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?
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
Maybe it is, but I find it useless when counseling clients. The only time I ever mention it is if someone is an “outlier”— I explain to them why it doesn’t apply to them and to ignore any recommendations they receive based on BMI.
I have always used the “outlier” argument as a criticism against BMI, but I think cwolfman13’s earlier observation might be even more significant.
Since the “healthy” range of BMI does not take account the range of LBM and frame sizes in the population, it provides a poor reference point, even for those 80-90%. Someone who naturally lands in the upper end of their BMI range might incorrectly assume that anyone can reach the bottom end of the range.
The conundrum is that those professionals who fully understand BMI and who are most qualified to explain it, are probably the least likely to use it as a reference tool. And those who rely on it the most are the least qualified to explain it and put it in proper context.
But for a regular Joe/Jane, trying to decide if they are an appropriate weight isn't it a pretty good reference for most people? As mentioned above, there is typically a 30-40 pound range of "normal" weight for any given height. I would not expect a fitness/medical professional to use BMI as an all encompassing diagnostic tool (if they did I would run the other way). Being at an overweight/obese/underweight BMI should be a sign to discuss one's weight with a medical professional. NOTE, I'm not saying run to the doctor if the scale shows someone is .1 point into overweight, just a conversation to have at your next doctor appointment.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
As a fitness professional would you agree that few people are active, and do enough resistance work to have a lower BF at a higher BMI? Since in the US only around 20% of the adult population strength trains 2 or more times a week ( and God only knows the level of intensity), and there are minimal manual labor job it would be a stretch to thing much more than 10% of the people with a higher than normal BMI are really muscular.
Bringing us back to the idea that BMI is a decent indicator for 80-90% or so of the population.
Maybe it is, but I find it useless when counseling clients. The only time I ever mention it is if someone is an “outlier”— I explain to them why it doesn’t apply to them and to ignore any recommendations they receive based on BMI.
I have always used the “outlier” argument as a criticism against BMI, but I think cwolfman13’s earlier observation might be even more significant.
Since the “healthy” range of BMI does not take account the range of LBM and frame sizes in the population, it provides a poor reference point, even for those 80-90%. Someone who naturally lands in the upper end of their BMI range might incorrectly assume that anyone can reach the bottom end of the range.
The conundrum is that those professionals who fully understand BMI and who are most qualified to explain it, are probably the least likely to use it as a reference tool. And those who rely on it the most are the least qualified to explain it and put it in proper context.
But for a regular Joe/Jane, trying to decide if they are an appropriate weight isn't it a pretty good reference for most people? As mentioned above, there is typically a 30-40 pound range of "normal" weight for any given height. I would not expect a fitness/medical professional to use BMI as an all encompassing diagnostic tool (if they did I would run the other way). Being at an overweight/obese/underweight BMI should be a sign to discuss one's weight with a medical professional. NOTE, I'm not saying run to the doctor if the scale shows someone is .1 point into overweight, just a conversation to have at your next doctor appointment.
Your original statement was what started my thinking. And I fully admit I may be way too “inside” to fully grasp the lay persons POV. I was just thinking about all the people I assess and counsel and I can’t think of one instance in which BMI was a useful addition to the conversation. I can think of dozens and dozens of times when I had to caution people against relying on it, because the numbers were so skewed.
Not the most scientific analysis, I know.
2 -
Came to this thread expecting a few people getting bent out of shape and pointing to examples pro/semi pro/serious amateur athletes, wasn’t disappointed
The BMI is fine for what it is - a simple height to weight ratio based on a collection of data assuming you are average Joe, with average Joe build, living an average Joe life. There will always be exceptions the any rule, as always the question should be why am I/you the exception to the rule?
Are there better forms of measurement? Of course, but to get an accurate body fat % reading requires a dunking in a tank. To do a BMI takes 30 seconds – under the height measure, on the scale and look at the chart. Easy to do for places that carry out lots every single day (like your doctors surgery) and provide a result that is good enough for the application.
I doubt there are any athletes weighing themselves every day in the hope that they have just crept into the normal BMI weight range to be at a healthy ‘overweight’ BMI requires a knowledge of diet and training i.e. enough knowledge to know what the BMI is and when its applicable.
I do however suspect there are people questioning the BMI scale having coming away from the doctors surgery feeling insulted and/or in denial having just found out they are classed as overweight or obese. So for average Joe who works a desk job, does little to no exercise and is obviously overweight is the BMI a good enough gauge? Of course. There’s not much if any benefit to be gained by using calliper gauges or a dunk tank where precision isn’t required.Packerjohn wrote: »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.
I find this method to be very temperature dependant 22 -
stevencloser wrote: »It tries to take frame sizes and LBM differences into account by being like 40 pounds wide or more depending on your height.
This is a really good point. The term "overfat" has come into vogue recently because BMI is so lenient that many people who are profoundly unhealthy due to high levels of visceral fat and low levels of lean body mass are still "healthy" by BMI standards.
I see a lot of mental gymnastics here trying to justify why *I* am healthy even though I am overweight/overfat, etc. At the end of the day, BMI is just a proxy for body fat. We now have several longitudinal studies that show conclusively that there is no such thing as "healthy at any size", and IMO a lot of the debate around BMI is just an attempt to distract from the true issue: excess body fat is not healthy, regardless of what your BMI says.
8 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
Not at all easy for a woman, even if BF% is in the mid 20's.6 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »Certainly not, I'm personally around 10% bodyfat but have a high BMI.
I would be discouraged if my BMI fell into the healthy range because that would ultimately mean a reduction in muscle mass (given that my bodyfat is already low, it would be the only way for it to do so).
BMI is a very flawed calculation, I have friends who are doctors, nurses and I'm personally a qualified fitness professional and I would struggle to find anybody with anything good to say about BMI as a measurement of health.
Just out of curiosity I looked at your pictures and you look higher than 10%. I suspect a lot of the "outliers" are simply under estimating their body fat.
Even if he was underestimating, from a health standpoint, up to 20% BF is deemed "acceptable"...he certainly isn't anywhere near 20% BF...so regardless of whether he's 10% or 12% or whatever, he's overweight per BMI, but at a perfectly healthy BF%.
I don't find it atypical for active males to be slightly overweight per BMI...especially if they're like me and aren't super lean, but still at a healthy BF%.2 -
Intended, no. Can, probably yes. Want? That's up to the person and their own risk assessment.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Hell no! If you are lean and lift it's easy to be "overweight" even at a sub 10% body fat.
Not at all easy for a woman, even if BF% is in the mid 20's.
It is for me, but I'm a viking.6 -
2
-
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.11 -
can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?
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.
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.16 -
You look far finer than the absurd illustration.1
-
https://i.imgur.com/QP3IIeo.png. And this image shows just rare the 10%-BF-BMI-over-25 outliers are.
5 -
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.
I'll actually argue that point, but from the other end of the curve. Healthy BMI is 18.5-24.9. Before I started weightlifting, my small frame put me at about an 18 BMI, but I don't think anyone (certainly not my doctor) would have considered me unhealthy. My cholesterol numbers were normal, my cycles were normal, and I ate an appropriate amount of food for my size and activity level. Weightlifting brought my bmi up to the 18.5 to 19 range, but even pregnancy didn't push it to 25.1 -
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.20 -
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.
bingo5 -
can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?
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.1 -
can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?
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.
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.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?
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.
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."0 -
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.
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?
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 275.3 -
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.0 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »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.
Exactly. He's a super elite, with super low body fat, even in off season, and is still just into overweight territory.3 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »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.0 -
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.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
can we address the absurd image they use to illustrate muscle vs fat?
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.
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.2 -
rileysowner wrote: »distinctlybeautiful wrote: »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...1 -
Here is a picture of me, 6 feet tall, at exactly 250 pounds.
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.
1 -
brendanwhite84 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.
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)1 -
brendanwhite84 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.
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.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions