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 BMI is no longer valid?
Options
Replies
-
I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »BMI has never been valid, or more specifically, the scales given defining "ideal" and "overweight" are nonsense, based more on someone's aesthetic sense of what a person should look like and not so much on actual health risk factors. The truth of the matter is there is no statistically significant increase in health risk markers for someone who falls in the "overweight" BMI range so long as they are not gaining weight and pushing toward "obese". For at least half the population, even the high end of their "ideal" range is overly skinny without offering any health benefit. I suspect the category designations were established by vegans.
You were making some points that might have validity to them (I'd need to see actual data), and then this. It sounds paranoid and relies on some overly simplistic stereotypes. Vegans aren't really conspiring to make everybody feel fat or to make the world look like concentration camp victims.
Also it sounds like you believe that extra weight (from fat) carries no health risks. Maybe up to a point. In light of pretty much everything I've ever seen and heard, I just can't believe that.12 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
Meh, that depends on how you look at it. Well yea, if your goal is adding more muscle mass (17lbs) then cutting to 10% wouldn't make sense. That depends on one's goals. Which is higher on the totem pole is completely relative. That being said, I'm speaking where you are at now and the notion that you are an outlier.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you are female, BMI is good. Body fat % is good and probably the best for both men and women, but it's expensive to get an accurate measurement.
In my area DEXA scans range from $75-250 each. There's a place nearby that performs 2 for $150 (with a 3 month time gap inbetween) for fitness purposes. Not a bad price if you ask me.4 -
For a sedentary person, BMI is OK. For an athlete, it's not really so good. BF% is better, hard to be accurate as already noted but still better than BMI. Then again, the mirror is good enough for me. lol
@sculli123 - what is an athlete?
There are tons of recreational athletes that would not fall outside the range.
For females, it would be even less likely to be outside the range unless carrying a considerable amount of muscle.
For males who carry a lot of muscle, particularly bodybuilder types - then yea, they would be an exception.
i agree that some athletes would be an exception but I wouldn't say it applies to only sedentary people.3 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »There are quite a few studies demonstrating that those who are mildly "overweight" according to BMI have a lower risk of sudden mortality than those in the "ideal" range. These are very broad studies and any number of factors come into play, such as greater mass provides better protection from injury in accidents, and allows more leeway in unexpected rapid weight loss due to illness.
There are numerous, numerous health risks that increase as visceral fat increases, and you don't have to fall in the "obese" range for that risk to be increased. No, being overweight is not as bad as being obese health-wise, but having extra, unnecessary fat doesn't do anybody any favors.
And BMI is not visceral fat. It is a height to weight ratio with no specification as to composition. Also, subcutaneous fat does not carry the same risks for small to moderate increases as visceral fat does. In other words, risk is properly evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Again, the broad studies strictly comparing BMI numbers with health outcomes show no -statistically significant- correlation between having an "overweight" BMI number and the development of health problems... with a caveat that those who are on the higher end of "overweight" and on a trend of weight gain do run counter to the evidence shown by the rest of the group.
I denounce the scale as bogus because BMI does not actually measure anything of value, and the ranges assigned to "ideal" and "overweight" do not have an accurately positive correspondence to overall health.
Sorry, I still need it. I'm not a marathon runner or endurance cyclist, nor am I sedentary. My work often requires lifting heavy objects, and so my muscle needs to do quite a bit more than carrying my own mass. It is not a simple one-to-one trade that if I lose 20 pounds of muscle, I can lift and carry something 20 pounds heavier.
Again, this is a matter of weight distribution and the way the muscles and skeleton work together. A 189 pound woman at 20% body fat and the same muscle mass is going to look gorgeous compared to the 260 pound woman at 40% body fat.
Again, BMI is not body fat percentage. BMI is meant to be an approximation of BFP, but it's not usefully accurate for a lot of people and does not distinguish between lean mass (good), visceral fat (bad if too much), subcutaneous fat (less bad if too much) or even water weight. One should never look at the BMI charts to determine their ideal weight, they should look at body fat percentage and their personal appearance and performance goals.
If I dropped from my current weight to 185 and maintained my present lean mass I would be at 8% body fat. Yes, I expect there will be some muscle loss as I continue to lose weight, but there is no reason I should, or at all want, to lose 20 pounds worth of muscle. There is no health benefit to shedding muscle mass. Yet the BMI charts insist that I would be healthier at a weight that would -require- me to drop 20 pounds of muscle in addition to 55 pounds of fat. (and that's if I settled for 20% body fat instead of 15%),
Not to mention I would look scrawny and frail.
On the other end of the spectrum, I also know someone, a petite runner, who comes out as "underweight" on BMI charts, but does -not- look underweight.
As an estimator of body fat, BMI is most accurate for medium framed, sedentary people. And while that may be the average, there is a large difference between average and mean. BMI is not worthwhile for most individuals.
Perhaps not coincidentally, it was never developed for individual assessment to begin with. It was an equalization tool to study trends in large populations.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. BMI is a guide that correlates to fat, not a direct measure, yes.
If you have extra body fat, a lot of it is going to be visceral. Pretty sure I've agreed several times that BF percentage is much more accurate- just difficult to obtain an accurate measurement on a regular basis.
I'd be interested in seeing those "few studies" that suggest being overweight is healthier. I read medical journals on a daily basis and I assure you not all studies are created equal. The majority of what I read is pretty consistent in the overweight = generally higher risk category, for a myriad of disease states. There's overwhelming evidence showing these kinds of correlations. For the majority of the population.
Yes, having a little extra weight can help when you have rapid weight loss due to severe illness, but you also have that protection by being in the normal weight range too, most of the time, unless you are towards the very bottom of it. Also, what you determine as too low of a weight is probably not what a doctor in a clinical setting would consider too low of a weight. It's very much an individual case-by-case basis, and even with a cancer center it's pretty rare that we truly freak out about massive weight loss, and have measures/protocols in place to combat it if it becomes a serious concern. I think for the lay population, being overweight or obese poses a much greater health risk.
If you need your extra muscle, cool- your goals are your goals and that's just fine, but by that point (220 lbs with 15% body fat) you'd be an outlier. You are not an outlier right now. Most of the population isn't going to be able to achieve that- you'll have to have a serious lifting regimen to get there. Don't try to apply your stretch goals to the majority of the population.
Also- I wasn't talking about being "gorgeous" as a woman or not at different weights and body fat percentages- I'm talking about the feasibility of achieving the kind of muscle mass you seem to think is so easy to gain/hold on to. Having 20% body fat for a woman my height at 189 lbs would take an extremely intense body-building regimen and again, would not apply to most of the population. This has nothing to do with how "gorgeous" someone is. I think you have a distorted view of reasonable/normal body fat percentages for the general population at different weights for their height.
Again, BMI is not a hard-and-fast, but it's a decent correlation for the majority of the population given the feasibility (or lack thereof) of regularly obtaining an accurate BF % measurement.
Again, your point of view that you would look "scrawny and frail" at 185 lbs is the result of being part of an overweight/obese society and is purely your perception. I think it's important to recognize that. If you maintained that lean muscle mass and were 8% body fat, I think the idea that you'd look scrawny and frail is laughable. You'd look pretty ripped.13 -
FeedMeFish wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you are female, BMI is good. Body fat % is good and probably the best for both men and women, but it's expensive to get an accurate measurement.
In my area DEXA scans range from $75-250 each. There's a place nearby that performs 2 for $150 (with a 3 month time gap inbetween) for fitness purposes. Not a bad price if you ask me.
Maybe not to someone who is very serious about fitness, but for most people that's pretty steep and a lot of hassle. I wouldn't expect most people to be able to do that on a regular basis.6 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
That's possible but pushing the envelope on lean body mass at your height, right?
http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/
There is no mandate to be lean or thin, it's YOUR body and aesthetic goals aren't silly, I like the way fashion models look and they aren't at their healthiest possible weight. Also there is no mandate to be the healthiest possible you, nobody does that without being obsessive, and I'm sure even the obsessive are getting it wrong. But there is no exemption from science, either. Carrying more (or less) body fat is less healthy than carrying an ideal amount, this has been conclusively proven. Obesity is the single biggest factor in preventable disease right now, and is in our power to control.1 -
The weight ranges were determined 240 years ago in France, which was in the midst of the Maunder Minimum famine. With that little historical semi-accurate nugget stated, I'll share that my Dr asked my loss target and I told her it was the middle of the healthy BMI for my height, which is about 160. She suggested that I should go no lower than the top of the healthy BMI for my height, which is about 180. My brother is my height and he's always looked good at about 170.1
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The weight ranges were determined 240 years ago in France, which was in the midst of the Maunder Minimum famine. With that little historical semi-accurate nugget stated, I'll share that my Dr asked my loss target and I told her it was the middle of the healthy BMI for my height, which is about 160. She suggested that I should go no lower than the top of the healthy BMI for my height, which is about 180. My brother is my height and he's always looked good at about 170.
The parameters of the current BMI scale were set by the CDC, National Institutes of Health, and World Health Organization in the late 90's.
Again- our perceptions of what looks good is culturally set.
17 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
I wanted to ask about this as I thought about something else and it's too late to edit my last post. And to be frank, the "lower your standards to achieve it" comment annoyed me a bit.
You're goal right now is to add 17lbs of lean mass to get to your 220 and 15%. So your goal I am assuming is to cut to 10-12% to run a bulk to gain that muscle, no? Granted, you may still add a few more lbs of muscle while in a deficit but eventually you will have to run a bulk. Either that or you are cutting to 220 and then recomping for a couple a years to get that mass. Either way, cutting to 10% or even 12% isn't lowering your standards, it's just "step 1" in getting to where you want to be. (Barring the recomp option).
7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »You were making some points that might have validity to them (I'd need to see actual data), and then this. It sounds paranoid and relies on some overly simplistic stereotypes. Vegans aren't really conspiring to make everybody feel fat or to make the world look like concentration camp victims.
I guess the real question would be, what portion of the nutrition "establishment" who puts out all these rules and guidelines are vegans, and how much influence do they have over the group as a whole? There has been a definite bias against meat, especially red meat, and exalting the idea of a "plant-based diet" for many years now. People tend to unconsciously push their prejudices as being 'best' or 'normal'. I don't suspect active conspiracy so much as a prevalence of 'group think.'Also it sounds like you believe that extra weight (from fat) carries no health risks. Maybe up to a point. In light of pretty much everything I've ever seen and heard, I just can't believe that.
No. What I'm saying is 1. on an individual to individual basis, BMI is not the best predictor of body fat, 2. The "healthy", "overweight", "obese", etc. numbers may be valid when applied specifically and directly to -body fat percentages-, but statistically, when they are applied to BMI rather than body fat percentage, the supposed increased health risk from being in the 25 to 30 range just doesn't hold up. In fact, that group often shows a -decreased- incidence of unexpected mortality vs the "healthy" BMI group. My suspicion would be that the proportion of people who are in the 25 to 30 BMI range but actually have a body fat percentage less than 25 is probably a lot greater than the "establishment" is willing to admit.2 -
I think for the lay population, being overweight or obese poses a much greater health risk.
Again, statistically speaking if you are only looking at BMI and not actual body fat percentage, then being in the "obese" category does carry significantly elevated risks, but being in the "overweight" category does not. I chalk this up to being that, on an individual basis, BMI is not that accurate for assessing body fat. Heck, bio-impedance gets a bad rap for being inaccurate, yet BIA is still notably more accurate than BMI.Also- I wasn't talking about being "gorgeous" as a woman or not at different weights and body fat percentages- I'm talking about the feasibility of achieving the kind of muscle mass you seem to think is so easy to gain/hold on to. Having 20% body fat for a woman my height at 189 lbs would take an extremely intense body-building regimen and again, would not apply to most of the population. This has nothing to do with how "gorgeous" someone is. I think you have a distorted view of reasonable/normal body fat percentages for the general population at different weights for their height.
I thought you were suggesting that a woman would look horribly over-muscled if she had the same lean mass at 189 as she had at 260. I don't think that is the case. I also don't think the skeletal muscle difference for carrying around 70 extra pounds of body weight is as great as you think it is. Naturally it's going to depend somewhat on height.Again, BMI is not a hard-and-fast, but it's a decent correlation for the majority of the population given the feasibility (or lack thereof) of regularly obtaining an accurate BF % measurement.
and again, BIA is readily available, inexpensive and definitely more accurate than BMI.Again, your point of view that you would look "scrawny and frail" at 185 lbs is the result of being part of an overweight/obese society and is purely your perception. I think it's important to recognize that. If you maintained that lean muscle mass and were 8% body fat, I think the idea that you'd look scrawny and frail is laughable. You'd look pretty ripped.
No, it's my view from experience when I actually was that weight, back in the '80s, before the "obesity epidemic." Back then it wasn't quite as bad, since I was young and could more easily pull off the skinny look, but at 46 there's no way I would look good at that size.
As to the society thing. That is a claim repeated often enough to gain wide public acceptance, but I don't think it's all that accurate. If only there was a way we could look back in time and see what the ideal of that time actually looked like... such as maybe watching old movies! The Wizard of Oz is a great example. That movie is full of not skinny people. It the much repeated trope were true, we should be shocked at how rail-thin everyone looks when we watch old films, but that's not the case.
Certainly we have become more tolerant of fat, and we have a higher threshold of what we still find attractive, but the view of what constitutes 'ideal' really has not changed that much.0 -
I haven't found that BMI is accurate at all. For myself anyways.
I'm 5'6" male. This puts my ideal BMI between 19 and 24 which translates into 120-150lbs (I was 155lbs when I was in my early 20's while eating next to nothing and hitchhiking/walking 20 miles a day carrying 60+ lbs on my back). I'm currently 32 years old, fluctuate between180-188lbs (and have for a few years before staring to lift weights) and roughly 17% body fat (determined by BodPod), my BMI is 29-31. This puts me in the overweight to obese range; I have a good amount of muscle, but I'm not "very" muscular by any means and I am certainly not obese.
My brother in law had the same problem: 6'3" tall and 225lbs and 13%BF. The Air Force told him to lose 30 lbs.
If you want a VERY general idea of what you quite possibly "should" be and are new-ish to fitness, diet, etc. then yea, go with BMI as a guideline. My suggestion, however, is to get a BodPod measurement. They cost around $40 and are WAY more accurate than BMI, bioelectric impediment, calipers, etc. This will give you a MUCH better idea of where you're at and where you need to be3 -
I should also add that I have a male friend who is the same age and height as I am. He "bulks up" to 155-160lbs before dropping 20lbs for a fight. So - same age, height, gender, etc and he is quite comfortable at 130-140lbs. I on the other hand easily bulk to 195-200lbs and it takes me a lot of work to get back down to 170lbs.
One person fits the BMI mold, one doesn't.1 -
Mike_Braddock wrote: »I haven't found that BMI is accurate at all. For myself anyways.
I'm 5'6" male. This puts my ideal BMI between 19 and 24 which translates into 120-150lbs (I was 155lbs when I was in my early 20's while eating next to nothing and hitchhiking/walking 20 miles a day carrying 60+ lbs on my back). I'm currently 32 years old, fluctuate between180-188lbs (and have for a few years before staring to lift weights) and roughly 17% body fat (determined by BodPod), my BMI is 29-31. This puts me in the overweight to obese range; I have a good amount of muscle, but I'm not "very" muscular by any means and I am certainly not obese.
My brother in law had the same problem: 6'3" tall and 225lbs and 13%BF. The Air Force told him to lose 30 lbs.
If you want a VERY general idea of what you quite possibly "should" be and are new-ish to fitness, diet, etc. then yea, go with BMI as a guideline. My suggestion, however, is to get a BodPod measurement. They cost around $40 and are WAY more accurate than BMI, bioelectric impediment, calipers, etc. This will give you a MUCH better idea of where you're at and where you need to be
According to the link posted earlier in this thread, both you and your bil are over 10 pounds over what they estimate your maximum achievable amount of lean mass to be. At that amount of lean mass, you would most certainly be "very muscular", no way around it. Frank Zane, at 5'9'' was under 200 pounds when he won Mr. Olympia, just as a reference point.
Also I too "easily" was around 195-200 pounds all my life. I didn't look fat, I was slightly chubby at most.
Now I'm at 150, about 13% bf and feel like another 5-10 pounds down are totally doable before bulking for more muscle mass and all that while I'm a head taller than you.
I'm thinking you're overestimating your lean mass or how normal you look like at a higher weight like was mentioned before, due to the unfortunate fact that obesity is so prevalent, it's becoming the new "normal" in perception.15 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
That's possible but pushing the envelope on lean body mass at your height, right?
http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/
I don't believe it to be pushing the envelope at all. There are three different means of calculations in the link you posted, the first two only look at height and ignore frame size, both of them still give me a total body weight over 200 pounds. The third one accounts for frame size and gives me a max muscular weight as 253.8, plus another ten pounds if I were to bulk. Yes, the article writer suggests that formula may be too generous, but at 220 I'd still be well under the non-bulked number. My current lean mass is already at 171 with my bia scale measuring muscle percentage at just over 29. From what I've read, this makes me under-muscled for my size. If I meet my goals, I'll be within normal range for muscle weight percentage. Also, I have a hard time believing that my body is limited to 5 -7 pounds more muscle than what I have now.
0 -
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
I wanted to ask about this as I thought about something else and it's too late to edit my last post. And to be frank, the "lower your standards to achieve it" comment annoyed me a bit.
You're goal right now is to add 17lbs of lean mass to get to your 220 and 15%. So your goal I am assuming is to cut to 10-12% to run a bulk to gain that muscle, no? Granted, you may still add a few more lbs of muscle while in a deficit but eventually you will have to run a bulk. Either that or you are cutting to 220 and then recomping for a couple a years to get that mass. Either way, cutting to 10% or even 12% isn't lowering your standards, it's just "step 1" in getting to where you want to be. (Barring the recomp option).
My plan is to begin recomping once I reach 230. When I reach my half-way point (256) I will be starting with body-weight and HIIT training, then go hard core on the strength training at 230.
When I said being under 200 pounds would require lowering my standards, I meant that I would literally have to lose existing muscle to get there, even if I were to hit a lower than (my) ideal body fat.
I don't intend to get cut, just toned with a flat stomach, lose the fat bags where my upper lats/teres major should be, and carry an abundance of functional strength.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
That's possible but pushing the envelope on lean body mass at your height, right?
http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/
I don't believe it to be pushing the envelope at all. There are three different means of calculations in the link you posted, the first two only look at height and ignore frame size, both of them still give me a total body weight over 200 pounds. The third one accounts for frame size and gives me a max muscular weight as 253.8, plus another ten pounds if I were to bulk. Yes, the article writer suggests that formula may be too generous, but at 220 I'd still be well under the non-bulked number. My current lean mass is already at 171 with my bia scale measuring muscle percentage at just over 29. From what I've read, this makes me under-muscled for my size. If I meet my goals, I'll be within normal range for muscle weight percentage. Also, I have a hard time believing that my body is limited to 5 -7 pounds more muscle than what I have now.
The problem with the ankle and wrist calc, is that it's easily thrown off by bodyfat. The wrist a bit less so than the ankle, but yeah, "cankle" is a thing for a reason. When I weighed 265, that calc told me my max muscular potential was about 225 lean. Now that I'm 151, it's telling me 198. Imagine that.
ETA: That was supposed to be 225, not 215.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions