Forget BMI
Replies
-
moonstroller wrote: »rianneonamission wrote: »Ironandwine69 wrote: »BMI tells me I'm fat.
no BMI does not tell you that...
it tells you one of a couple thing
underweight
normal weight
overweight
obese
morbidly obese
if it tells you that you are overweight and you don't think so one of two things is going on.
You are an outlier or you need to reevaluate what you are seeing.
BMI doesn't take in to account body fat vs muscle mass, so the number is utterly meaningless without understanding body composition.
You are exactly on target. When I was in excellent shape years ago I was doing a lot of lifting so I weighted 178 pounds with under 7% body fat and wore size 30 pants. BMI had me as being overweight, but it's overall body composition that matters.
And you were part of the 10% or so of the population where BMI isn't a good indicator. For the rest, pretty decent.4 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
I agree with this. It is appropriate for most people...I believe a substantial majority.
There are MANY muscular people who are also fat. Just because you lift heavy a few times a week doesn't mean you aren't still overweight or obese. A lot of people like to lie to themselves and say BMI doesn't apply to them because they lift.
I can tell when a person would be overweight or obese based on BMI yet have a healthy body fat level. They LOOK like they lift a lot of weight. I think of NFL linebackers like James Harrison. I'm sure BMI does say he is obese, but anybody who looks at him can tell there is no spare fat. Yet, I see people post pics here all the time and claim BMI doesn't work in their case. In A FEW of those cases, I would agree and think they are correct. But for most, I may see some muscle, but I also see a nice layer of fat covering most of it. Whether they want to believe it or not, these people are probably overweight.
I said this on page one in a sentence and was basically told I was being mean for telling strangers that they are lying to themselves or have a skewed self image.
You didn't say anything that was wrong or mean. Some people just don't like hearing the truth.
While I usually don't say anything because it wouldn't do any good and would just start board drama and result in people calling ME mean (LOL!), I can't even count the number of times I have seen somebody post pics and say they are currently "bulking"...while I silently said to myself that if I were them, I would be trying to LOSE weight, not gain more. But hey, whatever floats their boat.8 -
Well most my fat is around my abdomen. So much so everyone just thought I was pregnant...0
-
Packerjohn wrote: »moonstroller wrote: »rianneonamission wrote: »Ironandwine69 wrote: »BMI tells me I'm fat.
no BMI does not tell you that...
it tells you one of a couple thing
underweight
normal weight
overweight
obese
morbidly obese
if it tells you that you are overweight and you don't think so one of two things is going on.
You are an outlier or you need to reevaluate what you are seeing.
BMI doesn't take in to account body fat vs muscle mass, so the number is utterly meaningless without understanding body composition.
You are exactly on target. When I was in excellent shape years ago I was doing a lot of lifting so I weighted 178 pounds with under 7% body fat and wore size 30 pants. BMI had me as being overweight, but it's overall body composition that matters.
And you were part of the 10% or so of the population where BMI isn't a good indicator. For the rest, pretty decent.
20-40%1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »moonstroller wrote: »rianneonamission wrote: »Ironandwine69 wrote: »BMI tells me I'm fat.
no BMI does not tell you that...
it tells you one of a couple thing
underweight
normal weight
overweight
obese
morbidly obese
if it tells you that you are overweight and you don't think so one of two things is going on.
You are an outlier or you need to reevaluate what you are seeing.
BMI doesn't take in to account body fat vs muscle mass, so the number is utterly meaningless without understanding body composition.
You are exactly on target. When I was in excellent shape years ago I was doing a lot of lifting so I weighted 178 pounds with under 7% body fat and wore size 30 pants. BMI had me as being overweight, but it's overall body composition that matters.
And you were part of the 10% or so of the population where BMI isn't a good indicator. For the rest, pretty decent.
It's actually more likely to under report being overweight/obese.
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-valid-is-bmi-as-a-measure-of-health-and-obesity/.
Not really surprising when you take a look at the population.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »macchiatto wrote: »That is interesting; thanks for posting. My husband is one for whom BMI is off. He's been losing weight and does still have a bit more to lose but nothing like BMI would indicate. I also just looked at the measurements we last took for him (he's lost a bit more since then) and waist was 39.75" even though he's now right on the border between "obese" and "overweight" per BMI.
I don't have time to research this more right now, but anyone know for this if waist measurement they're going by is the narrowest point between rib cage and hips, or belly button level? My belly button definitely migrated lower thanks to pregnancy so now that measurement is pretty close to my hip measurement.
BMI is 20.1 now, true waist is 28.5" but belly button level "waist" measurement is right around 35".
The standard we use in the military is 2 fingers above the crest of the hip bone. A couple important components are standing upright. and using someone else to measure.. A stepstool is helpful so that the observer can ensure the tape is level. Also, for consistency... the measurement should be at the end of a "normal" exhalation... not an exaggerated one... and we normally take 3 measurements...
I'm not sure if the medical community uses a different location
Interesting. This 2 fingers above the crest of the hip bone method would measure my rib cage, not my waist. I only have a 1" gap. And the measure at the belly button would just be a hip measurement for me. One would wonder how I ever bend to the side lol.3 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
I agree with this. It is appropriate for most people...I believe a substantial majority.
There are MANY muscular people who are also fat. Just because you lift heavy a few times a week doesn't mean you aren't still overweight or obese. A lot of people like to lie to themselves and say BMI doesn't apply to them because they lift.
I can tell when a person would be overweight or obese based on BMI yet have a healthy body fat level. They LOOK like they lift a lot of weight. I think of NFL linebackers like James Harrison. I'm sure BMI does say he is obese, but anybody who looks at him can tell there is no spare fat. Yet, I see people post pics here all the time and claim BMI doesn't work in their case. In A FEW of those cases, I would agree and think they are correct. But for most, I may see some muscle, but I also see a nice layer of fat covering most of it. Whether they want to believe it or not, these people are probably overweight.
So much this. So many think that just because there is a layer of muscle under the fat that they are an outlier. What that really means is they will likely be okay at a higher BMI. Those with no muscle should shoot for the lower end. The BMI range is huge.
There are outliers, but not everyone who lifts is one. Most aren't.
I agree with the poster upthread who said that one is more likely to be overfat than underfat in the healthy range.
I used to believe I was an outlier. Turns out I was overfat. I am happy at the higher end of the range.
Were you really "over fat" though? As in an unhealthy BF%?
I'm still a little fluffy from winter, but I'm at a healthy BF%...at the moment, I'm about 13 Lbs overweight for my height a per BMI...from a vanity standpoint, I'm not in my happy place, but hardly at a BF% that would be considered unhealthy...you can still see visible abs, though they are pretty blurry and it's basically a 2 pack going on 4...
I have about 7 Lbs to drop to get down to 180 which is my typical maintenance over the last 4 years and at that I'm about 6 Lbs over by BMI...at that weight I have no love handles and a flat stomach and visible abs, though they aren't super striated.
The lowest I've been during this whole thing is 175 which is still 1 Lb over as per BMI and I'm pretty striated at that weight. I'm by no means bodybuilder built either. I could maintain at the high end of my BMI for sure...I'd be really lean though...but that doesn't mean I'm over fat at 5-10 Lbs heavier...just more fat, but not an unhealthy level of fat.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
I agree with this. It is appropriate for most people...I believe a substantial majority.
There are MANY muscular people who are also fat. Just because you lift heavy a few times a week doesn't mean you aren't still overweight or obese. A lot of people like to lie to themselves and say BMI doesn't apply to them because they lift.
I can tell when a person would be overweight or obese based on BMI yet have a healthy body fat level. They LOOK like they lift a lot of weight. I think of NFL linebackers like James Harrison. I'm sure BMI does say he is obese, but anybody who looks at him can tell there is no spare fat. Yet, I see people post pics here all the time and claim BMI doesn't work in their case. In A FEW of those cases, I would agree and think they are correct. But for most, I may see some muscle, but I also see a nice layer of fat covering most of it. Whether they want to believe it or not, these people are probably overweight.
So much this. So many think that just because there is a layer of muscle under the fat that they are an outlier. What that really means is they will likely be okay at a higher BMI. Those with no muscle should shoot for the lower end. The BMI range is huge.
There are outliers, but not everyone who lifts is one. Most aren't.
I agree with the poster upthread who said that one is more likely to be overfat than underfat in the healthy range.
I used to believe I was an outlier. Turns out I was overfat. I am happy at the higher end of the range.
Were you really "over fat" though? As in an unhealthy BF%?
I'm still a little fluffy from winter, but I'm at a healthy BF%...at the moment, I'm about 13 Lbs overweight for my height a per BMI...from a vanity standpoint, I'm not in my happy place, but hardly at a BF% that would be considered unhealthy...you can still see visible abs, though they are pretty blurry and it's basically a 2 pack going on 4...
I have about 7 Lbs to drop to get down to 180 which is my typical maintenance over the last 4 years and at that I'm about 6 Lbs over by BMI...at that weight I have no love handles and a flat stomach and visible abs, though they aren't super striated.
The lowest I've been during this whole thing is 175 which is still 1 Lb over as per BMI and I'm pretty striated at that weight. I'm by no means bodybuilder built either. I could maintain at the high end of my BMI for sure...I'd be really lean though...but that doesn't mean I'm over fat at 5-10 Lbs heavier...just more fat, but not an unhealthy level of fat.
Me, yes I was. I didn't measure my body fat, but I have no doubt I was carrying more fat that was healthy or attractive. Honestly looking at myself was key.
For me it's a slippery slope. Once you get comfortable being 5 pounds over fat, it is easy to forgive 10 or 15 pounds.
9 -
pedermj2002 wrote: »I had begun weight loss by then, and was down by 40lbs. Maybe the biking I started a few months before made enough of a difference? I don't know. I just know what I had on the printout they gave to me.
I can absolutely believe that BMI doesn't work for you, in exactly the way you describe.
However, if it does work for 80% of cases, (or 60% or some other majority percentage - not quibbling), you're pretty much the definition of an outlier.
I don't see why that means we ought to throw it out as an inexpensive screener, a rough approximation.
MFP's calorie calculator is howlingly incorrect for me - on the order of 30% off (as are other similar calculators I've tried, though some are slightly closer). That doesn't motivate me to tell everyone to ignore the calculators . . . though it does make me want to help others understand how the calculators work, what they're good for, and that they aren't straight-up spot-on gospel for everyone. However, they give pretty decent estimates for most people, useful as a starting point.
I don't see why BMI is any different: It's an approximation, it's a screener, it's cheap, it gives an estimate that can be used as a starting point. People who think it's wonky for them should talk to their doctor, seek out a more precise diagnostic, etc.
I'd like to point you to other threads discussing making people who are overweight by BMI pay more for health insurance, and comments therein that they shouldn't even be employed, or in other threads where some think that being a single pound over the BMI for "normal" would make a person immoral or undesirable for marriage.
It's clearly not being used as an approximation, or a starting point, either by insurance companies or by individuals. When a lot rides on that "healthy weight" vs "unhealthy weight" distinction, I would think accuracy would become very important.5 -
pedermj2002 wrote: »I had begun weight loss by then, and was down by 40lbs. Maybe the biking I started a few months before made enough of a difference? I don't know. I just know what I had on the printout they gave to me.
I can absolutely believe that BMI doesn't work for you, in exactly the way you describe.
However, if it does work for 80% of cases, (or 60% or some other majority percentage - not quibbling), you're pretty much the definition of an outlier.
I don't see why that means we ought to throw it out as an inexpensive screener, a rough approximation.
MFP's calorie calculator is howlingly incorrect for me - on the order of 30% off (as are other similar calculators I've tried, though some are slightly closer). That doesn't motivate me to tell everyone to ignore the calculators . . . though it does make me want to help others understand how the calculators work, what they're good for, and that they aren't straight-up spot-on gospel for everyone. However, they give pretty decent estimates for most people, useful as a starting point.
I don't see why BMI is any different: It's an approximation, it's a screener, it's cheap, it gives an estimate that can be used as a starting point. People who think it's wonky for them should talk to their doctor, seek out a more precise diagnostic, etc.
I'd like to point you to other threads discussing making people who are overweight by BMI pay more for health insurance, and comments therein that they shouldn't even be employed, or in other threads where some think that being a single pound over the BMI for "normal" would make a person immoral or undesirable for marriage.
It's clearly not being used as an approximation, or a starting point, either by insurance companies or by individuals. When a lot rides on that "healthy weight" vs "unhealthy weight" distinction, I would think accuracy would become very important.
Couldn't agree more that it's widely misused, in very destructive ways. Those uses are also not consistent with the nature of the measure.
I believe in using data for decision-making as a generality, but that data needs to be absolutely the most on point it can be for the purpose, or we're doing it wrong. When using BMI as a sole measure in making insurance decisions, we're doing it wrong. The problem is not that the screener statistic exists - banishing it will change nothing - it's the misunderstanding and misuse.
As an aside, the whole concept of excluding people from health insurance because they're in bad health is kind of contradictory to the whole point of insurance, IMO. The question of incentives related to healthy/unhealthy personal choices, in the insurance context, is a very difficult one.6 -
pedermj2002 wrote: »I had begun weight loss by then, and was down by 40lbs. Maybe the biking I started a few months before made enough of a difference? I don't know. I just know what I had on the printout they gave to me.
I can absolutely believe that BMI doesn't work for you, in exactly the way you describe.
However, if it does work for 80% of cases, (or 60% or some other majority percentage - not quibbling), you're pretty much the definition of an outlier.
I don't see why that means we ought to throw it out as an inexpensive screener, a rough approximation.
MFP's calorie calculator is howlingly incorrect for me - on the order of 30% off (as are other similar calculators I've tried, though some are slightly closer). That doesn't motivate me to tell everyone to ignore the calculators . . . though it does make me want to help others understand how the calculators work, what they're good for, and that they aren't straight-up spot-on gospel for everyone. However, they give pretty decent estimates for most people, useful as a starting point.
I don't see why BMI is any different: It's an approximation, it's a screener, it's cheap, it gives an estimate that can be used as a starting point. People who think it's wonky for them should talk to their doctor, seek out a more precise diagnostic, etc.
I'd like to point you to other threads discussing making people who are overweight by BMI pay more for health insurance, and comments therein that they shouldn't even be employed, or in other threads where some think that being a single pound over the BMI for "normal" would make a person immoral or undesirable for marriage.
It's clearly not being used as an approximation, or a starting point, either by insurance companies or by individuals. When a lot rides on that "healthy weight" vs "unhealthy weight" distinction, I would think accuracy would become very important.
Couldn't agree more that it's widely misused, in very destructive ways. Those uses are also not consistent with the nature of the measure.
I believe in using data for decision-making as a generality, but that data needs to be absolutely the most on point it can be for the purpose, or we're doing it wrong. When using BMI as a sole measure in making insurance decisions, we're doing it wrong. The problem is not that the screener statistic exists - banishing it will change nothing - it's the misunderstanding and misuse.
As an aside, the whole concept of excluding people from health insurance because they're in bad health is kind of contradictory to the whole point of insurance, IMO. The question of incentives related to healthy/unhealthy personal choices, in the insurance context, is a very difficult one.
And now I really wish we could chat in person over coffee or a long walk. Thanks for the awesome reply, made a long night brighter
2 -
pedermj2002 wrote: »I had begun weight loss by then, and was down by 40lbs. Maybe the biking I started a few months before made enough of a difference? I don't know. I just know what I had on the printout they gave to me.
I can absolutely believe that BMI doesn't work for you, in exactly the way you describe.
However, if it does work for 80% of cases, (or 60% or some other majority percentage - not quibbling), you're pretty much the definition of an outlier.
I don't see why that means we ought to throw it out as an inexpensive screener, a rough approximation.
MFP's calorie calculator is howlingly incorrect for me - on the order of 30% off (as are other similar calculators I've tried, though some are slightly closer). That doesn't motivate me to tell everyone to ignore the calculators . . . though it does make me want to help others understand how the calculators work, what they're good for, and that they aren't straight-up spot-on gospel for everyone. However, they give pretty decent estimates for most people, useful as a starting point.
I don't see why BMI is any different: It's an approximation, it's a screener, it's cheap, it gives an estimate that can be used as a starting point. People who think it's wonky for them should talk to their doctor, seek out a more precise diagnostic, etc.
I'd like to point you to other threads discussing making people who are overweight by BMI pay more for health insurance, and comments therein that they shouldn't even be employed, or in other threads where some think that being a single pound over the BMI for "normal" would make a person immoral or undesirable for marriage.
It's clearly not being used as an approximation, or a starting point, either by insurance companies or by individuals. When a lot rides on that "healthy weight" vs "unhealthy weight" distinction, I would think accuracy would become very important.
Couldn't agree more that it's widely misused, in very destructive ways. Those uses are also not consistent with the nature of the measure.
I believe in using data for decision-making as a generality, but that data needs to be absolutely the most on point it can be for the purpose, or we're doing it wrong. When using BMI as a sole measure in making insurance decisions, we're doing it wrong. The problem is not that the screener statistic exists - banishing it will change nothing - it's the misunderstanding and misuse.
As an aside, the whole concept of excluding people from health insurance because they're in bad health is kind of contradictory to the whole point of insurance, IMO. The question of incentives related to healthy/unhealthy personal choices, in the insurance context, is a very difficult one.
And now I really wish we could chat in person over coffee or a long walk. Thanks for the awesome reply, made a long night brighter
Thank you. I'm touched, and based on your larger-context comment a couple posts up, and other posts elsewhere, I'm confident I'd enjoy that chat, too.
3 -
Delete - see below.0
-
BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
11 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
I agree with this. It is appropriate for most people...I believe a substantial majority.
There are MANY muscular people who are also fat. Just because you lift heavy a few times a week doesn't mean you aren't still overweight or obese. A lot of people like to lie to themselves and say BMI doesn't apply to them because they lift.
I can tell when a person would be overweight or obese based on BMI yet have a healthy body fat level. They LOOK like they lift a lot of weight. I think of NFL linebackers like James Harrison. I'm sure BMI does say he is obese, but anybody who looks at him can tell there is no spare fat. Yet, I see people post pics here all the time and claim BMI doesn't work in their case. In A FEW of those cases, I would agree and think they are correct. But for most, I may see some muscle, but I also see a nice layer of fat covering most of it. Whether they want to believe it or not, these people are probably overweight.
I said this on page one in a sentence and was basically told I was being mean for telling strangers that they are lying to themselves or have a skewed self image.
Even if you had been saying this (apparently you hadn't), I don't see how it's mean. It's the truth. Many of us do lie to ourselves, not because we're terrible people but because we are going through something hard and our self-esteem is generally in the toilet as it is over this issue (or some other issue). Honestly is always best but nobody is perfect and we are only human. We all just want to be happy.
But pointing out the truth, if doing so politely, isn't mean. And I say that as someone who is overly sensitive. How are we supposed to help each other if we can't politely, non-hurtfully (without a lot of blurted *kitten*s or nasty "I'm a jerk on the internet, let me laugh at you" memes) tell each other various things we've learned on our own weight loss journey?
If I sit here and say "I never needed to lose weight because BMI is bogus, so you probably don't need to lose weight either" then how are you getting helped? (The general you.)
Just how I see it. We do come here for help, after all (usually).1 -
megzchica23 wrote: »Well most my fat is around my abdomen. So much so everyone just thought I was pregnant...
Me too, and too much fat is too much fat, even if it only concentrates in one or two basic areas.
Yeah, there is all sorts of research on fat placement and specific health risks and all that, but if my abdomen is showing me as unhealthy due to the amount of fat on it, then I still am overly-fat and still subject to health risks associated with that. My waist ratio isn't unfairly skewing me as overweight or anything due to its placement. I AM overweight, with my body preferring to store fat on my abdomen.
It seems unfair but every overweight person is really struggling the same struggle.1 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
I agree with this. It is appropriate for most people...I believe a substantial majority.
There are MANY muscular people who are also fat. Just because you lift heavy a few times a week doesn't mean you aren't still overweight or obese. A lot of people like to lie to themselves and say BMI doesn't apply to them because they lift.
I can tell when a person would be overweight or obese based on BMI yet have a healthy body fat level. They LOOK like they lift a lot of weight. I think of NFL linebackers like James Harrison. I'm sure BMI does say he is obese, but anybody who looks at him can tell there is no spare fat. Yet, I see people post pics here all the time and claim BMI doesn't work in their case. In A FEW of those cases, I would agree and think they are correct. But for most, I may see some muscle, but I also see a nice layer of fat covering most of it. Whether they want to believe it or not, these people are probably overweight.
I said this on page one in a sentence and was basically told I was being mean for telling strangers that they are lying to themselves or have a skewed self image.
Even if you had been saying this (apparently you hadn't), I don't see how it's mean. It's the truth. Many of us do lie to ourselves, not because we're terrible people but because we are going through something hard and our self-esteem is generally in the toilet as it is over this issue (or some other issue). Honestly is always best but nobody is perfect and we are only human. We all just want to be happy.
But pointing out the truth, if doing so politely, isn't mean. And I say that as someone who is overly sensitive. How are we supposed to help each other if we can't politely, non-hurtfully (without a lot of blurted *kitten*s or nasty "I'm a jerk on the internet, let me laugh at you" memes) tell each other various things we've learned on our own weight loss journey?
If I sit here and say "I never needed to lose weight because BMI is bogus, so you probably don't need to lose weight either" then how are you getting helped? (The general you.)
Just how I see it. We do come here for help, after all (usually).
Here is my quote
"...if it tells you that you are overweight and you don't think so one of two things is going on.
You are an outlier or you need to reevaluate what you are seeing."
I said it in less words with less woo but still said the same thing...but I gave them the chance to claim outlier first.
I like you used to love hearing BMI is crap...but I know better now.3 -
BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.1 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
I agree with this. It is appropriate for most people...I believe a substantial majority.
There are MANY muscular people who are also fat. Just because you lift heavy a few times a week doesn't mean you aren't still overweight or obese. A lot of people like to lie to themselves and say BMI doesn't apply to them because they lift.
I can tell when a person would be overweight or obese based on BMI yet have a healthy body fat level. They LOOK like they lift a lot of weight. I think of NFL linebackers like James Harrison. I'm sure BMI does say he is obese, but anybody who looks at him can tell there is no spare fat. Yet, I see people post pics here all the time and claim BMI doesn't work in their case. In A FEW of those cases, I would agree and think they are correct. But for most, I may see some muscle, but I also see a nice layer of fat covering most of it. Whether they want to believe it or not, these people are probably overweight.
I said this on page one in a sentence and was basically told I was being mean for telling strangers that they are lying to themselves or have a skewed self image.
Even if you had been saying this (apparently you hadn't), I don't see how it's mean. It's the truth. Many of us do lie to ourselves, not because we're terrible people but because we are going through something hard and our self-esteem is generally in the toilet as it is over this issue (or some other issue). Honestly is always best but nobody is perfect and we are only human. We all just want to be happy.
But pointing out the truth, if doing so politely, isn't mean. And I say that as someone who is overly sensitive. How are we supposed to help each other if we can't politely, non-hurtfully (without a lot of blurted *kitten*s or nasty "I'm a jerk on the internet, let me laugh at you" memes) tell each other various things we've learned on our own weight loss journey?
If I sit here and say "I never needed to lose weight because BMI is bogus, so you probably don't need to lose weight either" then how are you getting helped? (The general you.)
Just how I see it. We do come here for help, after all (usually).
Here is my quote
"...if it tells you that you are overweight and you don't think so one of two things is going on.
You are an outlier or you need to reevaluate what you are seeing."
I said it in less words with less woo but still said the same thing...but I gave them the chance to claim outlier first.
I like you used to love hearing BMI is crap...but I know better now.
Yeah. This is all...just not mean. **
You tried. I think that sounded fine.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.
now what are the chances that this will happen and they won't fall into BMI range?
0 to none...outliers are just that...those that are very unusual, very different from the average.
People with normal health BF% and above average body mass would be few and far between and considered outliers.
I would love to see the stats are what % of the population doesn't fall into the BMI range and is considered healthy
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.
Oh, okay.
So what do you have to support this? This is a fairly significant portion of the population?
Enough so that "Forget BMI!" is an appropriate response to the vast majority of overweight people who already know they're overweight? Enough so that it's a pretty sensible thing to say to the average person who's overweight?
Is it anything similar to the percentage of smokers who will never get lung cancer (10-20%)? I mean we're not talking small numbers here. 10% of U.S. smokers is more than 3 million people who can smoke as much as they want and WILL NOT get lung cancer, period. Nothing to sneeze at. Or to the percentage of people who do heroin who will never get hooked? The percentage of drink-and-drivers who will never either kill or permanently injure anyone? Or anything like that? Anything we can relate this to so we know what we can comfortably tell people "stats are nonsense" about?
2 -
If BVI is proprietary, it is going to have only a very limited market impact.1
-
stanmann571 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.
now what are the chances that this will happen and they won't fall into BMI range?
0 to none...outliers are just that...those that are very unusual, very different from the average.
People with normal health BF% and above average body mass would be few and far between and considered outliers.
I would love to see the stats are what % of the population doesn't fall into the BMI range and is considered healthy
Except that the outliers... according to credible research are 20-40% of those studied...
You would have known that if you had followed along in the discussion.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.
now what are the chances that this will happen and they won't fall into BMI range?
0 to none...outliers are just that...those that are very unusual, very different from the average.
People with normal health BF% and above average body mass would be few and far between and considered outliers.
I would love to see the stats are what % of the population doesn't fall into the BMI range and is considered healthy
Except that the outliers... according to credible research are 20-40% of those studied...
You would have known that if you had followed along in the discussion.
credible research apparently it subjective.
I saw research that countered the whole argument of BMI is crap...and doesn't apply to most....
and until I see something from a peer reviewed study you can't tell me that 20-40% of the population falls outside a correct BMI calculation...and in simple terms...I have yet to be shown anything that tells me most people are the size they "feel" they are but are rather deluding themselves.
6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.
now what are the chances that this will happen and they won't fall into BMI range?
0 to none...outliers are just that...those that are very unusual, very different from the average.
People with normal health BF% and above average body mass would be few and far between and considered outliers.
I would love to see the stats are what % of the population doesn't fall into the BMI range and is considered healthy
I think you see it a lot more with men...not "obese", but certainly overweight by a few Lbs from the high end of the BMI scale. My maintenance weight is right around 180 which is 6 Lbs overweight per BMI...but at that weight I'm around 12-15% Bf...certainly not super lean, but not over fat either...flat stomach and no love handles, and I'm hardly huge from a muscular standpoint.
I'd never say that BMI should just be ignored by any means...but I do think a lot of people get pretty hung up on it and a lot of people don't understand the range in the first place and don't actually look at it in conjunction with their BF%.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.
now what are the chances that this will happen and they won't fall into BMI range?
0 to none...outliers are just that...those that are very unusual, very different from the average.
People with normal health BF% and above average body mass would be few and far between and considered outliers.
I would love to see the stats are what % of the population doesn't fall into the BMI range and is considered healthy
Except that the outliers... according to credible research are 20-40% of those studied...
You would have known that if you had followed along in the discussion.
Up to 40%?
Obviously I didn't follow along with this part of the discussion. Can I see that study?1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »BMI is a reasonable guide for more people than those for whom it isn't, in the sense that most people can find a weight that would be healthy for them somewhere in the normal BMI range. But it's a screening tool, not a definitive answer for any one individual.
When BMI said I was obese (at BMI 30.4), I was, even though all my friends said "you're not fat!" when I mentioned that I was. I knew then, and now demonstrate (at a BMI around 21) that I have essentially no hips, bone-wise.
Y'know what it does when BMI is deprecated by the small percentage of people who are much more muscular than average, or who have unusual body types? It gives people at an unhealthily high weight, people to whom their BMI should be a wake-up call, another reason to lie to themselves and feel justified, 'cause Science.
A guy I know said he was talking about his weight loss plans to a 3rd party, and mentioned his obese BMI. She said incredulously "You're not obese! Why, if you're obese, then I would surely be obese, too." He didn't tell her she was . . . but she was.
Oh my gosh, THIS, so very this.
This is what I ALWAYS think of when people start in about how BMI is "meaningless" (no) and "useless" (also no).
Because most of the people saying it - generally, anyway - are NOT so unbelievably ripped, stacked and muscularly solid that they are actually showing an "obese" BMI even though they have very low body fat. Most.
And of those who are, seriously? They know they're in the gym X amount of hours per day (or doing whatever muscle-building exercises they're doing). They're not sitting around maybe getting two 30-minute walks in a week plus two Pilates sessions and then discovering to their surprise that they are those outliers. If you're in this small category you know it.
The average person slopping around like the rest of us, with an obese BMI? Yeah, that person (that average person) is indeed obese...not so unbelievably ripped and workout regimented that s/he is literally obese with a very low body fat percentage.
Be real here. And I am not excluding myself. When I was very fat I absolutely loved hearing "BMI is nonsense" (or useless, zero indicator, bogus, etc., etc.) because it made me feel better about myself and allowed me to continue to lie to myself and I feel as if that's the main function of the whole "BMI is baloney" thing.
A small percentage, the outliers, who actually do measure obese by BMI, have very low body fat AND are touting "BMI is nonsense" is just that, a pretty small percentage. Those in this category are outliers to being with; finding people among that category who, for whatever reason, go out of their way to bang the BMI is totally useless drum is smaller yet, just using logic alone.
Most of the people listening to this sort of commentary, and following it loudly, are obese-obese, as in: overly fat. I am not judging. As I said, I always wanted to fully believe this stuff as an overlying, general, averages rule too, when I was seriously obese (nearly morbidly obese, by the numbers). Saying BMI can be inaccurate for a small percentage of outliers is one thing, and true. Saying a general "forget BMI" thing is dangerous as it helps unhealthy people stay unhealthy and in la-la-land. In essence, though not exactly in mechanism this is like shouting "I know so many smokers who were healthy and fit until the day they died" but then adding onto that, "...therefore, forget smoking studies! They're bogus."
JMO.
Nobody is claiming to be ripped.... Just "normal/healthy" BF% with above average nonfat Body mass.
now what are the chances that this will happen and they won't fall into BMI range?
0 to none...outliers are just that...those that are very unusual, very different from the average.
People with normal health BF% and above average body mass would be few and far between and considered outliers.
I would love to see the stats are what % of the population doesn't fall into the BMI range and is considered healthy
I think you see it a lot more with men...not "obese", but certainly overweight by a few Lbs from the high end of the BMI scale. My maintenance weight is right around 180 which is 6 Lbs overweight per BMI...but at that weight I'm around 12-15% Bf...certainly not super lean, but not over fat either...flat stomach and no love handles, and I'm hardly huge from a muscular standpoint.
I'd never say that BMI should just be ignored by any means...but I do think a lot of people get pretty hung up on it and a lot of people don't understand the range in the first place and don't actually look at it in conjunction with their BF%.
I think this is the issue that most display.
I am not one of those that feels BMI is end all to be all but I can acknowledge that is applies to most people even if they don't like it.
I am one of those people that says "take all the numbers,....bmi, weight, bf%, clothing, blood work etc and look in the mirror and then decide are you healthy?"
that's why my first post in this thread said...just another number to tell us we are fat or we aren't fat...Yah.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
I'd never say that BMI should just be ignored by any means...but I do think a lot of people get pretty hung up on it and a lot of people don't understand the range in the first place and don't actually look at it in conjunction with their BF%.
^ Yeah, but the OP would (see the subject line), which is what we're refuting here.
As for getting hung up on it, that may be your experience, so I won't discount it. It's not my experience. Pretty much anyone I've ever known who has even referenced BMI has used it as a jumping off point, not some sort of gospel. So we agree there.
What they haven't done is basically said it's useless, or to "forget" it. Which ALSO is legitimate, IMO, and which goes contrary to the OP...which is why some of us are saying something.
2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
I'd never say that BMI should just be ignored by any means...but I do think a lot of people get pretty hung up on it and a lot of people don't understand the range in the first place and don't actually look at it in conjunction with their BF%.
^ Yeah, but the OP would (see the subject line), which is what we're refuting here.
As for getting hung up on it, that may be your experience, so I won't discount it. It's not my experience. Pretty much anyone I've ever known who has even referenced BMI has used it as a jumping off point, not some sort of gospel. So we agree there.
What they haven't done is basically said it's useless, or to "forget" it. Which ALSO is legitimate, IMO, and which goes contrary to the OP...which is why some of us are saying something.
When I say "hung up" I'm really referring to the countless people who just arbitrarily pick a weight at the low end of BMI, regardless of whether it's actually appropriate...I see it a lot here, and it kind of goes with my comment about not understanding the range either.
My wife for example is 5'3" on a good day with an athletic build and muscular relative to many women...She looks great at the higher end of her BMI range and lean and fit as hell at about 130 Lbs...below that, she would start looking a little sickly, and there's no way she would look good or look healthy at the low end because it just doesn't fit her build and she would have to torch a lot of LBM to boot...but I say people get so into the notion that they have to be the lowest to be healthy, even if it's just not really appropriate for the way they're built.2 -
I'm not sure how it measures visceral obesity without a body scan. Even people with abdominal obesity have different fat distribution patterns. For example I can easily grab a good chunk of fat around my stomach, meaning quite a bit of it is subcutaneous. I am obese by BMI, though, so I'm not delusional, I'm just doubting the accuracy of the app. Still, would be nice to play with it if it were on Android.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions