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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Which is literally the exact opposite of why most people in this thread hate BMI.
I seriously doubt that "most people" in this thread "hate BMI."
Maybe one or two drop ins, probably no regular posters, but I suppose I could be wrong. Maybe those who "hate BMI" could identify themselves.
Don't hate it at all and I have a BMI of 31. Technically, I'm "obese". It doesn't bother me. Had a physical yesterday. Nurse who took my vitals noted BMI but my Doctor, after the physical just noted "well developed mm". He was more curious about a series of lifting injuries I've had and never mentioned my weight.
My wife thinks I'm too big, but she's a shorty and I was pretty skinny when we met.
0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Which is literally the exact opposite of why most people in this thread hate BMI.
I seriously doubt that "most people" in this thread "hate BMI."
Maybe one or two drop ins, probably no regular posters, but I suppose I could be wrong. Maybe those who "hate BMI" could identify themselves.
Don't hate it at all and I have a BMI of 31. Technically, I'm "obese". It doesn't bother me. Had a physical yesterday. Nurse who took my vitals noted BMI but my Doctor, after the physical just noted "well developed mm". He was more curious about a series of lifting injuries I've had and never mentioned my weight.
My wife thinks I'm too big, but she's a shorty and I was pretty skinny when we met.
this is how it's supposed to be. BMI provides a starting point. If it's too high or too low doctors should know to then look for other things.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Which is literally the exact opposite of why most people in this thread hate BMI.
I seriously doubt that "most people" in this thread "hate BMI."
Maybe one or two drop ins, probably no regular posters, but I suppose I could be wrong. Maybe those who "hate BMI" could identify themselves.
I don't hate BMI.
When mine was above 26 I was, truly, obese. I am smack in the middle of the normal range right now and I'm still fatter than I want to be.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Which is literally the exact opposite of why most people in this thread hate BMI.
I seriously doubt that "most people" in this thread "hate BMI."
Maybe one or two drop ins, probably no regular posters, but I suppose I could be wrong. Maybe those who "hate BMI" could identify themselves.
I took that to mean "most of the people in this thread who hate BMI" do so because it classifies body builders as obese.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Which is literally the exact opposite of why most people in this thread hate BMI.
I seriously doubt that "most people" in this thread "hate BMI."
Maybe one or two drop ins, probably no regular posters, but I suppose I could be wrong. Maybe those who "hate BMI" could identify themselves.
I was rather ambivalent toward BMI prior to this thread, but the longer it goes on, the more negative I am becoming. Oh wait, it's just the thread about BMI that I hate, not the measurement itself...
Heh, I'm with you there!0 -
Ok maybe this chart will help a bit because my argument is NOT ABOUT ME. No matter how many times certain people try to make it about me. I shouldn't have used myself as an example. So this is the actual math.
KNOWN
1. BMI defines "healthy weight" as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9
2. The mass of bones accounts for between 12-15% of mass for the vast majority of individuals with a healthy weight.
I calculated the mass of bones at the top and bottom of the healthy range at each height between 5 feet (60 inches) and 6 feet 6 inches (78 inches). Then I calculated the range of weight of bones.
Chart A demonstrates the weight of bones at BMI of 18.5 and 24.9 at each height, if they have a "small frame" (meaning minimal bone mass, 12%).
Chart B demonstrates the weight of bones at BMI 24.9 at each height with a "large frame" (maximum bone mass, 15%).
So at 5' tall, bones may weigh anywhere between 11.4 lbs and 19.2 lbs.
At 5'5" tall, bones may weigh between 13.3 lbs and 22.5 lbs
At 6' tall, bones may weigh between 16.3 lbs and 27.6 lbs
These are not the skeletal frames of "outlier" people. These are ranges for people within the normal variation.
Chart C demonstrates the weight difference between individuals at the high and low points of the "healthy" BMI range caused solely by bone weight differences at 12% bone mass, 15% bone mass, and the maximum bone mass difference range observed in normal, healthy individuals (not outliers).
For any two individuals at 5' tall exactly, one at the bottom and one at the top of their healthy weight range, between 4 and 7.8 lbs. of their weight may be attributed directly to the difference in the mass of their bones.
At 5'6" this range extends from 4.8 to 9.5 lbs.
At 6' tall, the range is 5.6 to 11.3 lbs.
Now, if the lighter individual has denser bones, the difference may also be smaller, but the thing is that having a bone mass difference of 8 lbs between two individuals who are both PERFECTLY NORMAL and PERFECTLY HEALTHY is neither impossible, nor, as height increases, improbable, particularly when comparing a small-framed person to a large-framed person.
6 -
Ok maybe this chart will help a bit because my argument is NOT ABOUT ME. No matter how many times certain people try to make it about me. I shouldn't have used myself as an example. So this is the actual math.
KNOWN
1. BMI defines "healthy weight" as a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9
2. The mass of bones accounts for between 12-15% of mass for the vast majority of individuals with a healthy weight.
I calculated the mass of bones at the top and bottom of the healthy range at each height between 5 feet (60 inches) and 6 feet 6 inches (78 inches). Then I calculated the range of weight of bones.
Chart A demonstrates the weight of bones at BMI of 18.5 and 24.9 at each height, if they have a "small frame" (meaning minimal bone mass, 12%).
Chart B demonstrates the weight of bones at BMI 24.9 at each height with a "large frame" (maximum bone mass, 15%).
So at 5' tall, bones may weigh anywhere between 11.4 lbs and 19.2 lbs.
At 5'5" tall, bones may weigh between 13.3 lbs and 22.5 lbs
At 6' tall, bones may weigh between 16.3 lbs and 27.6 lbs
These are not the skeletal frames of "outlier" people. These are ranges for people within the normal variation.
Chart C demonstrates the weight difference between individuals at the high and low points of the "healthy" BMI range caused solely by bone weight differences at 12% bone mass, 15% bone mass, and the maximum bone mass difference range observed in normal, healthy individuals (not outliers).
For any two individuals at 5' tall exactly, one at the bottom and one at the top of their healthy weight range, between 4 and 7.8 lbs. of their weight may be attributed directly to the difference in the mass of their bones.
At 5'6" this range extends from 4.8 to 9.5 lbs.
At 6' tall, the range is 5.6 to 11.3 lbs.
Now, if the lighter individual has denser bones, the difference may also be smaller, but the thing is that having a bone mass difference of 8 lbs between two individuals who are both PERFECTLY NORMAL and PERFECTLY HEALTHY is neither impossible, nor, as height increases, improbable, particularly when comparing a small-framed person to a large-framed person.
That's why BMI is a range, not a single number. Not sure of the point you're trying to make?8 -
Ok maybe this chart will help a bit because my argument is NOT ABOUT ME. No matter how many times certain people try to make it about me. I shouldn't have used myself as an example. So this is the actual math.
the "healthy" range for most height is 35 pounds. way more than enough to cover the disparity due to bone size.
4 -
The point. Someone ages ago said it was impossible that bones had different weights, much less 8 lbs( their arbitrary number). I am demonstrating that this is just not true, that skeletal differences are real and significant.
People keep trying to draw extra conclusions from this that I am not making. This is irritating me to no small extent.8 -
For individuals of high lean body mass (large frame and musculature) who are perfectly within normal variation, the bmi cutoffs to define "healthy" represent a much tighter limit on body fat than for those with low lean body mass.
From a health standpoint it is nonsensical as adipose tissue is the greatest contributors to morbidity and mortality, and gross weight is a crude stand-in with significant failures in over - estimating body fat for some groups while under - estimating in others. In practice it means that a small - framed individual has a wide healthy range possible while a large - framed one will only have a small range because their mass art any body fat percentage will be higher.3 -
Again, I'm not arguing that bmi is useless. I'm arguing that it is not a good universal metric to determine the health of individuals. This is the same thing Quilette himself said when he developed the index. It's also why it's wrong to say "you are unhealthy if you have a bmi of over 25". That argument, while epistological, is not scientific.3
-
The point. Someone ages ago said it was impossible that bones had different weights, much less 8 lbs( their arbitrary number). I am demonstrating that this is just not true, that skeletal differences are real and significant.
People keep trying to draw extra conclusions from this that I am not making. This is irritating me to no small extent.
Where was it said it was impossible that bones didn't have different weights.
Where was it said that the bones didn't account for some difference in bmi.
And the 8lbs came from a post where the individual said they couldn't find the study.0 -
And finally, why this dry mathematical argument matters : there are real financial consequences if you are labled "overweight" for many individuals, either through premium penalties or loss of incentives. In the UK there may be health care consequences, as denying care to the overweight and obese is being used as a way to save money. So getting the metric that predicts health vs disease right is important.2
-
So they found that 17.3% of women and 31.6% of men identified as obese by BMI were overweight based on BF%, and that 19.9% of women and 41.6% of men identified as overweight by BMI were obese by BF%
Net/Net, this still means that BMI is too forgiving, and that it actually gives weight targets that are TOO HIGH for most people. WHICH I'M PRETTY SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.stanmann571 wrote: »So it's NOT as you asserted a tool that makes a meaningful assertion for 95% of the population.
Ultimately, that's what it boils down to and all I was asserting
For 20% of women and 35% of men it gets it wrong
Half of those women and men are given false comfort and half false concern, but regardless, they're getting the wrong message.
Which is notwithstanding the part that Overweight BMI is misleadingly labeled.
Maths correction:
Not 20/35% of all participants. Only 20/35% of a percentage of the participants.
It gets it wrong for 20% (17.3% actually) of the women identified as obese by BMI, which was 20% (I'll be generous) of 301/1045 women which is 5.7% of all women in the study.
It gets it wrong for 35% of men identified as obese by BMI, which was 35% of 294/1446 men which is 7.1% of all men.
The actual figure for people identified as overweight by BMI is 20% of 326/1045 for women which is 6.2%, and for men 41.6% of 682/1446 which is 19.6% who men were actually obese by BF%.
Can you see where you made the error?
5 -
So they found that 17.3% of women and 31.6% of men identified as obese by BMI were overweight based on BF%, and that 19.9% of women and 41.6% of men identified as overweight by BMI were obese by BF%
Net/Net, this still means that BMI is too forgiving, and that it actually gives weight targets that are TOO HIGH for most people. WHICH I'M PRETTY SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.stanmann571 wrote: »So it's NOT as you asserted a tool that makes a meaningful assertion for 95% of the population.
Ultimately, that's what it boils down to and all I was asserting
For 20% of women and 35% of men it gets it wrong
Half of those women and men are given false comfort and half false concern, but regardless, they're getting the wrong message.
Which is notwithstanding the part that Overweight BMI is misleadingly labeled.
Maths correction:
Not 20/35% of all participants. Only 20/35% of a percentage of the participants.
It gets it wrong for 20% (17.3% actually) of the women identified as obese by BMI, which was 20% (I'll be generous) of 301/1045 women which is 5.7% of all women in the study.
It gets it wrong for 35% of men identified as obese by BMI, which was 35% of 294/1446 men which is 7.1% of all men.
The actual figure for people identified as overweight by BMI is 20% of 326/1045 for women which is 6.2%, and for men 41.6% of 682/1446 which is 19.6% who men were actually obese by BF%.
Can you see where you made the error?
You're right,
I should have just quoted the studyThere was exact agreement using sex-and-age-specific %BF and BMI criteria for categorising underweight, ideal weight, overweight and obese groups for 62.6% men (κ = 0.4) and 73.9% women (κ = 0.6)
37.4% of men were mischaracterized across categories and 26.1% of women.
Can you see where you made the error?
3 -
Hmm, cross purposes. My figures are correct, as are the ones you quoted.
37.4% of men were mischaracterized across categories and 26.1% of women.
It looked like you were talking about just obese and overweight BMI because you bolded the first quote I quoted.
No hard feelings.
Not directed at you:
So, to sum up the study, surprise, surprise, some people were above average, some people were below average, and one method of estimating is a bit different to another method of estimating. Who'd have thought?
2 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »This is me at 6lbs OVER the very tip top of my "healthy" BMI range:
Being overly muscular is not a prerequisite for there being variations in the applicability of BMI. At the outer edges of height distribution, there are similar, documented issues to those that are constantly pointed out for athletes and bodybuilders.
You are by no means fat, but there's still weight you could safely lose if you wished so, putting you back into the healthy BMI range.
Besides, at a measly 6 pounds over it I wouldn't sweat it to begin with.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »This is me at 6lbs OVER the very tip top of my "healthy" BMI range:
Being overly muscular is not a prerequisite for there being variations in the applicability of BMI. At the outer edges of height distribution, there are similar, documented issues to those that are constantly pointed out for athletes and bodybuilders.
You are by no means fat, but there's still weight you could safely lose if you wished so, putting you back into the healthy BMI range.
Besides, at a measly 6 pounds over it I wouldn't sweat it to begin with.
I completely agree, but the point is that the ranges are inadequate the further away from "average" height you get. While I could lose a couple of pounds and still be fine, the fact is that being categorized as "overweight" at 6'3" and 205lbs with a healthy BF% is laughable.
I don't sweat it at all. BMI is a relic that needs to be retired. The issue is that it has real consequences for people via health insurance premiums. If my provider bought into the nonsense, I'd either be charged more, or fail to receive a "discount" due to being overweight, which I clearly am not by any reasonable standard.3 -
Medical professionals encourage us to do a self check of our skin periodically for new/odd shaped moles, etc as a way to identify possible skin cancer. If something shows up in this exam, you are encouraged to get a doctor to look at it. Just because you find something, doesn't mean it's cancer. The skin self exam is an easy inexpensive screening tool.
BMI is the same thing.10 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »This is me at 6lbs OVER the very tip top of my "healthy" BMI range:
Being overly muscular is not a prerequisite for there being variations in the applicability of BMI. At the outer edges of height distribution, there are similar, documented issues to those that are constantly pointed out for athletes and bodybuilders.
You are by no means fat, but there's still weight you could safely lose if you wished so, putting you back into the healthy BMI range.
Besides, at a measly 6 pounds over it I wouldn't sweat it to begin with.
I completely agree, but the point is that the ranges are inadequate the further away from "average" height you get. While I could lose a couple of pounds and still be fine, the fact is that being categorized as "overweight" at 6'3" and 205lbs with a healthy BF% is laughable.
I don't sweat it at all. BMI is a relic that needs to be retired. The issue is that it has real consequences for people via health insurance premiums. If my provider bought into the nonsense, I'd either be charged more, or fail to receive a "discount" due to being overweight, which I clearly am not by any reasonable standard.
It's absolutely correct that it's more inaccurate at taller and shorter heights (in different directions), as well as for non-whites (in different directions), so on. I don't think that means it is "a relic that needs to be retired." I think it means that someone insisting that BMI is the be-all, end-all of what's a proper weight is being ignorant, that people should realize these are ranges and there's not like there's some bright line between being 24.5 BMI (great!) and 25.5 BMI (fat, terrible!). I also think acknowledging that for the most part BMI is an easy proxy for what we can better determine from an accurate BF% and the latter is more significant also is important.
I think in many ways this thread is an example of miscommunication, as I am reading (perhaps wrongly) a few participants to be insisting that one should ALWAYS strive to be below 25 BMI and not being so is inherently bad, no matter what, and I think those people are (IMO wrongly) reading everyone saying it's more nuanced to be making excuses for their own weights. Most people seem to fall more in the middle anyway.
I agree that to the extent someone gets charged more for insurance solely for being a 25 or over BMI, even without being overfat by BF%, that's wrong. I do wonder (don't know) how common that is. As I keep saying, my own insurance has never included differential pricing, but it's method promoted for determining if you are a healthy weight includes BMI + waist measure, and if the waist measure is fine the overweight BMI is not considered a problem. Most wellness programs I've heard about allow reduced pricing based on a number of different measures, not merely BMI. But I've never seen stats and agree that anything based solely on BMI should not be (unless it kicked in at 30 and allowed you to show a BF measure to challenge it through some system).1
Categories
- 1.5M All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 387.2K Introduce Yourself
- 42.7K Getting Started
- 258.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 174.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.1K Recipes
- 231.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 318 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.1K Motivation and Support
- 7.4K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.1K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 20 News and Announcements
- 576 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions