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
-
Also the existence of outliers does not somehow negate the validity of a statistical distribution. All statistical distributions have outliers, that is what a statistical distribution is. All something based on a statistical distribution is saying is if you exist within this population and your stats are between X and Y then there is a XX% likelyhood that you are Z. There is also a percent chance that you are not Z because you fall outside of that range.
People don't like that level of uncertainty or complexity though so people who use BMI tend to just cut out the "weasel" words and say if you are between X and Y then you are Z without seeming to understand that phrased in that way it isn't true anymore. Then someone points out an exception to that rule and acts like BMI is useless because they are interacting with someone who is misusing it. Its two people misunderstanding the point arguing with eachother, neither one of them is right.
The only problem with BMI is that lots of people misuse it and it seems like all the discussions about it center on that misunderstanding.7 -
Depending on exacts and according to Wikipedia, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and weighed 235 at his last Mr. Olympia contest (260 before the cut). That puts his competition weight BMI at ;
"Height: 6 feet, 2 inches
Weight: 235 pounds
Your BMI is 30.2, indicating your weight is in the Obese category for adults of your height."
The calculator is not very accurate. You can WOO this if you want but to say that Mr. Olympia 5 times was Obese?Come on? You know if you are healthy. You just have to tell yourself the truth. I have a long way to go but I am not trying to get to a BMI goal. I am trying to get to a healthy me goal.9 -
Competitive stats
Height: 6'2" (188 cm)
Contest weight: 235 lb (107 kg)
Off-season weight: 260 lb (120 kg)
Arms: 22 in (56 cm)
Chest: 57 in (140 cm)
Waist: 34 in (86 cm)
Thighs: 28.5 in (72 cm)
Calves: 20 in (51 cm)2 -
Depending on exacts and according to Wikipedia, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and weighed 235 at his last Mr. Olympia contest (260 before the cut). That puts his competition weight BMI at ;
"Height: 6 feet, 2 inches
Weight: 235 pounds
Your BMI is 30.2, indicating your weight is in the Obese category for adults of your height."
The calculator is not very accurate. You can WOO this if you want but to say that Mr. Olympia 5 times was Obese?Come on? You know if you are healthy. You just have to tell yourself the truth. I have a long way to go but I am not trying to get to a BMI goal. I am trying to get to a healthy me goal.
Yes if you misuse BMI you will get wacky and incorrect results.8 -
Depending on exacts and according to Wikipedia, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and weighed 235 at his last Mr. Olympia contest (260 before the cut). That puts his competition weight BMI at ;
"Height: 6 feet, 2 inches
Weight: 235 pounds
Your BMI is 30.2, indicating your weight is in the Obese category for adults of your height."
The calculator is not very accurate. You can WOO this if you want but to say that Mr. Olympia 5 times was Obese?Come on? You know if you are healthy. You just have to tell yourself the truth. I have a long way to go but I am not trying to get to a BMI goal. I am trying to get to a healthy me goal.
Here's a news flash for you: Arnold Schwarzenegger (or any other steroid-using professional bodybuilder) is nowhere near the norm in terms of body composition. The equation wasn't derived by examining the stats of elite professional steroid-using bodybuilders, it was derived from the general population.
If we're going to use extreme outliers as examples, I suppose every cyclist should look at Chris Froome's speed/time and consider it "normal". In which case about 99.9% of the bicycling population falls far short of being "normal".
As several others have said: BMI is not the final word in body composition or health (as it completely ignores many significant health markers). But in general terms it's a reasonable starting place for the vast majority of the population.12 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Depending on exacts and according to Wikipedia, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and weighed 235 at his last Mr. Olympia contest (260 before the cut). That puts his competition weight BMI at ;
"Height: 6 feet, 2 inches
Weight: 235 pounds
Your BMI is 30.2, indicating your weight is in the Obese category for adults of your height."
The calculator is not very accurate. You can WOO this if you want but to say that Mr. Olympia 5 times was Obese?Come on? You know if you are healthy. You just have to tell yourself the truth. I have a long way to go but I am not trying to get to a BMI goal. I am trying to get to a healthy me goal.
Yes if you misuse BMI you will get wacky and incorrect results.
And have you googled a shirtless picture of him lately?
He was an outlier back then, but it's incredibly difficult to maintain that for a lifetime. Now he's looking pretty obese...4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Also the existence of outliers does not somehow negate the validity of a statistical distribution. All statistical distributions have outliers, that is what a statistical distribution is. All something based on a statistical distribution is saying is if you exist within this population and your stats are between X and Y then there is a XX% likelyhood that you are Z. There is also a percent chance that you are not Z because you fall outside of that range.
People don't like that level of uncertainty or complexity though so people who use BMI tend to just cut out the "weasel" words and say if you are between X and Y then you are Z without seeming to understand that phrased in that way it isn't true anymore. Then someone points out an exception to that rule and acts like BMI is useless because they are interacting with someone who is misusing it. Its two people misunderstanding the point arguing with eachother, neither one of them is right.
The only problem with BMI is that lots of people misuse it and it seems like all the discussions about it center on that misunderstanding.
Good summary.
I was arguing above that not everyone must be within the BMI healthy range to have a healthy BF% (although I myself am not an outlier), but I want to make it clear that I've never suggested that BMI is useless or a bad measure for a population or even a bad measure to be used as a general rule/starting point.
(I also think pretty much everyone fat knows it, if they are honest with themselves. If you weren't, it's not really because you believed your bones were extra large or whatever, it was because you were in denial. I would say that the solution is not insisting, inaccurately, that BMI cannot ever be wrong for a particular individual, but looking at all the other measures that would have also showed you you were overweight or obese.)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Also the existence of outliers does not somehow negate the validity of a statistical distribution. All statistical distributions have outliers, that is what a statistical distribution is. All something based on a statistical distribution is saying is if you exist within this population and your stats are between X and Y then there is a XX% likelyhood that you are Z. There is also a percent chance that you are not Z because you fall outside of that range.
People don't like that level of uncertainty or complexity though so people who use BMI tend to just cut out the "weasel" words and say if you are between X and Y then you are Z without seeming to understand that phrased in that way it isn't true anymore. Then someone points out an exception to that rule and acts like BMI is useless because they are interacting with someone who is misusing it. Its two people misunderstanding the point arguing with eachother, neither one of them is right.
The only problem with BMI is that lots of people misuse it and it seems like all the discussions about it center on that misunderstanding.
Good summary.
I was arguing above that not everyone must be within the BMI healthy range to have a healthy BF% (although I myself am not an outlier), but I want to make it clear that I've never suggested that BMI is useless or a bad measure for a population or even a bad measure to be used as a general rule/starting point.
(I also think pretty much everyone fat knows it, if they are honest with themselves. If you weren't, it's not really because you believed your bones were extra large or whatever, it was because you were in denial. I would say that the solution is not insisting, inaccurately, that BMI cannot ever be wrong for a particular individual, but looking at all the other measures that would have also showed you you were overweight or obese.)
As someone who may or may not be an outlier, 2 thumbs up.
I know I'm overweight. I don't really know how much... I also know that I'm Happier, healthier, stronger, and faster at 230 lbs and 42 years of age than I was at 21 and 153 lbs.
Balancing lifestyle convenience and health risks is an ongoing exploration. My father and Uncle are both within the "normal BMI/BF range" and that hasn't observably reduced their bloodpressure... neither have dietary or activity changes.
As yet, my BP remains within the normal range as do the rest of my health/lifestyle markers.
At some point there will be adjustments. but not yet. We'll see how 225 feels.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Also the existence of outliers does not somehow negate the validity of a statistical distribution. All statistical distributions have outliers, that is what a statistical distribution is. All something based on a statistical distribution is saying is if you exist within this population and your stats are between X and Y then there is a XX% likelyhood that you are Z. There is also a percent chance that you are not Z because you fall outside of that range.
People don't like that level of uncertainty or complexity though so people who use BMI tend to just cut out the "weasel" words and say if you are between X and Y then you are Z without seeming to understand that phrased in that way it isn't true anymore. Then someone points out an exception to that rule and acts like BMI is useless because they are interacting with someone who is misusing it. Its two people misunderstanding the point arguing with eachother, neither one of them is right.
The only problem with BMI is that lots of people misuse it and it seems like all the discussions about it center on that misunderstanding.
Good summary.
I was arguing above that not everyone must be within the BMI healthy range to have a healthy BF% (although I myself am not an outlier), but I want to make it clear that I've never suggested that BMI is useless or a bad measure for a population or even a bad measure to be used as a general rule/starting point.
(I also think pretty much everyone fat knows it, if they are honest with themselves. If you weren't, it's not really because you believed your bones were extra large or whatever, it was because you were in denial. I would say that the solution is not insisting, inaccurately, that BMI cannot ever be wrong for a particular individual, but looking at all the other measures that would have also showed you you were overweight or obese.)
To be fair, there was (or is still, I haven't checked yet) a thread by a young man who was "shocked" to find out his 40" waist was considered unhealthy, said he didn't even consider himself overweight, and posted a picture of his torso that I can't imagine anyone not considering "overweight" as proof that he wasn't. He then posted a picture of himself back before he developed the beer belly and in that picture too he was pretty clearly overweight. And I know several people who do know they are considered medically overweight but who think it's some kind of overeach to expect people to get below a certain weight and that it's not a big deal because they look the same as most other people they know. I worked with a woman recently who knew she was classified as obese, but felt the medical definition of obese was outdated and didn't take into consideration modern lifestyles and healthcare capabilities
Regardless, I agree with you that BMI should be just one measure a person uses to determine where they stand. You need to take several indicators into consideration and look at the total picture of results to decide whether you are in a good place or need to aim for something better. I'm surprised by the emotions coming out in this thread, I guess this is still a pretty loaded topic!1 -
The question was stated; "Is every single body in the world intended to be within the so-called healthy BMI range?" The answer is simply no. I gave you an example of that. You can argue whatever you want but with or without the use of steroids he was in the most physically perfect shape imaginable and some stupid computer called him obese.
The reason for my weight loss is not to fit what you have decided is "healthy". It is to actually get myself healthy for me. I couldn't care less about my BMI. The Gym has hundreds of members and half of them know everything. Of that half no 2 of them will agree on anything. I have 2 young men in my Youth Group that both have Diabetes. Neither are over weight but are both healthy and active. I had Hypertension at 18, I was in good in shape just carried way too much stress and didn't sleep. My grandpa died of a massive heart attack at 50, physically in good shape. BMI is a warning that you have greater chances of developing health issues. It is a set of parameters that are set to access risk by some computer. I guess some know everything but listen to your doctor. Get your A1C tested. Look at all YOUR factors. Let the muscle meat heads that know everything be right about them. You just work on you. WOO me please! It is SO FUNNY TO ME! I THINK I WILL WOO EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME! LOL5 -
More misc thoughts (this was intended to be after kimny's post):
I would say that a lot of that is included within my category of "denial" or "not being honest with yourself." I also think there's a difference between a lot of people who simply don't really think about their weight or avoid doing so -- I personally refused to weigh myself for years, although I was aware I was fat -- and those who are working on losing weight/getting fit and paying a lot of attention. (The 40 inch waist guy seems like someone who wasn't really paying attention.) Along the same lines, I don't think people who eat really poorly (on average) or don't eat vegetables do because they don't know they should eat some vegetables. I think they don't really think about nutrition when choosing foods and just eat what they like.
I don't feel that strongly about BMI (it's always fit me perfectly well, but my goal weight had nothing to do with BMI and was well within, it was the weight I was when I was most happy with my weight -- 120). I do find it bothersome that people feel compelled to insist that if anyone questions whether it applies to them that they must be trying to justify staying fat or something when these are people who are focusing on fitness and have made major changes and so on.
I also don't think it's that big a deal if someone is, say, slightly overweight BMI but in shape (in terms of regularly exercising and consistently working to improve body composition and any bad test results). If that's what the weight issue in the US looked like, it really wouldn't be a health crisis.4 -
Sure. Sounds like you are in a false sense of security. What weight will make me perfect? BMI is playing odds. It is good for chances but chances are that other things factor in also. Is everyone supposed to fit, NO! Midgets wouldn't fit. Folks that are 7 foot tall wouldn't fit (a bunch of them have heart issues already though).1
-
The question was stated; "Is every single body in the world intended to be within the so-called healthy BMI range?" The answer is simply no. I gave you an example of that. You can argue whatever you want but with or without the use of steroids he was in the most physically perfect shape imaginable and some stupid computer called him obese.
The reason for my weight loss is not to fit what you have decided is "healthy". It is to actually get myself healthy for me. I couldn't care less about my BMI. The Gym has hundreds of members and half of them know everything. Of that half no 2 of them will agree on anything. I have 2 young men in my Youth Group that both have Diabetes. Neither are over weight but are both healthy and active. I had Hypertension at 18, I was in good in shape just carried way too much stress and didn't sleep. My grandpa died of a massive heart attack at 50, physically in good shape. BMI is a warning that you have greater chances of developing health issues. It is a set of parameters that are set to access risk by some computer. I guess some know everything but listen to your doctor. Get your A1C tested. Look at all YOUR factors. Let the muscle meat heads that know everything be right about them. You just work on you. WOO me please! It is SO FUNNY TO ME! I THINK I WILL WOO EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME! LOL
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but in regards to your first paragraph, this discussion is 10 pages in and has moved far beyond the OP's rather specific question to a more general debate about whether BMI is useful or universal or should be completely ignored. I honestly don't think anyone in this thread has stated that BMI is a complete and infallible indicator for everyone.
Also, this is the debate forum, so people are going to disagree with you, that's kind of how it works. No need to go all caps on us! And congrats on your success, whatever your BMI is :drinker:1 -
The question was stated; "Is every single body in the world intended to be within the so-called healthy BMI range?" The answer is simply no. I gave you an example of that. You can argue whatever you want but with or without the use of steroids he was in the most physically perfect shape imaginable and some stupid computer called him obese.
The reason for my weight loss is not to fit what you have decided is "healthy". It is to actually get myself healthy for me. I couldn't care less about my BMI. The Gym has hundreds of members and half of them know everything. Of that half no 2 of them will agree on anything. I have 2 young men in my Youth Group that both have Diabetes. Neither are over weight but are both healthy and active. I had Hypertension at 18, I was in good in shape just carried way too much stress and didn't sleep. My grandpa died of a massive heart attack at 50, physically in good shape. BMI is a warning that you have greater chances of developing health issues. It is a set of parameters that are set to access risk by some computer. I guess some know everything but listen to your doctor. Get your A1C tested. Look at all YOUR factors. Let the muscle meat heads that know everything be right about them. You just work on you. WOO me please! It is SO FUNNY TO ME! I THINK I WILL WOO EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME! LOL
Uh, if you react to criticism of your ideas like this perhaps you shouldn't be in the debate forum. Calm down. People reacting to your post with their own thoughts about the topic isn't a personal attack against you.7 -
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.
I feel I have a couple of points to clarify.
Sezxy: I did not say BMI is "not valid" (in total). I said it has QUALIFIED use. Which is to say it's not (as Aaron pointed out above) a tool that was designed or meant to be applied to judge any individual's health, but rather a good judge of populations, and a rough estimate for people who fall within a standard deviation of the mean for all body aspects (hip width, bone density, musculature, etc).
A detailed defense of my not being in denial is following in the spoiler.I hate to take this detour. I felt the point that I was not in denial was well-defended by others, I really don't understand why you had to throw it in. But since it's now been hammered on (though it isn't salient) let me put this here:- current height 5'8.25" - weight 155 lbs . BMI = 23.4
- tallest height 5'11" BMI = 21.6
- doctor-estimated real height 6'1" BMI = 20.4
Between the two of us, if our bone density falls at opposite ends of the normal range of most people, which seems likely, that difference alone accounted for nearly 8 lbs, your arbitrary "impossible" number. I imagine the rest of it is mostly lean body mass difference, though not all.. I do have a rather generous bosom even now, after all (34 DD to her 32 A). However, I am quite lean at this point. You can see shadows from my ribs front, back and side. I've got that hip bone ridge thing going on (wow does that hurt if I bump into something!), a flat stomach, and am starting to show muscle definition in my arms, calves, thighs, and abs. As a large-framed individual (by both current wrist and ankle measurements) that shouldn't be overly surprising.
It remains a valid observation that for an arbitrary weight cutoff uniform to all people of a given height that I will be far leaner than she would be at that given weight; and that means that health effects due to having too much adiposity would kick in for her at a much lower absolute weight than I. You can argue about the need to label her "overweight" at a lower weight, which may be and was the impetus for WHO recommendations to lower SOME Asian regions' cutoffs (interestingly they actually raised the cutoff for others!)
WHO, E. C. (2004). Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet (London, England), 363(9403), 157.
The WHO has made available a PDF of the above citation for personal use only.
Now, if the WHO has taken the position that, for example, it is appropriate to label rural Thailanders "overweight" only above a BMI of 27, why is it such a contentious idea that there are other populations that demonstrate similarly higher risk-weight profiles?
Adzak, "bone size" is a real thing. People's bones vary in density. Weight is not the only thing that will create denser bones, any repeated, load-bearing stress (such as heavy work or weight lifting) will do the same thing. It doesn't generally account for everything, but I demonstrated that frame size (which refers to the overall breadth of skeletal structure) can account for considerable weight differences (just under 8 lbs) at the far ends of people considered to be within normal frame distribution. I specifically did not calculate the differences in other lean body mass aspects, such as organs or muscles, because the calculations would've required even more research, and because 8 lbs was the arbitrary weight differential that I was replying to.
p.s.
Holy Mother of Nested Quotes, Batman! I think I cut 8 or 9 layers out there to make this reply legible
I will be very blunt with you on this topic.
YOu used yourself and a friend to illustrate how bone size can impact BMI (which was not part of my original argument) without adding in that you personally are an Outlier due to a medical condition.
and if you had revealed that a lot of our discussion wouldn't have happened but of course your comparison wouldn't have held water either.....
My original premise was thisI always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.
There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.
I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.
so for this part of the "debate" you and I will have to come to terms with a couple of things.
1. I said that there were outliers to start with
2. your argument was when I questioned if a certain # of pounds of a persons weight could be bone
3. you neglected to do a fair comparison because of 4
4. you neglected to reveal your were an outlier
and so what this has become is non sense and I am not going to respond further to this subdebate of this particular thread. If you choose to that is fine but I won't be.
Except the friend is not my CURRENT height. She is my PAST height. I see no point in making a comparison based on the height caused by my condition. And the mass of bones difference remains valid. If both of us exist in the normal range of bone density and frame frame size, with the same overall height, then nearly 8 lbs of difference between us can be directly attributed to the skeletal structure alone. This has nothing to do with my medical condition or being an "outlier".
I'm replying because I don't want people to be left with the bad argument you're giving being uncontested.9 -
The only reason any of this matters in reality is that governments and health insurance agencies are setting premiums and services based on BMI. I think this is appalling because the statistics just don't back up the use of the population metric on individuals or even on all sub-populations. People's judginess is an irritation aside from that "you are a pound overweight by bmi, you can't be healthy!" The statistics are pretty clear that the miscategorization is most pertinent for setting overweight, and to a lesser degree obese; there is no real disagreement on morbid obesity.
I also think people are setting up a logical fallacy when they try to shift the argument and say "obese people are delusional and think they're healthy." they are arguing 2 full categories apart, not the division which represents where real growing risk exists.
I strongly prefer the definition of obesity used by the Mayo Clinic, which is a functional one. It is when your body fat is high enough that you are at risk of weight - related conditions. At risk. Some will, some won't have them. More will develop them than if they had less fat. And morbid obesity? Functional again - the body fat at which you are guaranteed to have medical problems caused and exacerbated by your weight.7 -
@Aaron_K123 Sorry for the excitement. I got no excuse but I just figured out what the woo means and they frustrate me. @kimny72 I was on the first page when I posted. I didn't have the sence to look and see the actual number of posts. Sorry and thanks.5
-
@Aaron_K123 Sorry for the excitement. I got no excuse but I just figured out what the woo means and they frustrate me. @kimny72 I was on the first page when I posted. I didn't have the sence to look and see the actual number of posts. Sorry and thanks.
woo can mean two things here Per the MFP staff...
Woo as in yah go you...or Woo as in no science or bad information...pick which one you want it to mean...
I think most people who have posted in favour of BMI all agree that there are going to be outliers but in general on average...yah most should fall in the "healthy" bmi range....that's why there is a range.1 -
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.
My head hurt-ed with all the statistics and numbers over the past few pages... but the statement in bold struck a chord with me.
I always had a "larger" frame than my mom. We are of similar heights (one inch difference - I'm taller at 5'6") and I normally weigh 125-ish and she 120 but as comparison, I wear a shoe size 9 and she wears a shoe size 5 so we look vastly different. She always used to talk about how slender her bones were and that triggered the start of decades of unhealthy relationship with b/p/r and the scale. I wanted to be as underweight as possible per BMI so that I could look as thin as possible despite my frame size. I am sooo very, very careful with words where my daughter is concerned now.2 -
It wasn't so much BMI for me but before I really looked into it when I was a teenager I had in my head that a 6' tall guy should weigh about 180 or so pounds and I weighed about 185 pounds so I figured I was in good shape. Sure I had rolls of fat but I mean, I was 6' tall guy and I was 185 pounds so all good.
What I didn't recognize at the time was that I have a small frame and was relatively low muscle mass so 185 pounds was actually fairly overweight for me.
Not quite the same as BMI but in the same ballpark of the culture giving you this notion that this is the "healthy" body type when talking about a statistical average that might not apply to you at all.3 -
The only reason any of this matters in reality is that governments and health insurance agencies are setting premiums and services based on BMI. I think this is appalling because the statistics just don't back up the use of the population metric on individuals or even on all sub-populations. People's judginess is an irritation aside from that "you are a pound overweight by bmi, you can't be healthy!" The statistics are pretty clear that the miscategorization is most pertinent for setting overweight, and to a lesser degree obese; there is no real disagreement on morbid obesity.
I also think people are setting up a logical fallacy when they try to shift the argument and say "obese people are delusional and think they're healthy." they are arguing 2 full categories apart, not the division which represents where real growing risk exists.
I strongly prefer the definition of obesity used by the Mayo Clinic, which is a functional one. It is when your body fat is high enough that you are at risk of weight - related conditions. At risk. Some will, some won't have them. More will develop them than if they had less fat. And morbid obesity? Functional again - the body fat at which you are guaranteed to have medical problems caused and exacerbated by your weight.
The bolded is exactly what irks me so much about BMI. And you are right - it is an irritation when folks seem to insist that you absolutely MUST fit within the BMI or a certain clothing size, or you can't possibly be healthy, no matter what your other metrics are or what your doctor says......
And I agree with you completely on your last paragragh - I do like the Mayo Clinic's definitions.3 -
I have always felt that BMI gives a fairly wide range of "healthy" weight. I have a relatively small frame, and I typically maintain my weight at the lower end of the scale (19ish...give or take a point). It's where I look and feel my best. But I could actually gain 30+ pounds and still be within the "healthy" range. Of course my body would be quite different depending whether I gained 30 pounds of fat or 30 pounds of muscle. The former being less "healthy" than the latter. Obviously, body fat percentage or body composition is a superior measure of overall fitness...but I still feel that barring the previously described "outliers" most people have the potential to be able to fit into the broad range of healthy BMI.4
-
By mass/height, my BMI is 28. Yes I am overweight but healthy in general (walk a lot and lift heavy boxes 2 days a week). On calorie reduction diet and have lost 5kg so far. Using waist/hip the ratio is 0.9. Sounds worse right? But it goes UP as I get skinnier! When I weighed 53kg and was weight-training, my BMI was 18 (but that was thin enough to stop my periods!) and my waist hip ratio was 0.93! So no, it doesn't work for everyone.1
-
None of the tests work for everyone. My waist/hip ratio is weird too, I think it's because I'm really short-waisted and have slim hips. At one point I was a 2 in jeans and barely okay with the waist-hip. One of the reasons I had a DEXA (when I was around BMI 26 and then a follow up when I was around goal) was that I was curious if I actually had a problem with visceral fat, since I seem to gain in the middle and my waist-hip ratio was never as I would like it (I thought that was probably structural, but wanted to check). It was fine, no issue with visceral fat.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »None of the tests work for everyone. My waist/hip ratio is weird too, I think it's because I'm really short-waisted and have slim hips. At one point I was a 2 in jeans and barely okay with the waist-hip. One of the reasons I had a DEXA (when I was around BMI 26 and then a follow up when I was around goal) was that I was curious if I actually had a problem with visceral fat, since I seem to gain in the middle and my waist-hip ratio was never as I would like it (I thought that was probably structural, but wanted to check). It was fine, no issue with visceral fat.
So a DEXA will show visceral fat? That is something I worry about too, people are always surprised that I weigh as much as I do since my arms and legs really leaned out but my midsection is still where I am obviously carrying some excess!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »None of the tests work for everyone. My waist/hip ratio is weird too, I think it's because I'm really short-waisted and have slim hips. At one point I was a 2 in jeans and barely okay with the waist-hip. One of the reasons I had a DEXA (when I was around BMI 26 and then a follow up when I was around goal) was that I was curious if I actually had a problem with visceral fat, since I seem to gain in the middle and my waist-hip ratio was never as I would like it (I thought that was probably structural, but wanted to check). It was fine, no issue with visceral fat.
So a DEXA will show visceral fat? That is something I worry about too, people are always surprised that I weigh as much as I do since my arms and legs really leaned out but my midsection is still where I am obviously carrying some excess!
Yeah, it shows how much fat you have in various parts of your body; really interesting.0 -
Depending on exacts and according to Wikipedia, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and weighed 235 at his last Mr. Olympia contest (260 before the cut). That puts his competition weight BMI at ;
"Height: 6 feet, 2 inches
Weight: 235 pounds
Your BMI is 30.2, indicating your weight is in the Obese category for adults of your height."
The calculator is not very accurate. You can WOO this if you want but to say that Mr. Olympia 5 times was Obese?Come on? You know if you are healthy. You just have to tell yourself the truth. I have a long way to go but I am not trying to get to a BMI goal. I am trying to get to a healthy me goal.
So he is one of the 10-20% of the outliers. So would Michael Jordan in his playing day and any active NFL running back. What % of the people at the beach looked like them on your last visit?4 -
@Packerjohn , LOL. I was just making a point. You are correct. I am simply saying what the world thinks is super perfect is on this scale, we allow insurance to measure us by, obese. Not over weight. Not border line Obese. Higher premiums and all...This BMI to Health comparison is not good enough to broadly classify humans of different shapes and sizes. I am not hiding my size. I am better than I was but am not where I want to be and BMI is not my goal. I don't think it works in enough people that it should be the standard. That is my experiential opinion. but who am I?0
-
@Packerjohn , LOL. I was just making a point. You are correct. I am simply saying what the world thinks is super perfect is on this scale, we allow insurance to measure us by, obese. Not over weight. Not border line Obese. Higher premiums and all...This BMI to Health comparison is not good enough to broadly classify humans of different shapes and sizes. I am not hiding my size. I am better than I was but am not where I want to be and BMI is not my goal. I don't think it works in enough people that it should be the standard. That is my experiential opinion. but who am I?
I have yet ot see anyone say BMI is perfect...
I think however that if you are classed as obese and even overweight you probably are...there are outliers yes...but those are not the norm.
If people feel that they are an outlier then by all means do more testing...but even Waist to Hip Ratio is shown to not apply to all...BF% testing has large variances even Dexa.
BMI is a weight measure and that is use to figure out what you probably will get if you are obese not what you will get...and sorry but I don't have an issue with people classed as obese having to pay more for insurance...when I was a smoker i had to pay more...thems the breaks for not taking care of oneself.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm
read this site...all of it...it includes it's limitations etc....
2 -
I have yet ot see anyone say BMI is perfect...
I think however that if you are classed as obese and even overweight you probably are...there are outliers yes...but those are not the norm.
If people feel that they are an outlier then by all means do more testing...but even Waist to Hip Ratio is shown to not apply to all...BF% testing has large variances even Dexa.
BMI is a weight measure and that is use to figure out what you probably will get if you are obese not what you will get...and sorry but I don't have an issue with people classed as obese having to pay more for insurance...when I was a smoker i had to pay more...thems the breaks for not taking care of oneself.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm
read this site...all of it...it includes it's limitations etc....
Cool. You have an opinion. I also get to have an opinion. You say you would rather unjustly punish the 10% (not my number) than figure out a person by person system to figure out the exact risk. More power to you. I say if you have a dead ancestor then you will probably die also. Pay more for your life insurance. If you have a car that is the same model that someone else has wrecked or if you could be in an accident then you should pay a higher auto insurance premium. Has any of your parents or grandparents had cancer? Like your risk, your premiums should go up sister. I say that if you go that far just don't insure us fat folks at all. I am being sarcastic but If you will open your eyes you will see what I am sayin. I don't want you to agree with me but I want you to understand what is wrong with writing other's healthy records with a paint roller.
Look I don't really care what you think. If I thought I was healthy then I wouldn't be here. But your lines mean absolutely nothing to me. Really. Enjoy your day!
People have always tried to "judge" others on a scale that fits them. This is the reason we still have racism (not that you are). If you paint a picture of health based on a flawed set of parameters you are asking for someone to be falsely excluded. If it were 1% I would disagree with the idea. I get to have an opinion.
5
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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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