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.
Is every single body in the world intended to be within the so-called healthy BMI range?
distinctlybeautiful
Posts: 1,041 Member
If a body is not within that range do you assume that person must be doing something wrong?
If a body is not within that range do you feel that person should be doing whatever it takes to get there?
I’m not sure I’m asking these questions in the clearest way. I’ve been rolling them around in my brain for a while now, though, so I figured I’d throw them out as they are and go from there.
If a body is not within that range do you feel that person should be doing whatever it takes to get there?
I’m not sure I’m asking these questions in the clearest way. I’ve been rolling them around in my brain for a while now, though, so I figured I’d throw them out as they are and go from there.
2
Replies
-
Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.22
-
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
"Easy" is a bit exaggerated when even most world-class elite athletes are at most slightly into overweight.40 -
I think it is a good indicator for the vast majority.36
-
There are outliers but they are that, outliers, not many people fall outwith their BMI range without being overfat. Now whether people should be or should be working towards it is entirely their own personal decision. For health? We should aim to be as close as possible.
Body fat is of course a better measure of health but not very practical to track and for most BMI works just fine, even more so for women.16 -
BMI is for the general population and can't necessarily be applied to each person without considering body composition. Someone can be within the BMI range and be unhealthy. Another person can be outside the range and be healthy.
As for whether someone should do whatever it takes to get in that range, for me that would mean getting to a very unhealthy body fat level AND losing some lean mass. There are far more important health markers than height compared to the number on the scale.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
"Easy" is a bit exaggerated when even most world-class elite athletes are at most slightly into overweight.
I beg to differ. My BMI floats around 26 to 27 (and even higher in the winter) but my body fat is under 9% (can get close to 10% by mid January) That is classified as "overweight" and I am just a gym rat in my 50s, certainly not any kind of elite athlete or anywhere near in my peak condition. (good for an older guy, but nothing like what's achievable in your prime)
Lifting and paying more attention your macros than just your total caloric intake WILL skew your body composition towards lean mass, which is much more dense than fat. (this is the biggest thing the CICO cult leaves out of their holy equation)30 -
Heck no. I am not a fan of the BMI charts. My BMI is 28 and I feel great. Exercise 5 x week and eat healthy 80% of the time.4
-
It's a good indicator for most, especially most women, who are much more likely to have excessive body fat when a healthy BMI number than to have a healthy body fat percentage when over the healthy range.
That said, no, I don't think that someone who is active and happens to be 26 or 27 BMI is necessarily putting their health in jeopardy, being a bit overweight isn't that big a deal, especially if you aren't mostly holding the fat around the middle (if you are, it might be more of a concern).3 -
Is every single body in the world intended to be within the so-called healthy BMI range?
No - it's a population measure that will encompass the centre of the bell curve and the majority of people but not everybody.
If a body is not within that range do you assume that person must be doing something wrong?
No wouldn't assume that but there's a good chance they could do better. There's less outliers than people who are wishfully thinking they are outliers. There's less genuine female outliers than male outliers due to the relative difficulty of gaining muscle mass.
Do wish people would remember that lifting seriously or consistently is actually a minority sport or hobby!
If a body is not within that range do you feel that person should be doing whatever it takes to get there?
What does "whatever it takes" actually mean?
It could be a very valid goal, it could be unnecessary, it could be the wrong goal for that person.
18 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
No it's very hard, most natural bodybuilders end up 160-170 or the higher end of normal. Even some steroid users don't become too "overweight"6 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
No it's very hard, most natural bodybuilders end up 160-170 or the higher end of normal. Even some steroid users don't become too "overweight"
On stage you mean?? They're a super UNhealthy sub 5% at that point. Yeah that's both extremely difficult (doubt I have the willpower) and really brief... couple weeks max. During the majority of the year most guys who lift are either carrying a more healthy 8 to 10 percent and working on a continuous "lean bulk" or much higher (in the teens) if they're bulking in a more traditional way.6 -
It's a lot healthier to be unhealthy with a normal BMI than unhealthy and obese.
I think the BMI chart exists for a reason. Just having more fat on your body is unhealthy and not having enough fat on your body is unhealthy. I think people should strive to get into the normal range for their height and age. It's a good reference point.13 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
"Easy" is a bit exaggerated when even most world-class elite athletes are at most slightly into overweight.
I beg to differ. My BMI floats around 26 to 27 (and even higher in the winter) but my body fat is under 9% (can get close to 10% by mid January) That is classified as "overweight" and I am just a gym rat in my 50s, certainly not any kind of elite athlete or anywhere near in my peak condition. (good for an older guy, but nothing like what's achievable in your prime)
Lifting and paying more attention your macros than just your total caloric intake WILL skew your body composition towards lean mass, which is much more dense than fat. (this is the biggest thing the CICO cult leaves out of their holy equation)
Because I'm a nitpicker I'll have to correct you on this. The density of skeletal muscle is around 1.06g/ml where as fat tissue is around 0.9g/ml which means skeletal muscle is only about 18% denser than fat. I wouldn't call that a big difference.13 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
No it's very hard, most natural bodybuilders end up 160-170 or the higher end of normal. Even some steroid users don't become too "overweight"
On stage you mean?? They're a super UNhealthy sub 5% at that point. Yeah that's both extremely difficult (doubt I have the willpower) and really brief... couple weeks max. During the majority of the year most guys who lift are either carrying a more healthy 8 to 10 percent and working on a continuous "lean bulk" or much higher (in the teens) if they're bulking in a more traditional way.
Not just on stage, Alberto Nunez is around 180 off season, I think he's 5'10 so that's barely overweight. And we are talking about a guy with elite tier genetics.8 -
18% is HUGE!
A 180 pound person - 18% is 147.6 pounds, add 18% instead and that's 212.4!
So an 18% variation one way or the other from 180 is a range of 64.8 pounds! That's a 5th grader!17 -
My understanding is that BMI is not a bad indicator for the average person but is not gospel. There are other tools, such as waist measurement, body fat measure and how does the person look in swim wear. It is a good guide but I am sure, meant to be used with common sense.3
-
jamesakrobinson wrote: »18% is HUGE!
A 180 pound person - 18% is 147.6 pounds, add 18% instead and that's 212.4!
So an 18% variation one way or the other from 180 is a range of 64.8 pounds! That's a 5th grader!
Except people aren't either 100% skeletal muscle or 100% fat tissue. Take a 100kg person at 20% bodyfat and replace half of the fat with muscle and that person will weigh 101.8kg.24 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
No it's very hard, most natural bodybuilders end up 160-170 or the higher end of normal. Even some steroid users don't become too "overweight"
On stage you mean?? They're a super UNhealthy sub 5% at that point. Yeah that's both extremely difficult (doubt I have the willpower) and really brief... couple weeks max. During the majority of the year most guys who lift are either carrying a more healthy 8 to 10 percent and working on a continuous "lean bulk" or much higher (in the teens) if they're bulking in a more traditional way.
Not just on stage, Alberto Nunez is around 180 off season, I think he's 5'10 so that's barely overweight. And we are talking about a guy with elite tier genetics.
That is technically almost 10 pounds "overweight" by bmi... Further illustrating my point. He is not anywhere near fat at 180... I am far from genetically elite and I am overweight by bmi despite being far leaner than the average for my age.
I stand by my assertion that it's not "difficult" to be "overweight" by bmi but still lean so long as you pay more attention to macros, lift heavy, and don't get obsessive about caloric total.7 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »I think it is a good indicator for the vast majority.
I agree. It fits most people. If you throw in a waist measurement it would cover most everyone except maybe pregnant women and a few people with extreme health problems.2 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »I think it is a good indicator for the vast majority.
I agree. It fits most people. If you throw in a waist measurement it would cover most everyone except maybe pregnant women and a few people with extreme health problems.
Yeah, waist to height ratio is probably a FAR better health indicator than BMI.4 -
Mycophilia wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »18% is HUGE!
A 180 pound person - 18% is 147.6 pounds, add 18% instead and that's 212.4!
So an 18% variation one way or the other from 180 is a range of 64.8 pounds! That's a 5th grader!
Except people aren't either 100% skeletal muscle or 100% fat tissue. Take a 100kg person at 20% bodyfat and replace half of the fat with muscle and that person will weigh 101.8kg.
LMAO your 220 pound hypothetical person with only 20% body fat is about 7 feet tall (or more!)11 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Mycophilia wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »18% is HUGE!
A 180 pound person - 18% is 147.6 pounds, add 18% instead and that's 212.4!
So an 18% variation one way or the other from 180 is a range of 64.8 pounds! That's a 5th grader!
Except people aren't either 100% skeletal muscle or 100% fat tissue. Take a 100kg person at 20% bodyfat and replace half of the fat with muscle and that person will weigh 101.8kg.
LMAO your 220 pound hypothetical person with only 20% body fat is about 7 feet tall (or more!)
To better illustrate the math and my point.3 -
Ok maybe BMI wasn’t the best way to frame it. What I’m hearing though is that y’all generally believe there is an ideal body weight / body size / body fat percentage range that people should be in? And that being outside that range indicates less-than-optimal health? And that people should strive to be close to or within this range?0
-
For about 4 months I was in the healthy BMI range and I didn’t like how my body looked. My BP, Cholesterol, etc have always been fine so as long as my waist to hip ratio is under .86 I don’t worry because that’s shown to be a better indicator anyway.0
-
BMI is nonsense.19
-
Total drivel - apparently I'm clinically obese!!8
-
BritishSpy007 wrote: »Total drivel - apparently I'm clinically obese!!
LOL You should probably try lifting some weights and see if that helps.
4 -
Sounds like too much hard work fatty! 5
-
Even in the medical world BMI is considered a guide. It's certainly not good enough to use to calculate drug doses.
Some medications doses are calculated by weight alone (heparins for example).
Others are calculated based on 'ideal weight' which uses the vague idea of lean body mass as projected by height/weight ratio (some antibiotics etc).
Other medications (some anaesthetics etc) are calculated on surface area.
It's all to do with how different drugs are metabolised, excreted etc.
Back to BMI though. A doctor might use it to illustrate/quantify that a person is overweight; 'you are overweight, your BMI is 30 when the normal healthy range is ...'
A shorter muscle bound guy who also might technically have a higher BMI the doc can see, through observation that this person is not carrying a bunch of fat. They're not about to tell this person to lose weight based on numbers alone.
..........
Like all population based guidelines, they are just that.
Even on infant growth charts, someone's baby is always going to be in the 99th percentile. That doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong, but it can be a clue to look into why.
BMI is kinda the same.7 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »Ok maybe BMI wasn’t the best way to frame it. What I’m hearing though is that y’all generally believe there is an ideal body weight / body size / body fat percentage range that people should be in? And that being outside that range indicates less-than-optimal health? And that people should strive to be close to or within this range?
For a guy, get naked, stand up straight. Look down. if you can see your junk without bending or using a mirror you're probably okay. If you can't you're most likely overfat and if no health problems, you are working on them.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions