Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How do we judge a healthy weight range? BMI is no longer valid?
Replies
-
coreyreichle wrote: »That data is available, and it has been done. In fact, BMI works for about 97% of the population as a measure of healthy weight ranges, and in fact, was adjusted a couple of years back to bring it more in line with that.
Can you cite a source for that 97%, please?
The only recent adjustment I'm aware of is when they lowered the "healthy" range from 27 to 25. This was done in response to the addition of studies in more countries where they previously had come mostly from North America and Europe. A significant portion of the new additions came from Asia, in particular Japan. The problem with this is that when you take an average from genetically diverse cultures, and then include some others that are mostly genetically homogeneous, it is going to skew the end result. The final average may be more accurate in regard to the global aggregate, but it is going to be less accurate with regard to the specific cultures making up the average.
1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »That data is available, and it has been done. In fact, BMI works for about 97% of the population as a measure of healthy weight ranges, and in fact, was adjusted a couple of years back to bring it more in line with that.
Can you cite a source for that 97%, please?
The only recent adjustment I'm aware of is when they lowered the "healthy" range from 27 to 25. This was done in response to the addition of studies in more countries where they previously had come mostly from North America and Europe. A significant portion of the new additions came from Asia, in particular Japan. The problem with this is that when you take an average from genetically diverse cultures, and then include some others that are mostly genetically homogeneous, it is going to skew the end result. The final average may be more accurate in regard to the global aggregate, but it is going to be less accurate with regard to the specific cultures making up the average.
This is true, though I'd find it pretty hilarious if they were to use Samoans to counterbalance the Japanese.4 -
coreyreichle wrote: »
How do you know what you're comfortable with?
Because I want more strength than what I currently have, and you don't increase strength by reducing muscle mass.Shocker: The picture in my profile was me +10 lbs. My neck has actually remained constant, regardless of my weight. In fact, your neck typically does, until you start getting to the top end of obesity, and the only way to get a "large neck" while being a healthy weight is specifically working for muscle hypertrophy in those regions.
My neck is 18". It was 19" when I was 281#, dropped to 18" over 6 weeks and has stayed the same in the 8 weeks since. That 1" difference looks noticeably more lean in the mirror.Actually, it does, because you keep claiming you don't have much lean mass to lose.
You are misreading. I didn't say I -couldn't- lose lean mass. I said I would -have to- in order to get under 25 BMI at my desired 15% body fat. I also said there is no good reason to do so, and also that my current lean mass, as judged by physical strength and the muscle% given by my BIA scale, is already less than what I want.Bottom line: You are not a special snowflake.
I completely agreeUnless you are purposefully working on muscle hypertrophy, for years, you don't need to worry about being a BMI outlier.
This is where I disagree. There is a certain percentage of people who can only reach "healthy" BMI by either achieving a BF% that qualifies as athletic or better or by dropping lean mass to an -unnecessarily- low level. That level may or may not be unhealthy, but it puts them at a below average percent of muscle mass. In my opinion, that percentage of people is far higher than the promoters of BMI let on.
Granted, for there to even be an average percent of muscle (or an average range of percentages) some people are going to naturally fall below and some above. So having a below average muscle percentage isn't always a bad thing, and for some it's actually a positive, such as distance runners who's ideal would be to minimize all mass and retain only the muscle needed to move their body weight. However, just because being below average muscle percentage isn't always bad, does not automatically make it a good thing either. Outside of specific performance goals, there is no health benefit to being below average muscle% in terms of metabolic disease risk, and it could even be a negative with regard to injury resistance.
Using BMI <25 as a target for body weight skews toward those who are in the bottom half of muscle mass percentage. For those in the upper half (which just for clarity, includes half of those who are 'normal' and not hyper muscular) BMI based weight goals often fail to be simultaneously realistic and desirable. There's no sense in setting a goal that is only one or the other, when using BF% instead is more likely to produce a target that is both.
0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »That data is available, and it has been done. In fact, BMI works for about 97% of the population as a measure of healthy weight ranges, and in fact, was adjusted a couple of years back to bring it more in line with that.
The WHO says their confidence interval is 95% for the world as a whole but subpopulations within display significant variance in the mean. They use a 2 standard deviations for overweight and underweight. 3 standard deviations for extreme underweight.
0 -
For me, I think the BMI range is reasonable. I have an average build (not excessive muscle/fat ratio or other way around). My goals are based heavily on BMI numbers. It really depends on what your goals are and how you're built.0
-
Just to throw this out there, I just had blood and urine samples taken this past Saturday and got my results back yesterday. My A1C is down to 5.8, which would be considered "pre-diabetic" if I hadn't already been diagnosed. (normal is <5.7 and prediabetes is 5.7 - 6.4) My fasting glucose was high for that particular morning, but everything else, including all cholesterol numbers and trigycerides were solidly within expected ranges.
It seems my health risk is dropping much faster than my BMI.2 -
You are misreading. I didn't say I -couldn't- lose lean mass. I said I would -have to- in order to get under 25 BMI at my desired 15% body fat. I also said there is no good reason to do so, and also that my current lean mass, as judged by physical strength and the muscle% given by my BIA scale, is already less than what I want.
Your BIA scale is off and highly inaccurate. They all are. You are over estimating your current lean mass. I would invest in a DXA scan if you are that certain.
4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Just to throw this out there, I just had blood and urine samples taken this past Saturday and got my results back yesterday. My A1C is down to 5.8, which would be considered "pre-diabetic" if I hadn't already been diagnosed. (normal is <5.7 and prediabetes is 5.7 - 6.4) My fasting glucose was high for that particular morning, but everything else, including all cholesterol numbers and trigycerides were solidly within expected ranges.
It seems my health risk is dropping much faster than my BMI.
Congratulations!1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »
How do you know what you're comfortable with?
Because I want more strength than what I currently have, and you don't increase strength by reducing muscle mass.Shocker: The picture in my profile was me +10 lbs. My neck has actually remained constant, regardless of my weight. In fact, your neck typically does, until you start getting to the top end of obesity, and the only way to get a "large neck" while being a healthy weight is specifically working for muscle hypertrophy in those regions.
My neck is 18". It was 19" when I was 281#, dropped to 18" over 6 weeks and has stayed the same in the 8 weeks since. That 1" difference looks noticeably more lean in the mirror.
You're agreeing completely with what I said. Your neck remains constant, more or less, until you reach the upper end of Overweight, and enter into "Obese" range.Actually, it does, because you keep claiming you don't have much lean mass to lose.
You are misreading. I didn't say I -couldn't- lose lean mass. I said I would -have to- in order to get under 25 BMI at my desired 15% body fat. I also said there is no good reason to do so, and also that my current lean mass, as judged by physical strength and the muscle% given by my BIA scale, is already less than what I want.
Bro. At this time, almost half your body is not lean mass. And, yes, you'll lose lean mass, while in a cut, this isn't in disagreement.
Another poster put it in a good way: You're claiming BMI doesn't work, because in your hopes and dreams of being the ultimate physical machine, your stretch goal stats makes you an outlier.Bottom line: You are not a special snowflake.
I completely agreeUnless you are purposefully working on muscle hypertrophy, for years, you don't need to worry about being a BMI outlier.
This is where I disagree. There is a certain percentage of people who can only reach "healthy" BMI by either achieving a BF% that qualifies as athletic or better or by dropping lean mass to an -unnecessarily- low level. That level may or may not be unhealthy, but it puts them at a below average percent of muscle mass. In my opinion, that percentage of people is far higher than the promoters of BMI let on.
You are free to disagree all you like. I would suggest you visit reddit's /r/lifting with your hopes and dreams, and explain to them your logic and fears.Granted, for there to even be an average percent of muscle (or an average range of percentages) some people are going to naturally fall below and some above. So having a below average muscle percentage isn't always a bad thing, and for some it's actually a positive, such as distance runners who's ideal would be to minimize all mass and retain only the muscle needed to move their body weight. However, just because being below average muscle percentage isn't always bad, does not automatically make it a good thing either. Outside of specific performance goals, there is no health benefit to being below average muscle% in terms of metabolic disease risk, and it could even be a negative with regard to injury resistance.
lol. I don't even know where to start here. I do not have below average lean mass %... My estimated bf% is 17%. I am fully capable of doing 10 pullups, 65 or so pushups in a single set, and ~50 rows. I also am able to run an 8 minute mile.
My "lack of muscle mass" isn't an issue. I, however, am not presuming BMI doesn't work because I hope to look like a pro body builder someday, either.Using BMI <25 as a target for body weight skews toward those who are in the bottom half of muscle mass percentage. For those in the upper half (which just for clarity, includes half of those who are 'normal' and not hyper muscular) BMI based weight goals often fail to be simultaneously realistic and desirable. There's no sense in setting a goal that is only one or the other, when using BF% instead is more likely to produce a target that is both.
Tell you what: Work on getting to 15% body fat, and let us know when you get back there what your weight it. The portion you're missing here: Having more raw lean mass isn't "better" than lean mass %, in most cases.10 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Just to throw this out there, I just had blood and urine samples taken this past Saturday and got my results back yesterday. My A1C is down to 5.8, which would be considered "pre-diabetic" if I hadn't already been diagnosed. (normal is <5.7 and prediabetes is 5.7 - 6.4) My fasting glucose was high for that particular morning, but everything else, including all cholesterol numbers and trigycerides were solidly within expected ranges.
It seems my health risk is dropping much faster than my BMI.
That's great. I went to my doc last fall. New doctor so I had to do the new patient exam. Full blood works including fasted glucose, weight, height etc. I was 268lbs. My blood work was perfect. Cholesterol was great both LDL and HDL. BP great. That doesn't invalidate BMI.
BMI is an indicator of risk. A high BMI indicates over time you are likelyto be impacted by obesity related disease. That's why insurance companies use it on actuarial tables to assess risk. Sure BF would be more accurate, no one is arguing that, but BMI is pretty solid for most people.
No you of course, we get that.11 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Just to throw this out there, I just had blood and urine samples taken this past Saturday and got my results back yesterday. My A1C is down to 5.8, which would be considered "pre-diabetic" if I hadn't already been diagnosed. (normal is <5.7 and prediabetes is 5.7 - 6.4) My fasting glucose was high for that particular morning, but everything else, including all cholesterol numbers and trigycerides were solidly within expected ranges.
It seems my health risk is dropping much faster than my BMI.
Congratulations!
Yep congrats1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »You mentioned lifting weights in high school. Are you currently lifting on a regular basis?
No. At the moment, doing physical work is my only regular exercise.You mentioned wearing size 36 pants with a 47 inch waist measuremnt. This would indicate lack of muscle in the legs and hips which are the biggest muscles in the body. I think there would need to be much more muscle in these areas ton get to 34% given current height and weight.
The manufacturer's waist size is not a fair estimation. They are "relaxed fit" and I'm pretty sure I've stretched them out quite a bit. My actual measurement at the waist band (taken just now in just underwear) is 43" and my widest point hip measurement is 44.5"
Do you mind if I ask what sort of physical labor you do? Given things like OSHA regulations, union rules, etc limiting the amount of hard physical labor one is allowed to do I think it would be difficult to have the amount of muscle you claim to without some serious lifting outside of a job.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Do you mind if I ask what sort of physical labor you do? Given things like OSHA regulations, union rules, etc limiting the amount of hard physical labor one is allowed to do I think it would be difficult to have the amount of muscle you claim to without some serious lifting outside of a job.
I'm a part time custodian at a school and a self-employed handyman/electrician. Most of the heavier lifting I do is things like lumber, drywall, bags of concrete. The lighter stuff of course would be trash cans and ladders and such. And of course lots of walking, bending, reaching, etc.
I'm not claiming to have a large amount of muscle right now. I'm claiming/my scale says between 29 and 29.5% which is only 76 to 77 pounds total. I want 12 to 15 pounds more.
0 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
Except there isn't a large percentage of people outside the BMI predicted norms when body fat % is taken into consideration. There is however lots of people outside the BMI predicted norms who overestimate their lean body mass then state there is as an excuse to tell themselves they aren't overweight, just super muscled or big boned or what have you.
Dude I'm 6' Currently 231 and have squatted 350, deadlifted 400 and benched 235. At 200lbs I still wore a 48 suit jacket to fit my shoulders. I carry more muscle than most dudes and yet I know to get a lean,strong look around 15-17%BF I need to be between 170-180 and that right now I am carrying around 155-160lbs of LBM.
At 44 I know better than to compare myself with 25 year old dudes who are elite athletes and natural bodybuilders. I also know that guys who train natural bodybuilders have an unique insight into what is actually physiologically possible given that they work day in and day out with actual genetic freaks who have worked their *kitten* off for years to reach the highest percentiles of muscle mass attainable without steroids. If these guys tell me that for 99% of the population, my maximum potential at my height is 180lbs at 5-6%BF which is 171lbs of muscle mass.Thats maximum potential I could have maybe obtained 20 years ago.
So therefore with my maximum muscle mass potential at 15%BF I would be around 185-190lbs. I'm realistic in the fact at 44 the chances of me hitting the muscle mass of a 25 year old elite competitor is pretty damn slim so the more logical goal for a lean strong look is 170-180lbs at 15-17%BF.
Hi Bill, can you steer me to any studies or reference materials that might give me an idea on muscle mass (or lean mass, or body fat %) that is possible by age? As I'm approaching me goal weight (hope to hit it by New Year's), I want to work on strength, etc., and thought having such info would help me establish realistic goals. Thanks in advance for any help.0 -
stephenearllucas wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »BillMcKay1 wrote: »We get it. You are a genetic freak that blows BMI into invalidity....
You don't get it. I'm -not- a genetic freak. The invalidity of BMI as a personal indicator is because there is a large percentage of the population who are outside of BMI predicted norms, without being freaks.
Except there isn't a large percentage of people outside the BMI predicted norms when body fat % is taken into consideration. There is however lots of people outside the BMI predicted norms who overestimate their lean body mass then state there is as an excuse to tell themselves they aren't overweight, just super muscled or big boned or what have you.
Dude I'm 6' Currently 231 and have squatted 350, deadlifted 400 and benched 235. At 200lbs I still wore a 48 suit jacket to fit my shoulders. I carry more muscle than most dudes and yet I know to get a lean,strong look around 15-17%BF I need to be between 170-180 and that right now I am carrying around 155-160lbs of LBM.
At 44 I know better than to compare myself with 25 year old dudes who are elite athletes and natural bodybuilders. I also know that guys who train natural bodybuilders have an unique insight into what is actually physiologically possible given that they work day in and day out with actual genetic freaks who have worked their *kitten* off for years to reach the highest percentiles of muscle mass attainable without steroids. If these guys tell me that for 99% of the population, my maximum potential at my height is 180lbs at 5-6%BF which is 171lbs of muscle mass.Thats maximum potential I could have maybe obtained 20 years ago.
So therefore with my maximum muscle mass potential at 15%BF I would be around 185-190lbs. I'm realistic in the fact at 44 the chances of me hitting the muscle mass of a 25 year old elite competitor is pretty damn slim so the more logical goal for a lean strong look is 170-180lbs at 15-17%BF.
Hi Bill, can you steer me to any studies or reference materials that might give me an idea on muscle mass (or lean mass, or body fat %) that is possible by age? As I'm approaching me goal weight (hope to hit it by New Year's), I want to work on strength, etc., and thought having such info would help me establish realistic goals. Thanks in advance for any help.
I don't have anything specific for age related, but it is a good topic. I will have to look into it. Some basics
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html/
http://www.leangains.com/2010/12/maximum-muscular-potential.html
I don't know that as a 40+ set you can't still get there, but it would take a lot more work and dedication as we don't put on muscle as fast as a younger dude with tons of natural Testosterone pumping through his veins.
As pertains to the back and forth that has gone on here. I think the last section by Lyle McDonald titled Final Reality Check should be read and absorbed.Now I think part of this has to do with exceedingly skewed ideas about what’s achievable, a problem driven by pro-bodybuilding. After seeing a pro-bodybuilder stepping on stage at 260 pounds or more and shredded, the idea that a natural may top out at 180-190 pounds of lean body mass (if that) can be disheartening.
1 -
[/quote]
Hi Bill, can you steer me to any studies or reference materials that might give me an idea on muscle mass (or lean mass, or body fat %) that is possible by age? As I'm approaching me goal weight (hope to hit it by New Year's), I want to work on strength, etc., and thought having such info would help me establish realistic goals. Thanks in advance for any help.[/quote]
I don't have anything specific for age related, but it is a good topic. I will have to look into it. Some basics
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html/
http://www.leangains.com/2010/12/maximum-muscular-potential.html
[/quote]
Thanks!0 -
FWIW,middlehaitch wrote: »My SO at 6'3 and 235lbs swore that the BMI just didn't work for him. He was too tall.
After watching me count calories and lose weight for a year he decided to give it a go. Guess what, he lost 40lbs, sits at the top of a normal BMI quite happily, and can't believe he thought he was an exception.
Me, at 5'1, could easily fit into @ForecasterJason's just below a normal BMI.
I maintain a range of 100-105 just because it is healthier for me, but quite often start to drop to 98, the very bottom of normal, and if I didn't bump my calories I would easily and happily be below.
I think BMI is a good indicator for all but the very muscular.
Cheers, h.
(Just in case you worry- don't have an eating disorder, eat about 1450 a day and have been maintaining for 6+ years)
The BMI formula was been revised recently to better estimate for very short and very tall people. The healthy range decreased by a few pounds on the short end, and increased by a few pounds on the tall end.
I'm 5'0'', so overweight now starts at 124 instead of 127. Very minor difference.
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html3 -
The Hale formula allows for am extra 4.5 lbs at my height of 5'9"
While it may seem minor, it definitely has an impact in societies where the "overweight" lable carries stiff financial and medical consequences, such as steep insurance premium penalties or outright denial of medical care.1 -
The BMI chart is bomb proof accurate for me. I would know, as I've now had the opportunity to assess myself at every ten pounds increment from 138 to 238 as an adult between the ages of 30 and 40.0
-
The medical people in Australia are now saying waist measurement is the best guide and women should be less than 80 cm. I am still not convinced about any of it as my BMI is 20.8 my waist is less than 80 cm, Iam 166cm tall weigh 57kg about 126 lbs and a DEXA showed that I need to lose 5kg of body fat so go figure, I sure can't.0
-
BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
You should also track body fat, but this is just about determining a goal weight. Again, BMI works.
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare healthy individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not most of us but certain athletes. With most on this journey to lose weight, our goal should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
0 -
Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
There's a reason Wendler gave up on the "absolute strength" garbage, and finally decided to go from being a pile of fat, to having a decent relative strength. According to the man himself, about all he was good for at his heaviest, was waddling up to the bar, moving a weight once, and being completely gassed out.3 -
You're right, but remember, certain athletes are about performance, so their goal weight might not take optimal health into consideration.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
That's not us...0 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
You're right, but remember, certain athletes are about performance, so their goal weight might not take optimal health into consideration.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
That's not us...
Read my edited addition, which covers some perspective from someone who used to be one of those.
Frankly, anyone willing to turn themselves into a waddling mass of heart attack, over a sport that no one cares about anymore, needs to see a psychologist; maybe more so than the guys who use anas just to be the biggest guy in the gym. All of theh formers who went there, and were nearly killed by it will tell you that. Watch some of CT Fletcher's videos where he talks about his days chasing T2D in his pursuit of absolute strength.3 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
You're right, but remember, certain athletes are about performance, so their goal weight might not take optimal health into consideration.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
That's not us...
Personally, being able to move a heavy weight once, then being out of comission for a while because you're pooped is not what I understand under performance.3 -
YEPstevencloser wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »
You're right, but remember, certain athletes are about performance, so their goal weight might not take optimal health into consideration.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
That's not us...
Personally, being able to move a heavy weight once, then being out of comission for a while because you're pooped is not what I understand under performance.
Well said, and I don't get certain "sports", but whatever. Those strong guy competitions don't attract healthy guys well within their BMI weight.
0 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
YEPstevencloser wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »
You're right, but remember, certain athletes are about performance, so their goal weight might not take optimal health into consideration.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
That's not us...
Personally, being able to move a heavy weight once, then being out of comission for a while because you're pooped is not what I understand under performance.
Well said, and I don't get certain "sports", but whatever. Those strong guy competitions don't attract healthy guys well within their BMI weight.
They absolutely do. You just have to ignore the SHW class (most people do already), and look to the 220s and below. You also have some super lean, well conditioned monsters in the 275s (Efferding and Konstantinovs), but they are a bit more rare. The sad part is, the truly awesome feats (world records in the really low weight classes) have largely gone unbeaten for decades. Pretty sure Lamar Gant still holds the DL records for both the 123 and 132 classes, and he set those in 80 and 81 (634 at 123 and 628 at 132). There have been some recent bench records in them, but deads and squats are almost universally from the early 90s to early 2000s or before.
Honestly, I partially blame the entire "bigger is better" culture shift for the death of powerlifting's popularity. It's not just in PL either. For *kitten*'s sake, have you seen the Olympia winners the last decade or so? They look more like cows than people.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
BMI works for me. I feel the best when I'm in the lower half of my normal BMI range.
3 -
These lighter competitors you mentioned are guys I can respect, and though bigger may generate TV ratings, for me, no thanks...lolGallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »
YEPstevencloser wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »
You're right, but remember, certain athletes are about performance, so their goal weight might not take optimal health into consideration.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
That's not us...
Personally, being able to move a heavy weight once, then being out of comission for a while because you're pooped is not what I understand under performance.
Well said, and I don't get certain "sports", but whatever. Those strong guy competitions don't attract healthy guys well within their BMI weight.
They absolutely do. You just have to ignore the SHW class (most people do already), and look to the 220s and below. You also have some super lean, well conditioned monsters in the 275s (Efferding and Konstantinovs), but they are a bit more rare. The sad part is, the truly awesome feats (world records in the really low weight classes) have largely gone unbeaten for decades. Pretty sure Lamar Gant still holds the DL records for both the 123 and 132 classes, and he set those in 80 and 81 (634 at 123 and 628 at 132). There have been some recent bench records in them, but deads and squats are almost universally from the early 90s to early 2000s or before.
Honestly, I partially blame the entire "bigger is better" culture shift for the death of powerlifting's popularity. It's not just in PL either. For *kitten*'s sake, have you seen the Olympia winners the last decade or so? They look more like cows than people.
That's glorified sumo wrestling...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions