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
-
lisawolfinger wrote: »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.
BMI Is not a measurement of health...nor is it an indicator of health.
"BMI is a measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to adult men and women. A high BMI can be an indicator of high body fatness. BMI can be used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems but it is not diagnostic of the body fatness or health of an individual."
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/risk.htm#limitations
with obvious and apparently some not so obvious (unless divulged) limitations as mentioned numerous times in this thread.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html
"Why is BMI used to measure overweight and obesity?
BMI can be used for population assessment of overweight and obesity. Because calculation requires only height and weight, it is inexpensive and easy to use for clinicians and for the general public. BMI can be used as a screening tool for body fatness but is not diagnostic."
3 -
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
i don't think the Navy has that in their regulation...I'd have to ask my command fitness leader - but i think for us, its taping or nothing (they won't even accept DEXA/BodPod etc results if you fail taping)1 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »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.
I know fat rich people and skinny rich people, BMI is no indicator of net wealth.
Of course BMI doesn't measure health. It never set out to. Using it as a guide to how fat a population is is controversial enough, let's not go attacking it for not doing things it's not supposed to be doing.7 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
I've never seen a "very overweight" person in the Army, on active duty, unless they were already on the fatboy program and getting ready to be discharged because of it. I have seen some questionable National Guardsmen and Reservists. I remember the only "very overweight" person in my unit. Guy named Fisher. He had been a linebacker with Stanford and was huge. Never passed a weigh-in but had no problem with the tape or whatever method they used. Guy had no neck, biceps bigger than my head and even with all that mass could run two miles in under 13.
... Hell, a lot of the guys who ended up getting kicked out because of weight issues would probably pass as relatively thin and fit compared to most civilians. lol1 -
jseams1234 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
I've never seen a "very overweight" person in the Army, on active duty, unless they were already on the fatboy program and getting ready to be discharged because of it. I have seen some questionable National Guardsmen and Reservists. I remember the only "very overweight" person in my unit. Guy named Fisher. He had been a linebacker with Stanford and was huge. Never passed a weigh-in but had no problem with the tape or whatever method they used. Guy had no neck, biceps bigger than my head and even with all that mass could run two miles in under 13.
... Hell, a lot of the guys who ended up getting kicked out because of weight issues would probably pass as relatively thin and fit compared to most civilians. lol
It's also fairly hard to tell, since the Utility ABU/DCU/ACU/UCP, etc drape... so a dude with massive shoulders/chest is indistinguishable from someone with a beer belly.1 -
I believe the most important thing is that you’re healthy. As far as looks, I don’t think it matters. Its more important that the person like the way they look and if they don’t, then they should do something about it.0
-
stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
I've never seen a "very overweight" person in the Army, on active duty, unless they were already on the fatboy program and getting ready to be discharged because of it. I have seen some questionable National Guardsmen and Reservists. I remember the only "very overweight" person in my unit. Guy named Fisher. He had been a linebacker with Stanford and was huge. Never passed a weigh-in but had no problem with the tape or whatever method they used. Guy had no neck, biceps bigger than my head and even with all that mass could run two miles in under 13.
... Hell, a lot of the guys who ended up getting kicked out because of weight issues would probably pass as relatively thin and fit compared to most civilians. lol
It's also fairly hard to tell, since the Utility ABU/DCU/ACU/UCP, etc drape... so a dude with massive shoulders/chest is indistinguishable from someone with a beer belly.
True - but it was kinda hard to hide any kind of gut during PT when we had to wear those short-shorts and tuck in our shirts. I hear they actually finally got rid of those outfits.
0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
I've never seen a "very overweight" person in the Army, on active duty, unless they were already on the fatboy program and getting ready to be discharged because of it. I have seen some questionable National Guardsmen and Reservists. I remember the only "very overweight" person in my unit. Guy named Fisher. He had been a linebacker with Stanford and was huge. Never passed a weigh-in but had no problem with the tape or whatever method they used. Guy had no neck, biceps bigger than my head and even with all that mass could run two miles in under 13.
... Hell, a lot of the guys who ended up getting kicked out because of weight issues would probably pass as relatively thin and fit compared to most civilians. lol
It's also fairly hard to tell, since the Utility ABU/DCU/ACU/UCP, etc drape... so a dude with massive shoulders/chest is indistinguishable from someone with a beer belly.
True - but it was kinda hard to hide any kind of gut during PT when we had to wear those short-shorts and tuck in our shirts. I hear they actually finally got rid of those outfits.
Well from what I've heard, the Rangers and Marines still wear silkies.
Honestly, Don't nobody want to see that.
The Air Force has gone to a shorter short, but 99% of everyone wears compression gear underneath.
Everyone else has gone to a Bermuda short cut.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
I've never seen a "very overweight" person in the Army, on active duty, unless they were already on the fatboy program and getting ready to be discharged because of it. I have seen some questionable National Guardsmen and Reservists. I remember the only "very overweight" person in my unit. Guy named Fisher. He had been a linebacker with Stanford and was huge. Never passed a weigh-in but had no problem with the tape or whatever method they used. Guy had no neck, biceps bigger than my head and even with all that mass could run two miles in under 13.
... Hell, a lot of the guys who ended up getting kicked out because of weight issues would probably pass as relatively thin and fit compared to most civilians. lol
It's also fairly hard to tell, since the Utility ABU/DCU/ACU/UCP, etc drape... so a dude with massive shoulders/chest is indistinguishable from someone with a beer belly.
True - but it was kinda hard to hide any kind of gut during PT when we had to wear those short-shorts and tuck in our shirts. I hear they actually finally got rid of those outfits.
Well from what I've heard, the Rangers and Marines still wear silkies.
Honestly, Don't nobody want to see that.
The Air Force has gone to a shorter short, but 99% of everyone wears compression gear underneath.
Everyone else has gone to a Bermuda short cut.
I hung on to my og grey cotton PT gear for WAY past it's expiration. I wish I'd stocked up.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
I've never seen a "very overweight" person in the Army, on active duty, unless they were already on the fatboy program and getting ready to be discharged because of it. I have seen some questionable National Guardsmen and Reservists. I remember the only "very overweight" person in my unit. Guy named Fisher. He had been a linebacker with Stanford and was huge. Never passed a weigh-in but had no problem with the tape or whatever method they used. Guy had no neck, biceps bigger than my head and even with all that mass could run two miles in under 13.
... Hell, a lot of the guys who ended up getting kicked out because of weight issues would probably pass as relatively thin and fit compared to most civilians. lol
It's also fairly hard to tell, since the Utility ABU/DCU/ACU/UCP, etc drape... so a dude with massive shoulders/chest is indistinguishable from someone with a beer belly.
True - but it was kinda hard to hide any kind of gut during PT when we had to wear those short-shorts and tuck in our shirts. I hear they actually finally got rid of those outfits.
Well from what I've heard, the Rangers and Marines still wear silkies.
Honestly, Don't nobody want to see that.
The Air Force has gone to a shorter short, but 99% of everyone wears compression gear underneath.
Everyone else has gone to a Bermuda short cut.
I hung on to my og grey cotton PT gear for WAY past it's expiration. I wish I'd stocked up.
Those OG grey cotton were super comfy, and inexpensive. but they wore out fairly quickly.
I've still got a couple pairs that aren't suitable for public wear, but are great around the house.0 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
Sadly yes. Anytime people are involved corruption enters. Officers and senior enlisted should be held to a higher standard; however many use their position to subvert the system.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »I’ve seen some very overweight people in the military. Not sure they are strict on those tests.
And, I’ve been told, there’s a different standard for officers.
I've never seen a "very overweight" person in the Army, on active duty, unless they were already on the fatboy program and getting ready to be discharged because of it. I have seen some questionable National Guardsmen and Reservists. I remember the only "very overweight" person in my unit. Guy named Fisher. He had been a linebacker with Stanford and was huge. Never passed a weigh-in but had no problem with the tape or whatever method they used. Guy had no neck, biceps bigger than my head and even with all that mass could run two miles in under 13.
... Hell, a lot of the guys who ended up getting kicked out because of weight issues would probably pass as relatively thin and fit compared to most civilians. lol
It's also fairly hard to tell, since the Utility ABU/DCU/ACU/UCP, etc drape... so a dude with massive shoulders/chest is indistinguishable from someone with a beer belly.
True - but it was kinda hard to hide any kind of gut during PT when we had to wear those short-shorts and tuck in our shirts. I hear they actually finally got rid of those outfits.
Well from what I've heard, the Rangers and Marines still wear silkies.
Honestly, Don't nobody want to see that.
The Air Force has gone to a shorter short, but 99% of everyone wears compression gear underneath.
Everyone else has gone to a Bermuda short cut.
2 -
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I hate these threads. Generally, BMI is a good indicator, but not always. There are other factors. However, most overweight people think they’re an outlier, but they’re not, they’re just simply overweight.
As someone who works with hundreds of overweight people per year, I have found that almost no one actually thinks this way. They all know they are overweight.
4 -
Myself and my co worker both weigh 56 kg. We are the sane height at 164cm.
Our BMI is the same at 20.8
Healthy range.
She is far leaner than I am but carries DD breasts
I have more fat about my body but have B cup (just) breasts.
At a glance a person can see she carries less body fat and presumably visceral fat.
What if we were at the upper limit of healthy range? Would this body habitus be clinically significant?
.............
Yet out BMI is exactly the same. There are variances beyond ‘bone structure’.2 -
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
No offence but 100% is invalid as well because you just can't know for sure.
100% certainty that people in denial about themselves being overweight is a lot higher than 10% trust me on that one...
and as for people thinking they should be able to reach the lower end is imo invalid as well.
I have watched too many people on these forums and irl and on documentaries about being overweight to agree wiht most of what you said...
4 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I hate these threads. Generally, BMI is a good indicator, but not always. There are other factors. However, most overweight people think they’re an outlier, but they’re not, they’re just simply overweight.
As someone who works with hundreds of overweight people per year, I have found that almost no one actually thinks this way. They all know they are overweight.
do you really think that those who think they are outliers are seeking help? no they are not...they think they are fine the way they are (as far as weight goes) so why would they seek out you???? and ergo how could you have conversations with them....2 -
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.
2 -
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go3 -
stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.0 -
stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
Addtitionally, you've incorrectly characterized the study, as it looked at all 4 categories
Underweight
Normal
Overweight
Obese.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
no. study only supports that 20% of people who are overweight or obese are the opposite under the other measure. It doesn't support that anybody who is overweight or obese under either measure is actually normal weight under the other.
That data is not contained in this study, which does not deal with normal weight people as categorized by either measure, at all.
what exactly does it matter if somebody is actually "obese" under BMI if they're only "overweight" by BF%? or visa versa? they're still not a healthy weight under either measure.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
no. study only supports that 20% of people who are overweight or obese are the opposite under the other measure. It doesn't support that anybody who is overweight or obese under either measure is actually normal weight under the other.
That data is not contained in this study, which does not deal with normal weight people as categorized by either measure, at all.
what exactly does it matter if somebody is actually "obese" under BMI if they're only "overweight" by BF%? or visa versa? they're still not a healthy weight under either measure.
Of course it matters. If someone is "obese" by BMI, and thus believes he is 50 or 70 lbs overweight when in fact he's only overweight and 15-20 lbs above a healthy BF% that is a huge deal psychologically.There was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women. Whereas 82.7% of women classed as obese according to BMI were also identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, only 68.4% of men classed as obese by BMI were similarly classified by sex-and-age-specific %BF. On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
If you get It wrong 30-45% of the time, You don't have a useful index.
Worst part is the 30-45% of "healthy" BMI folks who are in fact over BF%.
2 -
Additionally, this study argues EXACTLY the opposite of the point you people are trying to make. It finds that BMI actually pretty significantly UNDERESTIMATES the number of obese people compared to BF%.2
-
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
no. study only supports that 20% of people who are overweight or obese are the opposite under the other measure. It doesn't support that anybody who is overweight or obese under either measure is actually normal weight under the other.
That data is not contained in this study, which does not deal with normal weight people as categorized by either measure, at all.
what exactly does it matter if somebody is actually "obese" under BMI if they're only "overweight" by BF%? or visa versa? they're still not a healthy weight under either measure.
Of course it matters. If someone is "obese" by BMI, and thus believes he is 50 or 70 lbs overweight when in fact he's only overweight and 15-20 lbs above a healthy BF% that is a huge deal psychologically.
lol wut
and what about the people who believe they are only "overweight" when infact they're obese and need to lose a lot more than they think? the people who, btw, greatly outnumber your choice group, according to your cherry picked study.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
no. study only supports that 20% of people who are overweight or obese are the opposite under the other measure. It doesn't support that anybody who is overweight or obese under either measure is actually normal weight under the other.
That data is not contained in this study, which does not deal with normal weight people as categorized by either measure, at all.
what exactly does it matter if somebody is actually "obese" under BMI if they're only "overweight" by BF%? or visa versa? they're still not a healthy weight under either measure.
Of course it matters. If someone is "obese" by BMI, and thus believes he is 50 or 70 lbs overweight when in fact he's only overweight and 15-20 lbs above a healthy BF% that is a huge deal psychologically.There was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women. Whereas 82.7% of women classed as obese according to BMI were also identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, only 68.4% of men classed as obese by BMI were similarly classified by sex-and-age-specific %BF. On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
If you get It wrong 30-45% of the time, You don't have a useful index.
Worst part is the 30-45% of "healthy" BMI folks who are in fact over BF%.
and you get it wrong AGAIN.
For some reason you're assuming that the %of people not "obese" are "healthy weight." But that' snot supported by their methodology. As the first part of your quote says, 99.8% of women are correct within 1 category. Meaning the vast, vast, VAST majority of those incorrectly categorized as "obese" are actually merely "overweight." which is STILL not "healthy weight".
Read more closely.
"not obese" simply means "overweight". not healthy weight. stop thinking it does.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
no. study only supports that 20% of people who are overweight or obese are the opposite under the other measure. It doesn't support that anybody who is overweight or obese under either measure is actually normal weight under the other.
That data is not contained in this study, which does not deal with normal weight people as categorized by either measure, at all.
what exactly does it matter if somebody is actually "obese" under BMI if they're only "overweight" by BF%? or visa versa? they're still not a healthy weight under either measure.
Of course it matters. If someone is "obese" by BMI, and thus believes he is 50 or 70 lbs overweight when in fact he's only overweight and 15-20 lbs above a healthy BF% that is a huge deal psychologically.There was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women. Whereas 82.7% of women classed as obese according to BMI were also identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, only 68.4% of men classed as obese by BMI were similarly classified by sex-and-age-specific %BF. On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
If you get It wrong 30-45% of the time, You don't have a useful index.
Worst part is the 30-45% of "healthy" BMI folks who are in fact over BF%.
and you get it wrong AGAIN.
For some reason you're assuming that the %of people not "obese" are "healthy weight." But that' snot supported by their methodology. As the first part of your quote says, 99.8% of women are correct within 1 category. Meaning the vast, vast, VAST majority of those incorrectly categorized as "obese" are actually merely "overweight." which is STILL not "healthy weight".
Read more closely.
"not obese" simply means "overweight". not healthy weight. stop thinking it does.
It also applies to Overweight and normal weight.
Read it againThere was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women.
Wrong 37.4% of the time... in every direction.
46.1% of obese men were not.On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
Yes, most of them were overweight not normal weight.
But, Normal weight were also Overweight and underweight
Underweight were also normal weight
Overweight were Normal weight and obese.
The reality is that it's probably worse than the study portrays not better.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
no. study only supports that 20% of people who are overweight or obese are the opposite under the other measure. It doesn't support that anybody who is overweight or obese under either measure is actually normal weight under the other.
That data is not contained in this study, which does not deal with normal weight people as categorized by either measure, at all.
what exactly does it matter if somebody is actually "obese" under BMI if they're only "overweight" by BF%? or visa versa? they're still not a healthy weight under either measure.
Of course it matters. If someone is "obese" by BMI, and thus believes he is 50 or 70 lbs overweight when in fact he's only overweight and 15-20 lbs above a healthy BF% that is a huge deal psychologically.There was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women. Whereas 82.7% of women classed as obese according to BMI were also identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, only 68.4% of men classed as obese by BMI were similarly classified by sex-and-age-specific %BF. On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
If you get It wrong 30-45% of the time, You don't have a useful index.
Worst part is the 30-45% of "healthy" BMI folks who are in fact over BF%.
and you get it wrong AGAIN.
For some reason you're assuming that the %of people not "obese" are "healthy weight." But that' snot supported by their methodology. As the first part of your quote says, 99.8% of women are correct within 1 category. Meaning the vast, vast, VAST majority of those incorrectly categorized as "obese" are actually merely "overweight." which is STILL not "healthy weight".
Read more closely.
"not obese" simply means "overweight". not healthy weight. stop thinking it does.
It also applies to Overweight and normal weight.
Read it againThere was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women.
Wrong 37.4% of the time... in every direction.
46.1% of obese men were not.On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
Yes, most of them were overweight not normal weight.
But, Normal weight were also Overweight and underweight
Underweight were also normal weight
Overweight were Normal weight and obese.
The reality is that it's probably worse than the study portrays not better.
what the actual *kitten*. You're literally quoting things that refute what you say.There was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6);
so 37.4% of men and 26.1% of women were in the wrong category. fact. reasonable.
WHAT YOU ARE MISSINGagreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women.
Only 1.3% of men and 0.2% of women are in a category OTHER than the one immediately higher or lower than the one predicted by BMI.
The paper does not contain ANY data on the number of people categorized as "ideal weight" by BMI that are actually overweight, or the number categorized as "overweight" by BMI that are actually "ideal weight" according to BF%.
The paper simply does not contain that.
It is ONLY concerned with the overweight/obese boundary, as it is specifically talking about miscategorization (both directions) of OBESE people, and only 1.3% of men and 0.2% are miscategorized by more than 1 category.
Overweight is NOT healthy weight. Obese people categorized as overweight are STILL NOT A HEALTHY WEIGHT.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 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.
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.
People who are not educated in exercise science often use “bone size” as a substitute for “higher LBM”, since they are not familiar with other terminology. Fixating on their use of “bone size” because it is not precisely accurate confuses the issue
I can say with 100% certainty that the number of “outliers” from the BMI ranges is at least 20%. I can also say with 100% certainty that the actual number of people “in denial” about their weight is less than 10%.
Most of the people who have unrealistic expectations about their weight are those with “large frames” who think they can/should be able to reach the lower end of the BMI range for their height.
nope and nope.
First, you absolutely can't say that with any certainty. You say that from your gut, because it SEEMS that way to you. But I challenge you to find a study that supports either of those suppositions.
You can "believe" them if you chose to. But there is a high probability that you are wrong on both counts.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).
Here you go
This study deals ONLY with the overweight/obese boundary, and finds that people around that boundary are possibly on opposite sides depending on the measure. This seems entirely reasonable and expected.
It doesn't deal with people falling in the "normal weight" category under either measure, at all. The study simply doesn't contain the data relevant to this discussion. The only way to even extrapolate "normal weight" numbers from this study is to sum the numbers given and subtract from 100%
I have no issue conceding that some people who are merely "overweight" by bf% are obese by BMI, and visa-versa. But that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether everybody can fit in the "normal weight" category.
You claimed the 20% number was unsupported.
Study supports 20% number.
End of story.
no. study only supports that 20% of people who are overweight or obese are the opposite under the other measure. It doesn't support that anybody who is overweight or obese under either measure is actually normal weight under the other.
That data is not contained in this study, which does not deal with normal weight people as categorized by either measure, at all.
what exactly does it matter if somebody is actually "obese" under BMI if they're only "overweight" by BF%? or visa versa? they're still not a healthy weight under either measure.
Of course it matters. If someone is "obese" by BMI, and thus believes he is 50 or 70 lbs overweight when in fact he's only overweight and 15-20 lbs above a healthy BF% that is a huge deal psychologically.There was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women. Whereas 82.7% of women classed as obese according to BMI were also identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, only 68.4% of men classed as obese by BMI were similarly classified by sex-and-age-specific %BF. On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
If you get It wrong 30-45% of the time, You don't have a useful index.
Worst part is the 30-45% of "healthy" BMI folks who are in fact over BF%.
and you get it wrong AGAIN.
For some reason you're assuming that the %of people not "obese" are "healthy weight." But that' snot supported by their methodology. As the first part of your quote says, 99.8% of women are correct within 1 category. Meaning the vast, vast, VAST majority of those incorrectly categorized as "obese" are actually merely "overweight." which is STILL not "healthy weight".
Read more closely.
"not obese" simply means "overweight". not healthy weight. stop thinking it does.
It also applies to Overweight and normal weight.
Read it againThere was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6); agreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women.
Wrong 37.4% of the time... in every direction.
46.1% of obese men were not.On the other hand, 80.1% of women and 53.9% of men who were identified as obese according to sex-and-age-specific %BF criteria, had BMI ≥ 30.0 k/m2.
Yes, most of them were overweight not normal weight.
But, Normal weight were also Overweight and underweight
Underweight were also normal weight
Overweight were Normal weight and obese.
The reality is that it's probably worse than the study portrays not better.
what the actual *kitten*. You're literally quoting things that refute what you say.There was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6);
so 37.4% of men and 26.1% of women were in the wrong category. fact. reasonable.
WHAT YOU ARE MISSINGagreement to within one category was observed for 98.7% men and 99.8% women.
Only 1.3% of men and 0.2% of women are in a category OTHER than the one immediately higher or lower than the one predicted by BMI.
The paper does not contain ANY data on the number of people categorized as "ideal weight" by BMI that are actually overweight, or the number categorized as "overweight" by BMI that are actually "ideal weight" according to BF%.
The paper simply does not contain that.
It does, I just don't have time to wrangle it out of the tables.1 -
The study says that three-quarters of women and less than two-thirds of the men had agreement between the category that BMI would put them in and that BF% would put them in. The vast majority were just one category off. More (but not overwhelmingly more) were misclassified as overweight when they were obese than obese when they were overweight, but it happened in both directions. I think we can conclude from that that there is a not insubstantial number of people who would be classified as overweight by BMI but normal weight/not overfat by BF%, and that more of them would be men than women.
I don't understand this insistence that it cannot happen, that everyone should be in the healthy BMI range.
(And for the record I have no personal involvement in this, the BMI scale works fine for me, my preference is to be around 21-22 BMI at max.)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