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 BMI is no longer valid?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
-
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »In fact, recommendations from the medical community are to lose weight if you're in the obese range, and to simply not gain weight if you're in the overweight range and lacking other risk factors for weight-related issues.
Exactly this! "Overweight" by BMI is not actually over-weight, it is simply a weight. The use of that term with that BMI range is, in my opinion, a form of shaming motivated by social engineering goals.0 -
3
-
Oh, here we go again with the tin foil hat stuff.
BMI is nothing to do with shaming. It's a statistical tool compiled from the population, using weight and height. The resulting number is completely non-emotive. At a BMI of 31, someone is statistically more likely to suffer from health problems directly or indirectly associated with their weight. A BMI of 31 dies not tell you you need to feel shame or that you are in any way bad. It simply tells you that you are at a weight where you are statistically more likely to suffer from joint strain and you are statistically more likely to suffer strain on your cardiovascular system and so on.8 -
There seems to be some Tardis stuff going on with that person, since the parts of the 180 pound person come up to over 193 pounds.5 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »In fact, recommendations from the medical community are to lose weight if you're in the obese range, and to simply not gain weight if you're in the overweight range and lacking other risk factors for weight-related issues.
Exactly this! "Overweight" by BMI is not actually over-weight, it is simply a weight. The use of that term with that BMI range is, in my opinion, a form of shaming motivated by social engineering goals.
Your conspiracy theory ideas of vegans plotting social engineering by inventing the BMI scale don't help your case.20 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Haven't read through the thread.
I have a BMI of 28. My current goal weight will give me a BMI of 25. I'll still be just a bit into the overweight range. As it stands right now at my current BMI, my doctor has no issue with me maintaining here. I want to lose a few more pounds for myself - mainly because I want to go down another clothing size or two, and I want to hopefully improve my running by weighing a bit less. My BP is 110/60, my RHR is in the low 50's, my cholesterol is 129, my HDL is above 50, my triglycerides and LDL are ideal, and my fasting glucose is in the low 80's. My waist circumference and hip/waist ratio are also where they need to be. I'm healthy. Sorry not sorry. Maybe I'll lose a few more pounds when I get to BMI of 25. Maybe I won't. I've approached all of my weight loss as a wait-and-see with small goals along the way.
BMI is a tool, and it has its uses, and there isn't some major problem with it being applied correctly by a clinician as a diagnostic tool or as a general guideline for someone trying to determine the amount of weight they want to lose or gain. What people forget is that BMI is just one measure, and a good doctor will tell you this. In fact, recommendations from the medical community are to lose weight if you're in the obese range, and to simply not gain weight if you're in the overweight range and lacking other risk factors for weight-related issues. Waist circumference is important. So are lab values and BP readings. Every individual should discuss their goals with their doctor. Not everyone has to fit in the same box. Exercise and a healthy diet will take you far even if your weight is not "perfect."
People who believe that BMI over 24 is always unhealthy and a recipe for diabetes and heart disease are either not doctors or simply have issues with fat people. Doesn't matter what our cultural norms on size may have become.
Please understand that my (and others') point is simply that BMI is not complete bullpucky and is valid as a generalization for a large portion of the population. It's important to take other things into consideration as well and there is nothing wrong with aiming for a higher BMI all other things considered (like body fat, waist circumference, lab work, etc.), especially if that's where someone feels their best. I don't think anyone here argued that BMI is the end-all-be-all. You may want to read through the thread.
5 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Haven't read through the thread.
I have a BMI of 28. My current goal weight will give me a BMI of 25. I'll still be just a bit into the overweight range. As it stands right now at my current BMI, my doctor has no issue with me maintaining here. I want to lose a few more pounds for myself - mainly because I want to go down another clothing size or two, and I want to hopefully improve my running by weighing a bit less. My BP is 110/60, my RHR is in the low 50's, my cholesterol is 129, my HDL is above 50, my triglycerides and LDL are ideal, and my fasting glucose is in the low 80's. My waist circumference and hip/waist ratio are also where they need to be. I'm healthy. Sorry not sorry. Maybe I'll lose a few more pounds when I get to BMI of 25. Maybe I won't. I've approached all of my weight loss as a wait-and-see with small goals along the way.
BMI is a tool, and it has its uses, and there isn't some major problem with it being applied correctly by a clinician as a diagnostic tool or as a general guideline for someone trying to determine the amount of weight they want to lose or gain. What people forget is that BMI is just one measure, and a good doctor will tell you this. In fact, recommendations from the medical community are to lose weight if you're in the obese range, and to simply not gain weight if you're in the overweight range and lacking other risk factors for weight-related issues. Waist circumference is important. So are lab values and BP readings. Every individual should discuss their goals with their doctor. Not everyone has to fit in the same box. Exercise and a healthy diet will take you far even if your weight is not "perfect."
People who believe that BMI over 24 is always unhealthy and a recipe for diabetes and heart disease are either not doctors or simply have issues with fat people. Doesn't matter what our cultural norms on size may have become.
Please understand that my (and others') point is simply that BMI is not complete bullpucky and is valid as a generalization for a large portion of the population. It's important to take other things into consideration as well and there is nothing wrong with aiming for a higher BMI all other things considered (like body fat, waist circumference, lab work, etc.), especially if that's where someone feels their best. I don't think anyone here argued that BMI is the end-all-be-all. You may want to read through the thread.
This was more my standard commentary on this topic in general and not directed at anyone in this thread since, like you're aware, I haven't read the thread. On these forums, though, and in other places, I have seen people remark with very black-and-white thinking on what constitutes health. Sometimes, it's just repeating things that they have heard over and over. Sometimes, it's obvious that their health concerns are really coming from another place. I'm also a believer, as the medical community is, that just losing 10% is a good goal, even if it leaves you in the obese category. There's such a thing as risk reduction, and people do improve things like diabetes and blood pressure, sometimes dramatically, without losing all of their excess weight/fat. Not quite what the OP was asking, but I like to point these things out where I can, because knowing that I could make an impact even if I didn't get as far as I have made such a difference to me in getting started at all.2 -
BMI is a joke, at least for me. I have bigger frame. A few years ago, I was riding my bike 125 miles a week and weighed a little over 200. Some nurses came to my workplace, they went by the numbers and told me I was nearly obese. I was like "seriously"?, I mean my thighs were all muscle and I have a big chest. Had a little belly, but what a joke. They said I should be more like 175. I was that once, and people told me I looked too skinny, unhealthy. Anyway, I am now much heavier, and definitely need to lose like 30 pounds. But screw BMI, it's no longer used.
No, I haven't read any other posts on this thread, no time. Have to go for a bike ride!2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Your conspiracy theory ideas of vegans plotting social engineering by inventing the BMI scale don't help your case.
Your unwillingness to question basic assumptions handed to you by self-appointed authorities doesn't
help yours.
Evidence of dishonesty and social manipulation by "those in charge" is everywhere, media, education, politics... why would govt supported health and nutrition guidelines be any different? We are living in Orwell's "1984" to a far greater degree than most people are willing to even consider.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
There seems to be some Tardis stuff going on with that person, since the parts of the 180 pound person come up to over 193 pounds.
I would presume there may be some overlap between "blood, water and lymph system" and other organs. Even taking this link with a large grain of salt, 94 pounds does not sound excessive for lean mass excluding muscle.0 -
BMI is a joke, at least for me. I have bigger frame. A few years ago, I was riding my bike 125 miles a week and weighed a little over 200. Some nurses came to my workplace, they went by the numbers and told me I was nearly obese. I was like "seriously"?, I mean my thighs were all muscle and I have a big chest. Had a little belly, but what a joke. They said I should be more like 175. I was that once, and people told me I looked too skinny, unhealthy. Anyway, I am now much heavier, and definitely need to lose like 30 pounds. But screw BMI, it's no longer used.
No, I haven't read any other posts on this thread, no time. Have to go for a bike ride!
To quote my earlier post...The_Enginerd wrote: »Like the others have said, BMI is accurate for most people, but people's perception of what a normal "healthy" weight is out of whack when the majority of people in the US are overweight or obese. Despite being the same weight I was back in college, I'm considered a lot thinner than I was back then (15 years ago) because everyone else got heavier.
People's perception of a normal weight has changed as society has gotten heavier, but the health effects of carrying extra fat do not.
I am the same weight I was in college 15 years ago, but this past Christmas I had some folks in my family asked me if I was alright. They were concerned I was becoming anorexic... despite being at a healthy weight, in great shape, and in great health per the doctor. I eat plenty! 3000 calories a day! And this is at a BMI of 21, BF% of 10%, on a smaller frame.12 -
afatpersonwholikesfood wrote: »Haven't read through the thread.
I have a BMI of 28. My current goal weight will give me a BMI of 25. I'll still be just a bit into the overweight range. As it stands right now at my current BMI, my doctor has no issue with me maintaining here. I want to lose a few more pounds for myself - mainly because I want to go down another clothing size or two, and I want to hopefully improve my running by weighing a bit less. My BP is 110/60, my RHR is in the low 50's, my cholesterol is 129, my HDL is above 50, my triglycerides and LDL are ideal, and my fasting glucose is in the low 80's. My waist circumference and hip/waist ratio are also where they need to be. I'm healthy. Sorry not sorry. Maybe I'll lose a few more pounds when I get to BMI of 25. Maybe I won't. I've approached all of my weight loss as a wait-and-see with small goals along the way.
BMI is a tool, and it has its uses, and there isn't some major problem with it being applied correctly by a clinician as a diagnostic tool or as a general guideline for someone trying to determine the amount of weight they want to lose or gain. What people forget is that BMI is just one measure, and a good doctor will tell you this. In fact, recommendations from the medical community are to lose weight if you're in the obese range, and to simply not gain weight if you're in the overweight range and lacking other risk factors for weight-related issues. Waist circumference is important. So are lab values and BP readings. Every individual should discuss their goals with their doctor. Not everyone has to fit in the same box. Exercise and a healthy diet will take you far even if your weight is not "perfect."
People who believe that BMI over 24 is always unhealthy and a recipe for diabetes and heart disease are either not doctors or simply have issues with fat people. Doesn't matter what our cultural norms on size may have become.
Please understand that my (and others') point is simply that BMI is not complete bullpucky and is valid as a generalization for a large portion of the population. It's important to take other things into consideration as well and there is nothing wrong with aiming for a higher BMI all other things considered (like body fat, waist circumference, lab work, etc.), especially if that's where someone feels their best. I don't think anyone here argued that BMI is the end-all-be-all. You may want to read through the thread.
Yes, exactly this. (Well, and that it's wrong to claim that BMI is useless because someone at BMI 25 is likely not to be 25% BF, which was never a claim.)6 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »People's perception of a normal weight has changed as society has gotten heavier, but the health effects of carrying extra fat do not.
This is an oft-repeated claim, but does not hold up when comparing the appearances of celebrities today with those from 60 or more years ago.
0 -
Celebrities are not representative of the general population. Your average supermarket is not awash with Brad Pitt body doubles.16
-
-
Celebrities are not representative of the general population. Your average supermarket is not awash with Brad Pitt body doubles.
Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.
Here's a little anecdote regarding societal perceptions: When I was in high school, I had lived for a couple years in East Asia. In the countries I was in (mainly Japan), overweight people were very uncommon and obese people were practically unicorns. The population as a whole is undeniably healthy compared to the US, with higher average life expectancy.
When I came back, I will never ever forget walking through the airport in Vancouver. I looked over the railing of a walkway after getting off the plane, at the sea of people in the waiting areas below. My first thought was "oh my goodness, everyone is so BIG!" (and I don't mean height). I wasn't thinking it so much to judge people, it was just an observation, but it was a shock. Some friends and acquaintances I had always thought of as quite thin, I realized actually had quite a bit of extra fat on them. Not that they should lose it, but they certainly could.
I think living abroad off and on over the years in various countries has really helped me to realize just how much society and culture shape our perception of "normal"- and I'm talking about so many more things besides weight. If you step outside your comfort zone, you'll be surprised at how much changes about what you always believed to be true.
So yes, in our society many people have a skewed perception of a healthy weight. It's all relative- if one is smaller than other bigger people, it doesn't necessarily mean they are small.9 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »People's perception of a normal weight has changed as society has gotten heavier, but the health effects of carrying extra fat do not.
This is an oft-repeated claim, but does not hold up when comparing the appearances of celebrities today with those from 60 or more years ago.
It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.
"In 1960, the average American male weighed about 166.3 pounds, which was the average weight for American women in 2010 at 166.2 pounds, which marks about a 18.5 percent increase. The average weight for women in 1960 was 140 pounds, according to the CDC report." http://www.livescience.com/49-decade-study-americans-taller-fatter.html
4 -
-
Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.
But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.
The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.
0 -
MissusMoon wrote: »It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.
Scarlett Johansson is pretty clearly more lean/muscular than Marilyn Monroe was. I don't know that too many people would call either one of them either skinny or overweight. Comparing two people of the same height, if one has less fat and more muscle than the other, ten pounds difference isn't going to be terribly noticeable unless you're looking at them undressed (or in skin tight clothes.)
0 -
Sigh. This is why I hang out at r/fatlogic.7
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.
Scarlett Johansson is pretty clearly more lean/muscular than Marilyn Monroe was. I don't know that too many people would call either one of them either skinny or overweight. Comparing two people of the same height, if one has less fat and more muscle than the other, ten pounds difference isn't going to be terribly noticeable unless you're looking at them undressed (or in skin tight clothes.)
At 5'5, 10lbs is a considerable difference in myself, clothed or unclothed. I imagine even more so for someone shorter.3 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »...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...
LOL, Nope.4 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.
But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.
The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.
Ashley is 5'9" 180. There are college wide receivers that get NFL shots that are 5'10" 180.
She's a good sized girl1 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.
But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.
The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.
Celebrities represent an "ideal", a daydream, a parallel world, certainly not what most normal people believe is achievable. In reality, people compare themselves to each other way more often than they do to celebrities. Ashley Graham is a celebrity, so celebrities are compared to celebrities and she is by no means thin, but I assure you if she weren't famous very few would be inclined to call her fat even she technically is.1 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.
Scarlett Johansson is pretty clearly more lean/muscular than Marilyn Monroe was. I don't know that too many people would call either one of them either skinny or overweight. Comparing two people of the same height, if one has less fat and more muscle than the other, ten pounds difference isn't going to be terribly noticeable unless you're looking at them undressed (or in skin tight clothes.)
At 5'5, 10lbs is a considerable difference in myself, clothed or unclothed. I imagine even more so for someone shorter.
At 5'4, 10lb lost the gut shelf I can rest my lunch on!1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.
But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.
The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.
Ashley is 5'9" 180. There are college wide receivers that get NFL shots that are 5'10" 180.
She's a good sized girl
Had no idea who she was. Googled name for images. Yeap, she's fat.6 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.
But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.
The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.
Ashley is 5'9" 180. There are college wide receivers that get NFL shots that are 5'10" 180.
She's a good sized girl
Had no idea who she was. Googled name for images. Yeap, she's fat.
Yeah...I'm reading through this thread and I don't want to be mean, but she is fat. She carries her extra weight better than other people at the same weight, but to look at her and say she's not fat is being delusional. That doesn't mean she has to change her body and as long as she's happy, great, but she's still fat. The only reason her body is more accepted is because a lot of her fat falls in places that are beneficial for her aesthetically by American standards. Had it all been at her stomach, she'd simply be dismissed as being overweight.
I completely agree with the statements being made that many people don't know what a healthy weight is anymore. I was already a "healthy" weight at 139 pounds being 5'3.5", but I was heading into the overweight range and, to be honest, my body composition looked like crap. When losing the first ten pounds I received a few compliments but after that compliments turned into "concern" and straight up venom. "Did you lose a couple of pounds? You look good!" turned into "You're losing a bit too much now", "You should still look like a woman, you know...women have curves", "What do you do? Work out all day?" and one person flat out said "Gosh, you need to EAT something" when I'm 108 pounds eating 2000+ calories per day just to maintain my weight.
People tend to dismiss anything that requires effort. "Well I would lose ten pounds but I: don't have time to go to the gym, love food too much, am happy as I am, am too busy to count calories, have medical conditions that prevent me from doing so, am big boned, am more muscular than most"; the excuses go on and on. If you want to be overweight and have no other medical issues, then own it. Don't make excuses or say BMI is flawed because you don't want to change. It's amazing to me just how many people on the forums, women in particular, are "big boned", "more muscular than average", or "build muscle easily". Every single time they have nothing to show for it too. They're apparently so muscular, yet there is no muscle to be seen whatsoever. For those of us on the lower end of the BMI scale, we're apparently starving or anorexic. I'm of the belief that as long as you're within the BMI range or a bit over/under and you don't have health issues, you're fine but recently on the thread for women my height ~90% of the women had a goal to be just under the overweight threshold for BMI. That's all well and good, but most of them had justifications for not aiming lower: "I'm aiming for 135 because I haven't been less than 120 since junior high/I have curves/I have a lot of muscle/I don't want to suffer or starve to maintain my weight". I'm American, but come from a mixed background and I have to say I have only seen this level of deluded thinking in America. When you have people who make constant excuses and refuse to admit that they sit around doing nothing, eat too much food, or some combination thereof or blame their excess weight on medical conditions, meal timing, eating too little, etc. it's kind of embarrassing honestly.16 -
I've been silently following this thread since it started. Every weight-goal/BMI thread where I've commented, I've always said, BMI is a great indicator for where someone's healthy weight should fall for a given height. There's a huge range in the normal BMI category, and most can easily fall into that range without being "overly skinny" (whatever that's supposed to mean). It should be used along with other measures, just as many in this thread have stated. The number of people on (and off) MFP who think they are exceptions to the BMI guideline is indicative not of the accuracy of the BMI guideline but of the overwhelming state of denial many people are in.
I'm someone who has been overweight/obese since childhood. I've never seen my adult body at a healthy weight, so I have no idea what I will look like once I reach my goal. At 5'7" and 173 lbs I'm still well into the overweight category. However, when I met up with my family for vacation this summer, my mother couldn't stop commenting on how "skinny" I looked. Seriously, I'm not skinny or thin by any measurement. I am smaller than she's ever seen me as an adult though, and that threw off her perception of me.
I'm currently aiming for 140 lbs for my initial goal. I fully expect to reevaluate once I'm there to determine how much more fat I can/should/want to lose. At my height, that's the middle of the normal BMI range. Had you asked me 10 years ago what I should weigh, I would have said 160 because "my frame is big." Yes, I have wide shoulders. No, I no longer think that means that I need to aim toward the top end of the normal BMI range or slightly higher. After seeing my body transform over the past year, and seeing how much further I have to go, I can fully recognize that how wide my shoulders are will have not much bearing on how much I should weigh.
I believe that there are many people who will never accept the BMI scale simply because it doesn't fit with their perceptions of aesthetics. That doesn't make the BMI scale inaccurate. A personal desire to be at a higher weight, even if you aim for high muscle mass, does not detract from the BMI guidelines. It just means that you will be abnormal, an outlier, and you'll almost certainly know it, because you'll be ripped.
Also thought I'd drop a couple links that I've found good reading on this topic:
A nice Reddit thread discussing the topic of BMI accuracy: https://reddit.com/r/fatlogic/comments/3o00s1/serious_why_isnt_bmi_accurate/
Various measures for obesity/fat %: https://hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-definition/how-to-measure-body-fatness/
14 -
I'm having a hard time understanding how BMI promotes undermuscled physiques when a person with a healthy BMI can have a ridiculously athletic 5% BF right on up to a very soft 35% BF. The metric is kg/m2. BF% is not considered in the calculation whatsoever.
As an example, I am 5'4" and weigh 126lbs. This gives a BMI of 21.6. At 25% BF, I am 31.5lbs fat and 91.5 lean body mass. My goal is 20% BF but I don't really want to lose any more body weight. At my goal, I will still be a BMI of 21.6 because neither my height not weight have changed but I will be 25.2lbs of fat and 120.8lbs of lean mass instead. MY BMI WILL BE THE SAME AT 25% BF AS AT 20% BF. It will be the same at ANY BF%, providing my weight does not change, because BF% is not what is measured by BMI.
What is going on is that you don't think you will ever be within a normal BMI range and you are making excuses as to why you won't. You're worrying about having inadequate muscle mass as a health-affected obese man. AKA putting the cart in front of the horse. This is what I mean by being in denial. You're fretting that you won't look like Arnold or be muscled enough when you should be worrying about getting your body weight, regardless of your BF% or lean muscle mass, within a healthy range.
Are motor vehicles also stupid because you will never be a race car driver?16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions