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
-
rheddmobile wrote: »@stevencloser So with or without...does he fit? I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range. Start asking some that you know their weight. Put you absolute knowledge to work. Start putting body builders in to the BMI scale. Not cut weight now. Do it for homework. then be honest about what you find. Do you really think a skinny fat person that sits at a desk and eats snickers is in better statistical shape than these body builders who make a diet of protein shakes, fruits and vegetables, and lean meat? But the BMI will tell you they are. It is wrong. Do the home work. I used Arnold as an example because of his Mr. Olympian titles and because everyone knows him.
Again, we are talking about opinion. It is one thing we all get to have.
There's some evidence (if I recall correctly, based on a study of football players)that very high BMI increases mortality risk even if it's muscle. Your cardiovascular system has to work harder if there is more of you, period. Excessive fat has additional negative effects, but being bigger and more muscular than a human can get without spending hours doing nothing but trying to get muscular isn't necessarily super healthy.
This is very important. Take someone like Vince Wilfork who retired from football last year. He was a relatively healthy 325 lb man when he retired.
If he's Wise, he's not 325 lbs today. He may not be 195 lbs which is what his height/BMI suggest are desirable because to get that low he'd need to be comatose. OTOH, If he took advantage of the discipline/fitness habits he gained over almost 20 years of playing football and his relative youth(36/37), he could have easily cut down to 260 or 240 within a very short time by maintaining activity and cutting calories. He would still be obese, but he would be healthy and obese.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range.
Nobody thinks there aren't outliers. Your trying to prove a point that everybody already agrees with. The part you seem to be missing though is you can also find 500 people on the sidewalk, at the mall, in the grocery store, or anywhere else, who are 5 feet tall and 200 pounds.
If their are 20% "outliers" is that enough to call this bad science? What about 30%? I agree it is a good estimation. I don't agree that it is definitive or that it has validity in the medical or Insurance industry in generalizations about another human's health. with 10% outliers it is not accurate enough to stereotype humans.
We disagree. I am cool with that!1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range.
Nobody thinks there aren't outliers. Your trying to prove a point that everybody already agrees with. The part you seem to be missing though is you can also find 500 people on the sidewalk, at the mall, in the grocery store, or anywhere else, who are 5 feet tall and 200 pounds.
If their are 20% "outliers" is that enough to call this bad science? What about 30%? I agree it is a good estimation. I don't agree that it is definitive or that it has validity in the medical or Insurance industry in generalizations about another human's health. with 10% outliers it is not accurate enough to stereotype humans.
We disagree. I am cool with that!
The thing is, I don't think you do disagree. I honestly haven't seen ANYONE in this thread say BMI works for everyone or should be used to determine who gets health insurance or who gets put on an ice flow and sent out to sea. Just that it's a reasonably good starting place for the average person to determine where they stand. Back in the beginning of the thread when we were still dealing with the OP, many said that BMI is a good indicator, but no you shouldn't judge your health based entirely on that. From my perspective, you seem to be disagreeing with something no one has said?6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range.
Nobody thinks there aren't outliers. Your trying to prove a point that everybody already agrees with. The part you seem to be missing though is you can also find 500 people on the sidewalk, at the mall, in the grocery store, or anywhere else, who are 5 feet tall and 200 pounds.
If their are 20% "outliers" is that enough to call this bad science? What about 30%? I agree it is a good estimation. I don't agree that it is definitive or that it has validity in the medical or Insurance industry in generalizations about another human's health. with 10% outliers it is not accurate enough to stereotype humans.
We disagree. I am cool with that!
How did you determine that 20 % of the population are outliers for BMI?
Nothing is stopping you from starting an insurance company and ignoring BMI. If that's as wise as you say, you'll get rich!4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range.
Nobody thinks there aren't outliers. Your trying to prove a point that everybody already agrees with. The part you seem to be missing though is you can also find 500 people on the sidewalk, at the mall, in the grocery store, or anywhere else, who are 5 feet tall and 200 pounds.
If their are 20% "outliers" is that enough to call this bad science? What about 30%? I agree it is a good estimation. I don't agree that it is definitive or that it has validity in the medical or Insurance industry in generalizations about another human's health. with 10% outliers it is not accurate enough to stereotype humans.
We disagree. I am cool with that!
and that is what I said...it's a good starting point, a tool in a box of many...but to be honest there is not tool that is 100% and that is why there are many out there...
but if the person is obese they should be paying more for insurance...jsut like me as a smoker had to...
If you are at risk through your own fault you should have to pay more...
5 -
My kids wanted to take a look at Wii Fit the other day, so I booted it up. I used to weigh myself consistently on it years ago, and the system would modify your Mii (avatar) accordingly. I'm 6 ft 175 lbs, and my Mii went from being skinny to looking dumpy, since I am towards the heavier side of "normal", lol. Big head, skinny arms and legs, round belly, thanks for the positive body composition, Wii...
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range.
Nobody thinks there aren't outliers. Your trying to prove a point that everybody already agrees with. The part you seem to be missing though is you can also find 500 people on the sidewalk, at the mall, in the grocery store, or anywhere else, who are 5 feet tall and 200 pounds.
If their are 20% "outliers" is that enough to call this bad science? What about 30%? I agree it is a good estimation. I don't agree that it is definitive or that it has validity in the medical or Insurance industry in generalizations about another human's health. with 10% outliers it is not accurate enough to stereotype humans.
We disagree. I am cool with that!
The thing is, I don't think you do disagree. I honestly haven't seen ANYONE in this thread say BMI works for everyone or should be used to determine who gets health insurance or who gets put on an ice flow and sent out to sea. Just that it's a reasonably good starting place for the average person to determine where they stand. Back in the beginning of the thread when we were still dealing with the OP, many said that BMI is a good indicator, but no you shouldn't judge your health based entirely on that. From my perspective, you seem to be disagreeing with something no one has said?
Yes, this is what was puzzling me too.
BMI is not "bad science," since no one has claimed that it's really science or that BMI is the sole and best determination of what a healthy weight is for an individual. As you said, it's a good starting place that fits most individuals and it's a pretty good measure of weight changes/overweight and obesity for a population.
If someone wants to ignore BMI and focus on BF% (which is harder to know, but there are ways) or photos (if you don't have some form of distortion going on) or clothing size or measurements, eh, whatever.
Also, anyone who is really an outlier and gets to a point where he has no more weight to lose will know it, it won't be an accident, he will likely be quite focused on body composition.4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range.
Nobody thinks there aren't outliers. Your trying to prove a point that everybody already agrees with. The part you seem to be missing though is you can also find 500 people on the sidewalk, at the mall, in the grocery store, or anywhere else, who are 5 feet tall and 200 pounds.
If their are 20% "outliers" is that enough to call this bad science? What about 30%? I agree it is a good estimation. I don't agree that it is definitive or that it has validity in the medical or Insurance industry in generalizations about another human's health. with 10% outliers it is not accurate enough to stereotype humans.
We disagree. I am cool with that!
How did you determine that 20 % of the population are outliers for BMI?
Nothing is stopping you from starting an insurance company and ignoring BMI. If that's as wise as you say, you'll get rich!
My buddy don't understand the definition of "if" . LOL I might pee myself.4 -
When you're done peeing yourself, feel free to respond to what was posted.2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I can go to my gym and pull you 5 men (I am in a small gym) that I can think of off the top of my head that are body builders in the 6 foot tall range and in the 200 pound plus range.
Nobody thinks there aren't outliers. Your trying to prove a point that everybody already agrees with. The part you seem to be missing though is you can also find 500 people on the sidewalk, at the mall, in the grocery store, or anywhere else, who are 5 feet tall and 200 pounds.
If their are 20% "outliers" is that enough to call this bad science? What about 30%? I agree it is a good estimation. I don't agree that it is definitive or that it has validity in the medical or Insurance industry in generalizations about another human's health. with 10% outliers it is not accurate enough to stereotype humans.
We disagree. I am cool with that!
How did you determine that 20 % of the population are outliers for BMI?
Nothing is stopping you from starting an insurance company and ignoring BMI. If that's as wise as you say, you'll get rich!
If it's a "normal"/Gaussian curve, outliers of any sort should be 5% at 2 SD from the mean--or at least that should have been true when the confidence intervals were determined. Just because there may be more outliers at the top end now because our population is getting more obese doesn't make them any less obese.2 -
I try not to worry too much about BMI b/c it doesn't take muscle into account. Instead, I to go by my waistline measurement- so for my height (5'3) I should have about a 30 inch waistline. How I look with that is up to me, maybe I wanna be soft and sensual, maybe I wanna look like Arnold Schwarzeneggar with boobies. (honestly, I just want some rockin biceps, and legs like Tina Turner)5
-
JillianRumrill wrote: »I try not to worry too much about BMI b/c it doesn't take muscle into account. Instead, I to go by my waistline measurement- so for my height (5'3) I should have about a 30 inch waistline. How I look with that is up to me, maybe I wanna be soft and sensual, maybe I wanna look like Arnold Schwarzeneggar with boobies. (honestly, I just want some rockin biceps, and legs like Tina Turner)
see not sure I would jsut follow that eitehr..
I just plugged mine in as it is now...it's okay...55lbs ago it told me to consider action...really??? consider action..and at 1 inch less it was okay...which was about 3lbs less...
naw...I don't buy that either...
it's a good start but in no way is a good measure to use alone.
neither is weight, bf%, waist to hip ratio (which regardless of my weight said I was low risk)...
gotta take them all with a few lab results to get a full disclosure of health etc.3 -
oy vey, still on this. always will be I suppose.
Somebody who puts deliberate effort into building mass is going to be outside of the BMI scale. That doesn't make them a true outlier though. They forced their body outside it. If they, as a person, were to stop putting great effort into building and maintaining mass, and lived a normal life the way normal people did, they would fall back into the normal BMI range quite quickly.
The only things that make somebody an outlier is if they naturally do not fit. For example, because of disease. If you have scoliosis that makes your measured height 2 inches shorter than it would be without a curved spine, you are an outlier.
Somebody who becomes statistically "obese" according to BMI because they workout or take drugs and put on 50 pounds of muscle is no more a statistical "outlier" than somebody who puts on 50 pounds of fat intentionally because they chose to eat 4000 calories a day for years.
That's not what an outlier is.
An outlier would be somebody has to put abnormal effort into MEETING the BMI standard. Which would be almost no one. Simply eating a healthy amount of food, engaging in a normal healthy amount of activity, and as a result having a normal, healthy body fat %, will, for 95%+ of people result in a BMI within the considerably wide health range.8 -
BMI = Biggest Mistake Internationally - Body Mass Index is completely wrong.
Body composition, however is superb in most cases
BMI is literally just the number you get when you divide your weight by your height. It can't be "wrong". The only thing that can be wrong is how people choose to use that number. Used as a quick statistical calculation to get a feel of overall obesity rates within a large population its highly accurate and useful. Used as an individual to determine if one is healthy or not is actually, statistically speaking, likely to be accurate...but not for everyone. The fact that it isn't an accurate determiner for obesity for everyone doesn't make it wrong, what is wrong is the assumption that it should be accurate for everyone because that is a misapplication of what it actually is for.
There are formulas that are accurate when used statistically for the study of populations that are no longer necessarily accurate if used at an individual level. That doesn't make them wrong, it just means someone is misusing a tool. Someone picking up a hammer and trying to saw a log in half with it and failing doesn't make a hammer a bad tool, it makes the person using the hammer wrong.13 -
BMI is a horrible measurement of health. I wish they would get rid of that as the standard already. I would stick to actual measurments and fitness level as a more accurate assessment of where you are and where you should be.2
-
KenzieTeague wrote: »BMI is a horrible measurement of health. I wish they would get rid of that as the standard already. I would stick to actual measurments and fitness level as a more accurate assessment of where you are and where you should be.
how so? please explain.
I am in a normal BMI range and I am healthy...when I was on the high end of overweight I had bad lab results in a lot of things...as my BMI number came down...wow so did those numbers and I became healthy when I entered the Normal BMI range...as do most people...not all...MOST1 -
KenzieTeague wrote: »BMI is a horrible measurement of health. I wish they would get rid of that as the standard already. I would stick to actual measurments and fitness level as a more accurate assessment of where you are and where you should be.
BMI would be horrible if used as a sole measure of health, but of course it is not used that way, so that's a strawman.
BMI is based on actual measurements. Someone (arguably) might not realize that 5'3, 180 is too high (hard for me to believe, but whatever), and so seeing on a chart that it is obese would be useful information.
Someone might be 5'3 but have worked really hard on body comp and be on the lean side but in the top end of the population in terms of muscle mass for a woman that size and be, say, 145. That person would know she was not overweight, really, but she would know that because of information she had beyond the specific measurements (or that she determined using the specific measurements, which is what BMI does to).
If a doctor refuses to take other measures into account and keeps saying, no matter what, a woman who is 5'3, 145 MUST need to lose weight, period, yes, that's wrong, but no one is suggesting it is right.5 -
oy vey, still on this. always will be I suppose.
Somebody who puts deliberate effort into building mass is going to be outside of the BMI scale. That doesn't make them a true outlier though. They forced their body outside it. If they, as a person, were to stop putting great effort into building and maintaining mass, and lived a normal life the way normal people did, they would fall back into the normal BMI range quite quickly.
The only things that make somebody an outlier is if they naturally do not fit. For example, because of disease. If you have scoliosis that makes your measured height 2 inches shorter than it would be without a curved spine, you are an outlier.
Somebody who becomes statistically "obese" according to BMI because they workout or take drugs and put on 50 pounds of muscle is no more a statistical "outlier" than somebody who puts on 50 pounds of fat intentionally because they chose to eat 4000 calories a day for years.
That's not what an outlier is.
An outlier would be somebody has to put abnormal effort into MEETING the BMI standard. Which would be almost no one. Simply eating a healthy amount of food, engaging in a normal healthy amount of activity, and as a result having a normal, healthy body fat %, will, for 95%+ of people result in a BMI within the considerably wide health range.
So if say Arnold Schwarzenegger back in the day would be obese if he wouldn't be an outlier. That makes the word obese have no meaning, right? So in his mr olympia days he was in fact obese in your opinion? He and I have something in common. LOL Really I am with you. just being ridiculous for the sake of it.8 -
oy vey, still on this. always will be I suppose.
Somebody who puts deliberate effort into building mass is going to be outside of the BMI scale. That doesn't make them a true outlier though. They forced their body outside it. If they, as a person, were to stop putting great effort into building and maintaining mass, and lived a normal life the way normal people did, they would fall back into the normal BMI range quite quickly.
The only things that make somebody an outlier is if they naturally do not fit. For example, because of disease. If you have scoliosis that makes your measured height 2 inches shorter than it would be without a curved spine, you are an outlier.
Somebody who becomes statistically "obese" according to BMI because they workout or take drugs and put on 50 pounds of muscle is no more a statistical "outlier" than somebody who puts on 50 pounds of fat intentionally because they chose to eat 4000 calories a day for years.
That's not what an outlier is.
An outlier would be somebody has to put abnormal effort into MEETING the BMI standard. Which would be almost no one. Simply eating a healthy amount of food, engaging in a normal healthy amount of activity, and as a result having a normal, healthy body fat %, will, for 95%+ of people result in a BMI within the considerably wide health range.
So if say Arnold Schwarzenegger back in the day would be obese if he wouldn't be an outlier. That makes the word obese have no meaning, right? So in his mr olympia days he was in fact obese in your opinion? He and I have something in common. LOL Really I am with you. just being ridiculous for the sake of it.
I am not sure i get what you are saying? or how it impacts what you quoted???1 -
oy vey, still on this. always will be I suppose.
Somebody who puts deliberate effort into building mass is going to be outside of the BMI scale. That doesn't make them a true outlier though. They forced their body outside it. If they, as a person, were to stop putting great effort into building and maintaining mass, and lived a normal life the way normal people did, they would fall back into the normal BMI range quite quickly.
The only things that make somebody an outlier is if they naturally do not fit. For example, because of disease. If you have scoliosis that makes your measured height 2 inches shorter than it would be without a curved spine, you are an outlier.
Somebody who becomes statistically "obese" according to BMI because they workout or take drugs and put on 50 pounds of muscle is no more a statistical "outlier" than somebody who puts on 50 pounds of fat intentionally because they chose to eat 4000 calories a day for years.
That's not what an outlier is.
An outlier would be somebody has to put abnormal effort into MEETING the BMI standard. Which would be almost no one. Simply eating a healthy amount of food, engaging in a normal healthy amount of activity, and as a result having a normal, healthy body fat %, will, for 95%+ of people result in a BMI within the considerably wide health range.
So if say Arnold Schwarzenegger back in the day would be obese if he wouldn't be an outlier. That makes the word obese have no meaning, right? So in his mr olympia days he was in fact obese in your opinion? He and I have something in common. LOL Really I am with you. just being ridiculous for the sake of it.
You really didn't understand anything in my post, did you?
Arnold was statistically obese according to BMI due to external factors totally under his control. That doesn't make him a statistical outlier, or anomaly. His normal weight, if he behaved like a normal person, would be within BMI health weight parameters, as would 95% or more of the population.
TRUE genetic outliers, those who do not fall outside the standard distribution because of controllable behavior or disease, are exceedingly rare. The best examples I could thinking of would be people like Hafpor Bjornsson, Eddie Hall, and other professional "strongmen." Many of those guys are already starting from a place where they're naturally just *kitten* huge, and because that is their gift they strive to get even bigger and strong.
For a normal human being, 95% or more are INTENDED to be in the normal BMI range. They will only be outside that healthy range if their BEHAVIOR causes it, either through excess eating (accumulation of fat) or excess exercise (accumulation of muscle).6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions