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 content has been removed.
-
Here's one good comparison of BF% and BMI (given that the purpose of BMI is to act as a proxy for BF%): https://bmcobes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2052-9538-1-9
Key findings (note, this is for white people in Australia, there are likely race-based differences):
*17.3% of women and 31.6% of men identified as obese according to BMI were not, based on BF%.
*19.9% of women and 46.1% of men who were NOT obese by BMI actually were by BF%
*BMI particularly underestimates adiposity in elderly men (aged 70 years and older), but also in young men (aged 20–29 years).
That's different from another such study I recall seeing in the past, where it was much more likely to mischaracterize women as not obese when they were than obese when they were not. There was more mischaracterization for the overweight category in that one (this one focused on obesity measures only).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.
Is she more fat than she wants to admit?
is she in the overweight range?
You weren't talking about people in the overweight range in the post I quoted. Merely people who suggest they are bigger due to bone size. Which the OP does. Stop moving the goalposts. You accused the OP of being in denial, which her progress picture clearly shows her not to be.10 -
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.
She used more than herself as an example.
She used statistics and math to show that there are more outliers than herself and that you think.
You keep missing that THAT is her point, not that BMI isn't a valid measure. It's just that it's valid for a smaller percentage as some people argue it to be.7 -
It is statistics. A 99% confidence interval. There is a 99% chance that an optimally healthy weight for you is within that range.2
-
It is statistics. A 99% confidence interval. There is a 99% chance that an optimally healthy weight for you is within that range.
Nope.lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's one good comparison of BF% and BMI (given that the purpose of BMI is to act as a proxy for BF%): https://bmcobes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2052-9538-1-9
Key findings (note, this is for white people in Australia, there are likely race-based differences):
*17.3% of women and 31.6% of men identified as obese according to BMI were not, based on BF%.
*19.9% of women and 46.1% of men who were NOT obese by BMI actually were by BF%
*BMI particularly underestimates adiposity in elderly men (aged 70 years and older), but also in young men (aged 20–29 years).
That's different from another such study I recall seeing in the past, where it was much more likely to mischaracterize women as not obese when they were than obese when they were not. There was more mischaracterization for the overweight category in that one (this one focused on obesity measures only).
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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?
You weren't talking about people in the overweight range in the post I quoted. Merely people who suggest they are bigger due to bone size. Which the OP does. Stop moving the goalposts. You accused the OP of being in denial, which her progress picture clearly shows her not to be.
I from the start of my posting on this thread contended it was the folks in the overweight category who claimed that bmi didn't apply to them due to bone size were possibly in denial. No goal posts moved.
I did not accuse her of any such thing I asked if is was possible she was in denial about potentially being bigger than she realized vs her friend only to find out she is an outlier which moors any argument she put forth using herself to disclaim bmi being valid for the average person.
Now for this particular conversation it has no bearing on the post at hand and I am done derailing a decent topic with this foolishness.10 -
I love how much time people on this website, which is ostensibly for people who think they're overweight and want to lose weight, spend trying to rationalize that they're not really fat, or that they don't really need to lose as much weight as they think they do. but...but..but...but
We're fat. Deal with it. Put down the doughnut, lose the gut, and quit trying to find a number that satisfies you on an emotional level.
Fat people KNOW they’re fat, some of them simply lie about it to themselves.11 -
Not everyone here is fat. Most of the people in this discussion about BMI are within the healthy range.3
-
Additionally, not everyone who wants to lose weight is overweight to begin with. I lost what made me overweight 2 years ago.
I'm playing with vanity weight, pure and simple.
I used to be all... oh yeah, fat people are in denial, BMI is totally on the mark ...
And then I really listened to people like tomteboda and what she was actually saying.
BMI is good for populations, but only middling for individuals and it's not just, as the statistics that lemurcat posted show, fat people in "denial" about being fat. It's sometimes people with normal BMI's who are still overfat.
Statistically, it's not, as is oft quoted, "accurate for 95%". That number is lower. That is all that anyone is arguing when it comes to saying that BMI is an accurate indicator for individual health.
I think a perfect example is @cwolfman13. He has a normal build for a fit individual who keeps in shape. 15% bodyfat, and he is overweight by BMI standards. He's not jacked. He's not in denial. He's an outlier.
Everyone on these boards seems to think that the only outliers are people who are jacked. There are other exceptions.
The variances in frame size mean that someone with a large from could conceivably be just over 25 on the BMI scale without being overfat. And the statistics that lemurcat posted prove that.
But no, keep clinging to your ideas that fat people are in denial about a metric that was never meant to be about individuals with individual variances in the first place.
9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Additionally, not everyone who wants to lose weight is overweight to begin with. I lost what made me overweight 2 years ago.
I'm playing with vanity weight, pure and simple.
This is true. As I said above, I look better toward the lower end of the BMI scale. I'd also agree that people who are overweight know it if they are honest with themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that not everyone is built like me and I've known some who are same height/heavier weights who are leaner. My former trainer was my height and had about 10 lbs on me, and she was not remotely fat.2 -
It seems to me that BMI is useful as one of several indicators used in tandem to determine health and fitness. Looking at your BMI, BF%, waist circumference, waist to hip ratio, and perhaps a couple other indicators I'm forgetting, you can determine whether your weight should change or not. None of these measurements tell the whole story for every person. But several together can be enlightening.
I'm honestly confused by the passionate arguments about BMI, but to each their own
I think for most people it's a good place to start, and then if real world results cause you to question whether it's a good indicator for you, look to the other tests to see if they agree. <shrug> 5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Something that would have been useful to know 4 pages ago, not after 3 pages of arguments about normal bone differences supposedly affecting BMI.6 -
There is much math. I don't wish to bore you with it, but the relationship works for random individuals with similar body fat percentages at the top and bottom of the healthy range. Moreover, the approximation that height directly correlates to volume and therefore mass is destroyed by variable skeletal width, skeletal structure, and length of various body parts. Someone who has a wide biiliac crest distance has considerably more volume, and therefore unavoidable lean mass, than someone who has a narrow biiliac crest distance. Simliarly, torso length and limb length affect BMI considerably, and these things are widely variant in human populations, both now and into paleohistory.
Thus while I used myself as a convenient example, it is an example born by millions upon millions of individuals.5 -
There is much math. I don't wish to bore you with it, but the relationship works for random individuals with similar body fat percentages at the top and bottom of the healthy range. Moreover, the approximation that height directly correlates to volume and therefore mass is destroyed by variable skeletal width, skeletal structure, and length of various body parts. Someone who has a wide biiliac crest distance has considerably more volume, and therefore unavoidable lean mass, than someone who has a narrow biiliac crest distance. Simliarly, torso length and limb length affect BMI considerably, and these things are widely variant in human populations, both now and into paleohistory.
Thus while I used myself as a convenient example, it is an example born by millions upon millions of individuals.
Surely the height metric in BMI takes most of that into account. Your situation notwithstanding.
Do you actually have a BMI formula for people with scoliosis? Or is the maths creative like a forum post?2 -
It seems to me that BMI is useful as one of several indicators used in tandem to determine health and fitness. Looking at your BMI, BF%, waist circumference, waist to hip ratio, and perhaps a couple other indicators I'm forgetting, you can determine whether your weight should change or not. None of these measurements tell the whole story for every person. But several together can be enlightening.
I'm honestly confused by the passionate arguments about BMI, but to each their own I think for most people it's a good place to start, and then if real world results cause you to question whether it's a good indicator for you, look to the other tests to see if they agree. <shrug>
This.0 -
There is much math. I don't wish to bore you with it, but the relationship works for random individuals with similar body fat percentages at the top and bottom of the healthy range. Moreover, the approximation that height directly correlates to volume and therefore mass is destroyed by variable skeletal width, skeletal structure, and length of various body parts. Someone who has a wide biiliac crest distance has considerably more volume, and therefore unavoidable lean mass, than someone who has a narrow biiliac crest distance. Simliarly, torso length and limb length affect BMI considerably, and these things are widely variant in human populations, both now and into paleohistory.
Thus while I used myself as a convenient example, it is an example born by millions upon millions of individuals.
Surely the height metric in BMI takes most of that into account. Your situation notwithstanding.
Do you actually have a BMI formula for people with scoliosis? Or is the maths creative like a forum post?
What's your point, Orphia?
I think all Tomteboda is arguing is that BMI isn't useful as a stand in for how lean someone is on an individual level given variances in human structural differences. Given that the person who invented the BMI scale said that it was useful for populations and not individuals, I don't see what the problem is.
I know that the common person who thinks BMI is trash is usually some beer-bellied ex-footballer who's sure he's still got tons of muscle from his glory days out on the field, but that's no reason to discount the main point that the numbers don't work for quite as many people as some seem to think it does.
And note that this number skewing works both ways. People with normal BMIs are still overfat just as some people with BMI's running into the 26 range can be lean.9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It seems to me that BMI is useful as one of several indicators used in tandem to determine health and fitness. Looking at your BMI, BF%, waist circumference, waist to hip ratio, and perhaps a couple other indicators I'm forgetting, you can determine whether your weight should change or not. None of these measurements tell the whole story for every person. But several together can be enlightening.
I'm honestly confused by the passionate arguments about BMI, but to each their own I think for most people it's a good place to start, and then if real world results cause you to question whether it's a good indicator for you, look to the other tests to see if they agree. <shrug>
This.
Yep, I think kimny is right on.0 -
I like the way the military uses BMI. As a gross population study and a guideline.
At least once a year each candidate is checked for height/weight. If it falls within BMI - that's a PASS. If this first line fails, then the measuring tape comes out. If that fails, then calipers. If that fails the candidate has an option to defer to body fat analysis which is conducted through water displacement.
If you fail to pass this standard you are put into a weight management program. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a low calorie diet and a regimen of physical activity. There is no CICO element to this, although I have petitioned for this change.8 -
I like the way the military uses BMI. As a gross population study and a guideline.
At least once a year each candidate is checked for height/weight. If it falls within BMI - that's a PASS. If this first line fails, then the measuring tape comes out. If that fails, then calipers. If that fails the candidate has an option to defer to body fat analysis which is conducted through water displacement.
If you fail to pass this standard you are put into a weight management program. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a low calorie diet and a regimen of physical activity. There is no CICO element to this, although I have petitioned for this change.
The military does calipers? Hmmm never seen that in the navy - it's pass the taping (currently single waist and if you fail that then a neck/waist ratio) or you fail0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »I like the way the military uses BMI. As a gross population study and a guideline.
At least once a year each candidate is checked for height/weight. If it falls within BMI - that's a PASS. If this first line fails, then the measuring tape comes out. If that fails, then calipers. If that fails the candidate has an option to defer to body fat analysis which is conducted through water displacement.
If you fail to pass this standard you are put into a weight management program. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a low calorie diet and a regimen of physical activity. There is no CICO element to this, although I have petitioned for this change.
The military does calipers? Hmmm never seen that in the navy - it's pass the taping (currently single waist and if you fail that then a neck/waist ratio) or you fail
If you've got a caliper certified person available, it can be an option... It's fairly rare, but it is in the Regulation, at the very least as a CO option to determine COA0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »I like the way the military uses BMI. As a gross population study and a guideline.
At least once a year each candidate is checked for height/weight. If it falls within BMI - that's a PASS. If this first line fails, then the measuring tape comes out. If that fails, then calipers. If that fails the candidate has an option to defer to body fat analysis which is conducted through water displacement.
If you fail to pass this standard you are put into a weight management program. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a low calorie diet and a regimen of physical activity. There is no CICO element to this, although I have petitioned for this change.
The military does calipers? Hmmm never seen that in the navy - it's pass the taping (currently single waist and if you fail that then a neck/waist ratio) or you fail
If you've got a caliper certified person available, it can be an option... It's fairly rare, but it is in the Regulation, at the very least as a CO option to determine COA
we never did that sort of testing when I was in the Canadian military except to get in.
After you were in we did what was called a BFT (battle fitness test)...if you could walk 16km with rifle and webbing then the next day do a 10k with full ruck and webbing and rifle and carry a mate 100 meters you passed...regardless of weight.
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »I like the way the military uses BMI. As a gross population study and a guideline.
At least once a year each candidate is checked for height/weight. If it falls within BMI - that's a PASS. If this first line fails, then the measuring tape comes out. If that fails, then calipers. If that fails the candidate has an option to defer to body fat analysis which is conducted through water displacement.
If you fail to pass this standard you are put into a weight management program. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a low calorie diet and a regimen of physical activity. There is no CICO element to this, although I have petitioned for this change.
The military does calipers? Hmmm never seen that in the navy - it's pass the taping (currently single waist and if you fail that then a neck/waist ratio) or you fail
If you've got a caliper certified person available, it can be an option... It's fairly rare, but it is in the Regulation, at the very least as a CO option to determine COA
we never did that sort of testing when I was in the Canadian military except to get in.
After you were in we did what was called a BFT (battle fitness test)...if you could walk 16km with rifle and webbing then the next day do a 10k with full ruck and webbing and rifle and carry a mate 100 meters you passed...regardless of weight.
Clearly I picked the wrong countries service. At my worst level of conditioning I could do that.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »I like the way the military uses BMI. As a gross population study and a guideline.
At least once a year each candidate is checked for height/weight. If it falls within BMI - that's a PASS. If this first line fails, then the measuring tape comes out. If that fails, then calipers. If that fails the candidate has an option to defer to body fat analysis which is conducted through water displacement.
If you fail to pass this standard you are put into a weight management program. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a low calorie diet and a regimen of physical activity. There is no CICO element to this, although I have petitioned for this change.
The military does calipers? Hmmm never seen that in the navy - it's pass the taping (currently single waist and if you fail that then a neck/waist ratio) or you fail
If you've got a caliper certified person available, it can be an option... It's fairly rare, but it is in the Regulation, at the very least as a CO option to determine COA
we never did that sort of testing when I was in the Canadian military except to get in.
After you were in we did what was called a BFT (battle fitness test)...if you could walk 16km with rifle and webbing then the next day do a 10k with full ruck and webbing and rifle and carry a mate 100 meters you passed...regardless of weight.
Clearly I picked the wrong countries service. At my worst level of conditioning I could do that.
I never agreed with it...I always thought weight should be a factor too.
and that was for combat arms...aka infantry, artillery and engineers and anyone attached to the regiment. I was artillery.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »I like the way the military uses BMI. As a gross population study and a guideline.
At least once a year each candidate is checked for height/weight. If it falls within BMI - that's a PASS. If this first line fails, then the measuring tape comes out. If that fails, then calipers. If that fails the candidate has an option to defer to body fat analysis which is conducted through water displacement.
If you fail to pass this standard you are put into a weight management program. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a low calorie diet and a regimen of physical activity. There is no CICO element to this, although I have petitioned for this change.
The military does calipers? Hmmm never seen that in the navy - it's pass the taping (currently single waist and if you fail that then a neck/waist ratio) or you fail
If you've got a caliper certified person available, it can be an option... It's fairly rare, but it is in the Regulation, at the very least as a CO option to determine COA
we never did that sort of testing when I was in the Canadian military except to get in.
After you were in we did what was called a BFT (battle fitness test)...if you could walk 16km with rifle and webbing then the next day do a 10k with full ruck and webbing and rifle and carry a mate 100 meters you passed...regardless of weight.
Clearly I picked the wrong countries service. At my worst level of conditioning I could do that.
I never agreed with it...I always thought weight should be a factor too.
and that was for combat arms...aka infantry, artillery and engineers and anyone attached to the regiment. I was artillery.
Note that the weight test is also held in conjunction with the respective service's Physical Readiness Testing (PRT) - pushups, situps, run, swim results based on gender/age.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There is much math. I don't wish to bore you with it, but the relationship works for random individuals with similar body fat percentages at the top and bottom of the healthy range. Moreover, the approximation that height directly correlates to volume and therefore mass is destroyed by variable skeletal width, skeletal structure, and length of various body parts. Someone who has a wide biiliac crest distance has considerably more volume, and therefore unavoidable lean mass, than someone who has a narrow biiliac crest distance. Simliarly, torso length and limb length affect BMI considerably, and these things are widely variant in human populations, both now and into paleohistory.
Thus while I used myself as a convenient example, it is an example born by millions upon millions of individuals.
Surely the height metric in BMI takes most of that into account. Your situation notwithstanding.
Do you actually have a BMI formula for people with scoliosis? Or is the maths creative like a forum post?
What's your point, Orphia?
I think all Tomteboda is arguing is that BMI isn't useful as a stand in for how lean someone is on an individual level given variances in human structural differences. Given that the person who invented the BMI scale said that it was useful for populations and not individuals, I don't see what the problem is.
I know that the common person who thinks BMI is trash is usually some beer-bellied ex-footballer who's sure he's still got tons of muscle from his glory days out on the field, but that's no reason to discount the main point that the numbers don't work for quite as many people as some seem to think it does.
And note that this number skewing works both ways. People with normal BMIs are still overfat just as some people with BMI's running into the 26 range can be lean.
@GottaBurnEmAll I was just hoping there was a handy formula.
As kimny said, and what I meant by "creative" maths, is that you need to look at various metrics, and there is no Grand Unified Theory.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There is much math. I don't wish to bore you with it, but the relationship works for random individuals with similar body fat percentages at the top and bottom of the healthy range. Moreover, the approximation that height directly correlates to volume and therefore mass is destroyed by variable skeletal width, skeletal structure, and length of various body parts. Someone who has a wide biiliac crest distance has considerably more volume, and therefore unavoidable lean mass, than someone who has a narrow biiliac crest distance. Simliarly, torso length and limb length affect BMI considerably, and these things are widely variant in human populations, both now and into paleohistory.
Thus while I used myself as a convenient example, it is an example born by millions upon millions of individuals.
Surely the height metric in BMI takes most of that into account. Your situation notwithstanding.
Do you actually have a BMI formula for people with scoliosis? Or is the maths creative like a forum post?
What's your point, Orphia?
I think all Tomteboda is arguing is that BMI isn't useful as a stand in for how lean someone is on an individual level given variances in human structural differences. Given that the person who invented the BMI scale said that it was useful for populations and not individuals, I don't see what the problem is.
I know that the common person who thinks BMI is trash is usually some beer-bellied ex-footballer who's sure he's still got tons of muscle from his glory days out on the field, but that's no reason to discount the main point that the numbers don't work for quite as many people as some seem to think it does.
And note that this number skewing works both ways. People with normal BMIs are still overfat just as some people with BMI's running into the 26 range can be lean.
@GottaBurnEmAll I was just hoping there was a handy formula.
As kimny said, and what I meant by "creative" maths, is that you need to look at various metrics, and there is no Grand Unified Theory.
Ah. For me? I know how tall I used to be and for fun I calculate my BMI both based on my height at 5'3" and at 5'1". They're both in normal range, but they are different. It is odd though that my weight could get to a point where I could be overweight for 5'1" but normal for my height when I was younger.
I developed scoliosis thanks to disc degeneration.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
I have a brother who is in the middle of his BMI...always bragged about being the sibling who is never "fat". He smokes, eats like crap and has never had to diet in his life. His estimated body fat is 16%. He has terrible blood work, cholesterol, shortness of breath and couldn't do a push up or pull up to save his life. He is rated at 46% chance of developing heart disease in the next ten years.
I do not have an obese BMI but not at all in "my" BMI range and have never been. I have had to manage diet all my life (hypothyroid). I have exceptional blood work, walk 5+ miles x5 days week, some strength training and even with a bad shoulder, do farm work every day. My estimated body fat is 24%. Clearly higher than my brother...but I can do pull ups and push ups to save my life. My blood work is outstanding and I am rated at having less than a .05% chance of having heart disease in the next 10 years.
I need look no further than the examples of my family. BMI is no indicator of health...it can only apply if ALL things in every persons body and DNA are the same...and I don't think human cloning is yet a popular thing.1 -
Too much to catch up on on this long thread but no I believe in being more body inclusive and less fat-phobic. There are too many variables to say "yes everyone should live life in this specific way and look this specific way". People carry their weight differently and have different "tolerances" to the physiological effects of adipose tissue.
Someone who is morbidly obese can become obese and have dramatically improved their health to get there. Also some medications cause weight gain but is a person less healthy for having taken it? Without knowing someone's trajectory and mental health and lifestyle we can't know about their health, and fixating on weight to tell us how healthy someone is as a way of judging them and shaming them for not being at a normal BMI is counterproductive bullying.
That being said, BMI can be a useful guideline for many people, in conjunction with other markers of health. I know that for me being labeled as overweight woke me up from my denial.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