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.
Is every single body in the world intended to be within the so-called healthy BMI range?
Replies
-
Great rule of thumb! Except if you’ve got micro-penis, then you’ve got worse problems than being fat...12
-
-
For most people that are not professional athletes or body builders, yes, they are a good general guideline. There is ongoing debate among some folks who think it is possible to be "healthy" while still being fat, but I do not buy into this personally.10
-
Us barrel chested folks laugh derisively at the BMI.6
-
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
"Easy" is a bit exaggerated when even most world-class elite athletes are at most slightly into overweight.
I beg to differ. My BMI floats around 26 to 27 (and even higher in the winter) but my body fat is under 9% (can get close to 10% by mid January) That is classified as "overweight" and I am just a gym rat in my 50s, certainly not any kind of elite athlete or anywhere near in my peak condition. (good for an older guy, but nothing like what's achievable in your prime)
Lifting and paying more attention your macros than just your total caloric intake WILL skew your body composition towards lean mass, which is much more dense than fat. (this is the biggest thing the CICO cult leaves out of their holy equation)
Denseness of muscle has zilch to do with CICO. And it's only 10%.2 -
BMI: 24.7
Really, you can take almost any athlete who's not a football quarterback or somesuch where the heavier you are the better and they'll not break far into overweight.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »
BMI: 24.7
Really, you can take almost any athlete who's not a football quarterback or somesuch where the heavier you are the better and they'll not break far into overweight.
If his legs were proportional to his upper body he would be rocking a 27 BMI...
I don't think anyone said pro athletes (especially not runners and REALLY REALLY not endurance athletes) have higher BMI while lean? So that post isn't remotely relevant.
My assertion is that anyone training for strength and asthetics while watching their macros can easily bump over a BMI of 25 while maintaining a sub 10% body fat. I hold my old self up as an example of an average male who is overweight by BMI while under 9% fat. I'm certainly not an athlete, and drove a desk for 30 years. I haven't been on any sports team since I was a gangly teen.
I have lifted on and off since I was a teen, and my dietary habits have always tended towards the carnivorous. For 3 years I have tried to stick to 5 days a week of lifting and have tracked all my food. I use keto as a valuable tool in the spring for stripping off the fat I inevitably accumulate over winter (almost a necessity here because winter is brutal) but I really don't limit calories at all.10 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
BMI: 24.7
Really, you can take almost any athlete who's not a football quarterback or somesuch where the heavier you are the better and they'll not break far into overweight.
If his legs were proportional to his upper body he would be rocking a 27 BMI...
I don't think anyone said pro athletes (especially not runners and REALLY REALLY not endurance athletes) have higher BMI while lean? So that post isn't remotely relevant.
My assertion is that anyone training for strength and asthetics while watching their macros can easily bump over a BMI of 25 while maintaining a sub 10% body fat. I hold my old self up as an example of an average male who is overweight by BMI while under 9% fat. I'm certainly not an athlete, and drove a desk for 30 years. I haven't been on any sports team since I was a gangly teen.
I have lifted on and off since I was a teen, and my dietary habits have always tended towards the carnivorous. For 3 years I have tried to stick to 5 days a week of lifting and have tracked all my food. I use keto as a valuable tool in the spring for stripping off the fat I inevitably accumulate over winter (almost a necessity here because winter is brutal) but I really don't limit calories at all.
The natural limit of FFMI is about 25. That's what's assumed to be about the most muscle a person of a height can carry naturally. At 9% bf, I would be a 26,xx BMI at the most amount of muscle I could possibly carry (approx.).
That's not "easily being in overweight BMI." if you're just training and paying attention to macros.14 -
Not sure how short you are but last time I calculated (May) my FFMI was 22.x, my BMI was 26.x, and my body fat (Dexa) was 8.x... I'm 5'11" if my body fat went up to 9.x (and I am probably there and on my way up as autumn sets in) my FFMI would go down and my BMI up.4
-
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »If a body is not within that range do you assume that person must be doing something wrong?
I laugh at this question.distinctlybeautiful wrote: »If a body is not within that range do you feel that person should be doing whatever it takes to get there?
I snort at this question.distinctlybeautiful wrote: »I’m not sure I’m asking these questions in the clearest way. I’ve been rolling them around in my brain for a while now, though, so I figured I’d throw them out as they are and go from there.
For a person who regards yourself as distinctly beautiful, you sure have an ugly way of thinking about people.
It's not your job, nor is it mine, nor is it the job of a pro trainer to have an opinion about the body appearance of random other people.
If this response hurts your feelings, then you did not ask in the clearest way.15 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Not sure how short you are but last time I calculated (May) my FFMI was 22.x, my BMI was 26.x, and my body fat (Dexa) was 8.x... I'm 5'11" if my body fat went up to 9.x (and I am probably there and on my way up as autumn sets in) my FFMI would go down and my BMI up.
at 5'11'' and a 26 BMI you weigh about 190 pounds. That's a ffmi of 24.1 - 24.4 between 8 and 9% bf..5 -
BTW. I think there was still questions left open if someone at low bodyfat but still being so muscular they're far into the overweight category is actually still as healthy as someone with the same bodyfat but a normal bmi (so less muscle).0
-
stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Not sure how short you are but last time I calculated (May) my FFMI was 22.x, my BMI was 26.x, and my body fat (Dexa) was 8.x... I'm 5'11" if my body fat went up to 9.x (and I am probably there and on my way up as autumn sets in) my FFMI would go down and my BMI up.
at 5'11'' and a 26 BMI you weigh about 190 pounds. That's a ffmi of 24.1 - 24.4 between 8 and 9% bf..
Not sure which of the many FFMI calculators you're using but I think it's optimistic... I was 184 at the time and I just plugged in the numbers directly from my Dexa again and got the same results from a couple of different online ones... 22.x FFMI and 25 to 26 BMI (again depending on the calculator)
To toss another angle into the conversation it's also quite possible to have an "ideal" BMI but carry an unhealthy amount of fat. I know quite a few "skinnyfat" people... Especially folks my age.5 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »Ok maybe BMI wasn’t the best way to frame it. What I’m hearing though is that y’all generally believe there is an ideal body weight / body size / body fat percentage range that people should be in? And that being outside that range indicates less-than-optimal health? And that people should strive to be close to or within this range?
There are body fat ranges that are associated with lower and higher health risks, yes.
These are not the same as desired body fat levels for physical appearance or performance.3 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »If a body is not within that range do you assume that person must be doing something wrong?
If a body is not within that range do you feel that person should be doing whatever it takes to get there?
I’m not sure I’m asking these questions in the clearest way. I’ve been rolling them around in my brain for a while now, though, so I figured I’d throw them out as they are and go from there.
BMI should be used in conjunction with BF%. Being over fat increases the risk of any number of health conditions.
You also have to understand that BMI is a range to accommodate various frames, muscle mass, bone density, etc...someone trying to get to the bottom of the range just because and not taking into account other factors may be damaging their health. It's also quite possible to be at a healthy BMI, but unhealthy.
I'm about 8 Lbs overweight by BMI, but I'm about 15ish% BF, so not an issue...I'm not over fat and I exercise regularly and eat right and I'm pretty physically fit. I could definitely be leaner, but it's kind of a PITA...I don't mind carrying a little extra body fat unless it gets to unhealthy levels.1 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
No it's very hard, most natural bodybuilders end up 160-170 or the higher end of normal. Even some steroid users don't become too "overweight"
On stage you mean?? They're a super UNhealthy sub 5% at that point. Yeah that's both extremely difficult (doubt I have the willpower) and really brief... couple weeks max. During the majority of the year most guys who lift are either carrying a more healthy 8 to 10 percent and working on a continuous "lean bulk" or much higher (in the teens) if they're bulking in a more traditional way.
Not just on stage, Alberto Nunez is around 180 off season, I think he's 5'10 so that's barely overweight. And we are talking about a guy with elite tier genetics.
That is technically almost 10 pounds "overweight" by bmi... Further illustrating my point. He is not anywhere near fat at 180... I am far from genetically elite and I am overweight by bmi despite being far leaner than the average for my age.
I stand by my assertion that it's not "difficult" to be "overweight" by bmi but still lean so long as you pay more attention to macros, lift heavy, and don't get obsessive about caloric total.
No 175 is the start of overweight at 5'10 according to BMI.
Far leaner than average for your age doesn't mean much if the average is obese.5 -
@JeromeBarry1 What about my questions led you to believe I think those are truths?2
-
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Not sure how short you are but last time I calculated (May) my FFMI was 22.x, my BMI was 26.x, and my body fat (Dexa) was 8.x... I'm 5'11" if my body fat went up to 9.x (and I am probably there and on my way up as autumn sets in) my FFMI would go down and my BMI up.
at 5'11'' and a 26 BMI you weigh about 190 pounds. That's a ffmi of 24.1 - 24.4 between 8 and 9% bf..
Not sure which of the many FFMI calculators you're using but I think it's optimistic... I was 184 at the time and I just plugged in the numbers directly from my Dexa again and got the same results from a couple of different online ones... 22.x FFMI and 25 to 26 BMI (again depending on the calculator)
To toss another angle into the conversation it's also quite possible to have an "ideal" BMI but carry an unhealthy amount of fat. I know quite a few "skinnyfat" people... Especially folks my age.
They should all come up with the same number. And at 184 it still spits out 23.5 for 8% bf.2 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
"Easy" is a bit exaggerated when even most world-class elite athletes are at most slightly into overweight.
I beg to differ. My BMI floats around 26 to 27 (and even higher in the winter) but my body fat is under 9% (can get close to 10% by mid January) That is classified as "overweight" and I am just a gym rat in my 50s, certainly not any kind of elite athlete or anywhere near in my peak condition. (good for an older guy, but nothing like what's achievable in your prime)
Lifting and paying more attention your macros than just your total caloric intake WILL skew your body composition towards lean mass, which is much more dense than fat. (this is the biggest thing the CICO cult leaves out of their holy equation)
Look around, very few males are sub 10% BF, when you look at over 50 the number is even lower. You're doing great but definitely an outlier.5 -
Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
5 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.11 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
Just out of curiosity I looked at your pictures and you look higher than 10%. I suspect a lot of the "outliers" are simply under estimating their body fat.
11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
May I ask your understanding of BMI?
This isn't an insult, just - I feel that for you to be saying it is a good indicator, maybe you misunderstand how the measurement actually works.
I wish I could find the medical based articles that have disproved the effectiveness for the majority of the population, I will, however, look for it again and post if I can find.
I agree that not enough are active, as such - though, I disagree on the figures you presented. In recent years, there have certainly been a surge in people engaging in strength based training as facilities have become more available and affordable.
If BMI was such a fantastic measure, it certainly wouldn't have so many medical professionals looking to replace it with more accurate methods or calculating a person's overall health.8 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
May I ask your understanding of BMI?
This isn't an insult, just - I feel that for you to be saying it is a good indicator, maybe you misunderstand how the measurement actually works.
I wish I could find the medical based articles that have disproved the effectiveness for the majority of the population, I will, however, look for it again and post if I can find.
I agree that not enough are active, as such - though, I disagree on the figures you presented. In recent years, there have certainly been a surge in people engaging in strength based training as facilities have become more available and affordable.
If BMI was such a fantastic measure, it certainly wouldn't have so many medical professionals looking to replace it with more accurate methods or calculating a person's overall health.
I have what most people would consider a decent understanding of health and fitness including BMI. I understand that while BMI doesn't work for all, it's a good indicator for most.
I'll do your research for you. The US CDC also seems to think there is decent relationship between BMI and bodyfat.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
The correlation between the BMI and body fatness is fairly strong1,2,3,7, but even if 2 people have the same BMI, their level of body fatness may differ12.
In general,
At the same BMI, women tend to have more body fat than men.
At the same BMI, Blacks have less body fat than do Whites13,14, and Asians have more body fat than do Whites15
At the same BMI, older people, on average, tend to have more body fat than younger adults.
At the same BMI, athletes have less body fat than do non-athletes.
The accuracy of BMI as an indicator of body fatness also appears to be higher in persons with higher levels of BMI and body fatness16. While, a person with a very high BMI (e.g., 35 kg/m2) is very likely to have high body fat, a relatively high BMI can be the results of either high body fat or high lean body mass (muscle and bone). A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments in order to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks.
Pretty few people strength train on a regular basis, a bit less than 30% (found a newer number) do resistance work 2 or more times a week. Again, that doesn't speak to the intensity involved or the issues with self reporting. I maintain given this and the fact there is very little manual labor in the US. we're talking about 10-20% or so who would be overweight/obese on the BMI scale but have enough muscle to not be overfat. Given this BMI is a reasonable measure for most of the population.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-80-percent-of-american-adults-dont-get-recommended-exercise/
13 -
Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
May I ask your understanding of BMI?
This isn't an insult, just - I feel that for you to be saying it is a good indicator, maybe you misunderstand how the measurement actually works.
I wish I could find the medical based articles that have disproved the effectiveness for the majority of the population, I will, however, look for it again and post if I can find.
I agree that not enough are active, as such - though, I disagree on the figures you presented. In recent years, there have certainly been a surge in people engaging in strength based training as facilities have become more available and affordable.
If BMI was such a fantastic measure, it certainly wouldn't have so many medical professionals looking to replace it with more accurate methods or calculating a person's overall health.
I have what most people would consider a decent understanding of health and fitness including BMI. I understand that while BMI doesn't work for all, it's a good indicator for most.
I'll do your research for you. The US CDC also seems to think there is decent relationship between BMI and bodyfat.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
The correlation between the BMI and body fatness is fairly strong1,2,3,7, but even if 2 people have the same BMI, their level of body fatness may differ12.
In general,
At the same BMI, women tend to have more body fat than men.
At the same BMI, Blacks have less body fat than do Whites13,14, and Asians have more body fat than do Whites15
At the same BMI, older people, on average, tend to have more body fat than younger adults.
At the same BMI, athletes have less body fat than do non-athletes.
The accuracy of BMI as an indicator of body fatness also appears to be higher in persons with higher levels of BMI and body fatness16. While, a person with a very high BMI (e.g., 35 kg/m2) is very likely to have high body fat, a relatively high BMI can be the results of either high body fat or high lean body mass (muscle and bone). A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments in order to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks.
Pretty few people strength train on a regular basis, a bit less than 30% (found a newer number) do resistance work 2 or more times a week. Again, that doesn't speak to the intensity involved or the issues with self reporting.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-80-percent-of-american-adults-dont-get-recommended-exercise/
Clearly you're very sold into BMI being a good measure, if that works for you - all the best!
I maintain my original view, along with the view of many health professionals.
The fantastic thing about individuality, if we all thought the same, life would get boring wouldn't it?10 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
May I ask your understanding of BMI?
This isn't an insult, just - I feel that for you to be saying it is a good indicator, maybe you misunderstand how the measurement actually works.
I wish I could find the medical based articles that have disproved the effectiveness for the majority of the population, I will, however, look for it again and post if I can find.
I agree that not enough are active, as such - though, I disagree on the figures you presented. In recent years, there have certainly been a surge in people engaging in strength based training as facilities have become more available and affordable.
If BMI was such a fantastic measure, it certainly wouldn't have so many medical professionals looking to replace it with more accurate methods or calculating a person's overall health.
I have what most people would consider a decent understanding of health and fitness including BMI. I understand that while BMI doesn't work for all, it's a good indicator for most.
I'll do your research for you. The US CDC also seems to think there is decent relationship between BMI and bodyfat.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
The correlation between the BMI and body fatness is fairly strong1,2,3,7, but even if 2 people have the same BMI, their level of body fatness may differ12.
In general,
At the same BMI, women tend to have more body fat than men.
At the same BMI, Blacks have less body fat than do Whites13,14, and Asians have more body fat than do Whites15
At the same BMI, older people, on average, tend to have more body fat than younger adults.
At the same BMI, athletes have less body fat than do non-athletes.
The accuracy of BMI as an indicator of body fatness also appears to be higher in persons with higher levels of BMI and body fatness16. While, a person with a very high BMI (e.g., 35 kg/m2) is very likely to have high body fat, a relatively high BMI can be the results of either high body fat or high lean body mass (muscle and bone). A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments in order to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks.
Pretty few people strength train on a regular basis, a bit less than 30% (found a newer number) do resistance work 2 or more times a week. Again, that doesn't speak to the intensity involved or the issues with self reporting.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-80-percent-of-american-adults-dont-get-recommended-exercise/
Clearly you're very sold into BMI being a good measure, if that works for you - all the best!
I maintain my original view, along with the view of many health professionals.
The fantastic thing about individuality, if we all thought the same, life would get boring wouldn't it?
For sure, not perfect but dirctionally correct for most people Would be interesting to see anything you can come up with that says differently since the CDC says there is a fairly strong correlation between high BMI and high body fat.7 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »If a body is not within that range do you assume that person must be doing something wrong?
If a body is not within that range do you feel that person should be doing whatever it takes to get there?
I’m not sure I’m asking these questions in the clearest way. I’ve been rolling them around in my brain for a while now, though, so I figured I’d throw them out as they are and go from there.
Yes, it is a measure of health. I don't think anyone should be happy about being unhealthy.3 -
I'm not a huge fan of the BMI chart and its many assumptions. However, I do agree that it can be a good guideline. What I'm against is this trend toward making BMI the end all be all for measuring health, especially when it comes to insurance programs - but that's the insurance business, I suppose.
Anyway, my thoughts are this: if you are wanting OPTIMAL health as you indicated in a later post, BMI can be a guideline, though as others have said, there are better and more accurate ways to measure that.
But what I find more important is standard of living and satisfaction with life. What I mean is that most folks are perfectly fine being short of "optimal" and would not enjoy the life they'd have to live to be at optimal. And truthfully, when you are getting closer to the BMI range of healthy, being over a little does raise the risks, but not by such an extreme amount that it is paramount that you do something.
for instance: when I started losing weight, my BMI was 57. While my health markers were all fine - no high cholesterol, no diabetes, no high blood pressure - I knew that my risks for developing those things, especially given my family history, was pretty high. I finally buckled down and found a method of losing weight that worked for me after years of failure, and now my BMI is down to 42. Some folks would be quick to point out that 42 is still obese and unhealthy, but I ask compared to what? Compared to the healthy range on the BMI chart, yes, it's still unhealthy, but compared to what I was 10 months ago, it's worlds better. Considering where I started at and my current age and genetic predisposition, I doubt I'll ever get into what the BMI chart says is a healthy range - I'll never hit that magical 25. But I figure if I can get it down as low as I can - say a pipe dream of being under 30 at least - that I'll still have good quality of life and I've sufficiently lowered my health risk factors so that while there are still risks there, they aren't nearly as bad as they were. So I doubt I'll ever reach "optimal" but I'm okay with that. I'd rather have a life that I enjoy with a health that allows me to enjoy it, even if I'm still a bit overweight, than spend all my free time striving for optimal health and being miserable the entire time. I want to be healthy physically, mentally, and spiritually, and would prefer to balance the three aspects instead of spending all my energy focused on only one of those things.
Because truthfully, no matter how healthy you are, you never completely eliminate all risk, and eventually everyone dies anyway. Of course we want to strive to be healthy - no one wants to live with the complications that come with diabetes or heart disease, but I'm saying being miserable striving to reduce your risk by 1% isn't a very mentally healthy way to live.
In the end, if you are in a body shape that you find pleasing, are happy with yourself, and your health markers are in a normal range, I wouldn't worry about whether or not you were still a few pounds outside the BMI health standard. I'd think that I'd only start becoming concerned if I saw something like cholesertol or fasting blood sugar or A1C start trending upwards.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
Maybe it is, but I find it useless when counseling clients. The only time I ever mention it is if someone is an “outlier”— I explain to them why it doesn’t apply to them and to ignore any recommendations they receive based on BMI.
I have always used the “outlier” argument as a criticism against BMI, but I think cwolfman13’s earlier observation might be even more significant.
Since the “healthy” range of BMI does not take account the range of LBM and frame sizes in the population, it provides a poor reference point, even for those 80-90%. Someone who naturally lands in the upper end of their BMI range might incorrectly assume that anyone can reach the bottom end of the range.
The conundrum is that those professionals who fully understand BMI and who are most qualified to explain it, are probably the least likely to use it as a reference tool. And those who rely on it the most are the least qualified to explain it and put it in proper context.
7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
Maybe it is, but I find it useless when counseling clients. The only time I ever mention it is if someone is an “outlier”— I explain to them why it doesn’t apply to them and to ignore any recommendations they receive based on BMI.
I have always used the “outlier” argument as a criticism against BMI, but I think cwolfman13’s earlier observation might be even more significant.
Since the “healthy” range of BMI does not take account the range of LBM and frame sizes in the population, it provides a poor reference point, even for those 80-90%. Someone who naturally lands in the upper end of their BMI range might incorrectly assume that anyone can reach the bottom end of the range.
The conundrum is that those professionals who fully understand BMI and who are most qualified to explain it, are probably the least likely to use it as a reference tool. And those who rely on it the most are the least qualified to explain it and put it in proper context.
It tries to take frame sizes and LBM differences into account by being like 40 pounds wide or more depending on your height.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.2K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions