How many more calories

lalalacroix

Scottgriesser wrote: »

People use BMI because it is the easiest way to measure progress and is likely to be completely applicable to them. I get that and will concede that it is true.

However, I do not feel that a system where everyone would agree that an individual is the pinnacle of health is considered overweight/obese is a system that carries much WEIGHT. That is clearly a flawed system to the point where I'd search out other options.

A system like body fat% is far more indicative of actual health and really isn't hard to figure out. You can buy a $20 scale that'll give you a rough idea. Is body fat % the end all be all of systems? Nope, still some holes in that, but it is better than BMI.

Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.

AnnPT77

Scottgriesser wrote: »

Well, we live in a world where most people compare themselves to others. Right or wrong, I'd say people can agree that that happens. So why would you use a system that has such an inherent flaw in it? Anyone that is concerned with packing on muscle (sports stars/ IG models/ whatever you compare yourself to), is going to be skewed to a higher BMI. High BMI= bad. So muscle is bad?...No.

Most of us mere mortals really don't have to worry about things like that. But why use a system that has that flaw, when you could just check body fat % as that is something that will pretty much tell you the same thing?

BMI is cheap. Free, even . . . almost free even when you count the time to calc it (my doctor has a little pocket tool for it, takes about 3 seconds).

It's supposed to be a way to assess populations, not people; or a rough screening mechanism for individuals, not a final answer. (In some cases now, such as some health insurance contexts, it is being used inappropriately, it seems.)

Body fat percent methods tend to be either nearly as inaccurate (BIA), relatively expensive on a mass level (DEXA, dunk), or time consuming with skills required for semi-reasonable accuracy (caliper). BMI has a role, and it happens to be a reasonable guide, as a starting point, for the majority of people. It's amazing how many people who decry its inaccuracy . . . well, look like they might be engaging in wishful thinking. (Not everyone, of course).

Scottgriesser wrote: »

Ok, when I said athlete, I really should have been more specific.

I was talking about sports stars. Football, hockey, baseball, soccer...not runners and cyclists. That's my bad.

ITYMTS you were talking about male sports stars in sports that reward being big/heavy, or at least don't penalize it.



So not basketball, soccer, UFC, tennis . . . . ? (I grant that the infographic is average athletes, not necessarily "stars", but jeez.)

The idea that "BMI is wrong for 'all' athletes so it's a stupid system" really doesn't hold water. It can be wrong for outliers of various types on both ends of the weight spectrum . . . small numbers of them. And some of the athletes you're talking about are just plain fat (baseball, football), not simply muscular (though they are that), which distorts things a bit.

https://thesportsdrop.com/20-nfl-players-that-lost-a-ton-of-weight/

There were more than runners/cyclists among the "normals" in the Olympics list, even for men, BTW.

ETAcknowledge that I'm tangent to the topic of this thread, so I'll drop it. Sorry, OP.

Scottgriesser

lalalacroix wrote: »

Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.

To be near 100% accurate, yes. To get a rough estimate, no. Which is more rough of an estimate, btw, a scale that you step on and spits out numbers, or a chart you look at on the internet that asks your height and weight?

People seem to be locking onto the "all athletes" portion of what I said instead of the point behind it. Too much hyperbole. Point is why would you use a system as your basis that has such an inherent flaw like "increased muscle mass= higher bmi and high bmi= bad" Since when is increasing muscle mass bad? Maybe we just have different opinions on what health and fitness are.

I admitted I spoke poorly earlier in the thread, and stated that BMI works just fine for many (majority of) people. "I" believe that it is a silly system to base your perception of your fitness off of a system where muscle is bad. Especially when there are other pretty simple options.

PAV8888

Scottgriesser wrote: »

lalalacroix wrote: »

Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.

To be near 100% accurate, yes. To get a rough estimate, no. Which is more rough of an estimate, btw, a scale that you step on and spits out numbers, or a chart you look at on the internet that asks your height and weight?

People seem to be locking onto the "all athletes" portion of what I said instead of the point behind it. Too much hyperbole. Point is why would you use a system as your basis that has such an inherent flaw like "increased muscle mass= higher bmi and high bmi= bad" Since when is increasing muscle mass bad? Maybe we just have different opinions on what health and fitness are.

I admitted I spoke poorly earlier in the thread, and stated that BMI works just fine for many (majority of) people. "I" believe that it is a silly system to base your perception of your fitness off of a system where muscle is bad. Especially when there are other pretty simple options.

The BIS scale is a more rough estimate and more likely to be considerably off as a percentage.

You may want to supplement BMI with waist to height as an easy second data point in terms of increased health risk.

If both BMI and waist to hight say you're obese; but you feel it is all muscle, then I would seek more confirmation from various body fat measurements such as bia, caliper, body pod, dunk, DEXA, MRI in increased order of potential accuracy.

Visual by trained observers probably spans across the last four.

sijomial

lalalacroix wrote: »

corinasue1143 wrote: »

Just my 2 cents. I think if you are losing faster/more easily, part of it is because you are more active, apart from intentional exercise. Part of it may also be because your muscle to fat ratio has changed so much. It takes more calories to maintain muscle. Rejoice! Celebrate! And raise your daily calories a little.

While I hope that I've added a bit of muscle, it probably isn't that much. And without looking it up, I think a pound of muscle burns a few more calories per day than a pound of fat. So the difference isn't much. Maybe one of our wise friends here can give the proper info on how much more muscle burns than fat.

It's roughly 2cals for fat and 6cals for muscle per pound per day at rest.

Just trading a few pounds of fat for muscle is insignificant (in calorie terms, not health terms) but I think @corinasue1143 made a good point about the impact of everyday activity and exercise. Certainly my own experience was that as I got lighter and fitter I simply moved more day to day (walked more, cycled more, used public transport and cars less) and my exercise intensity went up and up (c. 25% higher calorie burns for the same duration).

An interesting social observation happened when I worked in an office with truly awful slow and unreliable elevators/lifts a relatively short distance from the main company offices. The lighter and fitter colleagues all simply used the 8 flights of stairs to get to and from our office floor and walked between sites - the heavier and less fit ones stood and waited for the lifts and took the Underground one stop between sites.

jaymijones

PAV8888 wrote: »

Scottgriesser wrote: »

lalalacroix wrote: »

Wouldn't a person actually need a Dexa scan to get an accurate body fat percentage? My understanding is that scales that measure body fat can be very inaccurate.

To be near 100% accurate, yes. To get a rough estimate, no. Which is more rough of an estimate, btw, a scale that you step on and spits out numbers, or a chart you look at on the internet that asks your height and weight?

People seem to be locking onto the "all athletes" portion of what I said instead of the point behind it. Too much hyperbole. Point is why would you use a system as your basis that has such an inherent flaw like "increased muscle mass= higher bmi and high bmi= bad" Since when is increasing muscle mass bad? Maybe we just have different opinions on what health and fitness are.

I admitted I spoke poorly earlier in the thread, and stated that BMI works just fine for many (majority of) people. "I" believe that it is a silly system to base your perception of your fitness off of a system where muscle is bad. Especially when there are other pretty simple options.

The BIS scale is a more rough estimate and more likely to be considerably off as a percentage.

You may want to supplement BMI with waist to height as an easy second data point in terms of increased health risk.

If both BMI and waist to hight say you're obese; but you feel it is all muscle, then I would seek more confirmation from various body fat measurements such as bia, caliper, body pod, dunk, DEXA, MRI in increased order of potential accuracy.

Visual by trained observers probably spans across the last four.

I haven’t always liked the BMI scale, but still refer to it because it’s an easy scale to refer back to. I do think it’s flawed. But unless you have easy affordable access to a Dexa scanner none of the other methods are perfect either. I’m not an athlete, but I am pretty active. I find all the numbers for all the different weight measurement methods fascinating, because as of right now all three of them put me in different categories.

Right now my BMI is 26. Which puts me just over the line into “overweight,” my body fat % according to the average numbers my scale spits out, which I know are probably not accurate, puts me at around 25% body fat (sometimes it tells me 27%, yesterday it said 21%, but for the last month 25% is the most common reading). If I assume that number is accurate, then I’m right where I should be for my age and height. I’m a 5’7, 35 year old female and my measurements are 34, 29, 42. Which puts me on the higher end of “not overweight” according to that scale.

My personal goals are another 10-15lbs to lose then recomp to get my body fat% down to the low 20’s, as I think I can maintain that.

Despite all these different numbers, I no longer think of myself as “fat” but I also am not where I personally want to be, I’d like that 42, in my measurements to be in the 30’s and I’d like my thighs to jiggle less when I run. So I can ditch the compression leggings.