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.
BMI calculations...
Replies
-
deannalfisher wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Yea, 6'3, 240 and sub 15 is a person you notice. Like "damn, that's a beast right there!" I sure as hell don't say that all that often. Far from any majority. Lol.
Basically, how many times per day do you look at someone and think they are a beast? That's how many oitliers there are...
Kinda joking but kinda serious. Either way, well done. You are a beast!
All serious. No sarcasm.
Thank you for your kind words.
@stevencloser I wasn't overly concise in what I wrote. I wasn't referring to myself as a majority of the population. In my previous post I mentioned that the BMI scale falls apart when you are very short, tall or muscled.
@Wheelhouse15 Thanks. Lots of hard work!
But by definition, being very short or very tall falls outside the average and won't be the majority of people. Very muscled vs. extremely non-muscular the same.
For example, you at 6'3'' are taller than 98% of the US population your age.
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf
Very valid point. I forget that the gym population is not representative of the wider population.
We run into this issue in the military as the Physical Readiness Test (PRT) guidelines are based on BMI. If you fail BMI standards, then you get measured with calipers to determine body fat %. Of course the military, similar to the gym population represents the top 3% of the US fitness determinants, so this is essentially a population of outliers.
I wish the Navy used calipers...they use a tape measure and a method that somehow determines body fat from neck and waist measurement (or neck, waist, hip for females)...IIRC the Army does the same...its notoriously inaccurate (Army funded a study a few years ago and found that like 30% of the measurements differed by like 10% of total BF which was statistically significant for the sample population). Unfortunately, they don't allow personnel to use alternative sources of testing
Marines, too. A Marine buddy of mine from the gym had to be "taped." He ended up passing, but it was still kinda funny, as he doesn't look particularly big/ripped/hyooooooge.
had a friend who is a fitness competitor who went taped by the Navy failed...oh the *kitten* flag that went up...although they have since changed ours - its now a waist measurement (less than x you pass; more than you get the full rope and choke)0 -
samhennings wrote: »BMI does not work for me.
Im short and stocky, so in that respect probably a bit of an outlier.
However, all I can say, is if I ever got my weight into a healthy range people would assume I had a serious illness.
I am 5'6", 12.5 stone, buy trousers at a 30-32" waist (ideally a 31 but who can find those!), estimate body fat at low 20's.
Could I lose a bit of weight? Absolutley. However, once I get below 12 stone I start looking gaunt. Most bmi calculators have the top end of healthy at about 10.5 stone.
When I lost weight on mfp initially I got to 11 stone 8lbs, and looked gaunt. Classic skinny fat, wasted muscle, and looked ill.
The weight I have put back is of course in part fat, but mostly muscle. I do not consider myself big or bulky or muscular at all, but I am certainly a square/stocky build.
My current bmi has me at the upper end of overweight, not too far from obese, and I can assure I am far from either.
Sorry, unless you have a very physically demanding job and/or have been weight lifting you are most likely not a special snowflake and the BMI is a reasonable measurement.1 -
samhennings wrote: »BMI does not work for me.
Im short and stocky, so in that respect probably a bit of an outlier.
However, all I can say, is if I ever got my weight into a healthy range people would assume I had a serious illness.
I am 5'6", 12.5 stone, buy trousers at a 30-32" waist (ideally a 31 but who can find those!), estimate body fat at low 20's.
Could I lose a bit of weight? Absolutley. However, once I get below 12 stone I start looking gaunt. Most bmi calculators have the top end of healthy at about 10.5 stone.
When I lost weight on mfp initially I got to 11 stone 8lbs, and looked gaunt. Classic skinny fat, wasted muscle, and looked ill.
The weight I have put back is of course in part fat, but mostly muscle. I do not consider myself big or bulky or muscular at all, but I am certainly a square/stocky build.
My current bmi has me at the upper end of overweight, not too far from obese, and I can assure I am far from either.
The bolded is your problem, not the BMI.
Also always remember, your health cares little for how you look like and more about how much excess fat you carry around.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »samhennings wrote: »BMI does not work for me.
Im short and stocky, so in that respect probably a bit of an outlier.
However, all I can say, is if I ever got my weight into a healthy range people would assume I had a serious illness.
I am 5'6", 12.5 stone, buy trousers at a 30-32" waist (ideally a 31 but who can find those!), estimate body fat at low 20's.
Could I lose a bit of weight? Absolutley. However, once I get below 12 stone I start looking gaunt. Most bmi calculators have the top end of healthy at about 10.5 stone.
When I lost weight on mfp initially I got to 11 stone 8lbs, and looked gaunt. Classic skinny fat, wasted muscle, and looked ill.
The weight I have put back is of course in part fat, but mostly muscle. I do not consider myself big or bulky or muscular at all, but I am certainly a square/stocky build.
My current bmi has me at the upper end of overweight, not too far from obese, and I can assure I am far from either.
Sorry, unless you have a very physically demanding job and/or have been weight lifting you are most likely not a special snowflake and the BMI is a reasonable measurement.
For me? It really isnt.
I dont consider myself a special snowflake at all, just outside the bmi's base assumption.
That being a straight line height/weight analogy.
Im short, but wide.
I have been weight lifting the last 18 months. So, I would say, unlikely to have built enough lean mass to account for the difference. Especially as when losing weight I did not train, and so lost a lot of muscle along with fat.
I dont think Im big boned, super muscular, super lean, or anything.
I know one simple truth, if my weight were to fall to a healthy range as per bmi, I would be anything but. I would be wasting away.
I got to one stone above healthy range, and was extremely skinny, gaunt and ill looking. Losing a further stone to fit the bmi profile would be awful for my health.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »samhennings wrote: »BMI does not work for me.
Im short and stocky, so in that respect probably a bit of an outlier.
However, all I can say, is if I ever got my weight into a healthy range people would assume I had a serious illness.
I am 5'6", 12.5 stone, buy trousers at a 30-32" waist (ideally a 31 but who can find those!), estimate body fat at low 20's.
Could I lose a bit of weight? Absolutley. However, once I get below 12 stone I start looking gaunt. Most bmi calculators have the top end of healthy at about 10.5 stone.
When I lost weight on mfp initially I got to 11 stone 8lbs, and looked gaunt. Classic skinny fat, wasted muscle, and looked ill.
The weight I have put back is of course in part fat, but mostly muscle. I do not consider myself big or bulky or muscular at all, but I am certainly a square/stocky build.
My current bmi has me at the upper end of overweight, not too far from obese, and I can assure I am far from either.
The bolded is your problem, not the BMI.
Also always remember, your health cares little for how you look like and more about how much excess fat you carry around.
I would say, looking back, I was still carrying a fair bit of fat then.
I have since gained a lot of muscle, and lost more fat over about 18 months. And put on around a stone.
I freely admit I could lose some weight, get leaner, absolutely no question.
Could I lose 2 stone, to *only just* be healthy? Absolutely not.
As I say, 5'6", 31" waist, low 20's% bodyfat, reasonable amount of lean mass (would certainly not be considered "big") and a bmi of 28 last I checked. I consider myself pretty healthy at this point, take 2 stone away from me and I do not believe that would still be the case.0 -
I have a 30 inch waist and still some fat I could get rid of at a 23 BMI.
Your weight to be a BMI of 28 has to come from somewhere, if you're not "big" it's not muscle, it's certainly not your skeleton and if it's not on your waist it has to be somewhere else.0 -
Where then?
I am relatively lean, Im not visibly fat, Im not hugely bulky - a fairly regular guy.
I am "square". A stocky build, broad shoulders. Which is the only thing that seems to ring a bell for me, as bmi assumes a straight line between height and weight it takes no account for build.
I can only repeat, I need to lose 2 stone to be in a healthy range, but assure you I do not have 2 stone in fat to lose.1 -
EDIT: Double post0
-
If you're low 20s for BF%? You're not lean - relative, or not. You definitely have 2 stone of fat to lose.2
-
I have to disagree. Not 2 stone, no way.
At 11 stone 8 I looked like I was dying, Ive since put on muscle and leaned out a lot, I just dont see where its supposed to come from.
Only my tummy has any "pinchable" fat. Everywhere else is lean.
Unless my organs are absolutely loaded with the stuff!
Could I lose some weight? Of course, I am not arguing otherwise. What I am saying is I do not have 2 stone to lose, and as per bmi - thats only just healthy.
Just as bmi says I am bordering on obese, I most certainly am not.1 -
samhennings wrote: »Where then?
I am relatively lean, Im not visibly fat, Im not hugely bulky - a fairly regular guy.
I am "square". A stocky build, broad shoulders. Which is the only thing that seems to ring a bell for me, as bmi assumes a straight line between height and weight it takes no account for build.
I can only repeat, I need to lose 2 stone to be in a healthy range, but assure you I do not have 2 stone in fat to lose.
For a 5'6" individual the "normal" weight range is about 118 - 154 lbs. The large range takes into account build.4 -
One day, people will look at BMIs the same way we look at the food pyramid...so idiotic2
-
bmi was a tool for evaluating populations, thousands, tens of, hundreds of thousands of people.
With so many possible variables there are always going to be outliers, and the mean is always going to suit most average people.
However, as soon as you apply it to an individual the second they arent average like most, then it stops being reliable doesnt it?
0 -
samhennings wrote: »bmi was a tool for evaluating populations, thousands, tens of, hundreds of thousands of people.
With so many possible variables there are always going to be outliers, and the mean is always going to suit most average people.
However, as soon as you apply it to an individual the second they arent average like most, then it stops being reliable doesnt it?
That's why it's a 118-154 range. The most average people are going to be in the middle of that and the range is going to probably cover what, 2 standard deviations? That's 95% of the population already. You'd be a fraction of a fraction of the population when your comfortable weight is 20 pounds above the upper end of it and you actually are at a normal bodyfat.2 -
samhennings wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »samhennings wrote: »BMI does not work for me.
Im short and stocky, so in that respect probably a bit of an outlier.
However, all I can say, is if I ever got my weight into a healthy range people would assume I had a serious illness.
I am 5'6", 12.5 stone, buy trousers at a 30-32" waist (ideally a 31 but who can find those!), estimate body fat at low 20's.
Could I lose a bit of weight? Absolutley. However, once I get below 12 stone I start looking gaunt. Most bmi calculators have the top end of healthy at about 10.5 stone.
When I lost weight on mfp initially I got to 11 stone 8lbs, and looked gaunt. Classic skinny fat, wasted muscle, and looked ill.
The weight I have put back is of course in part fat, but mostly muscle. I do not consider myself big or bulky or muscular at all, but I am certainly a square/stocky build.
My current bmi has me at the upper end of overweight, not too far from obese, and I can assure I am far from either.
The bolded is your problem, not the BMI.
Also always remember, your health cares little for how you look like and more about how much excess fat you carry around.
I would say, looking back, I was still carrying a fair bit of fat then.
I have since gained a lot of muscle, and lost more fat over about 18 months. And put on around a stone.
I freely admit I could lose some weight, get leaner, absolutely no question.
Could I lose 2 stone, to *only just* be healthy? Absolutely not.
As I say, 5'6", 31" waist, low 20's% bodyfat, reasonable amount of lean mass (would certainly not be considered "big") and a bmi of 28 last I checked. I consider myself pretty healthy at this point, take 2 stone away from me and I do not believe that would still be the case.
How did you get your 20% body fat measurement? From a Dexa Scan or a visual estimation?1 -
samhennings wrote: »bmi was a tool for evaluating populations, thousands, tens of, hundreds of thousands of people.
With so many possible variables there are always going to be outliers, and the mean is always going to suit most average people.
However, as soon as you apply it to an individual the second they arent average like most, then it stops being reliable doesnt it?
Yes and no. BMI has a fairly high sensitivity to obesity, but also a fairly low specificity. I.E., you are more likely to be obese by BF% but at a healthy BMI (i.e. "skinny fat") than be at a high BMI but at a healthy BF%. It's still possible to be diagnosed as obese by BMI but at a healthy BF%, but not nearly as common (about 5% of men according to the study I found). And those who are part of this small group usually are working their *kitten* off to be that way and know they aren't obese.
In addition, saying you look "gaunt" and "unhealthy" at a healthy BMI isn't a reliable indicator as our views are shaped by our culture and comparing ourselves to those around us. When the average person is obese, our views are skewed. I've had family members express concern over me being too thin at a BMI of 22.5, despite this being the exact same weight I was 15 years ago in college and a clean bill of health at my physical with great blood work. The only difference is they, and everyone in general, is heavier these days.
Link to study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/5 -
My BMI is 23 and after running into my best friend's mom, whom I hadn't seen since I lost 20 lbs, she called my friend and asked if I had cancer or was sick
I think the reason is probably twofold in my case. One is she's never seen me this weight before and the second is probably my cheeks. As I lost the last 20 lbs my cheekbones are more accentuated and my cheeks underneath are a little hollow. After seeing me for 20 years with fuller, fatter cheeks it was probably a bit of a shocker. But a common reaction from some people has been along the lines of, "did you lose the weight on purpose?", meaning was I sick. Canada has a huge problem with adult obesity and I'd hazard to guess that Windsor where I live is probably worse than average. The majority of guys here, especially my age, have at least a paunch on them and a good third of them are probably clinically obese so I must look downright anorexic to some people at 5'10" 160 lbs. 0 -
My bmi is 28 *shrug*0
-
This content has been removed.
-
The_Enginerd wrote: »samhennings wrote: »bmi was a tool for evaluating populations, thousands, tens of, hundreds of thousands of people.
With so many possible variables there are always going to be outliers, and the mean is always going to suit most average people.
However, as soon as you apply it to an individual the second they arent average like most, then it stops being reliable doesnt it?
Yes and no. BMI has a fairly high sensitivity to obesity, but also a fairly low specificity. I.E., you are more likely to be obese by BF% but at a healthy BMI (i.e. "skinny fat") than be at a high BMI but at a healthy BF%. It's still possible to be diagnosed as obese by BMI but at a healthy BF%, but not nearly as common (about 5% of men according to the study I found). And those who are part of this small group usually are working their *kitten* off to be that way and know they aren't obese.
In addition, saying you look "gaunt" and "unhealthy" at a healthy BMI isn't a reliable indicator as our views are shaped by our culture and comparing ourselves to those around us. When the average person is obese, our views are skewed. I've had family members express concern over me being too thin at a BMI of 22.5, despite this being the exact same weight I was 15 years ago in college and a clean bill of health at my physical with great blood work. The only difference is they, and everyone in general, is heavier these days.
Link to study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/
When I saw my grandmother over Christmas, she was very concerned about how "skinny" I've gotten. She said she longed to see me at a healthy weight, like I was in high school. I am 30 pounds heavier than I was in high school!4
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
- 232.6K 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