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
-
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.
Have you ever seen her progress pictures? There's no delusion going on.6 -
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.
That poster isn't overweight. She's within healthy range for BMI. You just moved the goalposts. She's near the top range for her BMI because she has a large frame.
She's not in denial and yes, you do owe her an apology.13 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »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.
Shoe sizes are 2-2.5 sizes down in the UK. I know because I'm a UK 5/5.5 and buy US 7/7.5.0 -
Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).
Yours,
Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Yes, this.
People have different builds. I look kind of fat still at 25 BMI, since I have a more delicate build. I don't think it's because my bones weigh whatever, but it is a genuine difference. Other people my height look thinner than me at higher weights. And there are many things that go along with a bigger overall frame than bone weight -- different structure means fat is spread differently, perhaps, muscle may be naturally a bit higher. I don't know exactly why, but it's true.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
That poster isn't overweight. She's within healthy range for BMI. You just moved the goalposts. She's near the top range for her BMI because she has a large frame.
She's not in denial and yes, you do owe her an apology.
1. I never said she didn't have a large frame.
2. She contended bmi is not valid due to bone size which is invalid.
3. I never said she was over weight I said she might be on the top end because she had more weight than she wants to admit aka denial.
And I will not apologize for that.
I will stand by my original statement that those who say bmi doesn't apply to them are most likely in denial as the outliers are not that common.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).
Yours,
Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.
yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
That poster isn't overweight. She's within healthy range for BMI. You just moved the goalposts. She's near the top range for her BMI because she has a large frame.
She's not in denial and yes, you do owe her an apology.
And how did I move the goal posts?
5 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).
Yours,
Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.
yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female
That response wasn't aimed at you but at Stef who said she had big feet.3 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).
Yours,
Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.
yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female
Size 8 shoe is not average for women 7 is or 7.5. That might not seem like much bit it is enough that a 7 I can't even fit my foot in it.
I used to wear a 9 but with weight loss I'm in an 8.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).
Yours,
Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.
yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female
That response wasn't aimed at you but at Stef who said she had big feet.
Yes I umderstood. Surprised me tho that size 8 is considered average...none of my friend wear anything bigger than a 7.5 except me and 1 other..5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).
Yours,
Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.
yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female
That response wasn't aimed at you but at Stef who said she had big feet.
Yes I umderstood. Surprised me tho that size 8 is considered average...none of my friend wear anything bigger than a 7.5 except me and 1 other..
Yeah, back when I had my first weekend job it was in a shoe shop. Average then was a 5/38/7 depending where in the world you are. Now it's gone up one. My feet have shrunk too, usually more of a 5/7 than a 6/8 now!4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
That poster isn't overweight. She's within healthy range for BMI. You just moved the goalposts. She's near the top range for her BMI because she has a large frame.
She's not in denial and yes, you do owe her an apology.
And how did I move the goal posts?
Your wording was ambiguous.
And you are missing the poster's point.
Her point isn't that BMI is worthless. Her point is that it's only useful to a point. Her point is that there are outliers beyond the muscle bound because statistics say so, and she made the point mathematically and no one seemed to follow it.
Everyone seems to think that someone at the top end of BMI range can't possibly be lean, and I can guarantee you that the poster in question is indeed rather slim. If she'd know that I'd meant it as a compliment, I'd even call her skinny. It's ridiculous that she's only 10 pounds from overweight from BMI standards, because you'd NEVER know it from looking at her.
She is indeed an outlier, for whatever reason. Different people have different builds. One of her issues is that she has scoliosis and should be taller than she is by, IIRC, about 5 inches. She has the bones and musculature of a taller person, but her BMI is calculated based on her measured height.13 -
To add. She currently weighs five pounds less than this. No denial going on.
@tomteboda, I apologize. I know you are perfectly capable of handling this yourself, but I thought what was going on in here was particularly ugly and I know you faced obstacles in losing weight due to health issues and admired your approach so much.
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/38816351/#Comment_388163518 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »To add. She currently weighs five pounds less than this. No denial going on.
@tomteboda, I apologize. I know you are perfectly capable of handling this yourself, but I thought what was going on in here was particularly ugly and I know you faced obstacles in losing weight due to health issues and admired your approach so much.
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/38816351/#Comment_38816351
No where in any post of mine did I say she was overfat
Nor overweight or any of the sort.
Nor outside of a healthy BMI range
She compared herself to a friend who is same height and 130 lbs vs her at 155lbs...and said that is was frame size. I never said it wasn't...my contention is that those who are overweight and claim it's being big boned could probably lose some fat and that 8lbs of bone mass was probably a bit high considering that 12-15% of total weight is attributed to bone weight (based on bone size at the point where growth has stopped)
You took my question of "are you in denial?" and ran down a path that wasn't needed and called it "an ugly path".
Those who are insisting that I "called" her anything are the ones who made it ugly....
I will continue to stand by my original statement.
BMI is a valid measurement for most (note most) where there are outliers...but most of those who claim to be outliers are typically in denial due to lack of knowledge or just denial as to what is really going on.
And your assertion that she is 10lbs from a BMI standard of overweight means that she isn't an outlier...she is in a healthy weight category...so not sure how she is an outlier....
and what wording was ambigous please...there were more than 1 or 2 posts where we were debating.
As for the math..how did people not follow it?
ETA: and no where in any of my posts have I asserted that people on the high end of BMi can't be lean...
and if my post was so mean and awful then please report it and have MFP staff moderate it as I feel that they would have a better handle on a objective judgement.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.
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.
Is she more fat than she wants to admit?
6 -
time for drinks4
-
This content has been removed.
-
Here's a confounding factor.
I mentioned that the poster being discussed has scoliosis. So do I. That's a confounding factor for BMI. I used to be 2 inches taller. I have the bones and musculature of a 2 inches taller person.
For every person who has scoliosis, which is a more accurate BMI... their height before with or without curvature?
Edit: I feel the need to mention that I am within normal BMI parameters either way. It's just a matter of number juggling.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »To add. She currently weighs five pounds less than this. No denial going on.
@tomteboda, I apologize. I know you are perfectly capable of handling this yourself, but I thought what was going on in here was particularly ugly and I know you faced obstacles in losing weight due to health issues and admired your approach so much.
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/38816351/#Comment_38816351
Thank you. No need to apologize, your stepping up is appreciated. I was pondering how to reply and get the discussion back on track after derailing it by using myself as an example to illustrate how the weight range hypothetical can be quite real.
You have summarized my position quite well, and I thank you!5 -
3 -
9 -
I actually think that BMI is more often a poor indicator in the opposite direction than people think. I carry all my weight around my middle so even once I got to a healthy weight by BMI standards, I still had a 33.5 inch waist (at 5 ft 3) and would not say that I was healthy. I am now 10lbs below the top end of BMI and have finally got my waist below 30 inches. If I had stopped losing weight at a healthy BMI I would still be at risk of all the health problems associated with visceral fat.3
-
Yes I could have found that myself but you at first chose to link in an abstract, that did not support your point so ergo the full blown article isn't looking that promising either.
I never once contended that there isn't a difference based on skeletal shape and size...I said I felt 8lbs was probably a bit of an overshoot on the variance and that those in the overweight category who blamed "big bones" were probably in denial...not all but most. Even if you take a low % such as 12% and compare against 15% for you and your friend it's not 8lbs...not saying 8lbs isn't a viable variance but not for the norm when comparing apples to apples. aka 5 ft 6 woman of 42 to 5 ft 6 woman of 42 both of same race and with no other conditions that causes them to be outliers.
again the abstract nor the study confirm I am wrong.
You then used yourself and a friend when in fact you knew you are one of the few who falls outside the norm...muddying the debate totally with an apples to oranges comparison that would fall in your favour.
and if that is how you want to prove your point...have at.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Is she more fat than she wants to admit?
is she in the overweight range?1 -
Yes I could have found that myself but you at first chose to link in an abstract, that did not support your point so ergo the full blown article isn't looking that promising either.
I never once contended that there isn't a difference based on skeletal shape and size...I said I felt 8lbs was probably a bit of an overshoot on the variance and that those in the overweight category who blamed "big bones" were probably in denial...not all but most. Even if you take a low % such as 12% and compare against 15% for you and your friend it's not 8lbs...not saying 8lbs isn't a viable variance but not for the norm when comparing apples to apples. aka 5 ft 6 woman of 42 to 5 ft 6 woman of 42 both of same race and with no other conditions that causes them to be outliers.
again the abstract nor the study confirm I am wrong.
You then used yourself and a friend when in fact you knew you are one of the few who falls outside the norm...muddying the debate totally with an apples to oranges comparison that would fall in your favour.
and if that is how you want to prove your point...have at.
Hilarious. You totally ignore the post where I point out the link to the full document on the initial referenced page, which was the official publication. I referenced correctly, your inability to use a hypertext link on the official journal article page is really astounding.11 -
Yes I could have found that myself but you at first chose to link in an abstract, that did not support your point so ergo the full blown article isn't looking that promising either.
I never once contended that there isn't a difference based on skeletal shape and size...I said I felt 8lbs was probably a bit of an overshoot on the variance and that those in the overweight category who blamed "big bones" were probably in denial...not all but most. Even if you take a low % such as 12% and compare against 15% for you and your friend it's not 8lbs...not saying 8lbs isn't a viable variance but not for the norm when comparing apples to apples. aka 5 ft 6 woman of 42 to 5 ft 6 woman of 42 both of same race and with no other conditions that causes them to be outliers.
again the abstract nor the study confirm I am wrong.
You then used yourself and a friend when in fact you knew you are one of the few who falls outside the norm...muddying the debate totally with an apples to oranges comparison that would fall in your favour.
and if that is how you want to prove your point...have at.
Hilarious. You totally ignore the post where I point out the link to the full document on the initial referenced page, which was the official publication. I referenced correctly, your inability to use a hypertext link on the official journal article page is really astounding.
come now this isn't about the link...you could have linked in the full article in the first place but you didn't...and neither the full article or the abstract even talk about BMI...which is exactly what this discussion is about? why derail?
But that is not part of the issue..the issue is this
you haven't proven anything. Yes there are variations in the human body based on skeletal size and race and gender.
No one ever said that didn't exist.
my original contention is that if you are in the overweight category for BMI you are probably overweight and if you choose to say it's bone size you are probably in denial...but all the while acknowledging that there are outliers.
But what you fail to address is that you muddied the debate by using yourself, fully aware of the fact that you are in fact probably an outlier to compare yourself to a person who is not.
anyway...I am enjoying my sunday morning coffee and feel that this is only going to go down another obvious rabbit hole that isn't going to prove anything other than BMI is a valid measure for most people when it comes to defining if they are at a healthy weight.13 -
If it wasn't the point, why did you dismiss my argument basd upon my failure to directly facilitate piracy of the article? Even providing you with the hypertext link to the article was a kindness, and in return you insulted me and metaphorically spit upon me.
And don't even get me started about the dismissal of a source which was 15 years old. I can't wait to bring that up the next time I introduce newtonian physics.
You are welcome to your blind adherence to a government standard because it's a government standard.11 -
If it wasn't the point, why did you dismiss my argument basd upon my failure to directly facilitate piracy of the article? Even providing you with the hypertext link to the article was a kindness, and in return you insulted me and metaphorically spit upon me.
And don't even get me started about the dismissal of a source which was 15 years old. I can't wait to bring that up the next time I introduce newtonian physics.
You are welcome to your blind adherence to a government standard because it's a government standard.
I pointed out it was an older article and only the abstract. I didn't dismiss based on those facts.
I read the abstract and noted it wasn't on point and that it was an older study...so what? it wasn't on point. It never once mentioned BMI and how it wasn't valid...I have yet to see you address that? why not address that instead of addressing the fact I pointed out the age...address the fact it didn't prove your point.
Providing me with the actual article could have been done from the start but you chose not to and I pointed that out.
and metaphorically spitting on you is a reach...a big one.
and if you want to continue that sort of talk please again report my post to MFP and let them moderate as they see fit.
and again you are still arguing I said something I didn't. I don't blindly adhere to BMI because it's a government standard. I say it is a good measure for most....not all.
Will that change in time, probably...as we adapt and evolve but for now..it works for most.
It is not my fault you muddied the debate with a comparison that wasn't valid and failed to divulge information that was relevant....but again have at.
but enough with this bull back and forth. you did not prove BMI is not a valid measure for an average individual and you didn't prove that if you are in the overweight category it's because of bone weight....or that 8lbs of bone is a viable variance for most people.
So it's been a couple days and by this time it's not going to happen and since you don't want to admit that and instead are going down a different path and derailing I will just move along.10 -
VintageFeline wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).
Yours,
Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.
yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female
That response wasn't aimed at you but at Stef who said she had big feet.
ah! my apologies - the way the MFP groups together quotes had mine as the last quote showing. sorry!2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions