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
-
This is kind of a silly question.
Nearly everyone in the world, say 95%+ of the population, CAN be in the healthy BMI range.
Building enough muscle to push you into being overweight despite low BF% take additional effort beyond what would be considered "normal" exercise. It doesn't happen by accident.
I don't believe for even one second that "bone density" or "frame" can, on their own, force a person to be outside the healthy BMI range.
You have to define “healthy range”. If you mean the BMI threshold for “obese”, then i agree. If we are talking about a 25 BMI being “overweight”, then absolutely it is possible. Not only that, while not frequent, it’s not that uncommon.
0 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
Example: For a 5’4” female, i have seen lean mass vary by 30+ pounds. (81-112). None of the women were athletes or lifted weights.
2 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
Example: For a 5’4” female, i have seen lean mass vary by 30+ pounds. (81-112). None of the women were athletes or lifted weights.
I could see that. I'm a little taller, 5'4.75", and have been lifting weights consistently for 5 years (only break longer than a week was a pregnancy). I can deadlift twice my total body weight, but my lean mass is only 90 lbs (from a dexa scan this past june). 90 including bone mass, that is. 84.8 lbs without the bone mass. I'm not sure if you were including bone mass or not.
0 -
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...
I'd absolutely LOVE to be in a size 8-9 shoe. In the US, anyway, every style out there shows up in those sizes, unlike in my size. I've been wearing an 11/12 shoe in women's (US sizes) since I was a teenager. And as I lose weight, while I know I'll hopefully move from WW widths down to W widths and perhaps even regular widths, I'd been surprised if the actually size number itself went down.
And let me tell you - it is ever a pain to find shoes! This is why I have 1 pair of dress shoes and wear men's shoes for work as it's much easier to find loafers that fit in a men's 9 1/2 to 10 than a woman's 11......
And to clarify, according to the chart I found online, a US women's 11 is a UK women's 10.5 and an EU 44-45.
0 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I completely agree that 'big bones' is pretty much a dodge for people who don't want to face an unpleasant fact.
I can admit that I've been guilty of using this excuse in the past for pretty much that reason. What I've since learned since I actually have managed to have some success in losing weight is that while genetics and health conditions might make it harder, it doesn't make impossible.
But until folks get to that point where they are motivated to actually change, they'll use a lot of excuses to get around calling a spade a spade. My sister is a perfect example of this: a recent argument over the upcoming Thanksgiving dinner and the plans I had for lightening it up and slashing sugar content for those in my family who are diabetic (including her) fell into being an argument over body weight. I flat out told her that she was killing herself being 5'2" and almost 300 lbs, and that her body weight was the prime culprit in her diabetes diagnosis, her high cholesterol, and her high blood pressure, not to mention her being out of breath all the time and her joints hurting.
She flat out refused to acknowledge it, and instead said "those things have nothing to do with my body weight; they are caused by the genetics in our family. Look how many people in our family are diabetic and aren't heavy!"
In her case, it's not even a case of whether or not the BMI chart accurately reflects what would be healthy for her; even if you want to argue the semantics of whether or not 25 ought to be the dividing point between healthy/over weight, I do think for obese folks, BMI is a good tracking point (a tool, if not perfect), and in her case, no amount of arguing is going to convince me that someone with a BMI pushing 48 with several health concerns is healthy.
I have argued against doctors using it as a hard end all/be all marker for health and I still stand against that (I'm looking hard at my company's health program when I say that, because they use it as a hard line), but I don't deny that's it a tool that can be helpful and in a medical setting, where a doctor has access to your medical history and is caring for you and knowledgeable about you, it can be a good marking point for you on an individual basis.
In my sister's case, I'm highly frustrated because her doctor doesn't discuss her weight at all or even tell her that her weight is an issue. He just gives her more medication!3 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
what about age?
and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.
that's significant....
I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...
but wouldn't account for them being overweight.
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.0 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
what about age?
and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.
that's significant....
I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...
but wouldn't account for them being overweight.
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.
I think you have misunderstood what i have said.
bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.3 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
what about age?
and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.
that's significant....
I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...
but wouldn't account for them being overweight.
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.
I think you have misunderstood what i have said.
bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
This is flawed though--speaking in purely averages maybe it is true.
However, if you consider a range of averages (+/- 3%)--the 130 lb friend could have a skeleton that weighs as little as 15.6 lbs or as much as 23.4 lbs, while at 155 lbs, tomteboda's could weigh as little as 18.6 lbs or as much as 27.9 lbs--at the extremes, that's a 12.3 lb difference.
And remember, even if tomteboda loses weight (or her friend gains weight), it is highly unlikely to be bone...
1 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
what about age?
and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.
that's significant....
I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...
but wouldn't account for them being overweight.
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.
I think you have misunderstood what i have said.
bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
This is flawed though--speaking in purely averages maybe it is true.
However, if you consider a range of averages (+/- 3%)--the 130 lb friend could have a skeleton that weighs as little as 15.6 lbs or as much as 23.4 lbs, while at 155 lbs, tomteboda's could weigh as little as 18.6 lbs or as much as 27.9 lbs--at the extremes, that's a 12.3 lb difference.
And remember, even if tomteboda loses weight (or her friend gains weight), it is highly unlikely to be bone...
how do you figure that there is that much of a range in bone weight...
as well we are speaking of averages...BMI is about averages...
hence why there is a range.
I do not for one minute believe that someone can have bones that weigh so much that it would put them in the overweight category...while their fat would keep them in the ideal weight range...and if there are a few out there again outliers not averages.2 -
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for the 15% body weight for bones? That seems really high to me. My dexa scan put my bone weight as less than 5% of my body weight, and that was with above average bone density and low normal bmi.0 -
HealthyBodySickMind wrote: »
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for the 15% body weight for bones? That seems really high to me. My dexa scan put my bone weight as less than 5% of my body weight, and that was with above average bone density and low normal bmi.
Never mind. I see where you got it. It's like the first thing that pops up when you google it. I think it's a difference in convention of what the dexa report was including in "bone", and what the other articles were including in "bone". The dexa report splits total body weight out into "fat tissue," "lean tissue," and "bone mineral content." However, bones are made of both mineral content and other lean tissue, so for total bone mass would actually be the total bone mineral content plus part of the "lean tissue." The dexa splits out just the mineral content because that's what the scan sees, but if you actually removed all the bones to weigh them up, that mass would be both the bone mineral part and also the soft tissue parts of the bone.0 -
HealthyBodySickMind wrote: »
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for the 15% body weight for bones? That seems really high to me. My dexa scan put my bone weight as less than 5% of my body weight, and that was with above average bone density and low normal bmi.
um yah that would be the year 1 text book from medical school...
you do know that dexa scans have an error rate as high as +-10%..they are not the gold standard everyone thought they were...hydration etc has a huge impact as does manufacturer etc.0 -
@sezcystef, see above. I already corrected it. Of course hydration would affect the soft tissue part of the report, but it doesn't make much sense for it to change the reading of bone mineral content.1
-
HealthyBodySickMind wrote: »@sezcystef, see above. I already corrected it. Of course hydration would affect the soft tissue part of the report, but it doesn't make much sense for it to change the reading of bone mineral content.
Yes it is apparently but if you look at an anatomy textbook from 1st year medical it has skeletal mass as 12-15% of bodyweight (on average)
bone mineral content is not skeletal weight.
bone mineral content would be the amount of minerals such as calcium in the bones for a measurement or indicator of strength or bone density. This would help pinpoint issue with osteoporosis etc.
4 -
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
Isn't there a flaw here, though? (Unless this was addressed later on - I was having a little trouble following the maths...)
The difference between 15% of my highest weight and my current weight (40+ lbs lower) is about 8 1/2 lbs. If I had had say 100 lbs to lose the difference would have been even more significant. Wouldn't the flat 15% number (+/- x%) have to be adjusted as a person's weight went up and down? I agree that two people of the same height, weight, and gender wouldn't have a significant difference in bone weight, but I don't see how the same person at two significantly different weights would have drastically different weight in their bones?4 -
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
Isn't there a flaw here, though? (Unless this was addressed later on - I was having a little trouble following the maths...)
