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 BMI is no longer valid?
Options
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
Heh, even the USMC bodyfat calc, which uses five measurement points instead of the typical two to three, told me that I was 11.9% bodyfat, when I was still more like 16%.
*kitten*, a seven point, triple averaged caliper test now tells me 9.6%, and though I may have visible striations in shoulders and neck, visible veins near the lower abs, etc., I still don't buy it. I need to stop being a cheap *kitten* and get a DXA done.
Calipers wildly underestimate for me. I think it's because I have a fair amount of excess skin, so the volume of my subcutaneous fat is spread thinner because it's over a larger surface area.0 -
Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I don't think you know how much of a difference in look even a small amount of extra muscle makes.
I think you are underestimating the difference. I'm saying Bolt has a small amount of extra muscle and he looks phenomenal for it, in part because he is also very lean so it's not hidden.
0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
It's not an anything point difference, just like 18 feet isn't a 3 point difference from 21 gallons, because they are not measurements of the same thing.
Both BMI and body fat % would put her at a healthy weight.12 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »A lot of people slate BMI and cite some extreme fitness or sports person as the reason why BMI is wrong. It may be a surprise to learn that most people are not professional American football players nor competitive bodybuilders. For the average couch potato a high BMI might be enough to frighten someone into standing up.
The thread is about determining one's ideal weight. The "ideal" part pretty much excludes couch potatoes.
I'm not saying BMI isn't 'close enough' to BFP for the beginner. I'm saying that as one approaches ideal fitness it tends to be too far off for two many people, therefore is not a good measure for determining goals.
Actually the OP's first post was this:
"I want to understand how to judge a healthy weight range for myself in order to take opinion out of the equation."
For this question, BMI is more that adequate without trying to add the complexity you're suggesting that I would wager few in the general public understand.8 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »A lot of people slate BMI and cite some extreme fitness or sports person as the reason why BMI is wrong. It may be a surprise to learn that most people are not professional American football players nor competitive bodybuilders. For the average couch potato a high BMI might be enough to frighten someone into standing up.
The thread is about determining one's ideal weight. The "ideal" part pretty much excludes couch potatoes.
I'm not saying BMI isn't 'close enough' to BFP for the beginner. I'm saying that as one approaches ideal fitness it tends to be too far off for two many people, therefore is not a good measure for determining goals.
That's the thing. There is no true "ideal" weight, even among fit people. If health is fine, it really depends on performance in their desired sport and their aesthetic preference. A ballerina is very fit, strong, and have very low body fat in general, but you will be very pressed to find even a single successful ballerina who is considered overweight by BMI, or even close to the upper end of the normal range. In fact quite a few of them can be considered underweight by BMI. That's because their performance needs strong yet light bodies. Same for long distance runners, gymnasts, jockeys and many other sports.
You can't define "ideal fitness" by your own ideas of what ideal fitness is, and you can't define someone else's "ideal" because you don't know their goals and preferences. Would you agree with a sumo wrestlers' (who are quite fit by the way) idea of what's ideal? Her question was about "healthy weight range", which is sliding scale and depends on several individual factors, but BMI is a good starting point.7 -
Ask your doctor and get a professional opinion? Obviously the general population have many conflicting opinions, and it would probably be better to discuss health with a professional, even if they provide you with the BMI chart.1
-
This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?29
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I don't think you know how much of a difference in look even a small amount of extra muscle makes.
I think you are underestimating the difference. I'm saying Bolt has a small amount of extra muscle and he looks phenomenal for it, in part because he is also very lean so it's not hidden.
Bolt has a lot of muscle and is not super lean. I'd put him at the for athletes typical 8-12% bf range, which puts him as should be expected of a world class athlete, at the upper bounds of maximum lean mass for his height.
You have a skewed perception, there's no way around it, every one of your posts shows that.23 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
I don't think BMI ever claimed to estimate what your actual body fat percentage was?! Aren't they both just supposed to be measures of healthy weight ranges? Which no-one claims need to come out at the same number? In any case, using the highly scientific 'looking in the mirror and estimating' technique, I am nowhere near 18.5% fat. I'd say more like 20-21. 18.5 is pretty low for a woman.3 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
You...I like you.6 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
You...I like you.
So it's not just my mom that thinks I'm cool? Aw shucks.
The only reason I would say something so callous is that I used to be one of those people: on the heavy side despite being fairly active throughout most of my life--clearly something was wrong with the measure not me. Then I started counting calories and using a food scale. Lo and behold, the weight has come off and I'm within a normal BMI range.
12 -
BMI appears to be a good guideline for most people; however, the issue with BMI is that there are many factors it does not take into account. For example, muscle mass is not well-accounted for, so it's quite possible to have someone who falls in the overweight category prescribed by the BMI scale, but is actually quite fit and lean-looking. Also, frame size is not factored in, either. Someone who is 'smalled-boned' is going to wear the same amount of weight differently than someone who is 'big-boned', assuming all other variables are held constant (height, gender, muscle:fat ratio, etc.).
There is also a great amount of individual variation that BMI cannot account for. What looks good/is healthy/functional for one person is not going to be the same for another person.0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
You...I like you.
So it's not just my mom that thinks I'm cool? Aw shucks.
The only reason I would say something so callous is that I used to be one of those people: on the heavy side despite being fairly active throughout most of my life--clearly something was wrong with the measure not me. Then I started counting calories and using a food scale. Lo and behold, the weight has come off and I'm within a normal BMI range.
Yeap. You just described me five years ago, and the entire rest of my family to this day.4 -
rankinsect wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »Ooh, I've just been completely won over to the 'estimate BF% using a tape measure' method, because the Internet thinks I'm 18.5% fat, which sounds much thinner than 21.5 BMI. I'll just go with that from now on.
That's a whopping 3 point difference, and those defending BMI are basically saying variances much greater than that are acceptable, in order to consider BMI accurate. And yes, your actual body fat is probably closer to 18.5% than 21.5%
It's not an anything point difference, just like 18 feet isn't a 3 point difference from 21 gallons, because they are not measurements of the same thing.
Both BMI and body fat % would put her at a healthy weight.
Actually, BMI is -supposed- to be a simple estimation of body fat percentage. As such, it may average out to be close over large populations, but on an individual basis it is often just plain wrong.0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
And people with poor reading comprehension make inaccurate assumptions. Your point would be?0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
And people with poor reading comprehension make inaccurate assumptions. Your point would be?
No.
Some day you'll figure it out and stop kidding yourself. Or you won't. Either way, no skin off my back.
13 -
stevencloser wrote: »Bolt has a lot of muscle and is not super lean. I'd put him at the for athletes typical 8-12% bf range, which puts him as should be expected of a world class athlete, at the upper bounds of maximum lean mass for his height.
You have a skewed perception, there's no way around it, every one of your posts shows that.
Compared to the general populace, 10% or less body fat is super lean.
And he's a runner. Yes, as a sprinter he's going to have more mass than a distance runner to get that explosive burst of speed, but he's still built for speed, not brute strength, therefore is not likely to be at the upper limits of lean mass for his height. I would put him above half, but well below max. If he started training for power lifting instead of sprinting, I would guess he could put on at least 20 more pounds of muscle, especially considering it's spread over a 6'5" frame.0 -
I don't think BMI ever claimed to estimate what your actual body fat percentage was?!
livestrong.com/article/78471-bmi-mean/
Very first result when searching "what does bmi mean". Yes, it's supposed to be an estimation of body fat.In any case, using the highly scientific 'looking in the mirror and estimating' technique, I am nowhere near 18.5% fat. I'd say more like 20-21. 18.5 is pretty low for a woman.
Your profile pic suggests you are a distance runner. Lower than average body fat often goes with the territory.
0 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »This just in: people in denial about their size and/or health think the measure telling them they are in denial is inaccurate?
And people with poor reading comprehension make inaccurate assumptions. Your point would be?
No.
Some day you'll figure it out and stop kidding yourself. Or you won't. Either way, no skin off my back.
I'm not kidding myself. I am fat, and diabetic and my joints hurt. And I haven't at all denied it. That is why I'm counting calories and losing weight. As far as my goals, they are supported by math. The numbers say that if I were under 25 BMI I would also be below average in muscle mass for my weight. The numbers say that if I can achieve 15% body fat at 220 pounds, my muscle mass percentage will be close to the middle of average. And 15% body fat is not fat, period.
I do not oppose BMI because I want to deny being fat. I oppose BMI because the charts designating a "healthy" weight range promote a low-muscle physique.
Had you read and understood my posts up to this point, you would not have made that nonsense comment about 'denial' and I wouldn't be repeating these statements.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions