• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Big Mick

"2014 - Kunce of the year"
She is probably average, but it appears the average person is fat.

So yes she needs to lose some fat, not neccessarely weight, just fat, just like myself, happy with my weight just need to lose some fat. :)
 

jamesyboi

New member
Your height in CM - 100 = a 'rough' guide for your weight in KG.

Provided your not lifting weights.

I like that theory.
 

bradsky

do I even lift?
she is holding unnecessary fat, she could clean up her diet. fat is fat.... her choice.

Your height in CM - 100 = a 'rough' guide for your weight in KG.

Provided your not lifting weights.

I like that theory.

that's a good guide for a natural bodybuilder also.
 

damyt01

New member
Unhealthy and unfit.... And what people don't understand is that it only gets worse as you get older if you don't start moving that fat ass and treating your body right!
 

pistachio

New member
Yes she is fat, particularly obvious in the knees and muffin top.

Just because it is now the average doesn't mean it isn't fat.
 

RyanF

New member
Your height in CM - 100 = a 'rough' guide for your weight in KG.

Provided your not lifting weights.

I like that theory.
For most people who don't lift weights (or do any other activity that would put a reasonable amount of muscle on your bones), that's about the upper limit of what they should weigh. For someone who doesn't lift, I'd probably recommend that they should be about 10-20% lighter than that again, although better yet they should probably get to training.
 

Bazza20

New member
For most people who don't lift weights (or do any other activity that would put a reasonable amount of muscle on your bones), that's about the upper limit of what they should weigh. For someone who doesn't lift, I'd probably recommend that they should be about 10-20% lighter than that again, although better yet they should probably get to training.

That's not really making sense. Are you saying its the upper limit for people that lift weights and those that don't should be 10-20% less.
 

RyanF

New member
No, I'm saying it's the upper limit for people who don't lift weights, and they should ideally be lower than that upper limit, say by 10-20%.
 

peanutz

New member
this is the issue... are we talking average as in the true average of society, or average as a means of measuring what a true normal / medium should be?

i once had an overweight work college ask me if i thought she was of average size - truthfully, compared to everyone else in the office, she was 'average'. compared to models of health, nooooooo - gurrrrl, you fat.
 

moons

New member
Pretty sure they are talking average in terms of data/bell curve - they are distilling population data into an 'average woman'.

I mean she is obviously not a beacon of health / an active lifestyle.
 

McKwl

Overloaded Member
No....no they shouldn't......
Haha, yeah, what da KFG sed. :)

On her way to "fat", IMO. Definitely too high a BF%, anyway, which is what it comes down to, AFAIK. Not just height/weight, ffs. :rolleyes:

She would look A LOT better after shedding all that excess. Or even most of it - a bit is fine, again IMO (especially for dem chikz).
 
Top