Anyone Else "Overweight" on the BMI Chart but Healthy, Active, Happy and not Really "Overweight"
Replies
-
BMI certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like virtually everyone posting in this thread that they are technically overweight by BMI standards but feel that isn't true are barely overweight (like the two men that are 6'2" and 205ish...the top of normal weight BMI is 194) and most of them state they are trying to lose a few lbs. If you are trying to lose a few lbs doesn't that mean you consider yourself a little overweight? You're really just quibbling over the perfect number. BMI says 6'2" normal weight goes up to 194 and you think your perfect is 200. I'd say BMI is pretty close despite being for populations not individuals.15
-
mrsnattybulking wrote: »Depends on your bf% IMO. I'm 5'6" and at 163 I don't think anyone would describe me as overweight; but I"m at the top of the healthy range now (154) and I don't look a whole lot different. Maybe my arms are leaner.
My "after" pic is 163lbs and while I do have fat to lose, I don't think I would consider myself overweight.
You look great! Based on your traps, it looks like you might have been doing some resistance training? That could throw off the BMI link a little bit.
That said, the first 'overweight' BMI number might as well fall into the 'normal' category. It so close that you could fluctuate between normal and overweight simply by drinking water!3 -
mburgess458 wrote: »BMI certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like virtually everyone posting in this thread that they are technically overweight by BMI standards but feel that isn't true are barely overweight (like the two men that are 6'2" and 205ish...the top of normal weight BMI is 194) and most of them state they are trying to lose a few lbs. If you are trying to lose a few lbs doesn't that mean you consider yourself a little overweight? You're really just quibbling over the perfect number. BMI says 6'2" normal weight goes up to 194 and you think your perfect is 200. I'd say BMI is pretty close despite being for populations not individuals.
Speaking for myself, I'm in the process of recomping and my goal is to achieve 18% BF... I'm probably currently in the neighborhood of 20% (truly accurate numbers being near impossible to derive), which is at the low end of the 'Acceptable' BF% range, yet I'm still 12 pounds away from a 'Healthy' BMI (top 'Healthy' is actually 193).
From where I am now, I'd have to maintain something closer to 15% BF to be considered 'Healthy' from BMI standards. While achievable, that's pushing into the 'Athletic' BF% range - that means I'd be considered 'Unhealthy' at 16% BF.
How does that make any sense? And how is that the hallmark of a meaningful metric?
Spoiler alert: it doesn't and it's not.6 -
mburgess458 wrote: »BMI certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like virtually everyone posting in this thread that they are technically overweight by BMI standards but feel that isn't true are barely overweight (like the two men that are 6'2" and 205ish...the top of normal weight BMI is 194) and most of them state they are trying to lose a few lbs. If you are trying to lose a few lbs doesn't that mean you consider yourself a little overweight? You're really just quibbling over the perfect number. BMI says 6'2" normal weight goes up to 194 and you think your perfect is 200. I'd say BMI is pretty close despite being for populations not individuals.
Like the US Military and other health organizations, I consider BMI to be an approximation of fatness (the technical term, not an insult) that can be very helpful for people aiming for a healthy weight range and to lose body fat that may be contributing to health problems. And like the US Military and other health organizations, I consider other criteria important as well (such as waist size, body fat percentage) when making a determination of fatness. I think understanding body fat can be helpful for people at a normal weight as well for health reasons. My BMI, coupled with my body fat and waist/hip measurements and other health factors (big picture) puts me at low risk. For aesthetic reasons (not because I think I'm overweight and therefore unhealthy), I would still like to lose more weight. I would like to see what my body looks like at a normal weight. That's pretty much it.6 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
For example, you wouldn't take the average height of men in the U.S., come up with a range of say +/- one standard deviation, and then go around telling people that they're too tall or too short if they fell outside of that range.
To be fair, a quick google says that the average US height is 5'10" with a SD of 4 inches. I think we can all acknowledge that while nobody would outright call somebody short to their face for no reason in normal society, we all know what we really think when we see a guy shorter than 5'6". Heck, even the guys who are 5'6" or shorter are usually pretty open about their stature.
5 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
For example, you wouldn't take the average height of men in the U.S., come up with a range of say +/- one standard deviation, and then go around telling people that they're too tall or too short if they fell outside of that range.
To be fair, a quick google says that the average US height is 5'10" with a SD of 4 inches. I think we can all acknowledge that while nobody would outright call somebody short to their face for no reason in normal society, we all know what we really think when we see a guy shorter than 5'6". Heck, even the guys who are 5'6" or shorter are usually pretty open about their stature.
My point was that outside of that purely rhetorical 1 SD interval, is someone outside of it too short? Too tall?
The context matters (I know I keep harping on that - but only because it's true).
Context A: Individual seeks to be a jockey
Context B: Individual seeks to play center for L.A. Lakers
Now we can make some determinations and set some standards.
BMI is like me telling you that I'm driving 45MPH. Am I being 'Unsafe'? Should I speed up or slow down in order to be 'Safe'?2 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
For example, you wouldn't take the average height of men in the U.S., come up with a range of say +/- one standard deviation, and then go around telling people that they're too tall or too short if they fell outside of that range.
To be fair, a quick google says that the average US height is 5'10" with a SD of 4 inches. I think we can all acknowledge that while nobody would outright call somebody short to their face for no reason in normal society, we all know what we really think when we see a guy shorter than 5'6". Heck, even the guys who are 5'6" or shorter are usually pretty open about their stature.
Judgy much? I'm not sure what you think when you see a shorter man, but I think...nothing.
But this isn't an apples to apples comparison, since height isn't a controllable risk variable, it is what it is. Statistically there are increased (minor, I believe) risk factors for people on the far end of either side of the spectrum, but that would figure into general unavoidable risk factors like age. Weight (or body fat percent) is considered controllable.
7 -
I'm 6' tall and weigh 214.2 lbs. which puts my BMI in "overweight".
My goal weight had been 185... that is until I had a DEXA scan performed recently and was shocked by the results. The scan put my BF% at 11.4 and my total lean mass at 182.4 lbs. Obviously a goal weight of 185 was way off!6 -
Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.2
-
Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.
This from a 2015 NIH study:
"The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."
AND
"The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.
Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."7 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.
This from a 2015 NIH study:
"The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."
AND
"The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.
Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."
We should have just started here and saved the last 5 pages of comments
4 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.
This from a 2015 NIH study:
"The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."
AND
"The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.
Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."
Thanks - interesting, but not quite what I was curious about. I was thinking in terms of a statistical study using a population limited to people who are in a lean body fat range but an overweight bmi range. I wondered how well the risk curve for that population would correlate with the risk curve of a population with an average body fat range within a normal bmi range.
I'm having a really hard time articulating this
I'm wondering if the health risks for the lean, overweight bmi population would be the same as the risks for the average body fat, normal bmi group. 1 -
Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.
I have not been able to find any such thing. The closest thing to that I was able to find is that, in average, weight lifters, sprinters, and generally heavier athletes due to muscle mass have a lower life expectancy than marathoners and generally lighter athletes. Now steroids could be a confounding factor, I'm not sure if sprinters use steroids as an athlete population, so really even then it isn't clear.4 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.
This from a 2015 NIH study:
"The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."
AND
"The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.
Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."
Thanks - interesting, but not quite what I was curious about. I was thinking in terms of a statistical study using a population limited to people who are in a lean body fat range but an overweight bmi range. I wondered how well the risk curve for that population would correlate with the risk curve of a population with an average body fat range within a normal bmi range.
I'm having a really hard time articulating this I'm wondering if the health risks for the lean, overweight bmi population would be the same as the risks for the average body fat, normal bmi group.
Though the study doesn't come right out and say it, it points out that there are a wide range of BF%'s represented for any given BMI number. I think it's safe to say that the conclusion that, particularly for men, BMIs in the pre-obese range tend to have lower mortality - I think this is attributable to this segment being over-represented by the population you're describing; high BMI, but healthy BF%.
Though, to your point - it would be nice to see a study that lays it out as you describe.0 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »Depends on your bf% IMO. I'm 5'6" and at 163 I don't think anyone would describe me as overweight; but I"m at the top of the healthy range now (154) and I don't look a whole lot different. Maybe my arms are leaner.
My "after" pic is 163lbs and while I do have fat to lose, I don't think I would consider myself overweight.
Wow, looks like you're closer to 135 max in this pic which tells me that your BF is probably at an optimal level. Looks to me like you're on the right track. Great job.2 -
My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.5
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.
Funny you mention that. For example, I'm a big JJ Watt fan, who plays for my home team, the Houston Texans. He's 6'6" 290 lbs and on a cover of Men's Health magazine, he was sporting a 6 pack. BF% was easily in the teens. Now, the fan in me says JJ? Juicing? no way. But it does give you something to think about.1 -
for_ever_young66 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.
Funny you mention that. For example, I'm a big JJ Watt fan, who plays for my home team, the Houston Texans. He's 6'6" 290 lbs and on a cover of Men's Health magazine, he was sporting a 6 pack. BF% was easily in the teens. Now, the fan in me says JJ? Juicing? no way. But it does give you something to think about.
A screaming, microphone throwing JJ Watt, vehemently denied steroid use at a Texans press conference today. As he addressed the media following team practice, Watt, a 6’5, almost three hundred pound man, without an ounce of fat on him, took offense to the comments made by a Houston Chronicle beat reporter who asked “JJ, you look like you’re in incredible shape — maybe the best shape of your career. What’s your secret?”
Watt, turning red in the face and gripping the podium he was speaking in front of increasingly tightly, retorted by asking the reporter what he was implying.
“Secret? What kind of secret do you think I have, like steroids or something?” an increasingly animated Watt shouted, flexing his 34 inch biceps so hard the seams of his shirt began to tear.
“Does this look like someone on steroids to you?” Watt screamed at the top of his lungs. At this point he had completely removed his shirt, the veins in his considerably large neck protruding noticeably.
The reporters attempts to subdue Watt were completely unsuccessful. “J.J. please calm down, I was making a little joke. It was a compliment.”
Watt then asked the reporter if he believed flying furniture was a funny joke, before grabbing a handful of chairs and launching them into the crowd of assembled press personal.
“Seriously, could a guy on steroids do this?” Watt asked the terrified journalists, while running out to the parking lot of the training facility, where he squatted an entire Ford F-150 pick up truck.
For their part, the Texans released a statement calling the “whole ordeal a misunderstanding” and attributing Watt’s behavior to “an excess amount of coffee.”
http://www.thefarcereport.com/a-screaming-microphone-throwing-jj-watt-denies-steroid-use/
keyword: farce report - it's satire. 5 -
ha ha ha. funny. but that sounds more Roger Clemens than JJ Watt. lol2
-
BMI was originally just for populations as a whole in the beginning and shouldn't really be taken too seriously at an individual level. It's a guideline, an average. So it'll be pretty accurate for most people but there will be outliers.
My starting weight was around 180 (BMI 27.4) and my goal is 160 (24.3) which I think I'll be pretty lean at given how I felt at that weight previously and body composition change since then.
I'm not lean now, but then at the same time I don't feel particularly overweight. More like just carrying a bit extra fat (most of my weight gain and loss is always around my stomach) that I'd like to lose. I'm happy as I am now, and I'll be happy at the weight I'm aiming for. I have no issue with stopping before then if I feel I want to, and I don't care about my BMI at all. All that matters to be is how comfortable I feel with where I am. I'm active, I have muscle, I eat well. There's more to health than pure weight or BMI. Those things (and my strength) are more important to me than a 20lb loss, but I'm still going to go for it because it's what I'd like.1 -
for_ever_young66 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.
Funny you mention that. For example, I'm a big JJ Watt fan, who plays for my home team, the Houston Texans. He's 6'6" 290 lbs and on a cover of Men's Health magazine, he was sporting a 6 pack. BF% was easily in the teens. Now, the fan in me says JJ? Juicing? no way. But it does give you something to think about.
I'm a big JJ Watt fan also. I think he's a great man, a great humanitarian and a phenomenal football player. I'm not going to sling any accusations in his direction, but I'll say this as a general statement: It's my opinion that if the NFL tested every single player in the league, a lot of people would be surprised at how many positive results popped up. Or rather, they may be surprised at how few negative results popped up. I'll also say that 6'6", 290 pounds and low-teens % bodyfat calculates out to a FFMI that any pro bodybuilder would be proud of. Run the calculations for yourself here.4 -
I quit listening to that stupid chart after I started lifting weights and realized I never wanted to do anything else. I'm also 5'6". At 160lbs of just cardio, dieting, and no lifting I was a size 12/14 and looked and felt every bit of it. At 160lbs while doing nothing but lifting weights I am a size 8 and healthy and happy with myself. Don't get lost in the numbers!4
-
I'm 6' tall and weigh 214.2 lbs. which puts my BMI in "overweight".
My goal weight had been 185... that is until I had a DEXA scan performed recently and was shocked by the results. The scan put my BF% at 11.4 and my total lean mass at 182.4 lbs. Obviously a goal weight of 185 was way off!
That seems unlikely. At that weight and bodyfat you wouldn't need a dexa scan to know you're not overweight, becauase you'd look pretty muscular, lean and fit.3 -
I’m 5’ 6.5” and my BMI is 23.24, but my BF% is 22.40. I have a small frame and a banana shape and weigh 144lbs. BMI chart says I should be 118lbs wth my frame size. And I call BS because I would look ghastly at that weight. In fact me drop dead skinny at 20 years old—without an ounce of fat—weighed 126lbs. So this is my long way of saying I don’t trust BMI, or even the scale really. I much prefer tracking via measurements and BF. My goal is to hit 21%BF (139lbs) Have you ever seen the My Body Gallery website? It’s worth a look because you’ll see how different women with the same stats look. If you feel great I say ignore the BMI.
What? No.
118 is the absolute bottom of your normal BMI range. For 5'6", the range is 118 to 148. Why do you think the chart is saying you're supposed to aim for the bottom?
You say you're aiming for a healthy body fat %, which will end up in that range. That's how it works for most people.8 -
I've found a DEXA scan or Hydrostatic Body Fat test to be really helpful with this. I'm as thin as I would want to be right now at 18% Body Fat yet I'm almost in the obese category on the BMI chart!1
-
BoogiePinkus wrote: »jillstreett wrote: »I struggle with the BMI Chart on a regular basis. It has given me some goals of where I want to be but it also has shown me that it's probably not for everyone. I am aware of the vast amount of factors it does not account for. I am 5'6" and have 12 more pounds to lose to be at my goal weight of 165 (for a total loss of 30 pounds.) I realize that 165 is above the top of the "Normal" range on the BMI Chart by 11 pounds. BUT the only time that I was in the middle to the top of the "Normal" weight category I was dancing 8.5 hours a week for my Dance major in college, walking upwards of 2 miles with a heavy backpack all around campus 5 days a week, bartending/ waiting tables 4 days a week, walking my dog everyday and overall, super active. I simply am not in college any more. I do not believe (although I will try) that my body will be happy at 154 (top of "Normal" range) nor do I feel the need to be that weight. I am very active now, walking my dog everyday, dancing intense cardio and weight toning classes 4 times a week for a total of anywhere from 4.5 to 6 hours a week. I am doing all the necessary steps: cutting calories, getting in cardio and weights, etc. and the weight is coming off and I genuinely think that 165 is going to be fine and super healthy for my PEAR shape (big note there.) So my long winded question is? Anyone feel great and know you are healthy but you are "Overweight" on the BMI Chart? What's your take on it? I don't want it to seem like I'm fine with being "Overweight" but to me with my height and body shape, food choices and activity level, I'm not "Overweight!"
WEIGHT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A FORCE THAT IS MEDIUM DEPENDENT AND LOCATION SOECIFIC. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT BODYFAT OR LEANNESS. WALK ON THE MOON AND YOU INSTANTLY WEIGH FARRRRRRR LESS, LOSING WEIGHT..... MEANS NOTHING FOR FATNESS
Well hello, Shouty Guy!5 -
Over the past few yrs and a handful of different doctors, trainers, physical therapists, etc., they have all told me the BMI charts are deceiving, archaic and shouldn't be used at all. Apparently they came up with that chart in the 1940's based on a male of a certain ht/wt. It hasn't changed since. And doctors now acknowledge the variances in each of our genetic make up. My weight at 5'2" tall would never be the same as another 5'2" person of another ancestry/heritage/race/genetics. I have bulky leg muscles and no matter how much dieting or toning I do, my legs will never be slender. The length of my thigh is so short, the physical trainer had to mark my chart completely different than the standard measurement points. lol My daughter is the same height as me, average weight...my shoe size is 6.5, her shoe size is 8. Every body is built differently and you will know what feels most healthy for you. You sound happy and healthy...that's what your number should be.
11 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »I'm 6' tall and weigh 214.2 lbs. which puts my BMI in "overweight".
My goal weight had been 185... that is until I had a DEXA scan performed recently and was shocked by the results. The scan put my BF% at 11.4 and my total lean mass at 182.4 lbs. Obviously a goal weight of 185 was way off!
That seems unlikely. At that weight and bodyfat you wouldn't need a dexa scan to know you're not overweight, becauase you'd look pretty muscular, lean and fit.
I’ve lost about 250 pounds so I have a LOT of loose skin. I thought there was still fat under all that skin but apparently there is not...
5 -
for_ever_young66 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.
Funny you mention that. For example, I'm a big JJ Watt fan, who plays for my home team, the Houston Texans. He's 6'6" 290 lbs and on a cover of Men's Health magazine, he was sporting a 6 pack. BF% was easily in the teens. Now, the fan in me says JJ? Juicing? no way. But it does give you something to think about.
I'm a big JJ Watt fan also. I think he's a great man, a great humanitarian and a phenomenal football player. I'm not going to sling any accusations in his direction, but I'll say this as a general statement: It's my opinion that if the NFL tested every single player in the league, a lot of people would be surprised at how many positive results popped up. Or rather, they may be surprised at how few negative results popped up. I'll also say that 6'6", 290 pounds and low-teens % bodyfat calculates out to a FFMI that any pro bodybuilder would be proud of. Run the calculations for yourself here.
Also a JJ fan. He (and other NFL players) may be juicing or may not. In any case JJ trains incredibly hard as it's his job to train and recover. They don't go to an office, do house/yard work (unless they want to). A regular Joe who has a 40+ hour a week job, family, house, yard, etc to take care of is not going to get in that kind of shape (but can get in good shape) because he doesn't have the resources.
The only individual that comes to my mind (in the last 40 or so years) who advanced to the top of their sport was Ronnie Coleman, who won several Mr Olympia titles while working full time as a police officer.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions