Is BMI really BS?
Replies
-
So when did all these massive BMI outliers evolve?
In 1960 US average for men was around 166 lbs.
Today the average is about 196 lbs.
Yet height has only increased in an average of about 1 inch.
It's interesting to note that all this backlash against BMI and the old height/weight charts started when we got much, much fatter. Now people are screaming about the muscular outliers, and so many people are suddenly spinning tales of how they're perfectly skinny/small/lean at much higher weights than the average person ever was before.
Did we evolve over the last 50 years? Did we collectively become these massive, muscular running backs? Why did so many men and women fall within the healthy BMI range just a few decades ago, but now it's suddenly super skewed and totally wrong to use BMI?
Eh? This isn't a backlash against BMI, this is just the usual evolution of knowledge
there are a large number of people in the general population that either aren't too bright, or don't really care - hence why food manufacturers had to go from supplying nutritional information on their packaging, to providing a 'traffic light' system of Red = Unhealthy, Green = healthy - to cater for the ignorant!
So BMI is useful for those that just need a simple indicator. For those such as the OP, and dare I say it, the majority of MFP users on the forums who have chosen to take an active interest in their weight/health, BMI is far too simplistic
What next? If BMI is deemed too complex for the populous to understand, how about...
"Grab hold of stomach and wobble up and down - if it jiggles too much then you are overweight" That would work for the majority would it not?0 -
So when did all these massive BMI outliers evolve?
Given that the BMI of a healthy, average neanderthal is around 28, I'd say around 300,000 years ago. Except that as I don't have the data for Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus, it could have been a lot earlier than this.
Human variation is more varied than most people realise it is. And it's not that hard for a medium to large framed person to add enough muscle mass to their body to put themselves in the overweight or even obese range of BMI while their body fat percentage is in the healthy range. And for people who got more than their fair share of neanderthal genes, it's even easier.1 -
So when did all these massive BMI outliers evolve?
In 1960 US average for men was around 166 lbs.
Today the average is about 196 lbs.
Yet height has only increased in an average of about 1 inch.
It's interesting to note that all this backlash against BMI and the old height/weight charts started when we got much, much fatter. Now people are screaming about the muscular outliers, and so many people are suddenly spinning tales of how they're perfectly skinny/small/lean at much higher weights than the average person ever was before.
Did we evolve over the last 50 years? Did we collectively become these massive, muscular running backs? Why did so many men and women fall within the healthy BMI range just a few decades ago, but now it's suddenly super skewed and totally wrong to use BMI?
This isn't about anything but how and what BMI was developed for...it was developed for groups of people not indiviuals...it was taken as gospel and used for individuals later...doesn't make it right...
We aren't just talking about the US either...if we are talking world wide...average height and weight will vary depending on race.
For example in Guatamala average height of a man is 5 ft 2...a woman is 4 ft 6...vs Dinaric Alps 6 ft1 for a man and 5 ft 7 for a woman...
In Canada average height for a man is 5 ft 8.5 and a woman is 5 ft 3...I am 5 ft 7...I am not the average Canadian woman...and neither are half my friends they are all taller so why should we apply averages to ourselves...my son is 6 ft 3..husband is 5 ft 11, brothers are all over 6 ft tall..why should we apply "average" calculations...
BMI is antiquated and being used for something it wasn't meant for...we have increased out knowledge and therefore should look for better measurments of health...
And to your point of the 60's we also thought leaded gas was fine then too but with increased knowledge and science we now know it isn't...just because it worked back then doesn't mean it will work now.0 -
So 2 months ago I was considered "overweight"...sorry I have to laugh...at 160lbs..in a size 5/6...not overweight...
Clothing sizes is about the worse marker available when determining appropriate weight.
Almost all clothes in the US are vanity sized, and women's clothing has absolutely no regulations or standards. A 5/6 today can be so vanity sized that it was a 10-12, or higher, in decades past. Even men's clothes no longer follow the actual inches printed on the waist sizes. Hell I have two pairs of jeans from the 90s in a size 36 that are smaller than some size 33s today.
The mirror and your health markers are the best standard, clothing size the absolute worse.BMI doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle so it's certainly massively flawed
Pick any muscly athlete and BMI will say they are overweight
eg. Running back Adrian Peterson
And yet how much of the general population has a body built like a professional running back?
I am not from the states...and I can tell from the mirror that I was not overweight...and to your point of vanity sizes...I am 41...put my prom dress on while I weighed 165lbs...yes a 20 year old dress...so no vanity sizing there...I was 135lbs when I graduated...it fit like a glove....it was a size 8....I was not overweight at 165 either even tho BMI put me there...
Here is some more history on BMI...it was developed to help the government ie monarchy, distribute goods during lean times in Europe...
Even health care professionals are saying BMI is not the gold standard as it once was thought to be...
As to the professional athletes being in the overweight or even obese category..no they aren't typically but let's be realistic.
Lifters outside of professional athletes and people with larger frames are going to not be able to rely on BMI...me being one..
I have a large frame, I lift heavy and at 165 I was in a 20 year old size 8....I was not obese. I am a normal everyday woman, just like lots of woman here...BMI for individuals is rubbish period....it is good for "general population" in groups.
If you somehow manage to fit in BMI ranges as an individual that means you are "like the average" but that doesn't mean we all are.
That's great. I'm not calling you fat. I don't know you, your body fat percentage, your LBM, or anything.
But check this. You, as an above average muscular woman who lifts heavy weights, still fall within a healthy BMI. For a woman you are a worldwide outlier, and still the BMI range stretches to fit you.
So you've actually supported my point.
For all the moaning and complaining about BMI, the range is still quite wide and still able to fit even some outliers such as yourself.2 -
BMI is one metric, and that is it. I personally don't use it at all as I think it is a VERY generic and inaccurate way to view health. Listen to you doctor and your own body.0
-
Human variation is more varied than most people realise it is. And it's not that hard for a medium to large framed person to add enough muscle mass to their body to put themselves in the overweight or even obese range of BMI while their body fat percentage is in the healthy range. And for people who got more than their fair share of neanderthal genes, it's even easier.
But the BMI range actually well covers even larger framed people, and definitely medium framed.
Again, all this talk of variation now, when we're fatter than ever. The BMI range has quite a lot of variation.
The difference is that we're getting so fat, collectively, that we're outgrowing the already wide BMI variation.1 -
I think the only people on the planet to whom you should listen regarding your weight loss goals are your doctor, and the person in your mirror, but that's just me.
Most doctors are not up on weight loss and nutrition. A dietitian would be much better.
that said for 90% of the population BMI should give you a pretty good indication of your weight. If you tend to have very little muscle, or a lot of lean mass then the scale would be off, but that isn't the majority of people. but is only meant for comparing populations vs. populations, not any one person vs. the scale, that is misuse of BMI, not something inherently wrong with BMI0 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.0
-
i was told BMI isn't really accurate for me as i'm very short for my age, making me an outlier. with my BMI i'm on the border of healthy/overweight, but i've calculated it using different sites and they're all different with the range of my 'healthy' weight.
I think it's always best to take it into consideration as a rough guide but not to rely to heavily on it. My doctors always say my weight is fine so, yeah.
0 -
I think the only people on the planet to whom you should listen regarding your weight loss goals are your doctor, and the person in your mirror, but that's just me.
Most doctors are not up on weight loss and nutrition. A dietitian would be much better
While that is true, your doctor should be taking all sorts of measurements to assess your overall health. So they are quite qualified to tell you how your body is functioning in the here and now. If there are specific problems found with your diet that need to be addressed, a specialist is much preferred.0 -
Bottom line, for me. As always, like I mentioned earlier, let the mirror and your health markers by your guide. There is no reason to chase BMI if you are good on those fronts.
However ultimately if most people stripped down their weight to relatively lean body fat levels, most people would magically find themselves landing somewhere within the BMI healthy weight range.1 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?0 -
That's great. I'm not calling you fat. I don't know you, your body fat percentage, your LBM, or anything.
But check this. You, as an above average muscular woman who lifts heavy weights, still fall within a healthy BMI. For a woman you are a worldwide outlier, and still the BMI range stretches to fit you.
So you've actually supported my point.
For all the moaning and complaining about BMI, the range is still quite wide and still able to fit even some outliers such as yourself.
It also proved the point that it's far too simplistic
The OP didn't just want to be 'in the healthy range' according to the BMI charts, she wondered if she needs to move from the 'heavier side of healthy'
Should she lose more weight as she is approaching 'overweight on the BMI scale'?
I don't know, and nor do you, all depends on how much muscle she has etc. Hence in her case, BMI is at best, useless, at worst, very misleading-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
So 2 months ago I was considered "overweight"...sorry I have to laugh...at 160lbs..in a size 5/6...not overweight...
Clothing sizes is about the worse marker available when determining appropriate weight.
Almost all clothes in the US are vanity sized, and women's clothing has absolutely no regulations or standards. A 5/6 today can be so vanity sized that it was a 10-12, or higher, in decades past. Even men's clothes no longer follow the actual inches printed on the waist sizes. Hell I have two pairs of jeans from the 90s in a size 36 that are smaller than some size 33s today.
The mirror and your health markers are the best standard, clothing size the absolute worse.BMI doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle so it's certainly massively flawed
Pick any muscly athlete and BMI will say they are overweight
eg. Running back Adrian Peterson
And yet how much of the general population has a body built like a professional running back?
I am not from the states...and I can tell from the mirror that I was not overweight...and to your point of vanity sizes...I am 41...put my prom dress on while I weighed 165lbs...yes a 20 year old dress...so no vanity sizing there...I was 135lbs when I graduated...it fit like a glove....it was a size 8....I was not overweight at 165 either even tho BMI put me there...
Here is some more history on BMI...it was developed to help the government ie monarchy, distribute goods during lean times in Europe...
Even health care professionals are saying BMI is not the gold standard as it once was thought to be...
As to the professional athletes being in the overweight or even obese category..no they aren't typically but let's be realistic.
Lifters outside of professional athletes and people with larger frames are going to not be able to rely on BMI...me being one..
I have a large frame, I lift heavy and at 165 I was in a 20 year old size 8....I was not obese. I am a normal everyday woman, just like lots of woman here...BMI for individuals is rubbish period....it is good for "general population" in groups.
If you somehow manage to fit in BMI ranges as an individual that means you are "like the average" but that doesn't mean we all are.
That's great. I'm not calling you fat. I don't know you, your body fat percentage, your LBM, or anything.
But check this. You, as an above average muscular woman who lifts heavy weights, still fall within a healthy BMI. For a woman you are a worldwide outlier, and still the BMI range stretches to fit you.
So you've actually supported my point.
For all the moaning and complaining about BMI, the range is still quite wide and still able to fit even some outliers such as yourself.
I do now yes...but 13lbs ago when I fit into a 5/6 today and an 8 from 20 years ago (when I weighed 135) I was considered overweight..that's my point..at 165 I was considered overweight...with a BMI of 25.3 total bull..I was no overweight if I could fit in my prom dress...
BMI is not for individuals it is for "general populations"..averages. It was developed for averages and should be used for averages not indiviuals...0 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?
An awful lot
If you carry excess weight around your middle then you are more at risk than those that carry it elsewhere. This is common knowledge
http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/prevention/active-fat.aspx-1 -
"Grab hold of stomach and wobble up and down - if it jiggles too much then you are overweight" That would work for the majority would it not?
love that.
I am BMI 25.2 but BF ~15% so getting to mid range BMI seems too low to be sensible for me.
Also most of the health benefit is from not being BMI 30+1 -
I would ignore it unless you are an insurance company. I am 'healthy', but sure as hell still have some fat to lose......find a number that works for you
0 -
That's great. I'm not calling you fat. I don't know you, your body fat percentage, your LBM, or anything.
But check this. You, as an above average muscular woman who lifts heavy weights, still fall within a healthy BMI. For a woman you are a worldwide outlier, and still the BMI range stretches to fit you.
So you've actually supported my point.
For all the moaning and complaining about BMI, the range is still quite wide and still able to fit even some outliers such as yourself.
It also proved the point that it's far too simplistic
The OP didn't just want to be 'in the healthy range' according to the BMI charts, she wondered if she needs to move from the 'heavier side of healthy'
Should she lose more weight as she is approaching 'overweight on the BMI scale'?
I don't know, and nor do you, all depends on how much muscle she has etc. Hence in her case, BMI is at best, useless, at worst, very misleading
But this makes no sense.
Being on the heavier side of the "healthy range" is....healthy. For most people.
The fact that she feels she needs to have a lower BMI, even though she's already in the healthy range, and her doctors say she's fine, is a problem SHE is having. It's not a strike against BMI.
If we're going by BMI here, it's actually telling her she's fine, and her doctor has backed that up. As has the mirror, apparently.
While her post launched off a great debate about BMI, her individual story has little to do with the merits of BMI as an indicator of healthy weight....since the BMI already vindicates her as being a healthy weight. Her case actually supports the use of BMI.2 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?
An awful lot
If you carry excess weight around your middle then you are more at risk than those that carry it elsewhere. This is common knowledge
http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/prevention/active-fat.aspx
Which has zero to do with my point.
I'm not talking about shape in relation to fat distribution and the increase of cardiovascular and insulin issues with trunk fat accumulation.
I'm talking about shape in relation to BMI.
Two people have stated that BMI is off due to "shape". What does "shape" have to do with BMI?1 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?
If you had seen my previous message I said that although my right weight is smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range for my height, my dad's isn't.
He is 6'2" has very short legs for his height (29") and a really long body he is also very broad, if he is within the range for his height he would look very under weight his doctor has given him a suggest weight which is outside the BMI and this has been assessed along with him having asthma and a heart condition.
He doesn't have alot of lean muscle mass but due to his body (where I suspect most of your weight is held) is so big he doesn't fit into the BMI table.
I have an hourglass shape and a BMI of between 21-23 is about the right weight for me.
So it's not just muscle mass but shape.0 -
No, it's not BS. BMI is a generalization that will work for generally most people. It's become very common these days to attack BMI due to the outliers who have a higher than typical muscle mass, and thus for whom BMI is of little use. However the vast majority of people aren't rocking the amount of additional lean mass needed to skew the BMI radically.
The heart of the matter, for many, is that they hate that BMI tells them they're still too fat. A lot of people have come to loathe the old height/weight chart ranges and BMI because they point to the fact that we've, on the whole, lost perspective of just how small most people need to be in order to not be overweight. Especially here in the US we've become very, very skewed about appropriate weight and BMI.
As far as your own personal goals, are your health markers good? When looking in the mirror do you have excess fat that you're unhappy with? When you say you "dislike" your body, what exactly do you dislike? That there is still too much fat mass or are you talking about other parts that are unchangeable (naturally speaking)?
All of this!1 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?
If you had seen my previous message I said that although my right weight is smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range for my height, my dad's isn't.
He is 6'2" has very short legs for his height (29") and a really long body he is also very broad, if he is within the range for his height he would look very under weight his doctor has given him a suggest weight which is outside the BMI and this has been assessed along with him having asthma and a heart condition.
He doesn't have alot of lean muscle mass but due to his body (where I suspect most of your weight is held) is so big he doesn't fit into the BMI table.
I have an hourglass shape and a BMI of between 21-23 is about the right weight for me.
So it's not just muscle mass but shape.
That doesn't have anything to do with "shape".
If your dad isn't fat at a higher weight, than it means he's got a decent amount of lean muscle mass. It doesn't even matter whether you visually assess this, if he's got a low body fat yet a height weight, the man's got quite a bit of muscle.
Is he radically outside of the BMI range?0 -
That's great. I'm not calling you fat. I don't know you, your body fat percentage, your LBM, or anything.
But check this. You, as an above average muscular woman who lifts heavy weights, still fall within a healthy BMI. For a woman you are a worldwide outlier, and still the BMI range stretches to fit you.
So you've actually supported my point.
For all the moaning and complaining about BMI, the range is still quite wide and still able to fit even some outliers such as yourself.
It also proved the point that it's far too simplistic
The OP didn't just want to be 'in the healthy range' according to the BMI charts, she wondered if she needs to move from the 'heavier side of healthy'
Should she lose more weight as she is approaching 'overweight on the BMI scale'?
I don't know, and nor do you, all depends on how much muscle she has etc. Hence in her case, BMI is at best, useless, at worst, very misleading
But this makes no sense.
Being on the heavier side of the "healthy range" is....healthy. For most people.
The fact that she feels she needs to have a lower BMI, even though she's already in the healthy range, and her doctors say she's fine, is a problem SHE is having. It's not a strike against BMI.
If we're going by BMI here, it's actually telling her she's fine, and her doctor has backed that up. As has the mirror, apparently.
While her post launched off a great debate about BMI, her individual story has little to do with the merits of BMI as an indicator of healthy weight....since the BMI already vindicates her as being a healthy weight. Her case actually supports the use of BMI.
It makes perfect sense. Her BMI is telling her she is fine, despite not knowing how much muscle she has - baked up by her doctor and the mirror
She is on the heavier side of 'healthy' though, so possibly with a couple more pounds, the mirror will still say she is healthy, the doctor too in all probability. The BMI chart won't though - it will tell her she is overweight despite not knowing her body composition-1 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?
If you had seen my previous message I said that although my right weight is smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range for my height, my dad's isn't.
He is 6'2" has very short legs for his height (29") and a really long body he is also very broad, if he is within the range for his height he would look very under weight his doctor has given him a suggest weight which is outside the BMI and this has been assessed along with him having asthma and a heart condition.
He doesn't have alot of lean muscle mass but due to his body (where I suspect most of your weight is held) is so big he doesn't fit into the BMI table.
I have an hourglass shape and a BMI of between 21-23 is about the right weight for me.
So it's not just muscle mass but shape.
That doesn't have anything to do with "shape".
If your dad isn't fat at a higher weight, than it means he's got a decent amount of lean muscle mass. It doesn't even matter whether you visually assess this, if he's got a low body fat yet a height weight, the man's got quite a bit of muscle.
Is he radically outside of the BMI range?
Sorry but he doesn't have lots of lean muscle but has a huge torse!!! He has never worked out since leaving school although does have manual job but he manily manages rather than actual does any of the work. He is probably at the correct weight around 1 stone into the overweight range.0 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?
If you had seen my previous message I said that although my right weight is smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range for my height, my dad's isn't.
He is 6'2" has very short legs for his height (29") and a really long body he is also very broad, if he is within the range for his height he would look very under weight his doctor has given him a suggest weight which is outside the BMI and this has been assessed along with him having asthma and a heart condition.
He doesn't have alot of lean muscle mass but due to his body (where I suspect most of your weight is held) is so big he doesn't fit into the BMI table.
I have an hourglass shape and a BMI of between 21-23 is about the right weight for me.
So it's not just muscle mass but shape.
That doesn't have anything to do with "shape".
If your dad isn't fat at a higher weight, than it means he's got a decent amount of lean muscle mass. It doesn't even matter whether you visually assess this, if he's got a low body fat yet a height weight, the man's got quite a bit of muscle.
Is he radically outside of the BMI range?
Sorry but he doesn't have lots of lean muscle but has a huge torse!!! He has never worked out since leaving school although does have manual job but he manily manages rather than actual does any of the work. He is probably at the correct weight around 1 stone into the overweight range.
Have you seen a comprehensive breakdown of your dad's bodyfat vs his LBM?
What do you imagine his "huge torso" is comprised of, assuming he's far outside of the BMI range when he's at a healthy, non-fat weight?1 -
It's not just about muscle mass shape means that people who don't have a large lean muscle mass fall outside the BMI range.
What does shape have to do with weight?
If you had seen my previous message I said that although my right weight is smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range for my height, my dad's isn't.
He is 6'2" has very short legs for his height (29") and a really long body he is also very broad, if he is within the range for his height he would look very under weight his doctor has given him a suggest weight which is outside the BMI and this has been assessed along with him having asthma and a heart condition.
He doesn't have alot of lean muscle mass but due to his body (where I suspect most of your weight is held) is so big he doesn't fit into the BMI table.
I have an hourglass shape and a BMI of between 21-23 is about the right weight for me.
So it's not just muscle mass but shape.
That doesn't have anything to do with "shape".
If your dad isn't fat at a higher weight, than it means he's got a decent amount of lean muscle mass. It doesn't even matter whether you visually assess this, if he's got a low body fat yet a height weight, the man's got quite a bit of muscle.
Is he radically outside of the BMI range?
Sorry but he doesn't have lots of lean muscle but has a huge torse!!! He has never worked out since leaving school although does have manual job but he manily manages rather than actual does any of the work. He is probably at the correct weight around 1 stone into the overweight range.
Have you seen a comprehensive breakdown of your dad's bodyfat vs his LBM?
What do you imagine his "huge torso" is comprised of, assuming he's far outside of the BMI range when he's at a healthy, non-fat weight?
[/quote
So someone who doesn't exercise just aquires lots of lean muscle??
If he did work out and had lots of lean muscle he'd be even heavier.0 -
That's great. I'm not calling you fat. I don't know you, your body fat percentage, your LBM, or anything.
But check this. You, as an above average muscular woman who lifts heavy weights, still fall within a healthy BMI. For a woman you are a worldwide outlier, and still the BMI range stretches to fit you.
So you've actually supported my point.
For all the moaning and complaining about BMI, the range is still quite wide and still able to fit even some outliers such as yourself.
It also proved the point that it's far too simplistic
The OP didn't just want to be 'in the healthy range' according to the BMI charts, she wondered if she needs to move from the 'heavier side of healthy'
Should she lose more weight as she is approaching 'overweight on the BMI scale'?
I don't know, and nor do you, all depends on how much muscle she has etc. Hence in her case, BMI is at best, useless, at worst, very misleading
But this makes no sense.
Being on the heavier side of the "healthy range" is....healthy. For most people.
The fact that she feels she needs to have a lower BMI, even though she's already in the healthy range, and her doctors say she's fine, is a problem SHE is having. It's not a strike against BMI.
If we're going by BMI here, it's actually telling her she's fine, and her doctor has backed that up. As has the mirror, apparently.
While her post launched off a great debate about BMI, her individual story has little to do with the merits of BMI as an indicator of healthy weight....since the BMI already vindicates her as being a healthy weight. Her case actually supports the use of BMI.
It makes perfect sense. Her BMI is telling her she is fine, despite not knowing how much muscle she has - baked up by her doctor and the mirror
She is on the heavier side of 'healthy' though, so possibly with a couple more pounds, the mirror will still say she is healthy, the doctor too in all probability. The BMI chart won't though - it will tell her she is overweight despite not knowing her body composition
Exactly and that is what mine tells me if I gain 7lbs...I am overweight...total bull...
I would have to weigh 140lbs to be mid range of healthy weight accord to BMI...which puts me at 18% BF which at my age is not considered healthy...imagine if I were to go down as far as 135...jeez..15% BF...BMI in healthy range tho @ 21.1...
yah it's a good measurment.../sarcasm
ETA: my point is this...no one number can tell you if you are at a healthy weight...you have to take all the numbers apply the science behind how the numbers are obtained and come to a conclusion based on those numbers..not just one number esp one that was developed over 200 years ago for "general populations" which has totally changed in 200 years...0 -
Human variation is more varied than most people realise it is. And it's not that hard for a medium to large framed person to add enough muscle mass to their body to put themselves in the overweight or even obese range of BMI while their body fat percentage is in the healthy range. And for people who got more than their fair share of neanderthal genes, it's even easier.
But the BMI range actually well covers even larger framed people, and definitely medium framed.
Again, all this talk of variation now, when we're fatter than ever. The BMI range has quite a lot of variation.
The difference is that we're getting so fat, collectively, that we're outgrowing the already wide BMI variation.
Talking at a population level... yes
but talking at an individual level.... no
I have a large frame, and the weight at which I'm strongest and feel healthiest and look best - 140lb... is in the "overweight" range of BMI... meanwhile my lean body mass (107lb) is in the healthy range of BMI for my height which is 100-132lb, as in my lean body mass is more than some women of my height's entire body weight).... at 125lb I was losing strength and lean body mass, I went from being able to do full push-ups easily to barely being able to do full push-ups at all. The amount of weight I could lift was going down and I was tired and run down all the time.... This was in spite of eating enough calories, protein and lifting weights... it was that weight is too low for my height and frame size. But BMI says that 125lb is at the high end of the healthy range for my height, and most women (including the OP) view "high end of the healthy range" as "not good enough" - without any consideration of the fact that not everyone is average........... if I thought like that then I'd never be happy with my body, ever unless I starved off about 20lb lean body mass which is extremely unhealthy.
My point is that by promoting BMI as being "okay for most people so no-one should complain about it" you're putting people like myself in danger of trying to diet down to weights that are unhealthy for their frame size.... you don't understand the psychological stress that I was put under, age 17, by being told to lose 10kg (22lb) by someone who only took BMI into account and didn't notice that I already was very lean, and right at the low end of the healthy body fat percentage range - I had no idea that they were wrong, so actually tried very, very hard to do this... this put my physical and mental health in danger and I suffered from disordered eating for years (never actually became a full blown eating disorder, but it could have done and it could do in others). Seriously, you have no idea the mental stress I was put through from that.
And now I'm expected to just say "oh yeah, BMI's fine because it works for most people" - sorry but no. Outliers exist. And BMI is potentially very dangerous when misapplied to them. And it wasn't just one adult who told me that... at least two others told me I was "almost overweight" and "had to be careful" - how is that okay advice to give to an adolescent girl who has a low body fat percentage? (my upper abs were visible at the time!)........ really if it wasn't for the fact that I went on to study human sciences at university, and learn about actual human variation and how BMI is a really poor metric for health and just how easy it is to be in the "overweight" or even "obese" range of BMI when your body fat percentage is in the healthy range, then I'd probably right now hate my body and probably would have succeeded in starving off a lot of my lean body mass and ended up being skinny-fat and unhealthy, and paranoid about being overweight like I was age 17 when I should have been happy and seen myself as what I was - fit. very healthy and beautiful.
Turns out (also from the physiology lab at uni) that I'm also an extreme outlier in lung capacity... my lung capacity for my height is not even close to the normal range.... this goes with the fact that my rib cage and shoulders are huge, while I'm short (I don't call myself neandermagnon for nothing lol), which also explains why I have such a high lean body mass for my height.
Seriously, no-ones disputing your point about populations and averages... but not everyone is average and criticising people for questioning the use of BMI as a diagnostic tool for individuals is potentially dangerous because of the physical and mental health risks to people who are outliers in trying to make them average. Because that's what BMI seeks to do... make non-average people average. People who are outliers in the other direction are also at risk, being expected to gain weight to make them average when they're healthy in the underweight range of BMI... one friend of mine who's in the underweight BMI range has even had her sanity called into question because she refused to gain weight to meet the BMI standard.. she's the opposite of me, very tiny frame. But we're both healthy. She eats loads and lifts weights, she's just built very tiny..... and we're both part of the normal range of human variation... even if we're at opposite ends of the range.
Another thing about being an outlier is that you're an outlier for your whole entire life, so you have to put up with this kind of crap repeatedly. And it can take its toll and lead to paranoia and self-hatred when you're constantly being told that you're too heavy because you're not average, and a lot of people who are outliers don't realise that they're outliers until they've already done a lot of damage to their body and mind.-1 -
So someone who doesn't exercise just aquires lots of lean muscle??
If he did work out and had lots of lean muscle he'd be even heavier.
You don't have to work out in order to acquire a lot of lean mass. That is a myth.
Many people genetically carry a large amount of muscle mass. I was a fat kid who didn't work out much, yet I genetically carried a high level of muscle mass in the legs. I broke the leg press record in my middle school by a huge margin the very first time I ever touched it. My legs look muscular and ripped when I have a low body fat, without even having to work them.
There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it.0
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
- 426 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