideefixe at 4:17 PM on May 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can muscle mass/being a dude really justify this weight discrepancy?

If you both have the same levels of fitness and general eating habits, the 40lb spread looks pretty normal to me.

As a point of interest, I have medically transitioned from female to male via testosterone injections. My diet and exercise didn't really change*, yet I gained about 30 pounds in my first year. Most of it was muscle in my legs, arms, and neck. My neck went up almost 2", for example.

Overall, I still have my ectomorph body type. But a skinny dude and a skinny chick aren't the same in terms of muscle/fat distribution or percentage.

* Well, obviously they did because my weight gain required extra calories from somewhere, but the foods I eat and the frequency of meals have not changed. My portions are just a bit larger now.
posted by Wossname at 4:38 PM on May 18, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can muscle mass/being a dude really justify this weight discrepancy?

Hypothetically, yes. When I quit judo and training weightlifting at age 20 due to an injury I lost about 35 lbs of muscle over the next 2 years; I know of much larger losses. I was never visibly overweight or excessively bulky, and most of that mass was hiding in the legs and core. In his particular case, I don't think we can really tell you.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:02 PM on May 18, 2011


It depends on construction as well. My legs are very short for my body. Seated I'm equal to people well over six feet, but I'm below it. I also take a 18" neck and 48" at the shoulders, which is way too large for my height, and I don't weight lift... It's all bone and regular muscle*. I didn't really find BMI charts that "fit" me till I bought a book on the US Navy Seals.

* If you are reading this and identifying with it, due to a massive rib cage, apparently we run a real risk of having heart attacks which defib machines can't fix. So keep your heart healthy, ok?
posted by jwells at 5:27 PM on May 18, 2011


I can't find any numbers, but the your skeletons makes a few pounds of difference too. Men tend to have broader shoulders and wider rib cages, which more than makes up for a woman's broader hips. Their bones are thicker and more dense than a female's bones too. His fitness level affects this too, when you work muscles the bones they're attached to will actually enlarge and become more dense to support the increased muscle. That's why exercise is a factor in osteoporosis, if your bones are dense from a lifetime of exercise they won't erode as quickly as you age.
posted by TungstenChef at 6:16 PM on May 18, 2011


Ha, he doesn't want to take his body fat percentage because he's afraid of the number. Until you do that he can't really claim how cut he is.

Also, I don't like the pudge beneath my belly button, its gross and not healthy. That is not shorthand. Its both about looking good and being healthy. Extra fat on your body is not healthy or attractive,

I'm concerned about how much fat you consider to be "extra fat", because 22.5% is a very normal and healthy body fat percentage for a woman. Women with abs, women who are very cut, are women who are actually at unhealthy levels of body fat. No, you don't want to be overweight or obese or whatever, but you do need a certain amount of body fat for your hormones to remain normal. This often means a little pudge at the waist or thighs. That is good pudge. I'm no "I can be 300lbs and healthy!!!!" apologist, but there is such a thing as good pudge.
posted by Anonymous at 7:56 PM on May 18, 2011


Much below 140 for a woman of your height is usually not a good thing. You realistically have maybe 10-15 more pounds of legit "don't want it, don't need it" fat left to ditch, your male counterpart has more like 20-25, easy.

I'd wager his fat % is a little over 30, and he doesn't want to find out for sure.

FWIW, I work at a gym currently (just graduated college) and I talk fitness all day, every day. Also, I'm 6'4 180, and I consider myself about 10-15 pounds too LIGHT. While I don't think your intention is to lose much more weight, remember that being too skinny is almost more unattractive than being too fat.
posted by irishcoffee at 9:25 PM on May 18, 2011


« Older Can you recommend an airplane power adapter for my...   |   Marrying Flash and Google Earth Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.