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 BMI is no longer valid?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
-
Mike_Braddock wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...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.
Also, while I'm glad that you've set a goal, met it and found
another AND managed to belittle me in one post. I'll just go ahead and brag about a 150 meter sprint, hopping a 6 foot fence, getting punched in the face and pepper-sprayed before successfully wrestling someone who outweighs me by 50-60lbs to submission while wearing 30lbs of gear in 90 degree weather for fun. And got up for work the next day.
I think you may also underestimate how abnormal Frank Zane and that ilk look.
And if you're more into sprinting, take Usain Bolt. The world record holder is at just under a BMI of 25.4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »One caveat about the thing with the belt, it can depend on how you wear your pants. The waist measurement for assessing body composition is supposed to be taken around the navel, whereas most men wear the 'waist' of their pants more toward the top of the hips. I wear size 36 pants, but my actual waist measurement is 47.5. Fortunately, my belly distension is not flabby, or I'd be sporting a major 'dunlap' aside from just being round.
Sorry, as has been mentioned before you are wearing size 36 pants because you have a large amount of visceral fat. The location of the fat forces your pants to fit that way. Most men don't wear a pants size 12 inches less than their waist size.
I'm 6'2", weigh 205 which puts me at a BMI of 26.3 (medical professionals have told me I have a good level of muscle so no issues being "overweight"). My waist measurement done by a nurse is 36 inches. I wear size 34-36 pants depending on the brand/style.
Best of luck on your weight loss journey.10 -
Another simple way to measure heath would be to take a look at the waist/hip measurement
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/WHR.htm
A waist to hip ratio greater than 1 is considered an extreme coronary health risk.
3 -
As a non-muscular woman, BMI has been spot on for me. I sit happily at the lower end of the BMI range - about 19/20 is good for me. I could gain another 30-35lbs and still be considered a good weight.
In my biased, personal experience, I have never met someone in real life who decried BMI as unrealistic or unattainable who I didn't look at and think, 'hmm, I DO see where 10lbs could come off you'. Obviously where they maintain their weight is their decision, and I don't believe being a BMI 25 rather than 26 is going to overhaul anyone's fitness levels or long term health, but I do believe a lot of people consider themselves an outlier due to muscle/frame size or find it better to decide BMI is flawed, when really just as a country the UK is getting fatter.
Case in point: we had our BMIs calculated at work as part of an occupational health day, and one of my colleagues received a measurement of 30. She was not happy with this and spent a good part of the rest of the afternoon telling anyone who would listen that she had a higher muscle proportion than most (a woman in her 50s whose only exercise, by her own admission, is walking her dog) and that BMI was 'dangerous' for women with hourglass figures to try and conform to.
I've yet to meet anyone who I thought really probably was a BMI outlier.
Yeah... When I was overweight I used to think I had a large frame, but actually I just had fat wrists.
15 -
When I was overweight I didn't think I was fat. I just though people who were 5'11 should be heavier. I had a 27 BMI. I just thought it was because I was tall and had a large frame. I also thought it was because I was over 30, and I had all the excuses such as "I like being lazy", or "I just love food". One day I decided to stop the crap. And over the next year I lost 40lbs and now I'm a 21 BMI. And could still afford to lose 10lbs.
8 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »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.'
Since neither of us knows, let's assume 100 %.
Do you think this world-wide conspiracy against meet is part of why people are so worried about carbs?11 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »
Why are the CDC and NIH not trustworthy? Have they been infiltrated by vegans too? Is this a "it's the government so of course they're lying" kind of thing? Or just "their data doesn't support what I want to be true so I'd prefer to ignore it?"
20 -
As a non-muscular woman, BMI has been spot on for me. I sit happily at the lower end of the BMI range - about 19/20 is good for me. I could gain another 30-35lbs and still be considered a good weight.
In my biased, personal experience, I have never met someone in real life who decried BMI as unrealistic or unattainable who I didn't look at and think, 'hmm, I DO see where 10lbs could come off you'. Obviously where they maintain their weight is their decision, and I don't believe being a BMI 25 rather than 26 is going to overhaul anyone's fitness levels or long term health, but I do believe a lot of people consider themselves an outlier due to muscle/frame size or find it better to decide BMI is flawed, when really just as a country the UK is getting fatter.
Case in point: we had our BMIs calculated at work as part of an occupational health day, and one of my colleagues received a measurement of 30. She was not happy with this and spent a good part of the rest of the afternoon telling anyone who would listen that she had a higher muscle proportion than most (a woman in her 50s whose only exercise, by her own admission, is walking her dog) and that BMI was 'dangerous' for women with hourglass figures to try and conform to.
I've yet to meet anyone who I thought really probably was a BMI outlier.
Yeah... When I was overweight I used to think I had a large frame, but actually I just had fat wrists.
Lol - Same for me.5 -
I doubt any of us are here because our BMI's are 27 instead of 21. Use it as one input. Your eyes and your heart and your sports performance and your overall health are the best metrics when you get close.
4 -
-
I went from 28 to 21.2
-
35 to a lean 24.1
-
30.4 when I was fat and had no illusion that I was "big boned" to 20.9 for my running race weight.2
-
I want to understand how to judge a healthy weight range for myself in order to take opinion out of the equation. What is the standard we are using now? I feel like BMI calculations are dated right? Is body fat percentage the best metric? What is the best measurement tool?
What is the issue with the BMI? It was updated rather recently.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.
No, they were not. They were recently updated by the CDC. The WHO has another range they use, but it's pretty close to the CDC's.0 -
As a non-muscular woman, BMI has been spot on for me. I sit happily at the lower end of the BMI range - about 19/20 is good for me. I could gain another 30-35lbs and still be considered a good weight.
In my biased, personal experience, I have never met someone in real life who decried BMI as unrealistic or unattainable who I didn't look at and think, 'hmm, I DO see where 10lbs could come off you'. Obviously where they maintain their weight is their decision, and I don't believe being a BMI 25 rather than 26 is going to overhaul anyone's fitness levels or long term health, but I do believe a lot of people consider themselves an outlier due to muscle/frame size or find it better to decide BMI is flawed, when really just as a country the UK is getting fatter.
Case in point: we had our BMIs calculated at work as part of an occupational health day, and one of my colleagues received a measurement of 30. She was not happy with this and spent a good part of the rest of the afternoon telling anyone who would listen that she had a higher muscle proportion than most (a woman in her 50s whose only exercise, by her own admission, is walking her dog) and that BMI was 'dangerous' for women with hourglass figures to try and conform to.
I've yet to meet anyone who I thought really probably was a BMI outlier.
I consider myself muscular. I've even competed in a figure class bodybuilding competition (although I'm not muscular enough to be competitive). I have always fallen on the top end of the BMI. I can never imagine myself at the low end of the weight scale and I have been down to a lower body fat level.
We did a health assessment at work before where I was just over the BMI into the "overweight" category. The nurse used the waist measurement as a second evaluation and classified me as "healthy". I wouldn't have considered myself as overweight but I did have weight to lose.
TL;DR - I agree with you.0 -
middlehaitch wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »One caveat about the thing with the belt, it can depend on how you wear your pants. The waist measurement for assessing body composition is supposed to be taken around the navel, whereas most men wear the 'waist' of their pants more toward the top of the hips. I wear size 36 pants, but my actual waist measurement is 47.5. Fortunately, my belly distension is not flabby, or I'd be sporting a major 'dunlap' aside from just being round.
So basically what you are saying is- you are obese with an unhealthy amount of visceral fat and you have problems with your BMI.
I'm saying I am obese and working on it, and BMI is completely irrelevant. Body Fat Percentage is a useful tool.
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »One caveat about the thing with the belt, it can depend on how you wear your pants. The waist measurement for assessing body composition is supposed to be taken around the navel, whereas most men wear the 'waist' of their pants more toward the top of the hips. I wear size 36 pants, but my actual waist measurement is 47.5. Fortunately, my belly distension is not flabby, or I'd be sporting a major 'dunlap' aside from just being round.
So basically what you are saying is- you are obese with an unhealthy amount of visceral fat and you have problems with your BMI.
I'm saying I am obese and working on it, and BMI is completely irrelevant. Body Fat Percentage is a useful tool.
Irrelevant except for the large percentage of people it is a good indicator for.10 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »One caveat about the thing with the belt, it can depend on how you wear your pants. The waist measurement for assessing body composition is supposed to be taken around the navel, whereas most men wear the 'waist' of their pants more toward the top of the hips. I wear size 36 pants, but my actual waist measurement is 47.5. Fortunately, my belly distension is not flabby, or I'd be sporting a major 'dunlap' aside from just being round.
Depending how you look at it. It could be "unfortunately" because a belly that is not flappy indicates a large amount of visceral fat. So basically in your case BMI is currently a good indicator of fatness, and the worst kind too.
yes, at my current weight, BMI does happen to come out pretty close to my actual body fat percentage. If I get to my goal weight (220) without losing any lean mass, which would still leave me at the very low end of average muscle percentage for a male, my actual Body Fat Percentage would work out to just under 22%, where BMI would calculate to 29. In other words, BMI would tell me I was bordering on obese when I was at the high end of average for my age. This is why I say BMI is worthless for trying to determine an individual's ideal weight. Even if it were accurate, the weight ranges on the charts are too broad for one to pick and choose a goal based just on BMI, and how to determine ideal weight was the original topic of the thread.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The one that uses wrist and frame size was also said to overestimate lean mass potential.
Yes, but I highly doubt it's 50 pounds over.0
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