Anyone Else "Overweight" on the BMI Chart but Healthy, Active, Happy and not Really "Overweight"

123468

Replies

  • solieco1
    solieco1 Posts: 1,559 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.

    This from a 2015 NIH study:

    "The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."

    AND

    "The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.

    Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."

    We should have just started here and saved the last 5 pages of comments :wink:
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.

    This from a 2015 NIH study:

    "The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."

    AND

    "The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.

    Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."

    Thanks - interesting, but not quite what I was curious about. I was thinking in terms of a statistical study using a population limited to people who are in a lean body fat range but an overweight bmi range. I wondered how well the risk curve for that population would correlate with the risk curve of a population with an average body fat range within a normal bmi range.

    I'm having a really hard time articulating this :o I'm wondering if the health risks for the lean, overweight bmi population would be the same as the risks for the average body fat, normal bmi group.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited March 2018
    mph323 wrote: »
    Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.

    I have not been able to find any such thing. The closest thing to that I was able to find is that, in average, weight lifters, sprinters, and generally heavier athletes due to muscle mass have a lower life expectancy than marathoners and generally lighter athletes. Now steroids could be a confounding factor, I'm not sure if sprinters use steroids as an athlete population, so really even then it isn't clear.
  • bennettinfinity
    bennettinfinity Posts: 865 Member
    edited March 2018
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.

    This from a 2015 NIH study:

    "The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."

    AND

    "The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.

    Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."

    Thanks - interesting, but not quite what I was curious about. I was thinking in terms of a statistical study using a population limited to people who are in a lean body fat range but an overweight bmi range. I wondered how well the risk curve for that population would correlate with the risk curve of a population with an average body fat range within a normal bmi range.

    I'm having a really hard time articulating this :o I'm wondering if the health risks for the lean, overweight bmi population would be the same as the risks for the average body fat, normal bmi group.

    Though the study doesn't come right out and say it, it points out that there are a wide range of BF%'s represented for any given BMI number. I think it's safe to say that the conclusion that, particularly for men, BMIs in the pre-obese range tend to have lower mortality - I think this is attributable to this segment being over-represented by the population you're describing; high BMI, but healthy BF%.

    Though, to your point - it would be nice to see a study that lays it out as you describe.
  • for_ever_young66
    for_ever_young66 Posts: 2,881 Member
    edited March 2018
    Depends on your bf% IMO. I'm 5'6" and at 163 I don't think anyone would describe me as overweight; but I"m at the top of the healthy range now (154) and I don't look a whole lot different. Maybe my arms are leaner.
    My "after" pic is 163lbs and while I do have fat to lose, I don't think I would consider myself overweight.

    1mxvyhdp0s4d.jpg

    Wow, looks like you're closer to 135 max in this pic which tells me that your BF is probably at an optimal level. Looks to me like you're on the right track. Great job.
  • for_ever_young66
    for_ever_young66 Posts: 2,881 Member
    My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.

    Funny you mention that. For example, I'm a big JJ Watt fan, who plays for my home team, the Houston Texans. He's 6'6" 290 lbs and on a cover of Men's Health magazine, he was sporting a 6 pack. BF% was easily in the teens. Now, the fan in me says JJ? Juicing? no way. But it does give you something to think about.
  • for_ever_young66
    for_ever_young66 Posts: 2,881 Member
    ha ha ha. funny. but that sounds more Roger Clemens than JJ Watt. lol
  • HeidiMightyRawr
    HeidiMightyRawr Posts: 3,343 Member
    edited March 2018
    BMI was originally just for populations as a whole in the beginning and shouldn't really be taken too seriously at an individual level. It's a guideline, an average. So it'll be pretty accurate for most people but there will be outliers.

    My starting weight was around 180 (BMI 27.4) and my goal is 160 (24.3) which I think I'll be pretty lean at given how I felt at that weight previously and body composition change since then.

    I'm not lean now, but then at the same time I don't feel particularly overweight. More like just carrying a bit extra fat (most of my weight gain and loss is always around my stomach) that I'd like to lose. I'm happy as I am now, and I'll be happy at the weight I'm aiming for. I have no issue with stopping before then if I feel I want to, and I don't care about my BMI at all. All that matters to be is how comfortable I feel with where I am. I'm active, I have muscle, I eat well. There's more to health than pure weight or BMI. Those things (and my strength) are more important to me than a 20lb loss, but I'm still going to go for it because it's what I'd like.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited March 2018
    My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.

    Funny you mention that. For example, I'm a big JJ Watt fan, who plays for my home team, the Houston Texans. He's 6'6" 290 lbs and on a cover of Men's Health magazine, he was sporting a 6 pack. BF% was easily in the teens. Now, the fan in me says JJ? Juicing? no way. But it does give you something to think about.

    I'm a big JJ Watt fan also. I think he's a great man, a great humanitarian and a phenomenal football player. I'm not going to sling any accusations in his direction, but I'll say this as a general statement: It's my opinion that if the NFL tested every single player in the league, a lot of people would be surprised at how many positive results popped up. Or rather, they may be surprised at how few negative results popped up. I'll also say that 6'6", 290 pounds and low-teens % bodyfat calculates out to a FFMI that any pro bodybuilder would be proud of. Run the calculations for yourself here.
  • BabyLovesToRun
    BabyLovesToRun Posts: 120 Member
    I quit listening to that stupid chart after I started lifting weights and realized I never wanted to do anything else. I'm also 5'6". At 160lbs of just cardio, dieting, and no lifting I was a size 12/14 and looked and felt every bit of it. At 160lbs while doing nothing but lifting weights I am a size 8 and healthy and happy with myself. Don't get lost in the numbers!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Kalex1975 wrote: »
    I'm 6' tall and weigh 214.2 lbs. which puts my BMI in "overweight".

    My goal weight had been 185... that is until I had a DEXA scan performed recently and was shocked by the results. The scan put my BF% at 11.4 and my total lean mass at 182.4 lbs. Obviously a goal weight of 185 was way off!

    That seems unlikely. At that weight and bodyfat you wouldn't need a dexa scan to know you're not overweight, becauase you'd look pretty muscular, lean and fit.
  • cutediapermama
    cutediapermama Posts: 1 Member
    I've found a DEXA scan or Hydrostatic Body Fat test to be really helpful with this. I'm as thin as I would want to be right now at 18% Body Fat yet I'm almost in the obese category on the BMI chart!
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    My biggest issue with BMI is classifying people who are obese by body fat as normal or overweight. It's extremely rare to be classified as obese and be at a normal body fat, and most of these are juicing. I don't outright dismiss the tool because I think it's a good starting point that can be enough for many, but it's not all inclusive. No one tool or measure is. And then there are other factors like genetic predisposition, fat distribution, ability to maintain weight, bone density, medical conditions...etc. We're splitting hairs here. It's cheap, easy, and not invasive, so it's good enough for what it is. I admit I like the waist circumference measure better as a general indicator, but I don't mind BMI.

    Funny you mention that. For example, I'm a big JJ Watt fan, who plays for my home team, the Houston Texans. He's 6'6" 290 lbs and on a cover of Men's Health magazine, he was sporting a 6 pack. BF% was easily in the teens. Now, the fan in me says JJ? Juicing? no way. But it does give you something to think about.

    I'm a big JJ Watt fan also. I think he's a great man, a great humanitarian and a phenomenal football player. I'm not going to sling any accusations in his direction, but I'll say this as a general statement: It's my opinion that if the NFL tested every single player in the league, a lot of people would be surprised at how many positive results popped up. Or rather, they may be surprised at how few negative results popped up. I'll also say that 6'6", 290 pounds and low-teens % bodyfat calculates out to a FFMI that any pro bodybuilder would be proud of. Run the calculations for yourself here.

    Also a JJ fan. He (and other NFL players) may be juicing or may not. In any case JJ trains incredibly hard as it's his job to train and recover. They don't go to an office, do house/yard work (unless they want to). A regular Joe who has a 40+ hour a week job, family, house, yard, etc to take care of is not going to get in that kind of shape (but can get in good shape) because he doesn't have the resources.

    The only individual that comes to my mind (in the last 40 or so years) who advanced to the top of their sport was Ronnie Coleman, who won several Mr Olympia titles while working full time as a police officer.