Carl Sundquist notes:

> You guys are delusional and need to recalibrate your fatness meters:
>
> 5'6", 150 lbs = 24.2 BMI
>
> BMI Categories:

> * Normal weight = 18.5-24.9

I agree. But I'm used to fat, definately skews your calibration.
Just checked mine and while people insist I'm 'skinny', my
BMI is 24.5.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT), sturd <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <92189892-f76a-432a-ac70-(E-Mail Removed)>:
> Carl Sundquist notes:

>> You guys are delusional and need to recalibrate your fatness meters:

>> 5'6", 150 lbs = 24.2 BMI

>> BMI Categories:

>> * Normal weight = 18.5-24.9

> I agree. But I'm used to fat, definately skews your calibration.
> Just checked mine and while people insist I'm 'skinny', my
> BMI is 24.5.

I keep getting perilously close to the rev-limiter at 30.

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

Dr Ivan D. Reid tops out:

> I keep getting perilously close to the rev-limiter at 30.

Back off, back off, back off, AIEEEEEEEEEEEE

splat


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

> BMI Categories:
>
> * * ** Underweight = <18.5
> * * ** Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
> * * ** Overweight = 25-29.9
> * * ** Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>
> http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

Whoever makes those tables is smoking crack. I'm 6' 2" and according
to that table the lower range for "normal" for me would be 144 lb!
Can you imagine somebody who's 6' 2" and 145 lb?

-Dirt-

sturd wrote:
> Mark N says:
>
> > And my recollection of that comment was it being made by Lawson when
> > they were teammates, and Lawson was no shrimp,
>
> Have you ever stood next to Eddie Lawson? *I'm *5'11" and
> skinny and at Daytona last year he won I towered over him and
> looked fat compared to him. *He must be 5'6"ish and couldn't
> have weighed more than 150 lb. *Tiny for fat 'ole USA.

No way Lawson is 5-6, my guess would have been 5-10 but he could be
more like 5-9, I suppose. I've seen him up pretty close but never
stood right next to him. I've also seen pictures of him standing next
to Spencer, Roberts and Mamola, and he's notably taller than Randy and
Kenny, and they're not Dani-like Lilliputians, and nearly as tall as
Spencer, who isn't a shrimp either. He was/is thin, and 150 lbs
wouldn't surprise me at all, my guess would have been a fighting
weight somewhere in the 145-155 range.

> >In the final analysis it hardly matters why it is happening, what
> >matters is that it's happening, and is it a good thing? I don't think
> >it is, because seeing a bunch of jockeys racing isn't as good as
> >seeing a variety of physical types including more average-sized people
> >over the entire fanbase.
>
> Special class for fat guys? *It's racing, guys that are the right size
> for today's best bikes, and have the best skills, and the best team,
> are going to be the best. *I don't care if they're green, fat, tiny,
> or
> have lots of nose hair, if they are the best we'll have good racing.
> They've always been small, so what? *KrJr is just whinging.

Your argument is still-born if it includes calling anyone at the world
level "fat", that is clearly an act of desperation and denial. And
you're just bitter because you've claimed the optimum size for MotoGP
was around 160 lbs, which is and has been absolutely absurd. If your
personal taste runs to midgets, fine, that's your business, but if
MotoGP ever ends up being all sub-130 lb EuroMeds, I sure as hell
won't be watching. And neither of us will be attending, because Laguna
and Indy will have shut it down due to a distinct lack of interest...

On Jun 26, 10:28*am, Dirt <christopher.l.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BMI Categories:
>
> > * * ** Underweight = <18.5
> > * * ** Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
> > * * ** Overweight = 25-29.9
> > * * ** Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>
> >http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
>
> Whoever makes those tables is smoking crack. *I'm 6' 2" and according
> to that table the lower range for "normal" for me would be 144 lb!
> Can you imagine somebody who's 6' 2" and 145 lb?
>
> -Dirt-

I'm 6' 3" and managed to get down to 135 lbs back when I was in
school. Of course the speed might have had something to do with
that Currently weigh 185 lb.

Dirt wrote:
>> BMI Categories:
>>
>> * Underweight = <18.5
>> * Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
>> * Overweight = 25-29.9
>> * Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>>
>> http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
>
> Whoever makes those tables is smoking crack. I'm 6' 2" and according
> to that table the lower range for "normal" for me would be 144 lb!
> Can you imagine somebody who's 6' 2" and 145 lb?
>
> -Dirt-

I guess you missed this: "Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat
based on height and weight that applies to both adult men and women."

On Jun 30, 1:09*pm, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Dirt
>
> <christopher.l.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> BMI Categories:
>
> >> * * ** Underweight = <18.5
> >> * * ** Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
> >> * * ** Overweight = 25-29.9
> >> * * ** Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
>
> >>http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
>
> >Whoever makes those tables is smoking crack. *I'm 6' 2" and according
> >to that table the lower range for "normal" for me would be 144 lb!
> >Can you imagine somebody who's 6' 2" and 145 lb?
>
> Sure. *I've met several. *What's your problem with this?

It just seems to me that a healthy weight for someone 6'2" should be
above 165 lb. Below that may not be unhealthy but I'd sure consider
those people shy of a proper amount of muscle mass. For my own part
I've never been below 185 lb since I made it to high school, and I was
pretty slim back then. I've been back to 185 once in college but I
found it impossible to maintain without being hungry constantly.

-Dirt-

On Jun 30, 1:17*am, Carl Sundquist <carlsun.rem...@cox.net> wrote:

> I guess you missed this: "Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat
> based on height and weight that applies to both adult men and women."

I did, indeed.

-Dirt-

On Jul 1, 1:53*pm, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>
> I'm at the other end of the scale now (26 years later) *:-/


You an me both. I hit the far side of 15-1/2 stone once and I can't
seem to get below 15 stone now no matter how much I try.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum. My project director is
probably 18 stone now, **after** losing 15 stone in the past few
years.

-Dirt-