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.
How do we judge a healthy weight range? BMI is no longer valid?
Replies
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
I wanted to ask about this as I thought about something else and it's too late to edit my last post. And to be frank, the "lower your standards to achieve it" comment annoyed me a bit.
You're goal right now is to add 17lbs of lean mass to get to your 220 and 15%. So your goal I am assuming is to cut to 10-12% to run a bulk to gain that muscle, no? Granted, you may still add a few more lbs of muscle while in a deficit but eventually you will have to run a bulk. Either that or you are cutting to 220 and then recomping for a couple a years to get that mass. Either way, cutting to 10% or even 12% isn't lowering your standards, it's just "step 1" in getting to where you want to be. (Barring the recomp option).
7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »You were making some points that might have validity to them (I'd need to see actual data), and then this. It sounds paranoid and relies on some overly simplistic stereotypes. Vegans aren't really conspiring to make everybody feel fat or to make the world look like concentration camp victims.
I guess the real question would be, what portion of the nutrition "establishment" who puts out all these rules and guidelines are vegans, and how much influence do they have over the group as a whole? There has been a definite bias against meat, especially red meat, and exalting the idea of a "plant-based diet" for many years now. People tend to unconsciously push their prejudices as being 'best' or 'normal'. I don't suspect active conspiracy so much as a prevalence of 'group think.'Also it sounds like you believe that extra weight (from fat) carries no health risks. Maybe up to a point. In light of pretty much everything I've ever seen and heard, I just can't believe that.
No. What I'm saying is 1. on an individual to individual basis, BMI is not the best predictor of body fat, 2. The "healthy", "overweight", "obese", etc. numbers may be valid when applied specifically and directly to -body fat percentages-, but statistically, when they are applied to BMI rather than body fat percentage, the supposed increased health risk from being in the 25 to 30 range just doesn't hold up. In fact, that group often shows a -decreased- incidence of unexpected mortality vs the "healthy" BMI group. My suspicion would be that the proportion of people who are in the 25 to 30 BMI range but actually have a body fat percentage less than 25 is probably a lot greater than the "establishment" is willing to admit.2 -
I think for the lay population, being overweight or obese poses a much greater health risk.
Again, statistically speaking if you are only looking at BMI and not actual body fat percentage, then being in the "obese" category does carry significantly elevated risks, but being in the "overweight" category does not. I chalk this up to being that, on an individual basis, BMI is not that accurate for assessing body fat. Heck, bio-impedance gets a bad rap for being inaccurate, yet BIA is still notably more accurate than BMI.Also- I wasn't talking about being "gorgeous" as a woman or not at different weights and body fat percentages- I'm talking about the feasibility of achieving the kind of muscle mass you seem to think is so easy to gain/hold on to. Having 20% body fat for a woman my height at 189 lbs would take an extremely intense body-building regimen and again, would not apply to most of the population. This has nothing to do with how "gorgeous" someone is. I think you have a distorted view of reasonable/normal body fat percentages for the general population at different weights for their height.
I thought you were suggesting that a woman would look horribly over-muscled if she had the same lean mass at 189 as she had at 260. I don't think that is the case. I also don't think the skeletal muscle difference for carrying around 70 extra pounds of body weight is as great as you think it is. Naturally it's going to depend somewhat on height.Again, BMI is not a hard-and-fast, but it's a decent correlation for the majority of the population given the feasibility (or lack thereof) of regularly obtaining an accurate BF % measurement.
and again, BIA is readily available, inexpensive and definitely more accurate than BMI.Again, your point of view that you would look "scrawny and frail" at 185 lbs is the result of being part of an overweight/obese society and is purely your perception. I think it's important to recognize that. If you maintained that lean muscle mass and were 8% body fat, I think the idea that you'd look scrawny and frail is laughable. You'd look pretty ripped.
No, it's my view from experience when I actually was that weight, back in the '80s, before the "obesity epidemic." Back then it wasn't quite as bad, since I was young and could more easily pull off the skinny look, but at 46 there's no way I would look good at that size.
As to the society thing. That is a claim repeated often enough to gain wide public acceptance, but I don't think it's all that accurate. If only there was a way we could look back in time and see what the ideal of that time actually looked like... such as maybe watching old movies! The Wizard of Oz is a great example. That movie is full of not skinny people. It the much repeated trope were true, we should be shocked at how rail-thin everyone looks when we watch old films, but that's not the case.
Certainly we have become more tolerant of fat, and we have a higher threshold of what we still find attractive, but the view of what constitutes 'ideal' really has not changed that much.0 -
I haven't found that BMI is accurate at all. For myself anyways.
I'm 5'6" male. This puts my ideal BMI between 19 and 24 which translates into 120-150lbs (I was 155lbs when I was in my early 20's while eating next to nothing and hitchhiking/walking 20 miles a day carrying 60+ lbs on my back). I'm currently 32 years old, fluctuate between180-188lbs (and have for a few years before staring to lift weights) and roughly 17% body fat (determined by BodPod), my BMI is 29-31. This puts me in the overweight to obese range; I have a good amount of muscle, but I'm not "very" muscular by any means and I am certainly not obese.
My brother in law had the same problem: 6'3" tall and 225lbs and 13%BF. The Air Force told him to lose 30 lbs.
If you want a VERY general idea of what you quite possibly "should" be and are new-ish to fitness, diet, etc. then yea, go with BMI as a guideline. My suggestion, however, is to get a BodPod measurement. They cost around $40 and are WAY more accurate than BMI, bioelectric impediment, calipers, etc. This will give you a MUCH better idea of where you're at and where you need to be3 -
I should also add that I have a male friend who is the same age and height as I am. He "bulks up" to 155-160lbs before dropping 20lbs for a fight. So - same age, height, gender, etc and he is quite comfortable at 130-140lbs. I on the other hand easily bulk to 195-200lbs and it takes me a lot of work to get back down to 170lbs.
One person fits the BMI mold, one doesn't.1 -
Mike_Braddock wrote: »I haven't found that BMI is accurate at all. For myself anyways.
I'm 5'6" male. This puts my ideal BMI between 19 and 24 which translates into 120-150lbs (I was 155lbs when I was in my early 20's while eating next to nothing and hitchhiking/walking 20 miles a day carrying 60+ lbs on my back). I'm currently 32 years old, fluctuate between180-188lbs (and have for a few years before staring to lift weights) and roughly 17% body fat (determined by BodPod), my BMI is 29-31. This puts me in the overweight to obese range; I have a good amount of muscle, but I'm not "very" muscular by any means and I am certainly not obese.
My brother in law had the same problem: 6'3" tall and 225lbs and 13%BF. The Air Force told him to lose 30 lbs.
If you want a VERY general idea of what you quite possibly "should" be and are new-ish to fitness, diet, etc. then yea, go with BMI as a guideline. My suggestion, however, is to get a BodPod measurement. They cost around $40 and are WAY more accurate than BMI, bioelectric impediment, calipers, etc. This will give you a MUCH better idea of where you're at and where you need to be
According to the link posted earlier in this thread, both you and your bil are over 10 pounds over what they estimate your maximum achievable amount of lean mass to be. At that amount of lean mass, you would most certainly be "very muscular", no way around it. Frank Zane, at 5'9'' was under 200 pounds when he won Mr. Olympia, just as a reference point.
Also I too "easily" was around 195-200 pounds all my life. I didn't look fat, I was slightly chubby at most.
Now I'm at 150, about 13% bf and feel like another 5-10 pounds down are totally doable before bulking for more muscle mass and all that while I'm a head taller than you.
I'm thinking you're overestimating your lean mass or how normal you look like at a higher weight like was mentioned before, due to the unfortunate fact that obesity is so prevalent, it's becoming the new "normal" in perception.15 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
That's possible but pushing the envelope on lean body mass at your height, right?
http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/
I don't believe it to be pushing the envelope at all. There are three different means of calculations in the link you posted, the first two only look at height and ignore frame size, both of them still give me a total body weight over 200 pounds. The third one accounts for frame size and gives me a max muscular weight as 253.8, plus another ten pounds if I were to bulk. Yes, the article writer suggests that formula may be too generous, but at 220 I'd still be well under the non-bulked number. My current lean mass is already at 171 with my bia scale measuring muscle percentage at just over 29. From what I've read, this makes me under-muscled for my size. If I meet my goals, I'll be within normal range for muscle weight percentage. Also, I have a hard time believing that my body is limited to 5 -7 pounds more muscle than what I have now.
0 -
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
I wanted to ask about this as I thought about something else and it's too late to edit my last post. And to be frank, the "lower your standards to achieve it" comment annoyed me a bit.
You're goal right now is to add 17lbs of lean mass to get to your 220 and 15%. So your goal I am assuming is to cut to 10-12% to run a bulk to gain that muscle, no? Granted, you may still add a few more lbs of muscle while in a deficit but eventually you will have to run a bulk. Either that or you are cutting to 220 and then recomping for a couple a years to get that mass. Either way, cutting to 10% or even 12% isn't lowering your standards, it's just "step 1" in getting to where you want to be. (Barring the recomp option).
My plan is to begin recomping once I reach 230. When I reach my half-way point (256) I will be starting with body-weight and HIIT training, then go hard core on the strength training at 230.
When I said being under 200 pounds would require lowering my standards, I meant that I would literally have to lose existing muscle to get there, even if I were to hit a lower than (my) ideal body fat.
I don't intend to get cut, just toned with a flat stomach, lose the fat bags where my upper lats/teres major should be, and carry an abundance of functional strength.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
That's possible but pushing the envelope on lean body mass at your height, right?
http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/
I don't believe it to be pushing the envelope at all. There are three different means of calculations in the link you posted, the first two only look at height and ignore frame size, both of them still give me a total body weight over 200 pounds. The third one accounts for frame size and gives me a max muscular weight as 253.8, plus another ten pounds if I were to bulk. Yes, the article writer suggests that formula may be too generous, but at 220 I'd still be well under the non-bulked number. My current lean mass is already at 171 with my bia scale measuring muscle percentage at just over 29. From what I've read, this makes me under-muscled for my size. If I meet my goals, I'll be within normal range for muscle weight percentage. Also, I have a hard time believing that my body is limited to 5 -7 pounds more muscle than what I have now.
The problem with the ankle and wrist calc, is that it's easily thrown off by bodyfat. The wrist a bit less so than the ankle, but yeah, "cankle" is a thing for a reason. When I weighed 265, that calc told me my max muscular potential was about 225 lean. Now that I'm 151, it's telling me 198. Imagine that.
ETA: That was supposed to be 225, not 215.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »Mike_Braddock wrote: »I haven't found that BMI is accurate at all. For myself anyways.
I'm 5'6" male. This puts my ideal BMI between 19 and 24 which translates into 120-150lbs (I was 155lbs when I was in my early 20's while eating next to nothing and hitchhiking/walking 20 miles a day carrying 60+ lbs on my back). I'm currently 32 years old, fluctuate between180-188lbs (and have for a few years before staring to lift weights) and roughly 17% body fat (determined by BodPod), my BMI is 29-31. This puts me in the overweight to obese range; I have a good amount of muscle, but I'm not "very" muscular by any means and I am certainly not obese.
My brother in law had the same problem: 6'3" tall and 225lbs and 13%BF. The Air Force told him to lose 30 lbs.
If you want a VERY general idea of what you quite possibly "should" be and are new-ish to fitness, diet, etc. then yea, go with BMI as a guideline. My suggestion, however, is to get a BodPod measurement. They cost around $40 and are WAY more accurate than BMI, bioelectric impediment, calipers, etc. This will give you a MUCH better idea of where you're at and where you need to be
According to the link posted earlier in this thread, both you and your bil are over 10 pounds over what they estimate your maximum achievable amount of lean mass to be. At that amount of lean mass, you would most certainly be "very muscular", no way around it.
According to which formula in that link? The one that accounts for frame size gave me 50 - 60 pounds more than the purely height based ones.
-1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »The problem with the ankle and wrist calc, is that it's easily thrown off by bodyfat. The wrist a bit less so than the ankle, but yeah, "cankle" is a thing for a reason. When I weighed 265, that calc told me my max muscular potential was about 225 lean. Now that I'm 151, it's telling me 198. Imagine that.
ETA: That was supposed to be 225, not 215.
Yeah, that would definitely be an individual thing to *kitten*. I don't happen to have the cankle problem. For sure not the wrist as my arms are the most lean parts on my body. I'd be ok with it if my whole body looked like them
0 -
I'd be interested in seeing those "few studies" that suggest being overweight is healthier. I read medical journals on a daily basis and I assure you not all studies are created equal. The majority of what I read is pretty consistent in the overweight = generally higher risk category, for a myriad of disease states. There's overwhelming evidence showing these kinds of correlations. For the majority of the population.
I've seen studies like that, and the big problem is correlation is not causation. Skinnier people, as a group, are less healthy not because being skinnier makes them less healthy, but being less healthy often makes people skinnier. A lot of problems can cause weight loss as a side effect - as a few examples, cancer, dementia, and many kinds of drug abuse.12 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
My goal is to be 220 at 15% body fat. By my calculations, this means I will need to lose around 15 pounds of fat beyond my goal weight and add it back in muscle. In no way, shape or form would being under 200 pounds equate to "surpassing my expectations." I would have to lower my standards to achieve it.
You realize that at 6'1", 220 pounds and 15% BF you're getting in the range of an NFL running back.
Good goal to work for but to maintain at that point getting to pretty rare air.
Best of luck.6 -
I find it interesting you mention that you know someone who is underweight according to the BMI scale but looks healthy, but yet you think you'd look frail at 6'1" 185 lbs. While I do think that bone structure affects one's healthy weight, I don't think it's as extreme as it sounds like you're making it out to be. I know men who are in the 6'0-6'2" and 175-185 lb range and would not describe them as looking frail in the least bit.MarkusDarwath wrote: »I'm not sure where you got most of this information, especially that which I bolded. I think a lot of what you said in your post is a prime example of people in the U.S. (or other overweight nation) having a skewed idea of what a healthy weight is because we are surrounded by overweight/obese people.
There are quite a few studies demonstrating that those who are mildly "overweight" according to BMI have a lower risk of sudden mortality than those in the "ideal" range. These are very broad studies and any number of factors come into play, such as greater mass provides better protection from injury in accidents, and allows more leeway in unexpected rapid weight loss due to illness.There are numerous, numerous health risks that increase as visceral fat increases, and you don't have to fall in the "obese" range for that risk to be increased. No, being overweight is not as bad as being obese health-wise, but having extra, unnecessary fat doesn't do anybody any favors.
And BMI is not visceral fat. It is a height to weight ratio with no specification as to composition. Also, subcutaneous fat does not carry the same risks for small to moderate increases as visceral fat does. In other words, risk is properly evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Again, the broad studies strictly comparing BMI numbers with health outcomes show no -statistically significant- correlation between having an "overweight" BMI number and the development of health problems... with a caveat that those who are on the higher end of "overweight" and on a trend of weight gain do run counter to the evidence shown by the rest of the group.If you are happier being big, that's fine- but don't denounce the BMI scale as being completely bogus because you prefer being that way.
I denounce the scale as bogus because BMI does not actually measure anything of value, and the ranges assigned to "ideal" and "overweight" do not have an accurately positive correspondence to overall health.You have a higher lean muscle mass because you have more weight to carry- yes you would lose muscle as you lose weight, because you wouldn't need it.
Sorry, I still need it. I'm not a marathon runner or endurance cyclist, nor am I sedentary. My work often requires lifting heavy objects, and so my muscle needs to do quite a bit more than carrying my own mass. It is not a simple one-to-one trade that if I lose 20 pounds of muscle, I can lift and carry something 20 pounds heavier.If you were serious about keeping lean muscle mass along weight weight loss, you'd have to do some serious lifting, and then you might end up closer to that of a body-builder with a low body fat percentage. Muscle loss is a fact of weight loss, and it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. Can you imagine if I, a woman, had the same lean muscle mass at 189 lbs as I did at 260 lbs? That's ridiculous. My body needed more muscle to carry around that weight. That's why most people find it difficult or impossible to carry around, say, 100 lbs of something heavy even though they used to be 100 lbs heavier and carry that around every day.
Again, this is a matter of weight distribution and the way the muscles and skeleton work together. A 189 pound woman at 20% body fat and the same muscle mass is going to look gorgeous compared to the 260 pound woman at 40% body fat.I do agree, and did state, that body fat percentage is a much better indicator. Using your number of <30%- that in no way would be an outlier. An unhealthy BF percentage is often defined, for men, as being above 25%. Average, 18-24%, physically fit as 14-17% and athletes being less than that. I HIGHLY doubt you'd be in danger of being too skinny if you were to be under 185 lbs. I don't believe that for a second. Maybe by your perceptions, but not from a health standpoint.
Again, BMI is not body fat percentage. BMI is meant to be an approximation of BFP, but it's not usefully accurate for a lot of people and does not distinguish between lean mass (good), visceral fat (bad if too much), subcutaneous fat (less bad if too much) or even water weight. One should never look at the BMI charts to determine their ideal weight, they should look at body fat percentage and their personal appearance and performance goals.
If I dropped from my current weight to 185 and maintained my present lean mass I would be at 8% body fat. Yes, I expect there will be some muscle loss as I continue to lose weight, but there is no reason I should, or at all want, to lose 20 pounds worth of muscle. There is no health benefit to shedding muscle mass. Yet the BMI charts insist that I would be healthier at a weight that would -require- me to drop 20 pounds of muscle in addition to 55 pounds of fat. (and that's if I settled for 20% body fat instead of 15%),
Not to mention I would look scrawny and frail.
On the other end of the spectrum, I also know someone, a petite runner, who comes out as "underweight" on BMI charts, but does -not- look underweight.
As an estimator of body fat, BMI is most accurate for medium framed, sedentary people. And while that may be the average, there is a large difference between average and mean. BMI is not worthwhile for most individuals.
Perhaps not coincidentally, it was never developed for individual assessment to begin with. It was an equalization tool to study trends in large populations.
3 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »BMI has never been valid, or more specifically, the scales given defining "ideal" and "overweight" are nonsense, based more on someone's aesthetic sense of what a person should look like and not so much on actual health risk factors. The truth of the matter is there is no statistically significant increase in health risk markers for someone who falls in the "overweight" BMI range so long as they are not gaining weight and pushing toward "obese". For at least half the population, even the high end of their "ideal" range is overly skinny without offering any health benefit. I suspect the category designations were established by vegans.
Body fat percentage is a far superior metric. BMI is just a poor attempt at estimating BFP.
To address a couple points from another poster... yes, I am obese, and I make no bones about that. The last time I fit in the supposedly "healthy" BMI range was in high school, and at that time (before BMI was even a 'thing' in the general public) I was lifting weights because I was too damn skinny. BMI completely fails to account for factors such as age and (more importantly) frame size. According to BMI charts, 185 pounds is the most I should weigh without being "overweight". I can say that being 6'1", 46 yo, and large framed there is absolutely no reason I should weigh less than 210-220. Heck, at 262 pounds and 34-35% body fat, my present -lean mass- is around 170 pounds. I would literally have to lose significant amounts of muscle in order to fit the "ideal" BMI weight range at a healthy (not a competitive body builder) body fat percentage. And no, I do not think I am a heavily muscled outlier at less than 30% muscle mass... I'm just big... and while I'm working toward no longer being fat, I have no desire to cease being big.
I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
True, but he shouldn't have to get 'ripped' just to fall into the high-end of what BMI considers healthy. I've done the math for myself, if I didn't lose another pound of LBM, in order to get to my highest 'healthy weight' BMI, I'd have to get below 16% BF... while doable, it makes me overweight at 17%... I do not consider myself to be above average musculature. Just sayin'...2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I find it interesting you mention that you know someone who is underweight according to the BMI scale but looks healthy, but yet you think you'd look frail at 6'1" 185 lbs. While I do think that bone structure affects one's healthy weight, I don't think it's as extreme as it sounds like you're making it out to be. I know men who are in the 6'0-6'2" and 175-185 lb range and would not describe them as looking frail in the least bit.
She is a short, small framed runner. I'm a tall, large framed construction worker. There are differences in type of musculature as well as bone structure. Ancestry may have something to do with it as well. My wife's friend is of Persian descent where my genetic background is north central European (German/Dutch).
As I've said though, when I was in that size range I was in my late teens and just skinny. Now, I'm on the back side of middle age, and I've been heavy enough that when I get to a healthy weight there's going to be some loose skin. The smaller I get, the more of it there will be (I started at 292 a bit over three months ago.) Older, skinny guys with loose skin will look frail even if they're not. I'd rather fill out more of my skin with functional muscle. I definitely don't like how heavy an 80 pound bag of concrete mix has gotten to feel.
0 -
I used my favourite leather belt and wrote my waist measurements beside each notch (on the inside!). 34", 35", 36" etc. That way I could know at any point in time what my waist measurement is. As a rule of thumb you might aim for your waist to be about half your height. For a 6 ft person that means a 36" waist. For a 5' 10" person like me that means a 35" waist. This is the cheapest and most effective way of measuring your progress. In the absence of a more accurate DEXA scan, waist measurements are a marker for the visceral fat - the abdominal fat around your internal organs that are correlated to many health risks. Having a waist of 1/2 your height means you're looking good. BTW for the ladies, a waist to hips ration of 0.7 is considered attractive by many men and suggests fertility.1
-
For older people in their middle age, a so called "healthy" BMI of less than 25 is achievable but is, in my opinion an "aspirational" goal that may or may not be an accurate portrayal of your health. So, personally, I simply like to feel good wearing my favourite slim fit jeans.0
-
One caveat about the thing with the belt, it can depend on how you wear your pants. The waist measurement for assessing body composition is supposed to be taken around the navel, whereas most men wear the 'waist' of their pants more toward the top of the hips. I wear size 36 pants, but my actual waist measurement is 47.5. Fortunately, my belly distension is not flabby, or I'd be sporting a major 'dunlap' aside from just being round.2
-
At the end of the day, you have to be happy in your own skin. I set myself a weight goal some time ago and have never reached it and am coming to the conclusion that my body has its own intelligence and its own set point regardless of what my mind might want.1
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »One caveat about the thing with the belt, it can depend on how you wear your pants. The waist measurement for assessing body composition is supposed to be taken around the navel, whereas most men wear the 'waist' of their pants more toward the top of the hips. I wear size 36 pants, but my actual waist measurement is 47.5. Fortunately, my belly distension is not flabby, or I'd be sporting a major 'dunlap' aside from just being round.
So basically what you are saying is- you are obese with an unhealthy amount of visceral fat and you have problems with your BMI.
18 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »One caveat about the thing with the belt, it can depend on how you wear your pants. The waist measurement for assessing body composition is supposed to be taken around the navel, whereas most men wear the 'waist' of their pants more toward the top of the hips. I wear size 36 pants, but my actual waist measurement is 47.5. Fortunately, my belly distension is not flabby, or I'd be sporting a major 'dunlap' aside from just being round.
Depending how you look at it. It could be "unfortunately" because a belly that is not flappy indicates a large amount of visceral fat. So basically in your case BMI is currently a good indicator of fatness, and the worst kind too.16 -
stevencloser wrote: »According to the link posted earlier in this thread, both you and your bil are over 10 pounds over what they estimate your maximum achievable amount of lean mass to be. At that amount of lean mass, you would most certainly be "very muscular", no way around it. Frank Zane, at 5'9'' was under 200 pounds when he won Mr. Olympia, just as a reference point.
Also I too "easily" was around 195-200 pounds all my life. I didn't look fat, I was slightly chubby at most.
Now I'm at 150, about 13% bf and feel like another 5-10 pounds down are totally doable before bulking for more muscle mass and all that while I'm a head taller than you.
I'm thinking you're overestimating your lean mass or how normal you look like at a higher weight like was mentioned before, due to the unfortunate fact that obesity is so prevalent, it's becoming the new "normal" in perception.
Whoa there, big guy. I never said I have 180-188lbs of lean body mass, I said that I weigh that - including the excess that I could stand to lose. I'm also not estimating anything (I can furnish the body comp results that were measured when I was 5lbs heavier). My lean body mass is around 147-151lbs with 17-19%BF. Maybe getting down to 8% would get me some abs but se la vie, they aren't my main concern. For those interested mainly in physique and Frank Zane, yea that's great (and who doesn't want to look like an underwear model) but for functionality and overall fitness, I'll take my 19% and work toward 15% while lifting as much if not more than the guys at the gym at 8%. Coming from weighing 215 and who knows how much body fat - I look, feel, and function a whole lot better.
COULD I lose 20lbs? Absolutely. Do I want to? Meh, I'd be more than happy to lose 10 (which is all I'm aiming for) because with the muscle I do have I'd look great and would be extremely functional. And it has nothing to do with perceptions of obesity or any of that nonsense, I have a very practical and realistic idea of functional fitness and what looks and is healthy.
My point was that BMI is a good measure of average populations, not of specific individuals.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »...Frank Zane, at 5'9'' was under 200 pounds when he won Mr. Olympia, just as a reference point.
Also I too "easily" was around 195-200 pounds all my life. I didn't look fat, I was slightly chubby at most.
Now I'm at 150, about 13% bf and feel like another 5-10 pounds down are totally doable before bulking for more muscle mass and all that while I'm a head taller than you.
I'm thinking you're overestimating your lean mass or how normal you look like at a higher weight like was mentioned before, due to the unfortunate fact that obesity is so prevalent, it's becoming the new "normal" in perception.
Also, while I'm glad that you've set a goal, met it and found
another AND managed to belittle me in one post. I'll just go ahead and brag about a 150 meter sprint, hopping a 6 foot fence, getting punched in the face and pepper-sprayed before successfully wrestling someone who outweighs me by 50-60lbs to submission while wearing 30lbs of gear in 90 degree weather for fun. And got up for work the next day.
I think you may also underestimate how abnormal Frank Zane and that ilk look.0 -
I'm 5'7" and 145 in my profile pic. That puts my BMI around 22. I feel good at this weight. Never measured body fat but I am around 18-20% I think. If I go over 25 BMI, I start to look fat on my mid section. Having said that, I don't carry much muscle compared to some other posters on this thread who are a lot heavier than me and leaner. BMI goes out the window for guys with muscle.0
-
As a non-muscular woman, BMI has been spot on for me. I sit happily at the lower end of the BMI range - about 19/20 is good for me. I could gain another 30-35lbs and still be considered a good weight.
In my biased, personal experience, I have never met someone in real life who decried BMI as unrealistic or unattainable who I didn't look at and think, 'hmm, I DO see where 10lbs could come off you'. Obviously where they maintain their weight is their decision, and I don't believe being a BMI 25 rather than 26 is going to overhaul anyone's fitness levels or long term health, but I do believe a lot of people consider themselves an outlier due to muscle/frame size or find it better to decide BMI is flawed, when really just as a country the UK is getting fatter.
Case in point: we had our BMIs calculated at work as part of an occupational health day, and one of my colleagues received a measurement of 30. She was not happy with this and spent a good part of the rest of the afternoon telling anyone who would listen that she had a higher muscle proportion than most (a woman in her 50s whose only exercise, by her own admission, is walking her dog) and that BMI was 'dangerous' for women with hourglass figures to try and conform to.
I've yet to meet anyone who I thought really probably was a BMI outlier.16 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mike_Braddock wrote: »I haven't found that BMI is accurate at all. For myself anyways.
I'm 5'6" male. This puts my ideal BMI between 19 and 24 which translates into 120-150lbs (I was 155lbs when I was in my early 20's while eating next to nothing and hitchhiking/walking 20 miles a day carrying 60+ lbs on my back). I'm currently 32 years old, fluctuate between180-188lbs (and have for a few years before staring to lift weights) and roughly 17% body fat (determined by BodPod), my BMI is 29-31. This puts me in the overweight to obese range; I have a good amount of muscle, but I'm not "very" muscular by any means and I am certainly not obese.
My brother in law had the same problem: 6'3" tall and 225lbs and 13%BF. The Air Force told him to lose 30 lbs.
If you want a VERY general idea of what you quite possibly "should" be and are new-ish to fitness, diet, etc. then yea, go with BMI as a guideline. My suggestion, however, is to get a BodPod measurement. They cost around $40 and are WAY more accurate than BMI, bioelectric impediment, calipers, etc. This will give you a MUCH better idea of where you're at and where you need to be
According to the link posted earlier in this thread, both you and your bil are over 10 pounds over what they estimate your maximum achievable amount of lean mass to be. At that amount of lean mass, you would most certainly be "very muscular", no way around it.
According to which formula in that link? The one that accounts for frame size gave me 50 - 60 pounds more than the purely height based ones.
The one that uses wrist and frame size was also said to overestimate lean mass potential.4 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »BMI has never been valid, or more specifically, the scales given defining "ideal" and "overweight" are nonsense, based more on someone's aesthetic sense of what a person should look like and not so much on actual health risk factors. The truth of the matter is there is no statistically significant increase in health risk markers for someone who falls in the "overweight" BMI range so long as they are not gaining weight and pushing toward "obese". For at least half the population, even the high end of their "ideal" range is overly skinny without offering any health benefit. I suspect the category designations were established by vegans.
Body fat percentage is a far superior metric. BMI is just a poor attempt at estimating BFP.
To address a couple points from another poster... yes, I am obese, and I make no bones about that. The last time I fit in the supposedly "healthy" BMI range was in high school, and at that time (before BMI was even a 'thing' in the general public) I was lifting weights because I was too damn skinny. BMI completely fails to account for factors such as age and (more importantly) frame size. According to BMI charts, 185 pounds is the most I should weigh without being "overweight". I can say that being 6'1", 46 yo, and large framed there is absolutely no reason I should weigh less than 210-220. Heck, at 262 pounds and 34-35% body fat, my present -lean mass- is around 170 pounds. I would literally have to lose significant amounts of muscle in order to fit the "ideal" BMI weight range at a healthy (not a competitive body builder) body fat percentage. And no, I do not think I am a heavily muscled outlier at less than 30% muscle mass... I'm just big... and while I'm working toward no longer being fat, I have no desire to cease being big.
I used to think just like you, then I surpassed my expectations.
ETA: at 6'1, you can be 189 without being overweight. Assuming you didn't lose any muscle mass on your way to 189, that would put you at 10%. A pretty ripped individual and still falls in the range of "Normal".
True, but he shouldn't have to get 'ripped' just to fall into the high-end of what BMI considers healthy. I've done the math for myself, if I didn't lose another pound of LBM, in order to get to my highest 'healthy weight' BMI, I'd have to get below 16% BF... while doable, it makes me overweight at 17%... I do not consider myself to be above average musculature. Just sayin'...
You either are above average musculature or have more bodyfat right now than you think. Those measurements weren't thrown together just willy nilly and cover a huge range of bodyweights. Someone who would be considered overweight at a normal bodyfat amount would necessarily have to have above their expected amount of muscle, so above average.
I'll say it again, even among elite athletes, very few are outside the normal BMI range...2 -
Mike_Braddock wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »...Frank Zane, at 5'9'' was under 200 pounds when he won Mr. Olympia, just as a reference point.
Also I too "easily" was around 195-200 pounds all my life. I didn't look fat, I was slightly chubby at most.
Now I'm at 150, about 13% bf and feel like another 5-10 pounds down are totally doable before bulking for more muscle mass and all that while I'm a head taller than you.
I'm thinking you're overestimating your lean mass or how normal you look like at a higher weight like was mentioned before, due to the unfortunate fact that obesity is so prevalent, it's becoming the new "normal" in perception.
Also, while I'm glad that you've set a goal, met it and found
another AND managed to belittle me in one post. I'll just go ahead and brag about a 150 meter sprint, hopping a 6 foot fence, getting punched in the face and pepper-sprayed before successfully wrestling someone who outweighs me by 50-60lbs to submission while wearing 30lbs of gear in 90 degree weather for fun. And got up for work the next day.
I think you may also underestimate how abnormal Frank Zane and that ilk look.
Exactly. They're not natural, so, he only weighed 10 pounds more than you when he won Mr. Olympia, but you say you're not overly muscular at apparently 180 and 17% bodyfat which puts you at 150 pounds lean mass standing at a head smaller than me (which is 10 pounds above your max potential according to the reference).
Now, I'm 150 total, 13% bodyfat and know how I look like (which is still 30 pounds of muscle away from my estimated potential). There's no way you would look at your body and not think you're muscular if you're actually at the stats you think you are.5
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