The difference between 15% of my highest weight and my current weight (40+ lbs lower) is about 8 1/2 lbs. If I had had say 100 lbs to lose the difference would have been even more significant. Wouldn't the flat 15% number (+/- x%) have to be adjusted as a person's weight went up and down? I agree that two people of the same height, weight, and gender wouldn't have a significant difference in bone weight, but I don't see how the same person at two significantly different weights would have drastically different weight in their bones?
okay so logic would say that a persons skeleton will weight 15% of their weight after they are done growing.
and in response to weight gain get more dense and stronger
Gina M. Agostini, Ann H. Ross. The Effect of Weight on the Femur: A Cross-Sectional Analysis*. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2011; 56 (2): 339 DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01648.x
The person who is obese while growing has adaptations happening to accomodate their size...but their bones aren't making them fat their fat is making their bones adapt.
I mean lets be logical here...once you are done growing you are done....you are not going to get taller or wider etc at the skeletal level and if you get fat in your 30's that won't make your bones magically grow more...but it will make them adapt and be stronger...0 -
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
Isn't there a flaw here, though? (Unless this was addressed later on - I was having a little trouble following the maths...)
The difference between 15% of my highest weight and my current weight (40+ lbs lower) is about 8 1/2 lbs. If I had had say 100 lbs to lose the difference would have been even more significant. Wouldn't the flat 15% number (+/- x%) have to be adjusted as a person's weight went up and down? I agree that two people of the same height, weight, and gender wouldn't have a significant difference in bone weight, but I don't see how the same person at two significantly different weights would have drastically different weight in their bones?
okay so logic would say that a persons skeleton will weight 15% of their weight after they are done growing.
and in response to weight gain get more dense and stronger
Gina M. Agostini, Ann H. Ross. The Effect of Weight on the Femur: A Cross-Sectional Analysis*. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2011; 56 (2): 339 DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01648.x
The person who is obese while growing has adaptations happening to accomodate their size...but their bones aren't making them fat their fat is making their bones adapt.
I mean lets be logical here...once you are done growing you are done....you are not going to get taller or wider etc at the skeletal level and if you get fat in your 30's that won't make your bones magically grow more...but it will make them adapt and be stronger...[/quote]
Oh I completely agree with that. I guess what I was looking for was some qualification of the flat 15%. By saying 15% at the point where full growth is reached it makes more sense to me. I was having trouble wrapping my head around bones growing and shrinking with fat0 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
what about age?
and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.
that's significant....
I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...
but wouldn't account for them being overweight.
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.
I think you have misunderstood what i have said.
bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
But it's not just bone mass. If my bones are wider and hips are more broadly splayed, then I also have more of everything between and around those bones. In our cases, as well, I have very large muscles that are evident in my calves and arms while hers are slender and tiny. Our bodies have always differed like that.
Anaomists can tell you that most classroom skeletons are very small because they almost all come from Asia. This is a genetic difference between populations that is observable. There is also considerable diversity within populations. Those differences are also observable.4 -
Ruff, C. Variation in Human Body Size and Shape. Annual Review of Anthropology 2002 31:1, 211-232
P Deurenberg, M Deurenberg‐Yap, S Guricci. "
Asians are different from Caucasians and from each other in their body mass index/body fat per cent relationship" Obesity reviews, 3 July 2002
Here's a couple interesting articles that talk about body frame differences and the difference in obesity.2 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
what about age?
and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.
that's significant....
I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...
but wouldn't account for them being overweight.
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.
I think you have misunderstood what i have said.
bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
But it's not just bone mass. If my bones are wider and hips are more broadly splayed, then I also have more of everything between and around those bones. In our cases, as well, I have very large muscles that are evident in my calves and arms while hers are slender and tiny. Our bodies have always differed like that.
Anaomists can tell you that most classroom skeletons are very small because they almost all come from Asia. This is a genetic difference between populations that is observable. There is also considerable diversity within populations. Those differences are also observable.
so what is your point...???? you started this particular part of hte thread because I said 8lbs in bone mass difference wasn't viable imo...you countered with your friend and you as an example...which has been shown to not prove anything other than 8lbs of bones difference in 2 people of the same height probably isn't valid.
you weight difference is due to some bone, some connective tissue some muscle and yes even some fat.
Your bones account for 12-15% of your total weight...so does hers...
bmi range for a woman who is 5 ft 9 is 125-155...you both fall into a normal bmi range.
Unless she is a different race not sure where you are going now???? and if she is a different race your argument is moot still.
4 -
Ruff, C. Variation in Human Body Size and Shape. Annual Review of Anthropology 2002 31:1, 211-232
P Deurenberg, M Deurenberg‐Yap, S Guricci. "
Asians are different from Caucasians and from each other in their body mass index/body fat per cent relationship" Obesity reviews, 3 July 2002
Here's a couple interesting articles that talk about body frame differences and the difference in obesity.
1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old???? and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
It addresses that we have evolved based on climate and that we as a population aren't as big as we once were.
"Geographic variation in both body size and shape in earlier humans paralleled latitudinal clines observed today. Climatic adaptation is the most likely primary cause for these gradients, overlain in more recent populations by nutritional effects on growth."
and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
so perhaps it should just end here.
My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
1 -
brendanwhite84 wrote: »I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.
Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done.
what about age?
and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.
that's significant....
I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...
but wouldn't account for them being overweight.
I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.
I think you have misunderstood what i have said.
bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.
based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
But it's not just bone mass. If my bones are wider and hips are more broadly splayed, then I also have more of everything between and around those bones. In our cases, as well, I have very large muscles that are evident in my calves and arms while hers are slender and tiny. Our bodies have always differed like that.
Anaomists can tell you that most classroom skeletons are very small because they almost all come from Asia. This is a genetic difference between populations that is observable. There is also considerable diversity within populations. Those differences are also observable.
so what is your point...???? you started this particular part of hte thread because I said 8lbs in bone mass difference wasn't viable imo...you countered with your friend and you as an example...which has been shown to not prove anything other than 8lbs of bones difference in 2 people of the same height probably isn't valid.
you weight difference is due to some bone, some connective tissue some muscle and yes even some fat.
Your bones account for 12-15% of your total weight...so does hers...
bmi range for a woman who is 5 ft 9 is 125-155...you both fall into a normal bmi range.
Unless she is a different race not sure where you are going now???? and if she is a different race your argument is moot still.
this. this "healthy weight" BMI range is a full 25% difference from largest to smallest. That's huge.
in this debate we also seem to ignore the fact, that if you grow up obese from childhood, you're going to develop thicker bones and more muscle, as a direct RESULT of your obesity. Not because of any genetic predisposition. If you don't get obese as a child, you won't' grow up to be "big boned" in the first place. I have never once, in my entire life, seen a "big boned" child that had low BF. But somehow, because parents want to feel like they're not *kitten* parents and it was out of their control, they reverse the causality. Fat causes 'big bones', 'big bones' do not cause fat.8 -
Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but 25 is the cutoff for people of European descent; for East Asians (Chinese etc) it's 24, for Southern Asians (Indians etc) it's 23.2
-
People don't get ripped by accident the way they get fat without trying to. If BMI doesn't apply to a person because they have do much muscle, they know it. And those are outnumbered by couch potatoes who never exercise.16
-
1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old????
I'm sure you are capable of finding the full article and reading it. I know I managed to do it. And I'm not sure why you have an issue with an article published 15 years ago. Unless time itself invalidates science.
Except the first study does. And I didn't make any assertion in particular giving a number, you must be confusing me with another poster. HOWEVER...and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
How is it that you can recognize interracial genetic frame differences that result in real health outcome differences related to BMI, but cannot accept that individual variation within populations is also real and significant?and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
I don't argue that for an "average human being", whatever that is, BMI is a rough indicator of body fat. I do argue:My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
1. that the cutoff of 25 is arbitrary and not supported by morbidity and morality data for all populations. The existence of separate recommendations for Asians is evidence.
2. The BMI scale itself is flawed because it assumes a relationship of height to volume (mass) of h*h while volume is a cubic relationship. Being stochastically fitted for a height of 5' even, the error is linearly increasing with deviation from that height. This is not particularly controversial from a mathematics standing.
3. As a matter of mathematical interest, if my bones alone, never mind the volume of everything else in me, account for 15% of my mass, and my friend's bones are 12% of hers, then exactly 7.6 lbs of our weight difference is just bones. Now, personally, I find it really stupid that if I gain 10 lbs I'm classified as "overweight" but she has to gain 35 lbs to be "overweight". Because my body is clearly larger in frame and muscle. That is a pretty good illustration of the arbitrary nature of BMI when applied to individuals not populations.
4. Also on that matter, the fit of BMI to body fat is considered generally good... To one standard deviation. That's 68%. OK, great. That means if the population is normally distributed 32% are outliers.
7 -
1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old????
I'm sure you are capable of finding the full article and reading it. I know I managed to do it. And I'm not sure why you have an issue with an article published 15 years ago. Unless time itself invalidates science.
Except the first study does. And I didn't make any assertion in particular giving a number, you must be confusing me with another poster. HOWEVER...and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
How is it that you can recognize interracial genetic frame differences that result in real health outcome differences related to BMI, but cannot accept that individual variation within populations is also real and significant?and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
I don't argue that for an "average human being", whatever that is, BMI is a rough indicator of body fat. I do argue:My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
1. that the cutoff of 25 is arbitrary and not supported by morbidity and morality data for all populations. The existence of separate recommendations for Asians is evidence.
2. The BMI scale itself is flawed because it assumes a relationship of height to volume (mass) of h*h while volume is a cubic relationship. Being stochastically fitted for a height of 5' even, the error is linearly increasing with deviation from that height. This is not particularly controversial from a mathematics standing.
3. As a matter of mathematical interest, if my bones alone, never mind the volume of everything else in me, account for 15% of my mass, and my friend's bones are 12% of hers, then exactly 7.6 lbs of our weight difference is just bones. Now, personally, I find it really stupid that if I gain 10 lbs I'm classified as "overweight" but she has to gain 35 lbs to be "overweight". Because my body is clearly larger in frame and muscle. That is a pretty good illustration of the arbitrary nature of BMI when applied to individuals not populations.
4. Also on that matter, the fit of BMI to body fat is considered generally good... To one standard deviation. That's 68%. OK, great. That means if the population is normally distributed 32% are outliers.
If you found the article why link in the abstract????
2nd point you responded to me saying 8lbs of bone was a bit much imo with a negative assertion that it was possible based on you and your friend and there are 2 links...1 is an abstract that doesn't prove it and neither does the 2nd.
No where did I say frame size of people was all the same...I said 8lbs of it was a bit much imo and that for those people claiming frame size keeps them in the overweight of bmi they were in denial...perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Now onto the meat of it.
comparing 12% for your friend and 15% is flawed...apples to apples.
and perhaps you are one of those individuals who is in denial because you are almost in the overweight category????and that is causing a bias in your argument...been there done that until I wasn't in the overweight category and still wearing a size 8 shoe...and still "big boned" but a hella lot less fat.11 -
1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old????
I'm sure you are capable of finding the full article and reading it. I know I managed to do it. And I'm not sure why you have an issue with an article published 15 years ago. Unless time itself invalidates science.
Except the first study does. And I didn't make any assertion in particular giving a number, you must be confusing me with another poster. HOWEVER...and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
How is it that you can recognize interracial genetic frame differences that result in real health outcome differences related to BMI, but cannot accept that individual variation within populations is also real and significant?and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
I don't argue that for an "average human being", whatever that is, BMI is a rough indicator of body fat. I do argue:My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
1. that the cutoff of 25 is arbitrary and not supported by morbidity and morality data for all populations. The existence of separate recommendations for Asians is evidence.
2. The BMI scale itself is flawed because it assumes a relationship of height to volume (mass) of h*h while volume is a cubic relationship. Being stochastically fitted for a height of 5' even, the error is linearly increasing with deviation from that height. This is not particularly controversial from a mathematics standing.
3. As a matter of mathematical interest, if my bones alone, never mind the volume of everything else in me, account for 15% of my mass, and my friend's bones are 12% of hers, then exactly 7.6 lbs of our weight difference is just bones. Now, personally, I find it really stupid that if I gain 10 lbs I'm classified as "overweight" but she has to gain 35 lbs to be "overweight". Because my body is clearly larger in frame and muscle. That is a pretty good illustration of the arbitrary nature of BMI when applied to individuals not populations.
4. Also on that matter, the fit of BMI to body fat is considered generally good... To one standard deviation. That's 68%. OK, great. That means if the population is normally distributed 32% are outliers.
If you found the article why link in the abstract????
2nd point you responded to me saying 8lbs of bone was a bit much imo with a negative assertion that it was possible based on you and your friend and there are 2 links...1 is an abstract that doesn't prove it and neither does the 2nd.
No where did I say frame size of people was all the same...I said 8lbs of it was a bit much imo and that for those people claiming frame size keeps them in the overweight of bmi they were in denial...perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Now onto the meat of it.
comparing 12% for your friend and 15% is flawed...apples to apples.
and perhaps you are one of those individuals who is in denial because you are almost in the overweight category????and that is causing a bias in your argument...been there done that until I wasn't in the overweight category and still wearing a size 8 shoe...and still "big boned" but a hella lot less fat.
I think accusing someone of being “in denial” about their body because you disagree with them on a point of them on a point of science is out of line and deserves an apology.
11 -
1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old????
I'm sure you are capable of finding the full article and reading it. I know I managed to do it. And I'm not sure why you have an issue with an article published 15 years ago. Unless time itself invalidates science.
Except the first study does. And I didn't make any assertion in particular giving a number, you must be confusing me with another poster. HOWEVER...and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
How is it that you can recognize interracial genetic frame differences that result in real health outcome differences related to BMI, but cannot accept that individual variation within populations is also real and significant?and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
I don't argue that for an "average human being", whatever that is, BMI is a rough indicator of body fat. I do argue:My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
1. that the cutoff of 25 is arbitrary and not supported by morbidity and morality data for all populations. The existence of separate recommendations for Asians is evidence.
2. The BMI scale itself is flawed because it assumes a relationship of height to volume (mass) of h*h while volume is a cubic relationship. Being stochastically fitted for a height of 5' even, the error is linearly increasing with deviation from that height. This is not particularly controversial from a mathematics standing.
3. As a matter of mathematical interest, if my bones alone, never mind the volume of everything else in me, account for 15% of my mass, and my friend's bones are 12% of hers, then exactly 7.6 lbs of our weight difference is just bones. Now, personally, I find it really stupid that if I gain 10 lbs I'm classified as "overweight" but she has to gain 35 lbs to be "overweight". Because my body is clearly larger in frame and muscle. That is a pretty good illustration of the arbitrary nature of BMI when applied to individuals not populations.
4. Also on that matter, the fit of BMI to body fat is considered generally good... To one standard deviation. That's 68%. OK, great. That means if the population is normally distributed 32% are outliers.
If you found the article why link in the abstract????
2nd point you responded to me saying 8lbs of bone was a bit much imo with a negative assertion that it was possible based on you and your friend and there are 2 links...1 is an abstract that doesn't prove it and neither does the 2nd.
No where did I say frame size of people was all the same...I said 8lbs of it was a bit much imo and that for those people claiming frame size keeps them in the overweight of bmi they were in denial...perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Now onto the meat of it.
comparing 12% for your friend and 15% is flawed...apples to apples.
and perhaps you are one of those individuals who is in denial because you are almost in the overweight category????and that is causing a bias in your argument...been there done that until I wasn't in the overweight category and still wearing a size 8 shoe...and still "big boned" but a hella lot less fat.
I think accusing someone of being “in denial” about their body because you disagree with them on a point of them on a point of science is out of line and deserves an apology.
Yes, pander to delusion. That’s helpful.10 -
1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old????
I'm sure you are capable of finding the full article and reading it. I know I managed to do it. And I'm not sure why you have an issue with an article published 15 years ago. Unless time itself invalidates science.
Except the first study does. And I didn't make any assertion in particular giving a number, you must be confusing me with another poster. HOWEVER...and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
How is it that you can recognize interracial genetic frame differences that result in real health outcome differences related to BMI, but cannot accept that individual variation within populations is also real and significant?and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
I don't argue that for an "average human being", whatever that is, BMI is a rough indicator of body fat. I do argue:My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
1. that the cutoff of 25 is arbitrary and not supported by morbidity and morality data for all populations. The existence of separate recommendations for Asians is evidence.
2. The BMI scale itself is flawed because it assumes a relationship of height to volume (mass) of h*h while volume is a cubic relationship. Being stochastically fitted for a height of 5' even, the error is linearly increasing with deviation from that height. This is not particularly controversial from a mathematics standing.
3. As a matter of mathematical interest, if my bones alone, never mind the volume of everything else in me, account for 15% of my mass, and my friend's bones are 12% of hers, then exactly 7.6 lbs of our weight difference is just bones. Now, personally, I find it really stupid that if I gain 10 lbs I'm classified as "overweight" but she has to gain 35 lbs to be "overweight". Because my body is clearly larger in frame and muscle. That is a pretty good illustration of the arbitrary nature of BMI when applied to individuals not populations.
4. Also on that matter, the fit of BMI to body fat is considered generally good... To one standard deviation. That's 68%. OK, great. That means if the population is normally distributed 32% are outliers.
If you found the article why link in the abstract????
2nd point you responded to me saying 8lbs of bone was a bit much imo with a negative assertion that it was possible based on you and your friend and there are 2 links...1 is an abstract that doesn't prove it and neither does the 2nd.
No where did I say frame size of people was all the same...I said 8lbs of it was a bit much imo and that for those people claiming frame size keeps them in the overweight of bmi they were in denial...perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Now onto the meat of it.
comparing 12% for your friend and 15% is flawed...apples to apples.
and perhaps you are one of those individuals who is in denial because you are almost in the overweight category????and that is causing a bias in your argument...been there done that until I wasn't in the overweight category and still wearing a size 8 shoe...and still "big boned" but a hella lot less fat.
I think accusing someone of being “in denial” about their body because you disagree with them on a point of them on a point of science is out of line and deserves an apology.
I am not disagreeing on a point of science. She disagreed and argued that she is "bigger" because of bone size...I say no way...people who think that are in denial and are more fat than they want to admit.
Point of science is this.
BMI is a good measure for the average person (at least it is currently)
12-15% of the body weight of a person is from bone no more no less.
if you are in the overweight category for BMI it's not from bones...chances are you are overfat (unless an outlier who has exceptional muscle mass) and yes I will say that there are those who are outlier.
This poster is not.
ETA: so no apology will be forthcoming from me.11 -
1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old????
I'm sure you are capable of finding the full article and reading it. I know I managed to do it. And I'm not sure why you have an issue with an article published 15 years ago. Unless time itself invalidates science.
Except the first study does. And I didn't make any assertion in particular giving a number, you must be confusing me with another poster. HOWEVER...and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
How is it that you can recognize interracial genetic frame differences that result in real health outcome differences related to BMI, but cannot accept that individual variation within populations is also real and significant?and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
I don't argue that for an "average human being", whatever that is, BMI is a rough indicator of body fat. I do argue:My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
1. that the cutoff of 25 is arbitrary and not supported by morbidity and morality data for all populations. The existence of separate recommendations for Asians is evidence.
2. The BMI scale itself is flawed because it assumes a relationship of height to volume (mass) of h*h while volume is a cubic relationship. Being stochastically fitted for a height of 5' even, the error is linearly increasing with deviation from that height. This is not particularly controversial from a mathematics standing.
3. As a matter of mathematical interest, if my bones alone, never mind the volume of everything else in me, account for 15% of my mass, and my friend's bones are 12% of hers, then exactly 7.6 lbs of our weight difference is just bones. Now, personally, I find it really stupid that if I gain 10 lbs I'm classified as "overweight" but she has to gain 35 lbs to be "overweight". Because my body is clearly larger in frame and muscle. That is a pretty good illustration of the arbitrary nature of BMI when applied to individuals not populations.
4. Also on that matter, the fit of BMI to body fat is considered generally good... To one standard deviation. That's 68%. OK, great. That means if the population is normally distributed 32% are outliers.
If you found the article why link in the abstract????
2nd point you responded to me saying 8lbs of bone was a bit much imo with a negative assertion that it was possible based on you and your friend and there are 2 links...1 is an abstract that doesn't prove it and neither does the 2nd.
No where did I say frame size of people was all the same...I said 8lbs of it was a bit much imo and that for those people claiming frame size keeps them in the overweight of bmi they were in denial...perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Now onto the meat of it.
comparing 12% for your friend and 15% is flawed...apples to apples.
and perhaps you are one of those individuals who is in denial because you are almost in the overweight category????and that is causing a bias in your argument...been there done that until I wasn't in the overweight category and still wearing a size 8 shoe...and still "big boned" but a hella lot less fat.
I think accusing someone of being “in denial” about their body because you disagree with them on a point of them on a point of science is out of line and deserves an apology.
Cosigned.
And also? She's posted pictures. She's not in denial.9
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