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 BMI is no longer valid?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
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »According to his stats, Bolt is 6'5", 207 lbs.
Right, he's a good normal size for his height, other than having much less fat than most.He is not even close to lean-looking IMHO. He is a solid chunk of impressive muscle.
Lean means "not fat". You can be lean at a low muscle mass or at a very high muscle mass.
The standard presented by the BMI charts promotes an "ideal" of normal to low body fat combined with low muscle mass. There is no health benefit to having less muscle. The average person would be healthier at a low-normal body fat with an amount of muscle that would push them to the top end of "healthy" or into "overweight" according to BMI. BMI is absolutely not an optimal health standard.
I don't think you know how much of a difference in look even a small amount of extra muscle makes.5 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »And I have always been told that bio-electrical impedance is at best only good to evaluate whether your BF% is trending up or down, not to get an accurate number.
This is true, and yet it's still more accurate than BMI.
Or if you don't trust BIA there are a myriad of other formulas more accurate than BMI where you can take some measurements and type them into a web site. Height to waist ratio, and the formulas the military branches use when BMI fails and they "go to the tape" both come to mind.
A metric that can change by multiple percentage points within 10 minutes? Yeah right.5 -
A lot of people slate BMI and cite some extreme fitness or sports person as the reason why BMI is wrong. It may be a surprise to learn that most people are not professional American football players nor competitive bodybuilders. For the average couch potato a high BMI might be enough to frighten someone into standing up.9
-
bennettinfinity wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »just my 2 cents worth here, I believe that while BMI can be a useful tool in determining a healthy weight, it is not the only tool that can be used. Personally, I track a variety of things to tell me how I'm doing, including my BMI, my waist to hip ratio, my waist to height ratio, and a rough estimate of my BF% (figured out from an average of 3 different online calculators and a set of calipers that I own) to figure out my healthy weight range. BMI in my opinion is a good starting point for those who aren't as familiar with different ways of measuring their progress.
Yes, anyone who is serious about changing their body has very likely used many more measurements than just BMI. As has been stated here many times, it's a fantastic starting indicator, but should be used alongside things such as bodyfat, tape measurements, etc. That being said, statisticians (what BMI is really good for) don't exactly have the time to roll around popping tapes, pinching skinfolds, and asking for DEXA results on every third member of the population.
As for the rest of the thread's argument: if the world had as many heavily muscled individuals with sub 12% bodyfat as it does landwhales who are pushing 35%, I would agree that BMI is useless. Take a good hard look around though, tell me that BMI is useless for the population at large, and I'll conclude that you're either blind, or have fallen into the cognitive dissonance trap.
I think this is exactly the point of contention - BMI is a great metric for studying populations - in fact, that's exactly why it was created - but it's not so great when applied to individuals; for a multitude of reasons.
Per your example above, you could have two individuals of identical height and weight; one at 12% BF another at 35%... both would be classified as 'Obese'... the inability to distinguish between two radically different individuals is the hallmark of a weak metric.
So, how many people do you think actually have that problem?
At 5'10'' I'd have to be over 210 pounds with 186 pounds lean mass. Looking again at the chart with max potential lean masses, that's 25 pounds over what is expected to be possible without "helping".5 -
Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
5 -
Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
Heh, even the USMC bodyfat calc, which uses five measurement points instead of the typical two to three, told me that I was 11.9% bodyfat, when I was still more like 16%.
*kitten*, a seven point, triple averaged caliper test now tells me 9.6%, and though I may have visible striations in shoulders and neck, visible veins near the lower abs, etc., I still don't buy it. I need to stop being a cheap *kitten* and get a DXA done.0 -
Yeah, I think the idea behind the waist to height ratio is that the waist shouldn't be more than half the height, not that it's necessarily an ideal waist measurement.I used my favourite leather belt and wrote my waist measurements beside each notch (on the inside!). 34", 35", 36" etc. That way I could know at any point in time what my waist measurement is. As a rule of thumb you might aim for your waist to be about half your height. For a 6 ft person that means a 36" waist. For a 5' 10" person like me that means a 35" waist. This is the cheapest and most effective way of measuring your progress. In the absence of a more accurate DEXA scan, waist measurements are a marker for the visceral fat - the abdominal fat around your internal organs that are correlated to many health risks. Having a waist of 1/2 your height means you're looking good. BTW for the ladies, a waist to hips ration of 0.7 is considered attractive by many men and suggests fertility.
I'm not convinced by this, for a couple of reasons:- it's far too easy to wear a belt at the same size and have a belly cascading over the top of it - when I started I was 220lb / 41" waist wearing 38" trousers and belt at probably 39" (and BMI 31.5 to bring the other half of the thread into the discussion).
- By my own anecdotal experience, 35" waist is still carrying a lot of excess abdominal fat - I'm now down to 30.5" (164lbs / BMI 23.5) and still carrying enough abdominal fat that I reckon I need to shift another 4 or 5 pounds
0 -
Agreed. I'm the same weight I was 5-6 years ago, but I've lost a few pounds of fat and gained noticeable upper body muscle mass since then.stevencloser wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »According to his stats, Bolt is 6'5", 207 lbs.
Right, he's a good normal size for his height, other than having much less fat than most.He is not even close to lean-looking IMHO. He is a solid chunk of impressive muscle.
Lean means "not fat". You can be lean at a low muscle mass or at a very high muscle mass.
The standard presented by the BMI charts promotes an "ideal" of normal to low body fat combined with low muscle mass. There is no health benefit to having less muscle. The average person would be healthier at a low-normal body fat with an amount of muscle that would push them to the top end of "healthy" or into "overweight" according to BMI. BMI is absolutely not an optimal health standard.
I don't think you know how much of a difference in look even a small amount of extra muscle makes.
0 -
Some outrageous claims have been made that I just don't even know how to begin addressing (the government being taken over by vegans or something... can't help you with that).
It's just as well, because the way you phrased that is an absolute straw man and not at all what I said anyway.
0 -
darrensurrey wrote: »A lot of people slate BMI and cite some extreme fitness or sports person as the reason why BMI is wrong. It may be a surprise to learn that most people are not professional American football players nor competitive bodybuilders. For the average couch potato a high BMI might be enough to frighten someone into standing up.
The thread is about determining one's ideal weight. The "ideal" part pretty much excludes couch potatoes.
I'm not saying BMI isn't 'close enough' to BFP for the beginner. I'm saying that as one approaches ideal fitness it tends to be too far off for two many people, therefore is not a good measure for determining goals.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
Heh, even the USMC bodyfat calc, which uses five measurement points instead of the typical two to three, told me that I was 11.9% bodyfat, when I was still more like 16%.
*kitten*, a seven point, triple averaged caliper test now tells me 9.6%, and though I may have visible striations in shoulders and neck, visible veins near the lower abs, etc., I still don't buy it. I need to stop being a cheap *kitten* and get a DXA done.
Calipers wildly underestimate for me. I think it's because I have a fair amount of excess skin, so the volume of my subcutaneous fat is spread thinner because it's over a larger surface area.0 -
Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I don't think you know how much of a difference in look even a small amount of extra muscle makes.
I think you are underestimating the difference. I'm saying Bolt has a small amount of extra muscle and he looks phenomenal for it, in part because he is also very lean so it's not hidden.
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
It's not an anything point difference, just like 18 feet isn't a 3 point difference from 21 gallons, because they are not measurements of the same thing.
Both BMI and body fat % would put her at a healthy weight.12 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »A lot of people slate BMI and cite some extreme fitness or sports person as the reason why BMI is wrong. It may be a surprise to learn that most people are not professional American football players nor competitive bodybuilders. For the average couch potato a high BMI might be enough to frighten someone into standing up.
The thread is about determining one's ideal weight. The "ideal" part pretty much excludes couch potatoes.
I'm not saying BMI isn't 'close enough' to BFP for the beginner. I'm saying that as one approaches ideal fitness it tends to be too far off for two many people, therefore is not a good measure for determining goals.
Actually the OP's first post was this:
"I want to understand how to judge a healthy weight range for myself in order to take opinion out of the equation."
For this question, BMI is more that adequate without trying to add the complexity you're suggesting that I would wager few in the general public understand.8 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »A lot of people slate BMI and cite some extreme fitness or sports person as the reason why BMI is wrong. It may be a surprise to learn that most people are not professional American football players nor competitive bodybuilders. For the average couch potato a high BMI might be enough to frighten someone into standing up.
The thread is about determining one's ideal weight. The "ideal" part pretty much excludes couch potatoes.
I'm not saying BMI isn't 'close enough' to BFP for the beginner. I'm saying that as one approaches ideal fitness it tends to be too far off for two many people, therefore is not a good measure for determining goals.
That's the thing. There is no true "ideal" weight, even among fit people. If health is fine, it really depends on performance in their desired sport and their aesthetic preference. A ballerina is very fit, strong, and have very low body fat in general, but you will be very pressed to find even a single successful ballerina who is considered overweight by BMI, or even close to the upper end of the normal range. In fact quite a few of them can be considered underweight by BMI. That's because their performance needs strong yet light bodies. Same for long distance runners, gymnasts, jockeys and many other sports.
You can't define "ideal fitness" by your own ideas of what ideal fitness is, and you can't define someone else's "ideal" because you don't know their goals and preferences. Would you agree with a sumo wrestlers' (who are quite fit by the way) idea of what's ideal? Her question was about "healthy weight range", which is sliding scale and depends on several individual factors, but BMI is a good starting point.7 -
Ask your doctor and get a professional opinion? Obviously the general population have many conflicting opinions, and it would probably be better to discuss health with a professional, even if they provide you with the BMI chart.1
-
This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?29
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I don't think you know how much of a difference in look even a small amount of extra muscle makes.
I think you are underestimating the difference. I'm saying Bolt has a small amount of extra muscle and he looks phenomenal for it, in part because he is also very lean so it's not hidden.
Bolt has a lot of muscle and is not super lean. I'd put him at the for athletes typical 8-12% bf range, which puts him as should be expected of a world class athlete, at the upper bounds of maximum lean mass for his height.
You have a skewed perception, there's no way around it, every one of your posts shows that.23 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
I don't think BMI ever claimed to estimate what your actual body fat percentage was?! Aren't they both just supposed to be measures of healthy weight ranges? Which no-one claims need to come out at the same number? In any case, using the highly scientific 'looking in the mirror and estimating' technique, I am nowhere near 18.5% fat. I'd say more like 20-21. 18.5 is pretty low for a woman.3 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
You...I like you.6 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
You...I like you.
So it's not just my mom that thinks I'm cool? Aw shucks.
The only reason I would say something so callous is that I used to be one of those people: on the heavy side despite being fairly active throughout most of my life--clearly something was wrong with the measure not me. Then I started counting calories and using a food scale. Lo and behold, the weight has come off and I'm within a normal BMI range.
12 -
BMI appears to be a good guideline for most people; however, the issue with BMI is that there are many factors it does not take into account. For example, muscle mass is not well-accounted for, so it's quite possible to have someone who falls in the overweight category prescribed by the BMI scale, but is actually quite fit and lean-looking. Also, frame size is not factored in, either. Someone who is 'smalled-boned' is going to wear the same amount of weight differently than someone who is 'big-boned', assuming all other variables are held constant (height, gender, muscle:fat ratio, etc.).
There is also a great amount of individual variation that BMI cannot account for. What looks good/is healthy/functional for one person is not going to be the same for another person.0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
You...I like you.
So it's not just my mom that thinks I'm cool? Aw shucks.
The only reason I would say something so callous is that I used to be one of those people: on the heavy side despite being fairly active throughout most of my life--clearly something was wrong with the measure not me. Then I started counting calories and using a food scale. Lo and behold, the weight has come off and I'm within a normal BMI range.
Yeap. You just described me five years ago, and the entire rest of my family to this day.4 -
rankinsect wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
It's not an anything point difference, just like 18 feet isn't a 3 point difference from 21 gallons, because they are not measurements of the same thing.
Both BMI and body fat % would put her at a healthy weight.
Actually, BMI is -supposed- to be a simple estimation of body fat percentage. As such, it may average out to be close over large populations, but on an individual basis it is often just plain wrong.0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
And people with poor reading comprehension make inaccurate assumptions. Your point would be?0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
And people with poor reading comprehension make inaccurate assumptions. Your point would be?
No.
Some day you'll figure it out and stop kidding yourself. Or you won't. Either way, no skin off my back.
13 -
stevencloser wrote: »Bolt has a lot of muscle and is not super lean. I'd put him at the for athletes typical 8-12% bf range, which puts him as should be expected of a world class athlete, at the upper bounds of maximum lean mass for his height.
You have a skewed perception, there's no way around it, every one of your posts shows that.
Compared to the general populace, 10% or less body fat is super lean.
And he's a runner. Yes, as a sprinter he's going to have more mass than a distance runner to get that explosive burst of speed, but he's still built for speed, not brute strength, therefore is not likely to be at the upper limits of lean mass for his height. I would put him above half, but well below max. If he started training for power lifting instead of sprinting, I would guess he could put on at least 20 more pounds of muscle, especially considering it's spread over a 6'5" frame.0 -
I don't think BMI ever claimed to estimate what your actual body fat percentage was?!
livestrong.com/article/78471-bmi-mean/
Very first result when searching "what does bmi mean". Yes, it's supposed to be an estimation of body fat.In any case, using the highly scientific 'looking in the mirror and estimating' technique, I am nowhere near 18.5% fat. I'd say more like 20-21. 18.5 is pretty low for a woman.
Your profile pic suggests you are a distance runner. Lower than average body fat often goes with the territory.
0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
And people with poor reading comprehension make inaccurate assumptions. Your point would be?
No.
Some day you'll figure it out and stop kidding yourself. Or you won't. Either way, no skin off my back.
I'm not kidding myself. I am fat, and diabetic and my joints hurt. And I haven't at all denied it. That is why I'm counting calories and losing weight. As far as my goals, they are supported by math. The numbers say that if I were under 25 BMI I would also be below average in muscle mass for my weight. The numbers say that if I can achieve 15% body fat at 220 pounds, my muscle mass percentage will be close to the middle of average. And 15% body fat is not fat, period.
I do not oppose BMI because I want to deny being fat. I oppose BMI because the charts designating a "healthy" weight range promote a low-muscle physique.
Had you read and understood my posts up to this point, you would not have made that nonsense comment about 'denial' and I wouldn't be repeating these statements.
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
- 232.5K 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