Thoughts on alternative formulations of BMI (adjusted for frame size, sex, height, etc)?

2»

Replies

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I am not a body building beast today. I'm just an average Joe. I have loads of lean mass and lots of fat. If I lose loads of weight preserving my lean mass I will now be in an overweight BMI but shredded.

    Oh my. Here I am an average Joe in overweight BMI and shredded. Therefore BMI sucks.

    Sorry Joe and wait a just a New York second.

    If you manage to hit a weight such that you are at your contest ready 10% body fat (or whatever it is you're aiming for) WITHOUT LOSING LEAN MASS to get there (so that you're at an overweight weight)... ***you have successfully changed your physique****.

    You are NO LONGER AN AVERAGE JOE!

    In fact, if you manage to get to that 10% body fat while keeping a high weight and ALL the LEAN MASS you have now... you will be a BUILT BRO BEAST and will obviously fall in the super athletic lifting bro category where BMI is not a correct representation of your muscle mass!!!

    Actually, 10% BF at my current lean mass would put me (just) -within- BMI. I have no need or desire to get that lean. I'm actually shooting for 15%, which would put me at 203# at my current LBM... overweight by BMI. And no, I would not look like a "lifting bro" at those stats. The last time my weight was that low was a few months after high school (-many- years ago) and at that weight I was just starting to not be skinny.
    My actual goal is to actually add around 15 pounds of muscle at 15% BF for a total weight of 220#. And while I admit those stats will put me on the verge of athletic, it'll still be a far cry from being a body-building hulk. Having lost 15 pounds of fat since the beginning of the year (which of course takes up more volume than the same mass in muscle) I'm quite aware of how little visual difference 15# makes on my body.
    No, I'm not "average" in that I'm big, and always will be, but in terms of musculature I'm just not that exceptional. BMI is claimed to scale with body size to only be incorrect in those with exceptional builds, but it does not.

    So here we come back to the simple fact that BMI, in conjunction with common sense and good practices, is a good enough FIRST SCREENING TOOL. A quick and good enough basic parameter checker. For most people.

    Nothing more. Nothing less.

    There's a big difference between using it as a first screening tool and using it to definitively say one is normal, overweight, or obese... or using it as a basis to set personal goal weights, as many seem want to do.
    Despite the propaganda accusing everyone of being fat and delusional, most people don't actually need a measurement to tell them they could stand to lose weight. The question is not if, but how much, and BMI is just not the right tool for assessing genuine health risk levels.

  • ITUSGirl51
    ITUSGirl51 Posts: 191 Member
    My husband went for a check-up and weighed 1 lb in the overweight BMI range. He left his phone and wallet in his pocket and was fully clothed with pants, shirt and belt when he weighed. So a good 3-4 lbs of stuff. His doctor put a giant check mark on his paperwork that he was overweight. My husband was upset about it and came home talking about being too fat. He had actually lost 5 lbs since his last appointment, but that didn’t matter. Only that damn chart mattered.
  • WillingtoLose1001984
    WillingtoLose1001984 Posts: 240 Member
    Johnd2000 wrote: »
    An internationally renowned scientist once told me that there is no significant mortality risk increase until BMI 30-35. His view was that BMI 25 is unnecessarily low as bar for “overweight” and is counterproductive.

    I agree with this. I only really felt bad physically when I got into the obese range. I do think when you become obese your weight is a problem.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Good idea but

    1) wrist circumference is nowhere enough to determine your frame size. You might have thin limbs but a large ribcage, for example, or you might have fat on the wrist that will give you inaccurate results as well

    2) the waist to hip ratio thing is just as flawed, as you might have a larger waist or smaller hips depending on your genetics.

    So basing results on those two things is never going to be accurate either.


    BMI is just a general indicator, and like other said, it really has a WIDE range to account for difference in lean mass. The truth is, in the end 5 lbs probably won't make a huge difference health-wise anyway...
This discussion has been closed.

Categories