Does everyone still use the bmi scale??
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Hungry_Shopgirl wrote: »mulecanter wrote: »I was skeptical of BMI until I got to the healthy range, turns out it was right.
Me too. I thought I was an outlier. Turns out I was still just too fat.
Agreed. Me too. I thought it didn't apply to me because I couldn't even imagine myself at such a low weight. Turns out, I can be in the "normal" range and I love it.
People with high muscle mass disparage it and say it's bogus, subjective, etc. Fine, you already count macros and can shed a pound on command, you know you're not overweight, move on. But for a non-bodybuilder, overweight or obese individual with no idea what weight to shoot for, it can be a useful tool.
Yes body builders can have high BMI and not be overweight. But if BMI is assessed in conjunction with clinical picture ie the actual body of the patient, then this is obvious
Just like it was obvious to both my doctor and myself that my bmi of 28 was not because I was an outlier with large amount of lean muscle - it was plain old because I was overweight.
Same of course for other outliers with unusual body shapes - amputees, people with dwarfism etc. obviously their BMI is altered by that.
But I'm sure people know if that applies to them.
If not, chances are that bmi range does apply fairly accurately.
Risking opening a can of worms, but I have heard more than one medical professional voice the opinion that bodybuilding and other forms of extreme fitness are not healthy and there is some evidence for that opinion being valid:
https://www.renalandurologynews.com/aua-2016-misc-urinary-problems/mortality-rate-higher-among-bodybuilders/article/495038/
[excerpt]
Bodybuilders have a mortality rate 34% higher than that of the age-matched U.S. male population, according to a study presented at the American Urological Association's 2016 annual meeting.
[me again]
Bodybuilders may have a more socially acceptable reason for being overweight than someone out of shape that has a high BF%, but they are still out of the normal range and overweight.
Steroid use is rampant in the BB community...
I personally don't think it's a BMI thing.
I'm 5'10" and my maintenance is typically about 180 which puts me 6 Lbs overweight on the BMI charts. I'm not hugely muscular or anything, but apparently have enough to put me a handful of Lbs over the top end. I'm not super lean either...healthy BF%, no love handles, etc...around 15% BF. I could be leaner of course and be in the top end of the range, but I figure I'm at a healthy BF% so that's ok with me.
My point is that they are not necessarily an exception to BMI. The medical professional opinions I have heard about the unhealthy nature of extreme muscles and fitness have nothing to do with steroids. It's about how they fare when they get older; seem to age quicker and more prone to cardiac problems.2 -
CarvedTones wrote: »IMO, highly muscular athletes have a better reason than most to be overweight, but they are still overweight. People with high BF% and a normal BMI are not overweight but they aren't healthy.
Depends on what sort of athletes you're looking at. I once did a search for all kinds and more often than not, they were normal weight or at most barely into overweight.
That included most everyone playing Football(soccer that is), Olympic athletes(Usain Bolt for example), even basketball players(if I remember right, even Shaq started out at normal BMI at the start of his career, not anymore obviously). Basically almost everywhere where more weight isn't necessarily better, athletes tend to have low amounts of bodyfat and they end up at a normal-ish BMI despite lots of muscle.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »IMO, highly muscular athletes have a better reason than most to be overweight, but they are still overweight. People with high BF% and a normal BMI are not overweight but they aren't healthy.
Depends on what sort of athletes you're looking at. I once did a search for all kinds and more often than not, they were normal weight or at most barely into overweight.
That included most everyone playing Football(soccer that is), Olympic athletes(Usain Bolt for example), even basketball players(if I remember right, even Shaq started out at normal BMI at the start of his career, not anymore obviously). Basically almost everywhere where more weight isn't necessarily better, athletes tend to have low amounts of bodyfat and they end up at a normal-ish BMI despite lots of muscle.
True for a lot of sports, but look at American football, and not just linemen (receivers and corners are most likely in the healthy BMI range) Barry Sanders was 5'8" 200 lbs, bmi of 30.4 and had a healthy, or even somewhat low BF%, Emmitt Smith 5'9" 216, BMI of 31.9. Sequon Barkley 6', 230, 31.2 BMI, all of these guys are in great shape and best at what they do and do not carry much fat at all.
Even Terrel Owens, a receiver, with very little body fat was a BMI of 28, 6'3, 2240 -
stevencloser wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »IMO, highly muscular athletes have a better reason than most to be overweight, but they are still overweight. People with high BF% and a normal BMI are not overweight but they aren't healthy.
Depends on what sort of athletes you're looking at. I once did a search for all kinds and more often than not, they were normal weight or at most barely into overweight.
That included most everyone playing Football(soccer that is), Olympic athletes(Usain Bolt for example), even basketball players(if I remember right, even Shaq started out at normal BMI at the start of his career, not anymore obviously). Basically almost everywhere where more weight isn't necessarily better, athletes tend to have low amounts of bodyfat and they end up at a normal-ish BMI despite lots of muscle.
True for a lot of sports, but look at American football, and not just linemen (receivers and corners are most likely in the healthy BMI range) Barry Sanders was 5'8" 200 lbs, bmi of 30.4 and had a healthy, or even somewhat low BF%, Emmitt Smith 5'9" 216, BMI of 31.9. Sequon Barkley 6', 230, 31.2 BMI, all of these guys are in great shape and best at what they do and do not carry much fat at all.
Even Terrel Owens, a receiver, with very little body fat was a BMI of 28, 6'3, 224
PEDs.4 -
Even without the PEDs (which are certainly relevant), professional and other elite-level athletes have placed their bodies under very extreme stresses (a.k.a. training and competition). There's a confounding interplay with genetics and one's other life habits, of course, but it seems like there's increased potential for those stressors to produce problems long term, not just produce positive performance adaptations during peak years.
I don't think there's any way to jigger the sample to adjust for that possibility. People don't get extreme muscles without doing extreme things, do they? Whereas, once you do your best to filter out already-sick or high-behavioral-risk skinny people from healthier skinny people, you can hope to get a group that mostly hasn't put themselves under major physical stress to be what they are.
I'm not dissing athleticism here. The observations above that many elite athletes are going to fall into the normal BMI range is relevant. It's a subset of elites (or very, very strength-training-intense others; or genetically muscular people) who are going to have enough muscle to be outside the normal BMI range. It seems like people who've taken on unusual physical stresses are likely to be over-represented in the "low bodyfat, over normal BMI" sub-population. It's not purely a BMI question, IMO. I wonder whether normal-BMI elite athletes in very stressful sports are at higher risk of early mortality, or not?3 -
Even without the PEDs (which are certainly relevant), professional and other elite-level athletes have placed their bodies under very extreme stresses (a.k.a. training and competition). There's a confounding interplay with genetics and one's other life habits, of course, but it seems like there's increased potential for those stressors to produce problems long term, not just produce positive performance adaptations during peak years.
I don't think there's any way to jigger the sample to adjust for that possibility. People don't get extreme muscles without doing extreme things, do they? Whereas, once you do your best to filter out already-sick or high-behavioral-risk skinny people from healthier skinny people, you can hope to get a group that mostly hasn't put themselves under major physical stress to be what they are.
I'm not dissing athleticism here. The observations above that many elite athletes are going to fall into the normal BMI range is relevant. It's a subset of elites (or very, very strength-training-intense others; or genetically muscular people) who are going to have enough muscle to be outside the normal BMI range. It seems like people who've taken on unusual physical stresses are likely to be over-represented in the "low bodyfat, over normal BMI" sub-population. It's not purely a BMI question, IMO. I wonder whether normal-BMI elite athletes in very stressful sports are at higher risk of early mortality, or not?
I don't know about overall research, but studies suggest that career NFL players die earlier than other men do. In this case the much higher rates of neurological/neurodegenerative diseases seem to be playing a role. So even if your BMI is normal, you're still at risk for CTE and everything that can happen in later life as a result.1 -
Pro NFL players today are radically different than they were 20 years ago. It's not just the training that's changed and we certainly haven't gone through an X-Men kind of genetic mutant surge... the difference is that almost all of them use PED's just to stay competitive in the league. I don't think we can use them as an example in this discussion.
We keep talking about extreme examples of musculature and athleticism but are non competitive bodybuilders like me who are just trying to be relatively healthy and aesthetic fit into that category? I'm 6'1 and currently weight a little over 200 pounds and I'm still relatively lean although I'm starting another bulk. I'm pretty small framed but I'd still have to be 189 pounds to be at the very top end of BMI. I don't consider my physique extreme at all. Actually pretty average for a guy who works out... still lanky and skinny if you really want to know how I feel about it.
Now, according to calculators that base their numbers on a few accepted algorithms - my genetic natural muscular potential is between about 220 and 230 pounds at 15%. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that and since I'm rapidly approaching 50 that potential may be out of reach for me at this point.
I'm sitting here at work (goofing off, shame, shame) and looking around my office at the other guys. Everybody around here - an average slice of West Coast Americana - looks like they would probably be in the range of "normal" on BMI but if I had to bet money on a number I'd wager that most of them are at least 25% bf - maybe higher. People I'd consider "skinny fat". I'd be surprised if any of them could actually do a pull-up. Are we considering extreme those people that deviate from these societal norms and fitness levels? I don't consider it extreme unless extreme measures have been taken to achieve those results... and a couple of hours a day in the gym - especially if you have a sedentary office job, is anything but extreme. imo0 -
I started out as a BMI of 19 (114 lbs at 5'5") for my first bulk. I started this bulk, my fourth, at a BMI of 21 (126 lbs). I finished my bulk, and am currently 5 lbs away from being classified as overweight by BMI standards, yet my body fat percentage is somewhere between the high teens and low 20s (haven't had it checked recently). I wear a size 2/4 and in a subsequent bulk, will most likely end up in "overweight" territory.
ETA grammar3 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Pro NFL players today are radically different than they were 20 years ago. It's not just the training that's changed and we certainly haven't gone through an X-Men kind of genetic mutant surge... the difference is that almost all of them use PED's just to stay competitive in the league. I don't think we can use them as an example in this discussion.
We keep talking about extreme examples of musculature and athleticism but are non competitive bodybuilders like me who are just trying to be relatively healthy and aesthetic fit into that category? I'm 6'1 and currently weight a little over 200 pounds and I'm still relatively lean although I'm starting another bulk. I'm pretty small framed but I'd still have to be 189 pounds to be at the very top end of BMI. I don't consider my physique extreme at all. Actually pretty average for a guy who works out... still lanky and skinny if you really want to know how I feel about it.
Now, according to calculators that base their numbers on a few accepted algorithms - my genetic natural muscular potential is between about 220 and 230 pounds at 15%. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that and since I'm rapidly approaching 50 that potential may be out of reach for me at this point.
I'm sitting here at work (goofing off, shame, shame) and looking around my office at the other guys. Everybody around here - an average slice of West Coast Americana - looks like they would probably be in the range of "normal" on BMI but if I had to bet money on a number I'd wager that most of them are at least 25% bf - maybe higher. People I'd consider "skinny fat". I'd be surprised if any of them could actually do a pull-up. Are we considering extreme those people that deviate from these societal norms and fitness levels? I don't consider it extreme unless extreme measures have been taken to achieve those results... and a couple of hours a day in the gym - especially if you have a sedentary office job, is anything but extreme. imo
I may've partly provoked your reply, so I'll say this: I'm not saying that . . . at least not intentionally.
Someone argued that a high BMI is inherently unhealthy (increases mortality risk) even if the high BMI results from muscle/fitness.
I argued that any study of high BMI/low bodyfat people has a problem, because it will tend to include disproportionate numbers of people who have placed their bodies under extreme physical stresses of one sort or another. Because those extreme cases are (unavoidably?) over-represented in the high BMI/low bodyfat group, it's not obvious that high BMI/low bodyfat by itself would account for any putative increase in mortality risk. The increased risk could be from over-representation in the high BMI/low bodyfat group of people like the football players Jane mentioned (plus others, of other types, for other reasons).
A reasonable training program and resulting high fitness are not necessarily "extreme physical stresses", even if they result in high BMI/low bodyfat. As an aging person myself (62), and a pretty active one, personal observation suggests that deviating from the (lamentably low) modern societal norms of fitness will tend to increase lifespan, and increase late-life quality even more so. IOW, I think I'm agreeing with you: A couple of very active hours a day is likely good for a person, in mortality risk terms. Training for many hours a day for years, pushing to the max frequently in athletic competition, experiencing the injuries that are more common among some elite athletes, etc. . . . might not be equally beneficial. Purely speculation, though.2 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Pro NFL players today are radically different than they were 20 years ago. It's not just the training that's changed and we certainly haven't gone through an X-Men kind of genetic mutant surge... the difference is that almost all of them use PED's just to stay competitive in the league. I don't think we can use them as an example in this discussion.
We keep talking about extreme examples of musculature and athleticism but are non competitive bodybuilders like me who are just trying to be relatively healthy and aesthetic fit into that category? I'm 6'1 and currently weight a little over 200 pounds and I'm still relatively lean although I'm starting another bulk. I'm pretty small framed but I'd still have to be 189 pounds to be at the very top end of BMI. I don't consider my physique extreme at all. Actually pretty average for a guy who works out... still lanky and skinny if you really want to know how I feel about it.
Now, according to calculators that base their numbers on a few accepted algorithms - my genetic natural muscular potential is between about 220 and 230 pounds at 15%. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that and since I'm rapidly approaching 50 that potential may be out of reach for me at this point.
I'm sitting here at work (goofing off, shame, shame) and looking around my office at the other guys. Everybody around here - an average slice of West Coast Americana - looks like they would probably be in the range of "normal" on BMI but if I had to bet money on a number I'd wager that most of them are at least 25% bf - maybe higher. People I'd consider "skinny fat". I'd be surprised if any of them could actually do a pull-up. Are we considering extreme those people that deviate from these societal norms and fitness levels? I don't consider it extreme unless extreme measures have been taken to achieve those results... and a couple of hours a day in the gym - especially if you have a sedentary office job, is anything but extreme. imo
I may've partly provoked your reply, so I'll say this: I'm not saying that . . . at least not intentionally.
Someone argued that a high BMI is inherently unhealthy (increases mortality risk) even if the high BMI results from muscle/fitness.
I argued that any study of high BMI/low bodyfat people has a problem, because it will tend to include disproportionate numbers of people who have placed their bodies under extreme physical stresses of one sort or another. Because those extreme cases are (unavoidably?) over-represented in the high BMI/low bodyfat group, it's not obvious that high BMI/low bodyfat by itself would account for any putative increase in mortality risk. The increased risk could be from over-representation in the high BMI/low bodyfat group of people like the football players Jane mentioned (plus others, of other types, for other reasons).
A reasonable training program and resulting high fitness are not necessarily "extreme physical stresses", even if they result in high BMI/low bodyfat. As an aging person myself (62), and a pretty active one, personal observation suggests that deviating from the (lamentably low) modern societal norms of fitness will tend to increase lifespan, and increase late-life quality even more so. IOW, I think I'm agreeing with you: A couple of very active hours a day is likely good for a person, in mortality risk terms. Training for many hours a day for years, pushing to the max frequently in athletic competition, experiencing the injuries that are more common among some elite athletes, etc. . . . might not be equally beneficial. Purely speculation, though.
I suggested that bodybuilders have a higher than normal mortality and posted a link to the study that assumption is based on. It is irrespective of BMI. It is my opinion that BMI and health and not always tightly coupled. But it is also my opinion that there are not exceptions to BMI. If you are 25 or over, you are overweight. But there can be extenuating circumstances that make it okay to be overweight. Those circumstances don't magically make you not overweight though.5 -
CarvedTones wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Pro NFL players today are radically different than they were 20 years ago. It's not just the training that's changed and we certainly haven't gone through an X-Men kind of genetic mutant surge... the difference is that almost all of them use PED's just to stay competitive in the league. I don't think we can use them as an example in this discussion.
We keep talking about extreme examples of musculature and athleticism but are non competitive bodybuilders like me who are just trying to be relatively healthy and aesthetic fit into that category? I'm 6'1 and currently weight a little over 200 pounds and I'm still relatively lean although I'm starting another bulk. I'm pretty small framed but I'd still have to be 189 pounds to be at the very top end of BMI. I don't consider my physique extreme at all. Actually pretty average for a guy who works out... still lanky and skinny if you really want to know how I feel about it.
Now, according to calculators that base their numbers on a few accepted algorithms - my genetic natural muscular potential is between about 220 and 230 pounds at 15%. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that and since I'm rapidly approaching 50 that potential may be out of reach for me at this point.
I'm sitting here at work (goofing off, shame, shame) and looking around my office at the other guys. Everybody around here - an average slice of West Coast Americana - looks like they would probably be in the range of "normal" on BMI but if I had to bet money on a number I'd wager that most of them are at least 25% bf - maybe higher. People I'd consider "skinny fat". I'd be surprised if any of them could actually do a pull-up. Are we considering extreme those people that deviate from these societal norms and fitness levels? I don't consider it extreme unless extreme measures have been taken to achieve those results... and a couple of hours a day in the gym - especially if you have a sedentary office job, is anything but extreme. imo
I may've partly provoked your reply, so I'll say this: I'm not saying that . . . at least not intentionally.
Someone argued that a high BMI is inherently unhealthy (increases mortality risk) even if the high BMI results from muscle/fitness.
I argued that any study of high BMI/low bodyfat people has a problem, because it will tend to include disproportionate numbers of people who have placed their bodies under extreme physical stresses of one sort or another. Because those extreme cases are (unavoidably?) over-represented in the high BMI/low bodyfat group, it's not obvious that high BMI/low bodyfat by itself would account for any putative increase in mortality risk. The increased risk could be from over-representation in the high BMI/low bodyfat group of people like the football players Jane mentioned (plus others, of other types, for other reasons).
A reasonable training program and resulting high fitness are not necessarily "extreme physical stresses", even if they result in high BMI/low bodyfat. As an aging person myself (62), and a pretty active one, personal observation suggests that deviating from the (lamentably low) modern societal norms of fitness will tend to increase lifespan, and increase late-life quality even more so. IOW, I think I'm agreeing with you: A couple of very active hours a day is likely good for a person, in mortality risk terms. Training for many hours a day for years, pushing to the max frequently in athletic competition, experiencing the injuries that are more common among some elite athletes, etc. . . . might not be equally beneficial. Purely speculation, though.
I suggested that bodybuilders have a higher than normal mortality and posted a link to the study that assumption is based on. It is irrespective of BMI. It is my opinion that BMI and health and not always tightly coupled. But it is also my opinion that there are not exceptions to BMI. If you are 25 or over, you are overweight. But there can be extenuating circumstances that make it okay to be overweight. Those circumstances don't magically make you not overweight though.
So, as a woman, if I'm 5'5" and 145 lbs I'd be considered overweight in your mind... even if I was sub 20% body fat and wore a size 2/4?
ETA most people think I weigh in the 120s.4 -
@AnnPT77 ... nah, you didn't directly trigger me. Although, I admit that the term has popped up in a few threads that I've been following on this forum and some others today which probably forced my reply before I really thought it through. I'm getting old enough now that I'm probably a tad over-sensitive to claims about mortality issues related to my activities.
I've always enjoyed and respected how clearly you communicate and the content of your posts.8 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Pro NFL players today are radically different than they were 20 years ago. It's not just the training that's changed and we certainly haven't gone through an X-Men kind of genetic mutant surge... the difference is that almost all of them use PED's just to stay competitive in the league. I don't think we can use them as an example in this discussion.
We keep talking about extreme examples of musculature and athleticism but are non competitive bodybuilders like me who are just trying to be relatively healthy and aesthetic fit into that category? I'm 6'1 and currently weight a little over 200 pounds and I'm still relatively lean although I'm starting another bulk. I'm pretty small framed but I'd still have to be 189 pounds to be at the very top end of BMI. I don't consider my physique extreme at all. Actually pretty average for a guy who works out... still lanky and skinny if you really want to know how I feel about it.
Now, according to calculators that base their numbers on a few accepted algorithms - my genetic natural muscular potential is between about 220 and 230 pounds at 15%. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that and since I'm rapidly approaching 50 that potential may be out of reach for me at this point.
I'm sitting here at work (goofing off, shame, shame) and looking around my office at the other guys. Everybody around here - an average slice of West Coast Americana - looks like they would probably be in the range of "normal" on BMI but if I had to bet money on a number I'd wager that most of them are at least 25% bf - maybe higher. People I'd consider "skinny fat". I'd be surprised if any of them could actually do a pull-up. Are we considering extreme those people that deviate from these societal norms and fitness levels? I don't consider it extreme unless extreme measures have been taken to achieve those results... and a couple of hours a day in the gym - especially if you have a sedentary office job, is anything but extreme. imo
I may've partly provoked your reply, so I'll say this: I'm not saying that . . . at least not intentionally.
Someone argued that a high BMI is inherently unhealthy (increases mortality risk) even if the high BMI results from muscle/fitness.
I argued that any study of high BMI/low bodyfat people has a problem, because it will tend to include disproportionate numbers of people who have placed their bodies under extreme physical stresses of one sort or another. Because those extreme cases are (unavoidably?) over-represented in the high BMI/low bodyfat group, it's not obvious that high BMI/low bodyfat by itself would account for any putative increase in mortality risk. The increased risk could be from over-representation in the high BMI/low bodyfat group of people like the football players Jane mentioned (plus others, of other types, for other reasons).
A reasonable training program and resulting high fitness are not necessarily "extreme physical stresses", even if they result in high BMI/low bodyfat. As an aging person myself (62), and a pretty active one, personal observation suggests that deviating from the (lamentably low) modern societal norms of fitness will tend to increase lifespan, and increase late-life quality even more so. IOW, I think I'm agreeing with you: A couple of very active hours a day is likely good for a person, in mortality risk terms. Training for many hours a day for years, pushing to the max frequently in athletic competition, experiencing the injuries that are more common among some elite athletes, etc. . . . might not be equally beneficial. Purely speculation, though.
I suggested that bodybuilders have a higher than normal mortality and posted a link to the study that assumption is based on. It is irrespective of BMI. It is my opinion that BMI and health and not always tightly coupled. But it is also my opinion that there are not exceptions to BMI. If you are 25 or over, you are overweight. But there can be extenuating circumstances that make it okay to be overweight. Those circumstances don't magically make you not overweight though.
So, as a woman, if I'm 5'5" and 145 lbs I'd be considered overweight in your mind... even if I was sub 20% body fat and wore a size 2/4?
Yes, by the BMI definition. My point is/was that BMI isn't flexible and it doesn't always indicate poor health. You may have a perfectly good reason for being overweight by the BMI standard. Heavily muscled people are not the normal weight for their height. There seems to be some correlation with that and earlier than average mortality.7 -
CarvedTones wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Pro NFL players today are radically different than they were 20 years ago. It's not just the training that's changed and we certainly haven't gone through an X-Men kind of genetic mutant surge... the difference is that almost all of them use PED's just to stay competitive in the league. I don't think we can use them as an example in this discussion.
We keep talking about extreme examples of musculature and athleticism but are non competitive bodybuilders like me who are just trying to be relatively healthy and aesthetic fit into that category? I'm 6'1 and currently weight a little over 200 pounds and I'm still relatively lean although I'm starting another bulk. I'm pretty small framed but I'd still have to be 189 pounds to be at the very top end of BMI. I don't consider my physique extreme at all. Actually pretty average for a guy who works out... still lanky and skinny if you really want to know how I feel about it.
Now, according to calculators that base their numbers on a few accepted algorithms - my genetic natural muscular potential is between about 220 and 230 pounds at 15%. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that and since I'm rapidly approaching 50 that potential may be out of reach for me at this point.
I'm sitting here at work (goofing off, shame, shame) and looking around my office at the other guys. Everybody around here - an average slice of West Coast Americana - looks like they would probably be in the range of "normal" on BMI but if I had to bet money on a number I'd wager that most of them are at least 25% bf - maybe higher. People I'd consider "skinny fat". I'd be surprised if any of them could actually do a pull-up. Are we considering extreme those people that deviate from these societal norms and fitness levels? I don't consider it extreme unless extreme measures have been taken to achieve those results... and a couple of hours a day in the gym - especially if you have a sedentary office job, is anything but extreme. imo
I may've partly provoked your reply, so I'll say this: I'm not saying that . . . at least not intentionally.
Someone argued that a high BMI is inherently unhealthy (increases mortality risk) even if the high BMI results from muscle/fitness.
I argued that any study of high BMI/low bodyfat people has a problem, because it will tend to include disproportionate numbers of people who have placed their bodies under extreme physical stresses of one sort or another. Because those extreme cases are (unavoidably?) over-represented in the high BMI/low bodyfat group, it's not obvious that high BMI/low bodyfat by itself would account for any putative increase in mortality risk. The increased risk could be from over-representation in the high BMI/low bodyfat group of people like the football players Jane mentioned (plus others, of other types, for other reasons).
A reasonable training program and resulting high fitness are not necessarily "extreme physical stresses", even if they result in high BMI/low bodyfat. As an aging person myself (62), and a pretty active one, personal observation suggests that deviating from the (lamentably low) modern societal norms of fitness will tend to increase lifespan, and increase late-life quality even more so. IOW, I think I'm agreeing with you: A couple of very active hours a day is likely good for a person, in mortality risk terms. Training for many hours a day for years, pushing to the max frequently in athletic competition, experiencing the injuries that are more common among some elite athletes, etc. . . . might not be equally beneficial. Purely speculation, though.
I suggested that bodybuilders have a higher than normal mortality and posted a link to the study that assumption is based on. It is irrespective of BMI. It is my opinion that BMI and health and not always tightly coupled. But it is also my opinion that there are not exceptions to BMI. If you are 25 or over, you are overweight. But there can be extenuating circumstances that make it okay to be overweight. Those circumstances don't magically make you not overweight though.
So, as a woman, if I'm 5'5" and 145 lbs I'd be considered overweight in your mind... even if I was sub 20% body fat and wore a size 2/4?
Yes, by the BMI definition. My point is/was that BMI isn't flexible and it doesn't always indicate poor health. You may have a perfectly good reason for being overweight by the BMI standard. Heavily muscled people are not the normal weight for their height. There seems to be some correlation with that and earlier than average mortality.
I'm pretty sure the earlier mortality rates in body builders is a result of PED usage rather than being above normal BMI.
ETA Correlation does not always equal causation.6 -
CarvedTones wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Pro NFL players today are radically different than they were 20 years ago. It's not just the training that's changed and we certainly haven't gone through an X-Men kind of genetic mutant surge... the difference is that almost all of them use PED's just to stay competitive in the league. I don't think we can use them as an example in this discussion.
We keep talking about extreme examples of musculature and athleticism but are non competitive bodybuilders like me who are just trying to be relatively healthy and aesthetic fit into that category? I'm 6'1 and currently weight a little over 200 pounds and I'm still relatively lean although I'm starting another bulk. I'm pretty small framed but I'd still have to be 189 pounds to be at the very top end of BMI. I don't consider my physique extreme at all. Actually pretty average for a guy who works out... still lanky and skinny if you really want to know how I feel about it.
Now, according to calculators that base their numbers on a few accepted algorithms - my genetic natural muscular potential is between about 220 and 230 pounds at 15%. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that and since I'm rapidly approaching 50 that potential may be out of reach for me at this point.
I'm sitting here at work (goofing off, shame, shame) and looking around my office at the other guys. Everybody around here - an average slice of West Coast Americana - looks like they would probably be in the range of "normal" on BMI but if I had to bet money on a number I'd wager that most of them are at least 25% bf - maybe higher. People I'd consider "skinny fat". I'd be surprised if any of them could actually do a pull-up. Are we considering extreme those people that deviate from these societal norms and fitness levels? I don't consider it extreme unless extreme measures have been taken to achieve those results... and a couple of hours a day in the gym - especially if you have a sedentary office job, is anything but extreme. imo
I may've partly provoked your reply, so I'll say this: I'm not saying that . . . at least not intentionally.
Someone argued that a high BMI is inherently unhealthy (increases mortality risk) even if the high BMI results from muscle/fitness.
I argued that any study of high BMI/low bodyfat people has a problem, because it will tend to include disproportionate numbers of people who have placed their bodies under extreme physical stresses of one sort or another. Because those extreme cases are (unavoidably?) over-represented in the high BMI/low bodyfat group, it's not obvious that high BMI/low bodyfat by itself would account for any putative increase in mortality risk. The increased risk could be from over-representation in the high BMI/low bodyfat group of people like the football players Jane mentioned (plus others, of other types, for other reasons).
A reasonable training program and resulting high fitness are not necessarily "extreme physical stresses", even if they result in high BMI/low bodyfat. As an aging person myself (62), and a pretty active one, personal observation suggests that deviating from the (lamentably low) modern societal norms of fitness will tend to increase lifespan, and increase late-life quality even more so. IOW, I think I'm agreeing with you: A couple of very active hours a day is likely good for a person, in mortality risk terms. Training for many hours a day for years, pushing to the max frequently in athletic competition, experiencing the injuries that are more common among some elite athletes, etc. . . . might not be equally beneficial. Purely speculation, though.
I suggested that bodybuilders have a higher than normal mortality and posted a link to the study that assumption is based on. It is irrespective of BMI. It is my opinion that BMI and health and not always tightly coupled. But it is also my opinion that there are not exceptions to BMI. If you are 25 or over, you are overweight. But there can be extenuating circumstances that make it okay to be overweight. Those circumstances don't magically make you not overweight though.
And actual competitive bodybuilders do extreme things: Extreme cuts with dehydration going into competitions, PEDs, sometimes very unusual dietary strategies, etc. These are physical stressors.
Yes, having a specific BMI makes you technically "overweight" because that's literally how "overweight" is defined. Being "overweight" doesn't automatically make you (as an individual) at higher mortality risk. Overweight populations have higher mortality risk. Why? Overwhelmingly, people who are "overweight" are over-fat, with rare exceptions. Being over-fat is where the mortality risk comes in. But other things increase mortality risk, too: Some of the physically stressful practices of bodybuilders may do so. Certainly PEDs do so. Certainly CTE among professional football players does so. And so forth.9 -
Yes that makes sense Ann.
I do think that context needs to be taken into account when deciding if someone is healthy number in or just out of the range.
Sporty muscular young men - not elite body builders or professional footballers, just sporty young men who do gym or play amateur sports, can probably be healthy and not overweight at BMIs just outside the official range, say, up to about 28.
Whereas me, as mentioned upthread, was a middle aged non sporty smaller framed woman - BMI of 28 was definitely just overweight fat.
4 -
It’s not a totally useless tool but don’t let it discourage you!0
-
An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
8 -
workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!2 -
It’s actually 24.97, thanks!workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
6 -
While it might be true that a certain BMI gives you a better chance at a longer life, I think the key issue is figuring out your "best" weight- which is the weight that you can most likely sustain in the long run.
Losing weight is hard work. And maintaining weight is (statistically speaking - and in my experience) is harder. Figuring out a sustainable way of eating, exercising etc will help long term success.5 -
Here's me with a BMI of 25. And a missile.
6 -
workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
15 -
The BMI range does differ there by definition. 24.9 is in the normal range, 25 is in the overweight range. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere and that's the spot. The individual's health doesn't magically differ by crossing over that point but their BMI range does differ. BMI is rigid and that's one of the complaints about it.paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
If your health insurance company gives a discount for being in the normal BMI range, that last pound makes the difference.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
No, but making goal or not making goal is pretty black and white; close to goal isn't good enough for some of us that used BMI to set the goal.5 -
CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
No, but making goal or not making goal is pretty black and white; close to goal isn't good enough for some of us that used BMI to set the goal.
I started my fitness journey at BMI 19, currently in the 24s. Can't wait until I hit 25.4 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
No, but making goal or not making goal is pretty black and white; close to goal isn't good enough for some of us that used BMI to set the goal.
I started my fitness journey at BMI 19, currently in the 24s. Can't wait until I hit 25.
Interesting; I was referring to losing below it, but the last pound will be just as important to you to get above it.2 -
CarvedTones wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
No, but making goal or not making goal is pretty black and white; close to goal isn't good enough for some of us that used BMI to set the goal.
I started my fitness journey at BMI 19, currently in the 24s. Can't wait until I hit 25.
Interesting; I was referring to losing below it, but the last pound will be just as important to you to get above it.
I know you did. I'm looking forward to being muscled and "overweight" to supposedly decrease my life expectancy.4 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
No, but making goal or not making goal is pretty black and white; close to goal isn't good enough for some of us that used BMI to set the goal.
I started my fitness journey at BMI 19, currently in the 24s. Can't wait until I hit 25.
Interesting; I was referring to losing below it, but the last pound will be just as important to you to get above it.
I know you did. I'm looking forward to being muscled and "overweight" to supposedly decrease my life expectancy.
I do not pay BMI much mind. I am @ 51yo male @ 6'0" @ 205lbs and, according to BMI, overweight! And, not that far from obese. Oh, well! I will still be overweight when I get down to my target range (192 would be AMAZING). I sure don't look overweight now and really don't look overweight at 192.
Anyway, take it with a grain of salt (and, no....not the himalayan pink salt!).4 -
The BMI range does differ there by definition. 24.9 is in the normal range, 25 is in the overweight range. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere and that's the spot. The individual's health doesn't magically differ by crossing over that point but their BMI range does differ. BMI is rigid and that's one of the complaints about it.paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
If your health insurance company gives a discount for being in the normal BMI range, that last pound makes the difference.
Sure, for health insurance purposes, if they are that particular - different country here where that doesnt apply to me, so no experience of that.
and of course there has to be an official cut off point as there is in all guidelines.
But key word is guidelines - to think the difference in real life or in meeting personal goals matters between 24.9 and 25 seems misunderstanding of guidelines to me and applying them far too rigidly.3
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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