Anyone Else "Overweight" on the BMI Chart but Healthy, Active, Happy and not Really "Overweight"

1235»

Replies

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    mph323 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.

    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.

    There have been several sprinters bounced from the Olympics for PEDs including 'roids.
  • MegaMooseEsq
    MegaMooseEsq Posts: 3,118 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    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.

    Alan Page got his law degree while playing for the Vikings and worked as a lawyer with a fairly prominent firm while he was with the Bears. Dude's a bad-*kitten*.
  • for_ever_young66
    for_ever_young66 Posts: 2,877 Member
    edited March 2018
    MegaMooseEsq wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    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.

    Alan Page got his law degree while playing for the Vikings and worked as a lawyer with a fairly prominent firm while he was with the Bears. Dude's a bad-*kitten*.

    Page, I read, was also addicted to long distance running. On the surface, not a big deal but it is if you're an interior lineman. His coaches admonished him about it but he continued to run about 10-12 miles per day and was playing at about 225 lbs. Even for his era, that was small for the position. One of reasons the Vikes parted ways with him.
  • for_ever_young66
    for_ever_young66 Posts: 2,877 Member
    Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a pro football discussion lol
  • for_ever_young66
    for_ever_young66 Posts: 2,877 Member
    edited March 2018
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    mph323 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.

    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.

    There have been several sprinters bounced from the Olympics for PEDs including 'roids.

    no doubt. Marion Jones and Ben Johnson come to mind. Steroids not only bulk you up, they can help you run faster, improve your reflexes and can do wonders for your fast twitch muscle fibers. Which is why you never hear about marathon runners using steroids, almost all slow twitch fibers used there.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    MegaMooseEsq wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    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.

    Alan Page got his law degree while playing for the Vikings and worked as a lawyer with a fairly prominent firm while he was with the Bears. Dude's a bad-*kitten*.

    You're right. He is a bad-*kitten*.
  • Urbancowbarn
    Urbancowbarn Posts: 97 Member
    SingRunTing wrote: »
    suzfoley wrote: »
    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.

    I think that because the BMI ranges are so wide and I’ve read it’s to indicate frame size. Small frames on the low range and larger frames in the top range. I have a small frame. I’m already in a healthy body fat range % and healthy bmi, waist to height ratio, waist to hip ratio. At this point I’m purely working for aesthetic reasons aka as bikini season. I would look anorexic at 118. At my age another 10lbs los would probably put me where I would like to look in a bikini.
  • JDixon852019
    JDixon852019 Posts: 312 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, are people conflating "ideal weight" with "healthy BMI"? I remember when I was younger the women's magazines always had the latest diet woo every month, and there were lots of "ideal weight" charts that gave you a 3 or 4 lb. range based on your stats and "body type". It was usually at the lower end of the healthy BMI range, and there really wasn't much information in those articles that showed the full healthy range.

    Exactly. I could gain 20lbs and still be in the healthy range.

  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,563 Member
    jrulo16 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, are people conflating "ideal weight" with "healthy BMI"? I remember when I was younger the women's magazines always had the latest diet woo every month, and there were lots of "ideal weight" charts that gave you a 3 or 4 lb. range based on your stats and "body type". It was usually at the lower end of the healthy BMI range, and there really wasn't much information in those articles that showed the full healthy range.

    Exactly. I could gain 20lbs and still be in the healthy range.

    Yeah, I'm 5'3" and in my 20's weighed 120 lbs. I always believed I was fat because of those articles.
  • newheavensearth
    newheavensearth Posts: 870 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, are people conflating "ideal weight" with "healthy BMI"? I remember when I was younger the women's magazines always had the latest diet woo every month, and there were lots of "ideal weight" charts that gave you a 3 or 4 lb. range based on your stats and "body type". It was usually at the lower end of the healthy BMI range, and there really wasn't much information in those articles that showed the full healthy range.

    Not necessarily on this thread, but the general public and the medical community has. I remember those stupid charts too. Someone posted one to a Facebook group I belong to. Thankfully the comments shot it down.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, are people conflating "ideal weight" with "healthy BMI"? I remember when I was younger the women's magazines always had the latest diet woo every month, and there were lots of "ideal weight" charts that gave you a 3 or 4 lb. range based on your stats and "body type". It was usually at the lower end of the healthy BMI range, and there really wasn't much information in those articles that showed the full healthy range.

    There are also some so-called "ideal weight calculators" like this one (eye roll):

    http://www.calculator.net/ideal-weight-calculator.html

    I am not endorsing this (IMO) idiotic thing, just pointing out that they exist.

    For the record: I feel/look best toward the lower end of normal BMI, around BMI 20, but I'm a 62-year-old woman in the body of a 14-year-old boy (narrow pelvis, no booty, no breasts (post mastectomy) - despite not being totally devoid of muscle). Many women my height will feel & look better 20-30 pounds heavier, but I'm over-fat at that heavier weight)
  • DragonHasTheSapphire
    DragonHasTheSapphire Posts: 184 Member
    My body is more prone to having an "apple" shape when I gain weight, so I do look a lot better when I'm at the lower end of normal BMI, it gives more of the hourglass look. I don't have any breats or butt, but the women on my side of the family have wide hips, and for my dad's side they all have long necks. So I have no butt, chest, and I have a tiny head with a long, but hey, I look a lot better than when I looked like a ball.
  • tirowow12385
    tirowow12385 Posts: 697 Member
    I read somewhere online last year that people who are overweight according to the BMI chart lived longer than those in the healthy range.
  • JDixon852019
    JDixon852019 Posts: 312 Member
    tirowow12385 wrote: »
    I read somewhere online last year that people who are overweight according to the BMI chart lived longer than those in the healthy range.

    That study only looks at BMI at the time of death. Many people who die due to illness lose weight before they pass. The study also does not measure health or quality of life. Modern medicine has allowes us to live longer despite the abuse we put our bodies through.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories