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...
Options
Replies
-
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 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.
Actually, that's very common. When I look at my lifts compared to the monsters at the gym I forget that I'm pushing more weight than 98% of people. We tend to see ourselves in comparison to our immediate reference group rather than to the population at large.
Absolutely, maybe I should find some average height overweight friends so I can skew my perceptions back to "normal".
Just take a trip to walmart once or twice a week. Keeps things in perspective
4 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 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.
Actually, that's very common. When I look at my lifts compared to the monsters at the gym I forget that I'm pushing more weight than 98% of people. We tend to see ourselves in comparison to our immediate reference group rather than to the population at large.
Absolutely, maybe I should find some average height overweight friends so I can skew my perceptions back to "normal".
Just take a trip to walmart once or twice a week. Keeps things in perspective
I'm from the UK so might be an expensive trip
Our equivalent is Asda though so may have to do that. 4 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »I hate the WHR method. I have narrow hips, so no matter how slim I get, I am always considered "at risk."
WHR is waist to height, not hips to height or waist to hip. Hips shouldn't be involved
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »The_Original_Beauty wrote: »For my 7 year old it is completely pointless. She is a gymnast and trains 8 hours a week, full on training. She has a lot of muscle, she has no fat on her at all, a six pack yet her BMI is close to being overweight?
If she's close to overweight, but not overweight, it would just mean she's at the high end of BMI...being at the high end of BMI doesn't mean your fat...so I fail to see how it's pointless.
Beyond that, it's just one of many tools that should be utilized in addressing one's health.
I personally am overweight by BMI (just slightly)...but I'm at a healthy BF%...right now I'm around 16ish%...which certainly means that I'm not over fat, but it's not like I couldn't lose a bit of fat and get into the high end of my BMI either.
I think it's fairly applicable to the vast majority of people...but like I said, only one of many tools that should be utilized.
BMI is not suitable as a measurement for children at all. It's only supposed to be used for adults because children's bodies are different.0 -
mumblemagic wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »I hate the WHR method. I have narrow hips, so no matter how slim I get, I am always considered "at risk."
WHR is waist to height, not hips to height or waist to hip. Hips shouldn't be involved
I wish that were true.
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/waist-to-hip-ratio-calculator/0 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »mumblemagic wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »I hate the WHR method. I have narrow hips, so no matter how slim I get, I am always considered "at risk."
WHR is waist to height, not hips to height or waist to hip. Hips shouldn't be involved
I wish that were true.
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/waist-to-hip-ratio-calculator/
Both are useful indicators, and both are (statistically) better than bmi for estimating many of the health risk factors associated with over-fatness.
Fun fact: waist to hip ratio is associated with fertility and some intetesting studies on attractiveness vs waist to hip ratio have been done. The comparison of waist to hip ratios of adult entertainment stars & glamour models vs fashion models & actresses is fascinating 0 -
BMI just requires a nekid body and a scale to check (everyone already knows their height)
All other measures require some training to do the measures properly and consistently.
BMI does the job and points people in the right direction.2 -
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.
0 -
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 testing0 -
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.0 -
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
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
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions