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?

1235722

Replies

  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    edited November 2017
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »

    can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?

    svR8cia.gif


    I'm 6 feet tall, and weighed 250 pounds just a few week ago. That person on the right is an incredibly poor representation of a 250 pound, 6 foot tall person. A person with those body dimensions would weigh closer to 350-400 pounds.

    You're right, but it's just to demonstrate a point.

    it's a poor way to make it.

    Muscle IS more dense than fat, but not by much. Fat weighs about 4/5 what an equal volume of muscle weighs. People act like it's double or more.

    In my photo I have, a sickening to think about, 100 pounds of fat hanging on my body. If every ounce of that was muscle instead, and I had 0% BF, but occupied the exact same volume of space, I would only weigh about 275.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,933 Member
    I'm about 6'1" and 245 lbs. I work with somebody who has the same stats, we were shocked to find out because if you stand us together we look like the illustration. It's much less dramatic than the pic, but the same effect is obvious.

    Anyway, if you read the page that pic comes from, this is a minor point that we shouldn't get hung up on.
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    cheldadex wrote: »
    cheldadex 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.

    Exactly. He's a super elite, with super low body fat, even in off season, and is still just into overweight territory.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 7,714 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.

    No. BMI is a measure for evaluating populations, not for individuals. There are a host of things that throw off BMI that are not unhealthy.
  • kristen8000
    kristen8000 Posts: 747 Member
    I think each individual really has to look at the facts and decide if BMI makes sense for them.

    When I started researching weight loss in 2011 (I was always thin in my 20's but it started piling on once I hit 30) I really had to take stock at how much weight loss made sense. I was 193lbs, almost in a size 16 pants and 5'11. I was overweight. I also didn't work out (wasn't active either). I wasn't "mostly muscle" I was "mostly couch potato", so BMI made sense for me. The top of the BMI is 179lbs for me. So I thought, ok, I'll lose until I hit that weight and reassess. Come to find out, I'm still fat at 179lbs.

    I kept losing until I liked what I saw or was at least happy with my preformance and my energy. I'm currently 145. I wear a 4/6 jean. I'm no where near too skinny. Still have curves and a size 34DDD bra. Could I add 10lbs of muscle and still look good? Sure. But that's not my lifestyle. I have a desk job, my exercise comes from walking my dog, and the rest of the time I'm really quite lazy.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,012 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »

    can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?

    svR8cia.gif


    I'm 6 feet tall, and weighed 250 pounds just a few week ago. That person on the right is an incredibly poor representation of a 250 pound, 6 foot tall person. A person with those body dimensions would weigh closer to 350-400 pounds.

    But this is the illustration they always use.

    Here is a picture of me, 6 feet tall, at exactly 250 pounds.

    1htHFbJl.jpg

    I have LBM of 153 pounds, the upper end of my healthy BMI is 180 pounds. At 180 pounds I would be right at 15% BF.

    I bet if you get down to 180 Lbs you will be leaner than you think, particularly as you're lifting.

    eating a large calorie deficit it's nearly impossible that I will add any lean mass between now and then, it's far more likely that by the time I get to 180 I will be down to a LBM of 150 or less, even with lifting. So I'll be around 15% - 18% BF at that time. I know what that looks like, and it's hardly "lean." I'd say it's firmly "average."

    IDK...I'm 5'10" and 182 is my average maintenance rate and that has me at about 15%...true that it's not super lean...just kinda normal walking around look...I've gotten down to 175 which is 1 Lb over the high end for BMI for me and I'm pretty lean and cut at that weight, but it's traditionally been a *kitten* for me to maintain.
  • mitch16
    mitch16 Posts: 2,114 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.

    No. BMI is a measure for evaluating populations, not for individuals. There are a host of things that throw off BMI that are not unhealthy.

    The most common one that you hear of is in highly-muscled athletes/bodybuilders who exceed the BMI range. While the health risks are different than for those with high body fat, there may still be health risks... You can have too low of body fat and still be above the BMI range--this can cause vitamin deficiencies or can disrupt hormone production. Those who resort to steroids can overdevelop their cardiac muscles. Carrying excessive muscle mass still causes wear and tear on bones and joints...
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Here is a picture of me, 6 feet tall, at exactly 250 pounds.

    1htHFbJl.jpg

    I have LBM of 153 pounds, the upper end of my healthy BMI is 180 pounds. At 180 pounds I would be right at 15% BF.

    Little sidetrack

    It's odd, but I'm 6" and ~220. If I were to stand next to you, I would be the fatter looking one. You seem to have your weight spread out where I'm carrying mine in my gut.

    I'm still not convinced I will fit into the BMI range exactly. I'm thinking 190 will be good for me, which will still have me in the overweight (slightly) but should be ~17.5% BF based on where I think my LBM will be.

    I will see what happens in 30 pounds.



  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    edited November 2017
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:

    what about age?

    and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.

    that's significant....

    I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...

    but wouldn't account for them being overweight.

    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)
  • brendanwhite84
    brendanwhite84 Posts: 220 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:

    what about age?

    and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.

    that's significant....

    I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...

    but wouldn't account for them being overweight.

    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)

    Could be less of a variance; I don't recall the literature other than that I saw it and it covered that topic.

    I completely agree that 'big bones' is pretty much a dodge for people who don't want to face an unpleasant fact.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    This is kind of a silly question.

    Nearly everyone in the world, say 95%+ of the population, CAN be in the healthy BMI range.

    Building enough muscle to push you into being overweight despite low BF% take additional effort beyond what would be considered "normal" exercise. It doesn't happen by accident.

    I don't believe for even one second that "bone density" or "frame" can, on their own, force a person to be outside the healthy BMI range.

    You have to define “healthy range”. If you mean the BMI threshold for “obese”, then i agree. If we are talking about a 25 BMI being “overweight”, then absolutely it is possible. Not only that, while not frequent, it’s not that uncommon.

  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:


    Example: For a 5’4” female, i have seen lean mass vary by 30+ pounds. (81-112). None of the women were athletes or lifted weights.
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,206 Member
    edited November 2017
    Azdak wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:


    Example: For a 5’4” female, i have seen lean mass vary by 30+ pounds. (81-112). None of the women were athletes or lifted weights.

    I could see that. I'm a little taller, 5'4.75", and have been lifting weights consistently for 5 years (only break longer than a week was a pregnancy). I can deadlift twice my total body weight, but my lean mass is only 90 lbs (from a dexa scan this past june). 90 including bone mass, that is. 84.8 lbs without the bone mass. I'm not sure if you were including bone mass or not.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 3,098 Member
    edited November 2017
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...

    I'd absolutely LOVE to be in a size 8-9 shoe. In the US, anyway, every style out there shows up in those sizes, unlike in my size. I've been wearing an 11/12 shoe in women's (US sizes) since I was a teenager. And as I lose weight, while I know I'll hopefully move from WW widths down to W widths and perhaps even regular widths, I'd been surprised if the actually size number itself went down.

    And let me tell you - it is ever a pain to find shoes! This is why I have 1 pair of dress shoes and wear men's shoes for work as it's much easier to find loafers that fit in a men's 9 1/2 to 10 than a woman's 11......

    And to clarify, according to the chart I found online, a US women's 11 is a UK women's 10.5 and an EU 44-45.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 3,098 Member
    edited November 2017
    I completely agree that 'big bones' is pretty much a dodge for people who don't want to face an unpleasant fact.

    I can admit that I've been guilty of using this excuse in the past for pretty much that reason. What I've since learned since I actually have managed to have some success in losing weight is that while genetics and health conditions might make it harder, it doesn't make impossible.

    But until folks get to that point where they are motivated to actually change, they'll use a lot of excuses to get around calling a spade a spade. My sister is a perfect example of this: a recent argument over the upcoming Thanksgiving dinner and the plans I had for lightening it up and slashing sugar content for those in my family who are diabetic (including her) fell into being an argument over body weight. I flat out told her that she was killing herself being 5'2" and almost 300 lbs, and that her body weight was the prime culprit in her diabetes diagnosis, her high cholesterol, and her high blood pressure, not to mention her being out of breath all the time and her joints hurting.

    She flat out refused to acknowledge it, and instead said "those things have nothing to do with my body weight; they are caused by the genetics in our family. Look how many people in our family are diabetic and aren't heavy!"

    In her case, it's not even a case of whether or not the BMI chart accurately reflects what would be healthy for her; even if you want to argue the semantics of whether or not 25 ought to be the dividing point between healthy/over weight, I do think for obese folks, BMI is a good tracking point (a tool, if not perfect), and in her case, no amount of arguing is going to convince me that someone with a BMI pushing 48 with several health concerns is healthy.

    I have argued against doctors using it as a hard end all/be all marker for health and I still stand against that (I'm looking hard at my company's health program when I say that, because they use it as a hard line), but I don't deny that's it a tool that can be helpful and in a medical setting, where a doctor has access to your medical history and is caring for you and knowledgeable about you, it can be a good marking point for you on an individual basis.

    In my sister's case, I'm highly frustrated because her doctor doesn't discuss her weight at all or even tell her that her weight is an issue. He just gives her more medication!
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:

    what about age?

    and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.

    that's significant....

    I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...

    but wouldn't account for them being overweight.

    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)

    So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:

    what about age?

    and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.

    that's significant....

    I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...

    but wouldn't account for them being overweight.

    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)

    So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.

    I think you have misunderstood what i have said.

    bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.

    based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.
  • mitch16
    mitch16 Posts: 2,114 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:

    what about age?

    and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.

    that's significant....

    I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...

    but wouldn't account for them being overweight.

    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)

    So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.

    I think you have misunderstood what i have said.

    bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.

    based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.

    This is flawed though--speaking in purely averages maybe it is true.

    However, if you consider a range of averages (+/- 3%)--the 130 lb friend could have a skeleton that weighs as little as 15.6 lbs or as much as 23.4 lbs, while at 155 lbs, tomteboda's could weigh as little as 18.6 lbs or as much as 27.9 lbs--at the extremes, that's a 12.3 lb difference.

    And remember, even if tomteboda loses weight (or her friend gains weight), it is highly unlikely to be bone...
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    mitch16 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I always find those that dismiss BMI as a decent measure for the average person usually don't fall in the healthy range and either believe it's due to "bone" size etc or are in denial about their weight.

    There are outliers in the world and they will fall outside the "health range" but not often and not for their entire life.

    I used to think I would never fit in the healthy range due to "bone size'...psh...I was so in denial about being overweight/fat.

    I seem to recall reading somewhere (if someone can find something like this, please post it) that two people of the same gender and height can have their skeletal mass differ by roughly 8 lbs.

    Anecdotally, in my experience "big bones" mostly come up from people who've never had a DEXA scan or other reliable body composition testing done. :neutral:

    what about age?

    and 8lbs in just bone I can't really see it...esp if someone is same height...age...and gender.

    that's significant....

    I did read an article (couldn't find any studies) that said bone size can account for a couple pounds but that person would be taller/bigger...

    but wouldn't account for them being overweight.

    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...I am still in a size 4 pant and size small shirt...and I am broad across the shoulders etc...I am classic "big boned" ...but I still fall in average BMI and would be a lower number if I lost 10lbs (and yes my body could stand it)

    So I'm 5'9" and currently weigh 155 lbs. I have a good friend who is 5'9" and weighs 130 lbs. If you put her wrist and mine overlapping, mine is a good 33% larger. She has ankles that measure around half what mine do. She has beautiful, delicate hands and graceful collarbones. Even thin, my bones look massive. Honestly, the only shocking thing is that I ONLY weigh 25 lbs more than her given the clear difference in our frames.

    I think you have misunderstood what i have said.

    bones account for a significant amount of your personal weight but that doesn't account for the mass difference between your friend and yourself.

    based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.

    This is flawed though--speaking in purely averages maybe it is true.

    However, if you consider a range of averages (+/- 3%)--the 130 lb friend could have a skeleton that weighs as little as 15.6 lbs or as much as 23.4 lbs, while at 155 lbs, tomteboda's could weigh as little as 18.6 lbs or as much as 27.9 lbs--at the extremes, that's a 12.3 lb difference.

    And remember, even if tomteboda loses weight (or her friend gains weight), it is highly unlikely to be bone...

    how do you figure that there is that much of a range in bone weight...

    as well we are speaking of averages...BMI is about averages...

    hence why there is a range.

    I do not for one minute believe that someone can have bones that weigh so much that it would put them in the overweight category...while their fat would keep them in the ideal weight range...and if there are a few out there again outliers not averages.
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,206 Member
    edited November 2017
    SezxyStef wrote: »

    based studies bones are 15% of total weight so based on that your bones weight 23.25lbs her's 19.5lbs...that is not significant..so the fact you weigh 25lbs more is not bone...that accounts for appx 4lbs.



    Out of curiosity, do you have a source for the 15% body weight for bones? That seems really high to me. My dexa scan put my bone weight as less than 5% of my body weight, and that was with above average bone density and low normal bmi.