"Your weight is way too low for your height!"

[Dorich]

I'm interested in hearing some thoughts on the true definition of "underweight". Reason being that there are so many threads where people who want to lose fat are being told that their body-weight is too low for their height, and that they should not under any circumstances work on fat-loss. Instead, they are advised to either try to "re-comp" or straight out bulk. So, what is the best way to define being underweight?

The way I see it, and I may very well be wrong, is that this concept is way too simplified, as one cannot look merely at the age / height / weight of a person in order determine that their weight is too low. It seems to me that bone mass / frame size is a big factor that is almost never taken into consideration, because it is automatically (and IMO wrongly) being assumed that the taller person must have a large frame.

For example, my father and I are about the same height, and if you were to analyze the shape of our hands, fingers, etc, you'd clearly see we are father and son, as everything has the exact same "design" so to speak. My bones however, are so much smaller/thinner it's even funny in comparison. His wrist is huge, whereas mine is barely 15.5 cm (6.1 inches). Tremendous difference in ankle size as well. His bones overall are just much much larger, everywhere... yet we are the same height. Well, I'm 184 cm and he may be around 186-187 cm. Still, absolutely huge difference in bone thickness. And on top of that I've seen tons of much shorter guys with huge bones.

Doesn't this make a huge difference when it comes to weight, especially if you want to cut down to lower body fat, and even more so if you lack muscle mass? Not only will you weigh less due to the smaller bones, but there is also less meat on those bones, assuming we're talking about two individuals with same muscle-to-fat ratio. I see "very low muscle mass" as being a problem, as well as dangerously low levels of body fat. But the whole "too low for your height" is something I never understood fully, simply because the body-weight number doesn't provide you with really anything about his/her body composition.

I'm six foot with around 12% body fat at only 142 lbs. But despite the low body-weight number I don't look like a skeleton. I just look fairly lean. And at 10% (my goal) I will probably weigh around 135-137 lbs. Again, my frame is extremely small. Add "less meat on smaller bones" as a factor as well as overall lower muscle mass due to being previously untrained / obese, and the low body-weight certainly makes sense.

So if someone post photos in addition to their height/weight, then I can understand being told they shouldn't cut. But there are instances where a six foot guy will say he's 160 lbs without posting a photo and gets almost immediately told that cutting shouldn't be an option. How on earth do you determine that without seeing what he looks like?

The simple question: What factors do you personally take into consideration in order to determine if someone's underweight?

Please discuss.

[juggernaut74ia]

By any measure - regardless of lean mass - 135 lbs at 6' is underweight. Period.


That said - people posting questions to these forums typically aren't 10% BF show-ready bodybuilders or MMA fighters. They're typically relatively new to lifting and/or dieting, so it's pretty safe to assume a low body weight to height ratio means a lack of lean mass which exacerbates what little fat they already have.

That assumption on occasion does turn out to be false, but it works 99% of the time.

[Dorich]

By any measure - regardless of lean mass - 135 lbs at 6' is underweight. Period.

Yet there is absolutely zero explanation in your post as to why exactly this should be the case. With my blood work / hormones being perfectly fine and me feeling well and looking relatively good (although this is subjective), how/why is my weight inappropriate/unhealthy/dangerous? Please clarify.

You also seem to have glossed over the factor of low bone mass and how it might significantly affect weight in more than one way.

That assumption on occasion does turn out to be false, but it works 99% of the time.

I'd say it is incorrect quite often, especially when no photos are provided. I was told to stop cutting at 170 lbs, and I had significant amounts of fat. Stopping right there and "bulking" would probably have been the worst thing I could've done.

And you're going to laugh... but I opened this thread mainly because of your posts. You quite often tell people their weight is too low for their height, even in a recent thread.

No offense intended. (srs)

[Dorich]

Also FWIW, the BMI, as useless as it is for people who train, puts my "healthy" body-weight range at 136.4 lbs - 184.3 lbs, meaning that 135 lbs would only be very slightly "underweight".

[SWG42]

I'm six foot with around 12% body fat at only 142 lbs. But despite the low body-weight number I don't look like a skeleton.

How on earth do you determine that without seeing what he looks like?

Good point. Post Photo.

..due to being previously untrained / obese

It's all perception. Assuming you're talking about yourself; you may not yet view yourself as skinny. I grew up skinny and don't see myself as heavy at 5'11" - 200 lbs. but had to come to grips with being time to cut.

...135 lbs would only be very slightly "underweight".

Slightly underweight is still underweight.

[Dorich]

Slightly underweight is still underweight.

... according to the useless BMI, yes.

[Dorich]

Good point. Post Photo.

It's all perception. Assuming you're talking about yourself; you may not yet view yourself as skinny.

Plenty of photos in the thread in my signature, but I don't want this discussion to derail and revolve around me. I was hoping for a discussion generally about the concept of underweight.

Here are ten photos of me at 150 lbs from a while ago, and I lost much more fat since then: https://imgur.com/a/Q8Vrx

I don't think that looks skinny or "underweight", but to each their own as usual.

[keyboardworkout]

Minimum weight for a male who strength trains

5 feet = 106 pounds

Add 6 pounds for every inch over 5 feet

6'0" should weigh at minimum 178 pounds

You can add/subtract 10% for frame size.

[juggernaut74ia]

Here are photos of me at 150 lbs from a while ago, and I lost much more fat since then: https://imgur.com/a/Q8Vrx

I don't think that looks skinny or "underweight", but to each their own as usual.

To each their own of course - but that pic @ 150 is already skinny/skeletal. And you've lost more weight since, and you're trying to lose more.

If you don't think that's "skinny", you have a massively skewed idea of what "skinny" means...bordering on a full-fledged body image disorder.

As far as my advice - this IS a bodybuilding site, not an pro-anorexia site, so I'm going to assume actually having a bodybuilder's body is the goal. And I will not apologize for that.

[Dorich]

Minimum weight for a male who strength trains

5 feet = 106 pounds

Add 6 pounds for every inch over 5 feet

6'0" should weigh at minimum 178 pounds

You can add/subtract 10% for frame size.

This is the popular "rule", yes, I'm aware of it. But there's no explanation how it was determined, and why it must apply to everyone. And if someone has only started training during their deficit and never trained for mass before, he is still someone who "strength trains"... but he'll have less mass. In other words, it is oversimplified IMO.

[SWG42]

BMI useless? Sure, but I think we can agree that on a BB forum, it's not goal anyone is shooting for. As Juggernaut mentioned there is not enough mass which exacerbates what little fat there is. Congrats on the weight loss BTW. You've done well! At some point you have to start building, and your proclaimed BF% is good to go now. Build some shape under that skin.

[Dorich]

To each their own of course - but that pic @ 150 is already skinny/skeletal.

Gee, you can't even hide your anger due to me opening this thread because of your repetitive nonsensical posts advising virtually everyone under 170 pounds not to cut. Even though I honestly meant no offense, lol.

Yeah, skinny is quite subjective, and it's not "that pic", as there are actually ten photos, assuming you know you can scroll further down on that page.

I'm going to assume actually having a bodybuilder's body is the goal. And I will not apologize for that.

Why on earth would/should you apologize? Everyone sees things a certain way. And personally I think you look fat in your AVI. (srs)

Best of luck with your... "bodybuilding" adventure. And lighten up brah.

[gomil]

Ah, the classic "skinny fat" problem. A an untrained guy at an average bmi/weight and semi high body fat (most people when they begin training) with next to no muscle and anterior pelvic tilt. Skinny everywhere but with a belly. Doesn't know whether to bulk or cut. What should he do?

The answer is NOT starting a surplus for most. Why? Skinny fats are after all fat. People don't realize that building muscle takes months, months...and many more months. And if you factor in noob gains, these people will just gain pure fat for the first couple of months if they haven't capped off on neurological adaptations before the excess stimulus (poundage) starts producing muscle growth. The person can however see instant results and improve their self confidence just by a losing a couple of pounds.

What these folks need to do is just start training and learn what a calorie is. Tracking calories and being in a small deficit/or around maintenance (depending on their situation) will teach them how to eat and be responsible for what they put in their mouth. They can improve their body comp. (get to sub 15 % b.f.) and make solid progress in improving their lifting numbers without needing a surplus.

An obese guy has no lbm either (how could he when he was just being a fatass sitting on the couch snacking on cheetos and oreos) and he isn't asked to bulk. Skinny fats are at a massive advantage since they only have about 5-10 lb to lose/recomp. max.

I've also seen a couple of posts (a bit rare since most people that post don't qualify to be classified into this category) by people with visible sternums/hip bones that absolutely should start eating a surplus and not even worry about gaining some excess fat (which would actually be beneficial) since I believe that they are legitimately emaciated.

With that said, why cut to 10 % when you are lean enough to start a surplus?

[SWG42]

this IS a bodybuilding site

Beat me to it.

[Dorich]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gomil again."

[juggernaut74ia]

Gee, you can't even hide your anger due to me opening this thread because of your repetitive nonsensical posts advising virtually everyone under 170 pounds not to cut. Even though I honestly meant no offense, lol.

Yeah, skinny is quite subjective, and it's not "that pic", as there are actually ten photos, assuming you know you can scroll further down on that page.

Why on earth would/should you apologize? Everyone sees things a certain way. And personally I think you look fat in your AVI. (srs)

Best of luck to you as well. If you have to resort to schoolyard passive aggressive insults to try to make a point, I've nothing more to say.

[Strawng]

By any measure - regardless of lean mass - 135 lbs at 6' is underweight. Period.

This. When I was 135 lbs lean at 6' I was hospitalized for anorexia and I had barely recovered any weight after nearly having a heart attack related to starvation. Not exactly a goal to strive for OP. As others have said, this is a site for bodyBUILDING. You may wish to set up an account on bodykilling.com for further discussions like this.

[Dorich]

This. When I was 135 lbs lean at 6' I was hospitalized for anorexia and I had barely recovered any weight after nearly having a heart attack related to starvation. Not exactly a goal to strive for OP.

Thanks for your concern bro. (srs)

I think it depends on many factors. Don't think anything bad will happen losing my final 3 kg. If I'm wrong and get hospitalized I'll post about it. If I die, I obviously won't post about it.

[Dorich]

Best of luck to you as well. If you have to resort to schoolyard passive aggressive insults to try to make a point, I've nothing more to say.

Not sure if srs?

LMFAO

You tell me I look anorexic and imply I have several "disorders", and expect what kind of response in return?

For fuk's sake please don't reply. I will not respond to any of your posts from now on.

[CommitmentRulz]

OP, I've looked at your pictures. You say that you don't think that you are skinny. How would you describe yourself?

[gomil]

I've also seen a couple of posts (a bit rare since most people that post don't qualify to be classified into this category) by people with visible sternums/hip bones that absolutely should start eating a surplus and not even worry about gaining some excess fat (which would actually be beneficial) since I believe that they are legitimately emaciated.

With that said, why cut to 10 % when you are lean enough to start a surplus?

Dorich, you seem to have ignored the last two paragraphs that I posted. I'm going to have to agree with the other guys who posted in this thread and will stick the above regarding your situation. I just saw your progress pic and you are in no position to be cutting any further. Start a surplus unless this is your goal physique. *



Watch this.



* EDIT: Cliffs - Sub 15 % is lean enough

[Dorich]

Will not respond to posts about my own body-weight in this thread. Was honestly hoping for a general discussion on height/weight correlation along with bone mass / frame size. It looks like this will not be possible.

What's funny is that the people who criticize the most don't have any detailed photos of their own physiques. I wonder why?

And to those who don't know how to scroll: the page actually has ten photos, not one "pic".

But to each their own. My contribution in this thread is finished.

/thread (as far as I'm concerned)

[skelooth]

asks for what is considered underweight. Gets defensive over BMI. Makes sense.

[anonymous]

IMO it depends on how the person feels/performs

FYI any man who's under 140 that specifies their weight on this site is usually called underweight and told to bulk but I don't always agree with that decision





my weight in this photo is 129 and I was benching 175 I may be underweight by traditional standards but why does it matter

[BecomingSmaller]

You have to question your position if the weight for your height is such that no military or law enforcement organisation would allow you to join their ranks because they felt you were underweight (and they don't all use BMI).

It is true that there are occasions where individuals might be suitable, but in the vast majority of cases that is not the case. Now you may be a special snowflake, but are probably not.

[EjnarKolinkar]

Bones make up a small percentage of body weight. Even at the extremes of large and small frame sizes at the same height there isn't that much weight to be found in skeletal differences.

Body fat is fundamentally a ratio, and sensibly influencing that ratio is most often offered as means forward in this forum.

It’s important to recognize trained people tend to have larger margins of LBM which make lower 10-15% walking around BF so much easier to accomplish.

One can review the incredible similarity between highly trained people and their body weights at competition, and off season in many reputable natural bodybuilding resources on the internet. People who think they need to gain 30 pounds more than those weights, or weight 30 pounds less than those weights may be deluding themselves. They may be chasing some short term perfectionist ideal as opposed to having a long term game plan that will deliver the results they desire. Of course that assumes they want to look like a moderate level natural bodybuilder, or at least head in that direction.

Here are some good articles:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/04/02/what-the-fulk/
What the fulk?

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2014/1...ing-potential/
Eric Helms’ Epic Article on Natural Bodybuilding Potential

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...otential.html/
Genetic potential - (has Alan Aragon model)

Important to remember that ranges are given, and that not everyone will receive the top number. So watch out for fulking as much as wheel spinning. Moderation works.

[dmacdonal9]

When I tell people they should stop losing fat, it's because I think they'll look better by focusing on muscle gain over fat loss. I don't think there's anything all that unhealthy about being too skinny unless we're talking extremes, and we rarely are.

OP, I would advise you to stop losing fat for this reason too. I think you'll make better progress overall if you stop chasing diminishing returns.

I also think you're overstating frame size.

[Tigerzen]

Great thread! It helps people understand why posters urge bulking over cutting in many of the replies. When I joined this forum I would see people who were fat in my eyes but the standard advice was to bulk which I've always thought as nonsensical as it means you're going to have to go on a longer cut down the track.
Cutting vs bulking is very much a personal decision but I wonder if you are in that "in between" state where you could either bulk or cut whether one particular approach will allow you to achieve your desired physique faster ie will another bulk and then a longer cut help you more than stripping down to say 10 to 12% and then bulking? I read a book by Tom Venuto (a respected author) in which his advice was get down to a low body fat and then bulk as it helps with nutritional partitioning and limits the fat gain on the bulk ie if I understand correctly that you will realise a greater proportion of muscle in your bulk rather than if you commenced your bulk at a higher bodyfat percentage. Having cut down to 15% or so and then bulked which resulted in extra strength but far too much fat I wonder whether I would have been better off cutting to 12% or lower and then starting my bulk.

[EjnarKolinkar]

I wonder if you are in that "in between" state where you could either bulk or cut whether one particular approach will allow you to achieve your desired physique faster ie will another bulk and then a longer cut help you more than stripping down to say 10 to 12% and then bulking?

I think it depends on the gainz somebody has already. I have never followed a log where somebody cut to a legit 10% and said "Damn that was easy as hell." The last 3% BF seems to universally be a PITA, and takes longer.

I think noobs with no sports background, and little gainz can make good progress in a year of lifting in culk, gaintain, or mass gain mode. Assuming they are height weight proportionate and not obese and should be managing that. They can do the 10% cut after they build up once, instead of doing it twice. And nobody says you have to FULK in this forum. There is no reason somebody height and weight proportionate can't run a mass gain without becoming a blimp.

People tend to blame bulking to too high a body fat on not cutting low enough. But nobody held a gun to anyone head to eat up to that body fat%. I think people are mostly impatient.

get down to a low body fat and then bulk as it helps with nutritional partitioning and limits the fat gain on the bulk ie if I understand correctly that you will realise a greater proportion of muscle in your bulk rather than if you commenced your bulk at a higher bodyfat percentage. Having cut down to 15% or so and then bulked which resulted in extra strength but far too much fat I wonder whether I would have been better off cutting to 12% or lower and then starting my bulk.

Real tea: Everybody thinks they will have the highest number for muscle gain the first year from all those charts. IRL many people get the lower percentage of gainz. Everybody sweats over their nutrient partitioning, IRL it's mostly genetic and a lot of it's driven by training and recovery efficacy. People blame fat gain on how fat they started when most of the time it comes down to just plain gaining too much fat for how their muscle mass is progressing. Why? Impatience. 10% BF is not any garuntee one will remain lean bulking. People can gain 2-3% BF in a very short time, especially if they are starved, and inexperienced.

IRL gyms are full of people at 15% BF making tons of gainz.

[EjnarKolinkar]

Series is $$$