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 BMI is no longer valid?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
12357…21

Replies

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    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.

    Try the others and see how different it is for you.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    And if you're more into sprinting, take Usain Bolt. The world record holder is at just under a BMI of 25.

    And that guy is seriously -skinny-! A guy that lean works out to barely at the top end of "healthy" weight according to BMI, and you don't see a flaw in the metric? I mean, he's gotta be what, no more than 13% body fat, if that?



  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn 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.

    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 never claimed I didn't. I was merely pointing out that using your belt size as an indicator is not going to be accurate if your belly is larger than your belt. If I assessed myself based on my pants size, it would suggest I'm in pretty decent shape, which clearly is not the case.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    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?

    Again, not a conspiracy, group-think. And low carb is very much counter to the "establishment" position. The agencies that push BMI still favor the low fat, high carb model.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    Dove0804 wrote: »
    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.

    Two federal agencies and the UN, there's a real model for trustworthiness.

    (do I need to tag the sarcasm?)

    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?"

    Lies and/or incompetence, take your pick. Govt in general can not be trusted with anything. Especially when talking about all these alphabet agencies who's existence is not even Constitutionally authorized.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    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.

    Try the others and see how different it is for you.

    I mentioned it previously. I did try the others and they still gave me a total weight that was over 200 pounds at 15% body fat, where the BMI charts say I would be a 24.4 at 185 pounds. When a calculation shows that I have to shed functional muscle in order to reach a level where I'm considered to border on "overweight", there is something wrong with the references being used.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    And if you're more into sprinting, take Usain Bolt. The world record holder is at just under a BMI of 25.

    And that guy is seriously -skinny-! A guy that lean works out to barely at the top end of "healthy" weight according to BMI, and you don't see a flaw in the metric? I mean, he's gotta be what, no more than 13% body fat, if that?



    Skinny?

    usain-bolt-best-athlete-runner-abs-six-pack-6pack-topless-hot-male.jpg


    I was picturing the wrong guy apparently, I don't follow sports. But in any case, he is very lean and NOT carrying that much in the way of extra muscle. If he were actually at 25% body fat he would definitely look borderline overweight. In other words, your own example has demonstrated BMI as a crappy estimator of body fat.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    You can't judge the usefulness of any indicator based on a few outliers. That's like saying being a smoker is worthless as a health risk indicator because some people smoke but live well into their 90s.

    I don't think I'm an outlier. I think BMI promotes an under-muscled body composition.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    robininfl wrote: »
    Thank you! You said what I was about to. I don't really think it's reasonable to say that we should aim to look like world class athletes, but the Bolt is certainly not skinny. Most guys 6'5" are pretty lanky naturally, he's jacked.

    Already partly addressed. There's an older guy I was picturing. Also an olympic runner, may not be a sprinter. I have no idea what his name is.

    But anyway, his muscles are clearly more conditioned than most people, but mass wise I see it as completely appropriate to his frame, and he's very lean. I don't think he's enough of an outlier that his BMI should suggest he's bordering on overweight. If BMI were a reasonable estimate of body fat, accounting for his atypical fat to muscle ratio should still put him toward the middle of "healthy", not bordering "overweight".

  • bennettinfinity
    bennettinfinity Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    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.

    How does one know if they're inside or outside the 'large percentage'? What is the 'large percentage'... the cumulative Normal at one standard deviation... two...? To me, this is what makes BMI a weak metric.

    I don't disagree that it's a good indicator for those near mean height, but it doesn't scale well once you start moving away from the center of the distribution because the formula ignores the square-cube law.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    bennettinfinity wrote: »
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    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.

    How does one know if they're inside or outside the 'large percentage'? What is the 'large percentage'... the cumulative Normal at one standard deviation... two...? To me, this is what makes BMI a weak metric.

    I don't disagree that it's a good indicator for those near mean height, but it doesn't scale well once you start moving away from the center of the distribution because the formula ignores the square-cube law.

    Are you in a category that you feel you do not fit? If so, there are a number of other tools to use to evaluate if you are in the majority or one of the outliers.
    Having body fat measured it one.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    Options
    Around 200lbs of lean mass.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    Are you in a category that you feel you feel you do not fit? If so, there are a number of other tools to use to evaluate if you are in the majority or one of the outliers.

    The whole point is, in reference to the question posed in the OP, BMI is not worth the time to look at in the first place. It is less accurate than bio-impedance, which in itself is not very accurate, but it is readily accessible. Actual body fat is one of the best indicators of healthy vs unhealthy weight. Even a poor measurement of body fat is better than an even worse estimate. So why does anyone support BMI? All the arguments I'm seeing in favor of the metric just look like blind appeal to authority to me.

    And yes, I admit that I inherently distrust authority.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Are you trolling? He has a high amount of muscle, like really high. Arms could be bigger maybe but unless you think anyone below Ronnie Coleman is skinny it's your perception that's incorrect, not BMI.

    I'm looking at his proportions in comparison with his frame size. Does he have more muscle than the average person, definitely, but not in such a bulk that BMI should give such a distorted assessment if it were reasonably accurate. He does not have a body builder's mass. The muscle that he has just looks like more than it is because he has very low body fat. If he were at 18 to 20 percent body fat, he would look "normal" and not overly big.

  • bennettinfinity
    bennettinfinity Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    bennettinfinity wrote: »
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    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.

    How does one know if they're inside or outside the 'large percentage'? What is the 'large percentage'... the cumulative Normal at one standard deviation... two...? To me, this is what makes BMI a weak metric.

    I don't disagree that it's a good indicator for those near mean height, but it doesn't scale well once you start moving away from the center of the distribution because the formula ignores the square-cube law.

    (1)     Are you in a category that you feel you do not fit? (2) If so, there are a number of other tools to use to evaluate if you are in the majority or one of the outliers.
    Having body fat measured it one.

    (1) I have no way of knowing - that's really the point.

    (2)     In a world where better (more meaningful, more accurate, more reliable) metrics are available, why do we need BMI? It reminds me of the Pop Tart commercials where the Pop Tarts are next to some eggs, toast, and orange juice: Part of this complete breakfast! The BMI is the Pop Tart of the health metric world.

    My BMI is 26... am I overfat or overmuscular? Looking in the mirror will tell me more than "26" ever will.

    At the end of the day, it's just a number, so I'm not too concerned about it per se. But when a metric doesn't apply equally to ALL, but it's used to measure ALL (and especially when it factors into how much one pays for health insurance, etc.), then I start to have a problem with it.

Categories