Unfair Rant Time
Options
Replies
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
I think it unfair that BMI penalizes people who have weight trained at maintenance or a calorie surplus before.
0 -
Preach it!yopeeps025 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
I think it unfair that BMI penalizes people who have weight trained at maintenance or a calorie surplus before.
0 -
Well this thread spiraled delightfully out of control
0 -
They don't have monthly hormones to deal with either. I've stopped the comparing game with my hubby.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!0 -
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
How so?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
It certainly doesnt play in favour of me. Or almost anyone Ive spoken to about it, actually.
As stated many times on here, its great to use looking at a population, but genereally not good at all when looking at individuals. It takes no acount of a persons frame at all.0 -
Because of the square root in the denominator of the formula. People scale in three dimensions, not two. The constants in the numerator and the too-low scaling factor in the denominator mean the results are off by about a point for each six inches by which you differ from the average adult height. The formula outputs a value that's that much too high on the tall end of the curve and that much too low on the short end of the curve. Someone, ahem, 15 inches taller than average gets a BMI about 2.5 points higher than it should be if the scaling in the formula more closely matched the scaling in the physical world.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
How so?0 -
That's why I said, "generally."samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
It certainly doesnt play in favour of me.
0 -
With enough cheese and butter, anything can taste great ;-)madhatter2013 wrote: »madhatter2013 wrote: »mangrothian wrote: »I think it's unfair that there's no such thing as a negative calorie hamburger.
Cauliflower bun LOL
Is this a real thing?! Ew.
Oh you can substitute cauliflower for anything if you know how to cook it. Now whether it tastes good or not, that's a whole different story. I make a mean mashed cauliflower in place of mashed potatoes.
0 -
It's unfair that we don't have Trader Joe's in Canada.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
I think you need to look up why we don't see human size insects.0 -
Someone call the Waaaaabulance.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
I think you need to look up why we don't see human size insects.
If we just upped the oxygen level of the air we could have monstrous mosquitoes. That's a great idea, right?!0 -
Just lose the weight and enjoy the fact that as a woman your average life span is longer, so even if it takes longer, you'll get to be a healthy weight longer.0
-
I think it's unfair that you can't get boiled crawfish in North Carolina. And that the nearest Popeye's is 20 miles away instead of around the corner or on the way to anywhere. And that vendors say, "True New Orleans style . . . (fill in the blank - pralines, beignets, jambalaya, whatever) are LYING!0
-
Its an unfair claim.
With all else being equal, guys tend to burn more per day therefore can create a larger deficit. My husband can eat 2000+ a day and still have a 1000 deficit. For me, a 250 deficit is about the best I can do. Then again, I've lost 50+ pounds and am in maintenance. (So I don't typically aim for a deficit now, unless its to make up for things like vacation logging craziness.) He still has 30-40 to go. If it was all about TDEE then wouldn't it be the opposite? So much of this journey is based on personal motivation and determination and that is NOT easy.OKAY WHO ELSE THINKS IT'S UNFAIR THAT GUYS LOSE WEIGHT SO MUCH FASTER AND EASIER THAN WOMEN!?!?
Im flipping over this ^
0 -
atypicalsmith wrote: »I think it's unfair that you can't get boiled crawfish in North Carolina. And that the nearest Popeye's is 20 miles away instead of around the corner or on the way to anywhere. And that vendors say, "True New Orleans style . . . (fill in the blank - pralines, beignets, jambalaya, whatever) are LYING!
My sisters moved to NC around 15 years ago ad still complain about the lack of crawfish, Popeye's and drive thru daiquiri places. Don't forget about "True Cajun or Creole Style".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 957 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions