Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
BMI CONTROVERSY‼️🤬
Replies
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher 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
0 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »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.4 -
Been thinking about this thread (yes, I need more of a life, thank you in advance for pointing that out).
Another widely used statistical grouping, drawn from millions of data points like BMI, is driver insurance rates for men under 25. That group (in the USA at least) is charged more than other groups because statistically, they are significantly more likely to get in an accident.
The statistics don't differentiate between responsible drivers with good training who don't drive recklessly or under the influence (equivalent of BMI above healthy with low body fat and less risky lifestyle), and drivers who have habits that are more likely to cause an accident any time they're behind the wheel (equivalent of BMI in the healthy range with higher bodyfat and more risky lifestyle). In other words, the statistics don't say anything about the driving habits of any individual in that group.
Insurance rates drop at age 25, though obviously no one suddenly becomes a less risky driver on their birthday, because statistically, the group of all drivers in the 25+ age group are less likely to need a payout, the same way the group of all individuals in a healthy BMI range are less likely to develop metabolic diseases.
edited to break up giant block of words.9 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
My own experience shows the complete opposite. I was overweight and had health issues. I lost the extra weight and it fixed all the health issues. During my weight loss phase I did absolutely no exercise, I was very sedentary. Didn't matter though, weight loss equaled improved health markers.7 -
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.4
-
-
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.
<bangs head on desk>
Apparently this thread starts all over again on every new page.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
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.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
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.
2 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
BMI categorizes potential risk. One is at greater risk for a number of health issues if they are obese. One can be thin and unfit, but being at a healthy weight still reduces the risk of those health issues. Nobody is saying that you can be a healthy weight and not be healthy...it's just a matter of risk.
By your logic, smoking doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer and other disease because some people who don't smoke get lung cancer and some people who do smoke live long and fruitful lives.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
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.
It's not meant to evaluate how fat you look either. It's about population-level health risk estimates, not an aesthetic evaluation.6 -
All of you guys ROCK‼️👊🏾
I’ve been reading the entire debate and you all having provided me with an abundance of information.
What a few have said is that the BMI doesn’t take into account MUSCLE. So I guess someone like The Rock would be considered morbidly obese which is insane.12 -
All of you guys ROCK‼️👊🏾
I’ve been reading the entire debate and you all having provided me with an abundance of information.
What a few have said is that the BMI doesn’t take into account MUSCLE. So I guess someone like The Rock would be considered morbidly obese which is insane.
He is 6'5 and 260 (according to Google search results), which is a BMI of 30.8. That's *barely* obese (the cutoff is 30).6 -
All of you guys ROCK‼️👊🏾
I’ve been reading the entire debate and you all having provided me with an abundance of information.
What a few have said is that the BMI doesn’t take into account MUSCLE. So I guess someone like The Rock would be considered morbidly obese which is insane.
It does take into account average amounts of muscle. People like The Rock who've managed to achieve such levels of musculature as to be far outside the "healthy" range while maintaining a low body fat percentage are extreme examples.
Statistics based on averages or whole populations never translate universally to every individual. It's just how averages work.
But for the vast majority of people, BMI can be a useful indicator of health risks due to weight.9 -
He is 6'5 and 260 (according to Google search results), which is a BMI of 30.8. That's *barely* obese (the cutoff is 30).[/quote]
Gotcha!
0 -
Agree.
You might be able to fool yourself. - I could dress so I looked good at 260+
You might be able to fool others. - People would guess I was 30-50# lighter than my actual weight.
You might be able to outwork your peers. - I was one of the fastest in my OMIL cycling group.
It's harder to fool the lab.
You cannot outwork your fork.
I was working out 4-6 days a week, yet still managed to produce high BG, high total cholesterol and high triglycerides values when I was 260-270#
I'm not to my goal yet, but since I'm down to between 210-220# (5'11") I know that my A1C and fasting BG values were down from Feb 2018 values of 7.3% and 180mg/dL to an A1C of 5.1% and fast BG ranges between 85-105 mg/dL as of my tests in August 2018. This AM was 105, weekends usually result in higher fasting BG due to living life.
I'll be getting the full panel next month and it will be interesting to see the rest of the values.
Another indicator is my speed on my bicycle. I do a bike race every year called the Tour de Donut. My average speed over 34 miles was up 3MPH at about 230 pounds compared to my speeds at 260-270, cutting my time down to just over ~110 minutes from closer to 140-150 in prior years.
I realize this is my anecdote. I simply caution people to get an objective opinion. Don't just believe yourself when you tell yourself that it's all good when your numbers are outside the norms. Get a professional, objective evaluation.robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
Not buying it. I was pretty fit when obese, but my health markers (BP, lipids) were for crap. Lost weight, same activity level, same basic foods in my diet (just less): Health markers excellent.
Healthy body weight isn't everything, but it isn't nothing, either.
I tried to convince myself that being fit was more important than being at a healthy body weight/BF%. It didn't work . . . because I was wrong. Not quite dead wrong, but heading that way.
You can be thin (i.e., healthy weight) and fit, thin and unfit, over-fat and fit, over-fat and unfit. The first of those gives the best odds of long term good health, the last is the worst bet, the two in the middle . . . hmm, well, neither one is ideal.
8 -
I think that we are all agreed that BMI is a rough approximation for how thin or not so thin we are. Adolphe Quetelet developed it because he wanted a simple answer. No calculations are needed, just view a point on a graph.
He probably knew of other calculations which gave better results, I've seen at least half a dozen over the years. The problem with these methods is that calculating things by hand took ages and if you have ever done long division, you know that it's error prone. Imagine a formula which required 5 long division, multiplication, and power calculations. No thanks.
So BMI was created. Why it exists now is hard to understand, adding waist circumference doesn't add much time to an examination and a webpage or spreadsheet can do the maths for you. I think that pretty much guaranteed The Rock would not be classified as obese under a waist circumference, height and weight system.
1 -
i think it was already established that The Rock would not be obese by a seeing the person and using common sense system.
Yes, people can misjudge or fool themselves - but I'm sure nobody was thinking if The Rock presented at the doctors in person, that the doctor would think he was obese5 -
I think that we are all agreed that BMI is a rough approximation for how thin or not so thin we are. Adolphe Quetelet developed it because he wanted a simple answer. No calculations are needed, just view a point on a graph.
He probably knew of other calculations which gave better results, I've seen at least half a dozen over the years. The problem with these methods is that calculating things by hand took ages and if you have ever done long division, you know that it's error prone. Imagine a formula which required 5 long division, multiplication, and power calculations. No thanks.
So BMI was created. Why it exists now is hard to understand, adding waist circumference doesn't add much time to an examination and a webpage or spreadsheet can do the maths for you. I think that pretty much guaranteed The Rock would not be classified as obese under a waist circumference, height and weight system.
I guarantee you that the Rock doesn't give a flying *kitten* that he is classified as obese according to BMI. The fact that he isn't obese doesn't mean that most men who are also 6'5" 260 aren't. Pointing out an individual as an outlier doesn't mean that BMI is not a good indicator for the majority of the population.
12 -
I've found that most of the "debate" over BMI boils down to "I don't personally agree with my own BMI reading." It is true that BMI is meant as a general tool, and is not accurate for every person in all situations. But it accurate for most people, including a lot of people who don't like what it is telling them.19
-
I suppose body fat ratio would be another one to use0
-
RachelElser wrote: »I suppose body fat ratio would be another one to use
I think people confuse BMI with body fat percentage.
When they read BMI, many erroneously think body fat.
While there is likely a strong correlation, they are not the same thing.4 -
RachelElser wrote: »I suppose body fat ratio would be another one to use
That would be the ideal measurement, of course, as has been pointed out before. The problem is the time and expense of getting an accurate body fat measurement. Insurance won't pay for that when BMI gives them a statistically accurate range where various medical interventions are more cost-effective than paying for long-term chronic disease management.
For practical purposes, what difference would knowing the body fat percentage of an individual make in their medical treatment? As has been pointed out many times, nobody will mistake a heavier, fit athlete for an overweight person at risk of metabolic diseases.5 -
Well BMI tends to overstate how fat tall and muscular people are, and understates how fat short and non-muscular people are.
If you're a female, your BMI is almost certainly understating how fat you actually are.6 -
Well BMI tends to overstate how fat tall and muscular people are, and understates how fat short and non-muscular people are.
If you're a female, your BMI is almost certainly understating how fat you actually are.
And what are you basing that on? How is it that you are seeing enough women's BMI, body fat %, and health info in order to make that determination?3 -
Well BMI tends to overstate how fat tall and muscular people are, and understates how fat short and non-muscular people are.
If you're a female, your BMI is almost certainly understating how fat you actually are.
From Livestrong:
"This formula states that adult body fat percentage is equal to (1.39 x BMI) + (0.16 x age) - (10.34 x gender) - 9, with gender equal to 1 for men and 0 for women to account for the lower body fat percentage of men."
The formula itself accounts for the difference in body fat between men and women.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
TrailRunnerMN82 wrote: »BMI isn't accurate. Go get a DEXA scan or a BodPod test. Then you can see where you're at.
BMI is accurate enough for me and it's free. My doctor uses it along with several other markers and all together they create a pretty accurate picture of where I'm at health-wise.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions