BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?
Replies
-
SingRunTing wrote: »dopeysmelly wrote: »I found BMI to be a great way to set my target weight initially. I just chose a BMI pretty much slap-bang in the middle of healthy (21.5) and as I got closer to it, just looked at myself in the mirror in a number of different settings (home, gym, fitting room) until I thought I looked OK in terms of how lean I was and acceptable amount of flabby bits. I also used waist/height ratio and also waist/hip ratio.
The combination of BMI and measurement ratios is a form of body fat measurement without the hassle IMO.
It seems to me that too many folks worry about being outliers, when by definition they're more likely just to be a regular person for the purposes of BMI.
This is what I did. I've chosen a goal weight on the higher end of a normal BMI and will reassess as I get closer. The thinnest I've ever been is at the border of overweight/obese and I have no clue what I'll look like at lower weights. I don't expect myself to be an outlier like a lot of people seem to think.
This is why I used BMI also. I didn't know what I'd look like at a healthy BMI, and I look MUCH better in the middle of healthy BMI than at the higher end. I look in the mirror and think "This is how my body is supposed to be".
0 -
BMI seems to be directed towards a sedentary person. It is way off for athletes.0
-
BMI seems to be directed towards a sedentary person. It is way off for athletes.
What kind of athlete are you referring too? A professional football player with extraordinarily above average muscle mass or a weekend warrior runner? Not all "athletes" are created equal, and there is a huge variation in muscle mass even among semi and professional athletes depending on their sport.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
to be fair, there are probably more outliers on this site than you would normally find in your day to day...there are a lot of fitness buffs on this site.
I'm nothing special, but I'm 15%-17% BF with a BMI of 26.8. My ultimate goal is to get to a BMI of 24.9, the highest end of "normal", which would put me at about 173 Lbs and a rockin' 10% BF.
I'm just a normal dude that likes to work hard and I know for a fact there are more fit individuals than myself on this site...so it would stand to reason to me that there are probably more outliers here than you would generally find elsewhere.
0 -
-
I went by BMI when I set about losing my weight. Judge for yourself but I feel like it was spot on for me. Ok I understand I am not an athlete or a body builder (pregnant or adolescent), but I can easily swim a mile or walk for 10 miles. At 46 this is a result for me. Current BMI 23.8
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »This is a cool chart. I wish it included women. It says about 17% of the men were deemed overweight by BMI but not by BF%. But about 8% were the opposite-- Ok by BMI but overweight by BF%. 75% the measures agreed.
That is very cool. Any idea who made it?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
to be fair, there are probably more outliers on this site than you would normally find in your day to day...there are a lot of fitness buffs on this site.
I'm nothing special, but I'm 15%-17% BF with a BMI of 26.8. My ultimate goal is to get to a BMI of 24.9, the highest end of "normal", which would put me at about 173 Lbs and a rockin' 10% BF.
I'm just a normal dude that likes to work hard and I know for a fact there are more fit individuals than myself on this site...so it would stand to reason to me that there are probably more outliers here than you would generally find elsewhere.
Plus a thread like this is self selecting. It's more likely to draw in people that have a reason to add something to the conversation based on their own experience. I'm definitely not an outlier at the upper range. I'm down around 18.5 and it's completely normal and healthy for me, but I can see very clearly that it isn't right for other body types. People do have different body types. It's not a special snowflake.
0 -
No, I plucked it from the Wikipedia page on BMI. The NHANES study is cited there but I don't see that exact chart in it. I'd love to see the same chart for females.WalkingAlong wrote: »This is a cool chart. I wish it included women. It says about 17% of the men were deemed overweight by BMI but not by BF%. But about 8% were the opposite-- Ok by BMI but overweight by BF%. 75% the measures agreed.
That is very cool. Any idea who made it?
The study says BMI does well at ruling out obesity but poorly at detecting it when it exists.
"A BMI ≥ 30 had a high specificity (95% in men and 99% in women), but a poor sensitivity (36% and 49 %, respectively) to detect BF %-defined obesity. "
I believe that means what we've seen posted here before-- You're more likely to be obese by body fat and not by BMI than the opposite.
The opposite is what we see warned of here all the time-- "BMI says I'm obese but I'm not." That would be poor specificity, right? Though 5% is quite a lot and perhaps those men are more likely to be on a calorie counting site.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
EXCELLENT POINT0 -
-
Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
Actually, it's not terribly unusual for a man with significant muscle development to be a good BF% and yet above 25 on the BMI scale. It's more unusual for a woman, but if one is significantly overweight, one probably does have more muscle on average than someone who is not. What that means is that you may well have sufficient muscle that you'd have a quite low BF% at 25, assuming you didn't lose any.
Of course, you will lose some and your BF% estimate could well be off (mine probably was when I was at my fattest), so like most problems I suspect this one takes care of itself, if people just set a tentative goal weight and see how they feel.
It's also probably true that people today are heavy enough on average that we have screwed up perceptions. I know how I felt at 140 (BMI 25), and it was a lot thinner than I had at 140 back the first time I hit that weight, in 2000 or so (when I'd thought it was enormous). I suspect that's because even in my thinner-than-the-average-for-the-US circles being a BMI of 25 is pretty average.
That said, it's easy enough to find out if you really are a special snowflake (some are, after all), just get your body fat tested. Or don't worry about it, it's probably not really a risk to have a BMI of 26 or 27, assuming your waist measurement is good and you are fit.
Personally, I know I look best closer to a BMI of 20-21, at least unless I manage to gain more muscle, so I don't have to worry about it.0 -
Being an average person a normal BMI seems reasonable goal to me. Right now, 50 lbs. away and 65 lbs. lighter than I was 11 months ago I'm not worried about it. I'm 6 ft 2 inches and am going to look pretty good dressed at 210 - 20 lbs overweight. 185, 15 lbs less than max normal, is my longer range goal. I'm not a doctor and there's no reason for me to conclude that extra muscle mass isn't detrimental to ones body in some of the same ways (of course not all ways) as extra fat mass.0
-
JenniDaisy wrote: »Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop believing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.
BMI is effective for measuring populations but not individuals. Your insurance company stays in business because it focuses on populations rather than individuals.
You are not a population; you are an individual. Pay attention of BF% and disregard BMI.
0 -
Since BF scales are about worthless and calipers are pretty iffy as well, how do you propose people monitor their body fat percent? Get a dexa scan quarterly?xmichaelyx wrote: »JenniDaisy wrote: »Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop believing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.
BMI is effective for measuring populations but not individuals. Your insurance company stays in business because it focuses on populations rather than individuals.
You are not a population; you are an individual. Pay attention of BF% and disregard BMI.
If 5% of males are told they're overweight by BMI when they're not, that means 19 out of 20 are told they're overweight by BMI when they are. To me, that's pretty predictive. For women, it's 99%. I think I'll save that money and skip the dexa scans.
0 -
BMI is a good starting point. Then you should use skinfold calipers and looking in the mirror to determine how accurate it is for you. I would assume that most people would still see themselves as leaner than their BMI, though, regardless of the facts.
Most people will (due to the law of averages) fall pretty close to their measured BMI range. There are definitely some people, though, that will not.
My BMI is around 28, but by every attempt to get an accurate body fat percentage using various caliper readings at different points and visual inspection, I'm somewhere around 18-19% body fat. The bodyfat scales put me around 22%, which is more than the calipers say, but still quite a bit below the BMI estimate. The scale only measures through my legs and most of my muscle mass is mid and upper body. My doctor knows I'm in good shape with all the lab tests to prove it, but he still has to justify it to the HMO that sees me as overweight and a candidate for increased health risks.
"Skinny fat" people are the other extreme with good BMI numbers, but extremely low muscle mass. The HMOs give them a pass on BMI, though, and only see them as unhealthy if thier lab tests suggest something not quitre right.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Since BF scales are about worthless and calipers are pretty iffy as well, how do you propose people monitor their body fat percent? Get a dexa scan quarterly?xmichaelyx wrote: »JenniDaisy wrote: »Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop believing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.
BMI is effective for measuring populations but not individuals. Your insurance company stays in business because it focuses on populations rather than individuals.
You are not a population; you are an individual. Pay attention of BF% and disregard BMI.
If 5% of males are told they're overweight by BMI when they're not, that means 19 out of 20 are told they're overweight by BMI when they are. To me, that's pretty predictive. For women, it's 99%. I think I'll save that money and skip the dexa scans.
Where are those figures from?
That scatter chart posted above (if a big enough sample to extrapolate to population levels) shows 17% of males are good on body fat but overweight by BMI, so surely it's closer to correct for 15 out of 20
It also says 8% were the opposite
So in total 25% of the sample's BMI did not accurately reflect health by body fat % ...that's huge when talking about population of males
Add to that that women have higher levels of acceptable body fat % so the figures for incorrect by BMI would be higher
I'd also think that more MFP women lift heavy compared to population
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »Since BF scales are about worthless and calipers are pretty iffy as well, how do you propose people monitor their body fat percent? Get a dexa scan quarterly?
A close enough way for me is to just compare myself to known body fat percentage photos online.0 -
They're from the link/excerpt in my post marked 3:59pm, which is supposedly the same study the scatter chart data came from. I think the difference is the scatter chart is referring to 'overweight' BMI and the other to 'obese'? It's confusing and I worded that later post poorly. Is it that BMI accurately predicts 'obesity' for 95% of men and 99% of women, but only 'overweight' status for 75% of men (scatter chart, and 8% of those are overweight but BMI says they're not)? That would make sense.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Since BF scales are about worthless and calipers are pretty iffy as well, how do you propose people monitor their body fat percent? Get a dexa scan quarterly?xmichaelyx wrote: »JenniDaisy wrote: »Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop believing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.
BMI is effective for measuring populations but not individuals. Your insurance company stays in business because it focuses on populations rather than individuals.
You are not a population; you are an individual. Pay attention of BF% and disregard BMI.
If 5% of males are told they're overweight by BMI when they're not, that means 19 out of 20 are told they're overweight by BMI when they are. To me, that's pretty predictive. For women, it's 99%. I think I'll save that money and skip the dexa scans.
Where are those figures from?
That scatter chart posted above (if a big enough sample to extrapolate to population levels) shows 17% of males are good on body fat but overweight by BMI, so surely it's closer to correct for 15 out of 20
It also says 8% were the opposite
So in total 25% of the sample's BMI did not accurately reflect health by body fat % ...that's huge when talking about population of males
Add to that that women have higher levels of acceptable body fat % so the figures for incorrect by BMI would be higher
I'd also think that more MFP women lift heavy compared to population
0 -
BMI is a good starting point. Then you should use skinfold calipers and looking in the mirror to determine how accurate it is for you. I would assume that most people would still see themselves as leaner than their BMI, though, regardless of the facts.
Most people will (due to the law of averages) fall pretty close to their measured BMI range. There are definitely some people, though, that will not.
My BMI is around 28, but by every attempt to get an accurate body fat percentage using various caliper readings at different points and visual inspection, I'm somewhere around 18-19% body fat. The bodyfat scales put me around 22%, which is more than the calipers say, but still quite a bit below the BMI estimate. The scale only measures through my legs and most of my muscle mass is mid and upper body. My doctor knows I'm in good shape with all the lab tests to prove it, but he still has to justify it to the HMO that sees me as overweight and a candidate for increased health risks.
"Skinny fat" people are the other extreme with good BMI numbers, but extremely low muscle mass. The HMOs give them a pass on BMI, though, and only see them as unhealthy if thier lab tests suggest something not quitre right.
so, you're saying that "most" people will view themselves as leaner than their bmi and are wrong, but you are right to view yourself as leaner than your bmi?
i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
btw, I don't view myself as leaner than my BMI, but I'm just one person.
0 -
Lets be honest, most people who are legitimate outliers will know they're outliers. A woman earlier in the thread has a profile picture up of, what I assume, is her with six pack abs on a cut physique. She obviously isn't going to require any guidance by a BMI chart. That she isn't fat is the definition of common sense.
However how typical is this? Really? It seems to me the far more likely perception is that we've become collectively so much larger that our idea of "normal" has likewise shifted up. Which would help explain the incredible backlash against once-normal, lower body weights and a fear/anxiety about thinness.
Again, and this does go well beyond MFP, how are so many claiming to just be naturally bigger, when that simply wasn't the case a couple generations ago?
1960-1962:
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 166.3
1999-2002
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 191.0
Further study into the statistics show that it's middle aged men and women tend to even larger than their mid-20th century counterparts (who were even larger than their earlier 20th century counterparts). And this data is over 10 years old. The weight increase also can't be accounted for the slight increase in height, which is an average of 1 inch.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf0 -
i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Lets be honest, most people who are legitimate outliers will know they're outliers. A woman earlier in the thread has a profile picture up of, what I assume, is her with six pack abs on a cut physique. She obviously isn't going to require any guidance by a BMI chart. That she isn't fat is the definition of common sense.
However how typical is this? Really? It seems to me the far more likely perception is that we've become collectively so much larger that our idea of "normal" has likewise shifted up. Which would help explain the incredible backlash against once-normal, lower body weights and a fear/anxiety about thinness.
Again, and this does go well beyond MFP, how are so many claiming to just be naturally bigger, when that simply wasn't the case a couple generations ago?
1960-1962:
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 166.3
1999-2002
Mean Weight for Males 20-74: 191.0
Further study into the statistics show that it's middle aged men and women tend to even larger than their mid-20th century counterparts (who were even larger than their earlier 20th century counterparts). And this data is over 10 years old. The weight increase also can't be accounted for the slight increase in height, which is an average of 1 inch.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf
yeah, the woman earlier in the thread is an extreme outlier, so her saying that is sort of irrelevant to all other women. most women probably can't even look as muscular as she does even if they do lift. she is extreme.0 -
sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »I'm wondering how all of you use/interpret BMI. For my height I should be between 97-128 pounds. I'm 5 feet tall and currently 154 pounds. I have a moderate-heavy muscle mass from working on my family's ranch, and genetically I know I'm predisposition-ed to higher protein needs and larger muscles than average for a woman. My ideal weight range for BMI seems like a bad/wrong goal. How would I adjust for my body type/muscling?
Wow, we could be twins. That's my exact Height and weight! I ignore BMI; when I go to my doctor I always ask about it, she knows how anxious I get when it comes to my body/weight, and she always tells me that I look fine and she reminds me that I do weights and dance classes so I mostly have muscle. BMI just takes your height-to-weight in to consideration and not your fat-muscle ratio so don't worry about it. As long as you're eating healthy, keeping up with exercises, you are fine
But, I can also see where you are coming from. When I see the BMI, it is disappointing because I don't want to be categorized as over weight, you know?
For someone who is *starting out* in the working out thing, I would say to start looking at lowering BMI and making a goal to lower it to a certain point but BMI shouldn't be taken as serious, you know? Hope I made sense, I feel like I rambled
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.
i HAVE taken a&p and never came across that. source please?
as for BMI.. it's just a tool. if you're pretty average it's a good goal target. if you are significantly over- or under-muscled it will be wrong, and waist/hip ratio (for women) and body fat % are more meaningful.
You're also 40. The information taught when you were in school is different from the information taught nowadays. It's common sense that the heart has to work harder when a person is overweight or obese which can lead to a number of health complications.
"The more you weigh, the more blood you have flowing through your body. The increased amount of blood means your heart has to pump more blood with each beat. This makes the heart work harder. It stretches and expands. The extra work makes the heart muscle thicker. The thicker the heart muscle gets, the harder it is for it to squeeze and relax. Over time, the heart may not be able to keep up with the load. You may then have heart failure."
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks
http://www.cardiacsolutions.net/obesity_effects_on_the_heart.htm0 -
BMI is a range in order to take into account different body types, etc. Someone with a more athletic build would look weird at the lower end of BMI...someone with a petite build will look weird at the higher end.
It's not meant to be something where you just arbitrarily pick some number in that range...that number may not be appropriate for your body type.
I agree with this. BMI is one of many potential tools for information. But, you would base it upon your own body, and gathering information on your own and with your personal doctor about your body type, your goals/lifestyle, your personal history of weight and size, your family genetics, etc. Even kids on a growth chart will consistently be in a certain place. It's about your personal pattern and wild fluctuations that indicate a change of personal gain or loss.
^^This^^0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.
That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.
i HAVE taken a&p and never came across that. source please?
as for BMI.. it's just a tool. if you're pretty average it's a good goal target. if you are significantly over- or under-muscled it will be wrong, and waist/hip ratio (for women) and body fat % are more meaningful.
You're also 40. The information taught when you were in school is different from the information taught nowadays. It's common sense that the heart has to work harder when a person is overweight or obese which can lead to a number of health complications.
"The more you weigh, the more blood you have flowing through your body. The increased amount of blood means your heart has to pump more blood with each beat. This makes the heart work harder. It stretches and expands. The extra work makes the heart muscle thicker. The thicker the heart muscle gets, the harder it is for it to squeeze and relax. Over time, the heart may not be able to keep up with the load. You may then have heart failure."
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks
http://www.cardiacsolutions.net/obesity_effects_on_the_heart.htm
Being overweight definitely puts a strain in your organs! But, just because someone is 'categorized' as overweight or obese on the BMI (body mass index)scale, does not mean they are unhealthy.
BMI takes into consideration height and weight and not take into consideration body fat, muscle, lifestyle etc. I fall under the over weight category; my heart, cholesterol, everything the doctor checks - is fine and within normal range. I eat healthy and i exercise practically every day (2+hours)..It's just I have a higher percentage of muscle than fat. I'm going to weigh more compared to my height and therefore fall under overweight, but physically, I am fine and normal.
BMI is a tool and can and should be used a resource to become healthier but no one should be obsessed with the BMI scale. I even use the BMI scale to see my progress. I check my BMI once a month to see where I am, where I was, and set goals for my next month BMI check up. It's a tool.
That's my opinion, though.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »i hate the term "skinny fat". you can't be just skinny these days without muscle tone because people came up with a new word to insult you.
I just touched on this issue in another thread this morning when, as usual, people were suggesting that you had to lift heavy in order to not look flabby.
Which is nonsense. You can be lean with lots of musculature, or lean with little. Plenty of people are just "skinny", but still with low body fat levels. Skinny =/= Skinny fat.
the thing is, a little flab isn't gonna kill anyone. we don't need to start calling people within normal weight "skinny-fat". I'm slightly underweight according to bmi and am not muscular at all. I'm assuming people would start calling me skinny-fat if they saw me because I'm not muscular and never have been. The term is stupid though. Heavy lifting isn't natural. If people want to do it to look perfect, good for them, but that doesn't mean they need to insult people who don't. Also doesn't mean insurance companies need to start charging us more.
I think the original notion of "skinny fat" has merit. It described people who were in a normal BMI range, but who had a high body fat percentage. It's awesome to be reminded that while weight plays a significant role in this story, it's not by any means the only role. It also helps legitimize weight loss goals for those who are "normal" weight, or for those who were overweight and obese it's a good reminder that not even a "normal" weight will necessarily mean you've arrived at a "normal" body fat percentage.
The concept has just been pushed too far. Now I see it commonly being used to refer to people who are just skinny/thin, with normal to low body fat levels. I see it being used to shame people who are a little soft, but far from fat. I see people being told that they HAVE to lift heavy in order to avoid being "skinny fat" or "flabby". I see what was once considered perfectly normal, non-fat bodies being referred to as "skinny fat" for not being lean, athletic, musclar bodies.0 -
As another petite female, it's hard for me to imagine having an extra 26 lbs of muscle. I'm not saying you don't, I just can't picture it. So my question is, what does your doctor tell you?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions