Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

BMI CONTROVERSY‼️🤬

12357

Replies

  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Posts: 4,624Member Member Posts: 4,624Member Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.

    I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.

    Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.


    Yes absolutely.

    and has has been pointed out in other threads, even people with very high muscle mass are usually not far out of standard range - ie they might be 28 or so but they are not 40

    and that happens with all ranges- the range of standard heights for men might go up to 6 ft 6 in - but that doesnt mean nobody is 6 ft 7.

    It does mean nobody is 8 ft.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people

    Several over 8 ft.


    It was an example of how ranges work - made the actual numbers up.

    I don't dispute that the occasional person ever in the whole world was beyond it.


  • KittenTamer91KittenTamer91 Posts: 49Member Member Posts: 49Member Member
    I think bmi is a good indicator of health for majority of the population. With that being said my boyfriend has a bmi of 17.1 and a fatty liver while my overweight mother has excellent health markers according to her most recent blood work. I'm actually getting worried about my bf :(
  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Posts: 4,624Member Member Posts: 4,624Member Member
    BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.

    I dont think anyone is disputing that one can be thin and unfit.

    Nobody is suggesting we should aim to be so thin that we are beneath healthy range either.

    Very unlikely that many people are obese and fit though.

  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Posts: 4,624Member Member Posts: 4,624Member Member
    I think bmi is a good indicator of health for majority of the population. With that being said my boyfriend has a bmi of 17.1 and a fatty liver while my overweight mother has excellent health markers according to her most recent blood work. I'm actually getting worried about my bf :(

    I dont think anyone is saying people with a low BMI cannot have any health problems - including fatty liver.

    Or that people who are overweight cannot have good blood results.

    But the best aim is still healthy weight - and each individual is most likely to get their own best outcomes at a healthy weight - which for almost everybody will be within or very close to the standard BMI range - unless there is an obvious reason why it does not apply to them - eg they are 9 months pregnant



  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 6,145Member Member Posts: 6,145Member Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.

    I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.

    Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.


    Yes absolutely.

    and has has been pointed out in other threads, even people with very high muscle mass are usually not far out of standard range - ie they might be 28 or so but they are not 40

    and that happens with all ranges- the range of standard heights for men might go up to 6 ft 6 in - but that doesnt mean nobody is 6 ft 7.

    It does mean nobody is 8 ft.

    Ummm.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow
  • TacklewasherTacklewasher Posts: 7,067Member Member Posts: 7,067Member Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.

    I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.

    Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.


    Yes absolutely.

    and has has been pointed out in other threads, even people with very high muscle mass are usually not far out of standard range - ie they might be 28 or so but they are not 40

    and that happens with all ranges- the range of standard heights for men might go up to 6 ft 6 in - but that doesnt mean nobody is 6 ft 7.

    It does mean nobody is 8 ft.

    Ummm.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow

    Beat ya!

    And it doesn't really disprove the comment :)
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 5,701Member Member Posts: 5,701Member Member
    BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.

    BMI establishes risk categories.

    One can be thin and unfit, but the risk is much higher of someone overweight or obese being unfit.

    Weight & mass have tremendous impact on health, hormones in particular. These are free cycling, making it difficult if not impossible to maintain hormonal balance in someone overweight. This causes extreme stress on associated glands and dramatically increases health risks.
  • saz105saz105 Posts: 3Member Member Posts: 3Member Member
    It's a good starting point, but I know that for me, I only start looking healthy near the lower end of the scale. Nearer the mid-higher end, I have a huge gut and just look really unfit and overweight.
  • saz105saz105 Posts: 3Member Member Posts: 3Member Member
    saz105 wrote: »
    It's a good starting point, but I know that for me, I only start looking healthy near the lower end of the scale. Nearer the mid-higher end, I have a huge gut and just look really unfit and overweight.

    BMI isn't meant to evaluate how fit you look.

    I know that. I actually meant that I look really fat despite being within the normal range. I just didn't want to use the f word.
  • mph323mph323 Posts: 3,196Member Member Posts: 3,196Member Member
    saz105 wrote: »
    saz105 wrote: »
    It's a good starting point, but I know that for me, I only start looking healthy near the lower end of the scale. Nearer the mid-higher end, I have a huge gut and just look really unfit and overweight.

    BMI isn't meant to evaluate how fit you look.

    I know that. I actually meant that I look really fat despite being within the normal range. I just didn't want to use the f word.

    Just a suggestion, you might want to edit your original post to add that clarification to avoid having to make that explanation for the next four pages. :)

    And I'll stop head-banging now since I mis-interpreted your comment.

    edited January 9
Sign In or Register to comment.