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.
BMI CONTROVERSY‼️🤬
Replies
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.
I think BMI is far more accurate for women. I have rarely ever seen a women who was "overweight" yet still looked thin, but have seen plenty of muscular men who shouldn't be deemed overweight.
Did you mean "thin" or something more like "healthy and fit"? I wouldn't describe the muscular men I knew in the USAF who were above BMI yet passed the tape or dunk tests as "thin" - why does "thin" need to be the ideal for women?
I mean healthy and fit. For me thin means healthy and fit and in the normal BMI range. I see anyone in the healthy BMI range as thin, healthy and fit.
I don't mean "skinny" when I say thin, I mean fit and healthy looking, as in not overweight or fat. Maybe I use thin in a different way than others do. I wouldn't call someone underweight thin, I would say "skinny/unhealthy". Didn't mean to say anything saying women should be skinny I didn't mean to imply that!
I would argue that fit is very different than being in the normal BMI range. Healthy? Well my BMI is 27.8 and I'm pretty sure all of my medical doctors would deem me physically healthy if we look at this holistically. I'm also, fit if we're talking about cardiovascular fitness. I personally know number of people who don't fall into the normal BMI (and not because they are especially muscular) range but are definitely fit.
This point is of course totally moot if, by your definition, someone can't be thin if they aren't healthy, fit, and in the normal BMI range - that is to say, all three of those things have to be true. Then again I also know people who are in the normal BMI range and are not at all healthy or fit (and the people I'm thinking of would agree with me).
TL:DR - thin appears to be a social construct.
Of course there are exceptions etc I was just saying in general I imagine thin as someone who is in healthy BMI range and doesn’t look overweight. And I meant healthy as in healthy BMI. If you wanted me to go into depth for every single term that’s ridiculous and a waste of time and is besides the point I was trying to make.
Geez you people are reading way too much into words. Everyone seems to have a different interpretation and view on the differences so it doesn’t really matter. I never said you can’t be one of the three or all three or anything I was just trying to explain the way I see things, not make an all inclusive definitive definition for every single term. And I’m not even saying my interpretation is correct, I was just trying to explain what it is to explain that I did not mean to say the ideal women should be at the low end of the BMI.
My point was to say most women at an overweight BMI look overweight more so than men at the same overweight BMI.
I think the problem is that it doesn't seem especially uncommon for people to have a very all or nothing sort of attitude with regards to what things like this. In terms of my fitness and my BMI I can't imagine that I'm really an exception, but I have no data to back that up (and am not especially sure where to go about finding data that would support or refute it). In terms of the specific person I was thinking of who is thin and not fit - she's an outlier in that she's not healthy, but I doubt that she is with regards to the idea of sick people being thin (hence the part of meaning of the phrase "looks sickly").
I'm not sure how I'm reading too much into what you're saying. I'm not asking you to have some in depth description for terms like fit, healthy, and thin. I'm was explaining why I disagreed and gave examples.3 -
bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.15 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Yes, men who are muscular may be healthy slightly outside the standard range.
Extreme body builders more so - but not many of those about really.
Things like water retention, bowel obstructions etc wont make that much difference to your weight.
and sorry ,but I find a 20lb bowel obstruction highly unlikely - the combined size of 3 average newborn babies.
I don't think so.
8 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
All of the bolded are further examples of health risks, giving further credence to the effectiveness of BMI in assessing risk13 -
If you feel good, don't take prescriptions for blood pressure, cholesterol or anything else and you eat healthy nutritious food and get regular exercise then the numbers mean squat.
Eat healthy, exercise regularly and enjoy who you are. Stop stressing over something that is an estimate. Everyone is different and there simply is no hard and fast rule that fits everyone.
If sweets are your Achilles heel, try to limit your intake. Refined sugar (in all its forms) at your age is a slippery slope. As we get older our bodies are not as proficient at dealing with blood sugar and that can lead to Type 2 Diabetes. If you crave something sweet, reach for fruit, chew some gum or have a glass of water...anything to stop eating sweets.
P.S. Judging by your profile pic, I'd say you have absolutely nothing to worry about. You are adorable!19 -
If you feel good, don't take prescriptions for blood pressure, cholesterol or anything else and you eat healthy nutritious food and get regular exercise then the numbers mean squat.
Eat healthy, exercise regularly and enjoy who you are. Stop stressing over something that is an estimate. Everyone is different and there simply is no hard and fast rule that fits everyone.
If sweets are your Achilles heel, try to limit your intake. Refined sugar (in all its forms) at your age is a slippery slope. As we get older our bodies are not as proficient at dealing with blood sugar and that can lead to Type 2 Diabetes. If you crave something sweet, reach for fruit, chew some gum or have a glass of water...anything to stop eating sweets.
P.S. Judging by your profile pic, I'd say you have absolutely nothing to worry about. You are adorable!
Sugar, in and of itself, does NOT cause Type 2 Diabetes!
Being overweight, regardless of what you ate to get there, however, can.
Most people do not become overweight by consuming sugar alone. It's the combination of *all* high calorie foods (including bread, pasta, rice, fried foods, cheese, butter, fats) that cause the weight gain that can, in turn, increase the risk of Type 2 Diabetes.
The point here is a person could become overweight and be at risk for developing it, even if they consume next-to-no sugar.
Sugar can be a part of a healthy and sustainable weight management diet if consumed in moderation. Just like with any other higher calorie food.
15 -
paperpudding wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Yes, men who are muscular may be healthy slightly outside the standard range.
Extreme body builders more so - but not many of those about really.
Things like water retention, bowel obstructions etc wont make that much difference to your weight.
and sorry ,but I find a 20lb bowel obstruction highly unlikely - the combined size of 3 average newborn babies.
I don't think so.
Considering you don't believe in large bowel obstructions, let's hope it never happens to you.
13 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Yes, men who are muscular may be healthy slightly outside the standard range.
Extreme body builders more so - but not many of those about really.
Things like water retention, bowel obstructions etc wont make that much difference to your weight.
and sorry ,but I find a 20lb bowel obstruction highly unlikely - the combined size of 3 average newborn babies.
I don't think so.
Considering you don't believe in large bowel obstructions, let's hope it never happens to you.
Umm, what???
I did not say I do not believe in bowel obstructions.
I said I find it highly unlikely that such an obstruction would be 20lb.
5 -
Or that someone with an alleged 20 lb bowel obstruction would be focused on BMI.
If one applies common sense, BMI works fine.18 -
My wife and daughter say I look fine but I still need to lose 25# to not be overweight by BMI.
I lose weight in my arms and legs too easily. This they end up looking skinny well before my torso.7 -
Why does the fit looking person with the normal BMI keep posting photos of herself as evidence that BMI is not a good metric? Your photos are evidence that BMI is a good metric.
(They are posted across two BMI debate threads and I don’t understand the point she is trying to make in either)12 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »Why does the fit looking person with the normal BMI keep posting photos of herself as evidence that BMI is not a good metric? Your photos are evidence that BMI is a good metric.
(They are posted across two BMI debate threads and I don’t understand the point she is trying to make in either)
She doesn't seem to want to have the same BMI number as other women who aren't as fit as she is and have a higher percentage of body fat.
edited to add: she doesn't understand the difference between population-level statistical prediction and personal health indicators. She is tying BMI to appearance (and her identity) rather than to an objective number.10 -
Adding to the comment above: Also: At least on me, you're not going to see the difference between BMI 24 (with 'winter fluff') versus a few points lower with a T-shirt on - but it is certainly visible in a swimsuit/strapless gown/crop shirt.3
-
Most Americans don't know how far a kilometre is and most non-Americans don't know how far a mile is. Does this mean measuring distance is useless? Of course not.
Similarly, if most people think you weigh less than you do and you don't like your BMI, does this mean that the scale and BMI are useless? Of course not.12 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.10 -
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.
Yes absolutely.
and has has been pointed out in other threads, even people with very high muscle mass are usually not far out of standard range - ie they might be 28 or so but they are not 40
and that happens with all ranges- the range of standard heights for men might go up to 6 ft 6 in - but that doesnt mean nobody is 6 ft 7.
It does mean nobody is 8 ft.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.
Yes absolutely.
and has has been pointed out in other threads, even people with very high muscle mass are usually not far out of standard range - ie they might be 28 or so but they are not 40
and that happens with all ranges- the range of standard heights for men might go up to 6 ft 6 in - but that doesnt mean nobody is 6 ft 7.
It does mean nobody is 8 ft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people
Several over 8 ft.6 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »Why does the fit looking person with the normal BMI keep posting photos of herself as evidence that BMI is not a good metric? Your photos are evidence that BMI is a good metric.
(They are posted across two BMI debate threads and I don’t understand the point she is trying to make in either)
Yeah. It is silly. My BMI is 24 also. I work darn hard in the gym. That doesn't make BMI unrealistic or controversial. If I stopped working out, but remained at a 24 BMI, it would be obvious. BMI is just a metric. My guess is the person posting is not entirely who they say they are and are just bored/looking to stir up controversy.4 -
BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.20
-
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health? Can you back that up in any way? Because I believe it runs counter to pretty much all the data out there.
Just because you can be thin and unhealthy doesn't mean that being over-fat does not increase your risk for all sorts of lifestyle diseases.16 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.
Yes absolutely.
and has has been pointed out in other threads, even people with very high muscle mass are usually not far out of standard range - ie they might be 28 or so but they are not 40
and that happens with all ranges- the range of standard heights for men might go up to 6 ft 6 in - but that doesnt mean nobody is 6 ft 7.
It does mean nobody is 8 ft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people
Several over 8 ft.
It was an example of how ranges work - made the actual numbers up.
I don't dispute that the occasional person ever in the whole world was beyond it.
2 -
I think bmi is a good indicator of health for majority of the population. With that being said my boyfriend has a bmi of 17.1 and a fatty liver while my overweight mother has excellent health markers according to her most recent blood work. I'm actually getting worried about my bf
3 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
Not buying it. I was pretty fit when obese, but my health markers (BP, lipids) were for crap. Lost weight, same activity level, same basic foods in my diet (just less): Health markers excellent.
Healthy body weight isn't everything, but it isn't nothing, either.
I tried to convince myself that being fit was more important than being at a healthy body weight/BF%. It didn't work . . . because I was wrong. Not quite dead wrong, but heading that way.
You can be thin (i.e., healthy weight) and fit, thin and unfit, over-fat and fit, over-fat and unfit. The first of those gives the best odds of long term good health, the last is the worst bet, the two in the middle . . . hmm, well, neither one is ideal.12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Hey MFP Fam,
Ok . . . We all know that the Body Mass index (BMI) is a screening tool that can indicate whether a person is underweight, healthy weight, excess weight, or obesity. If a person's BMI is outside of the healthy range, their health risks may increase significantly. But we’ve also heard experts say that "BMI is flawed".
I’m 48 at a mere 4’ 10” and 116 lbs with a tiny frame (goal weight 100 lbs). The BMI chart says that I’m within my weight range of 88.5 - 119.6 (BMI = 24.24 as Normal). So if it’s flawed then what the H-E-double hockey stick are we to use other than just going by appearances, health exams, etc. ⁉️😫
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is flawed...it is incomplete and doesn't tell the whole story. It is only one metric to gauge potential health risks in a population, not necessarily an individual. And it has nothing to do with aesthetics. I know people who are well within a healthy BMI range who are very much unhealthy and people who are just outside of a healthy range who are very fit and healthy.
My usual maintenance weight is 180 Lbs which is about 5 Lbs overweight by BMI...my Dr. isn't particularly worried as I am not overly fat and maintain a healthy BF%, eat well, and exercise regularly...I'm just not super lean either. I'm trying to get down to 175 for summer purely for aesthetic reasons, not healthy reasons...we're probably getting a pool so I'll be shirtless a lot more often. I figure 175 will put me around 12% BF and I'll be right at the high end of the BMI range for my height.
My credit score is flawed because it doesn't tell you how tall I am or why the ladies love me.13 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
I dont think anyone is disputing that one can be thin and unfit.
Nobody is suggesting we should aim to be so thin that we are beneath healthy range either.
Very unlikely that many people are obese and fit though.
3 -
KittenTamer91 wrote: »I think bmi is a good indicator of health for majority of the population. With that being said my boyfriend has a bmi of 17.1 and a fatty liver while my overweight mother has excellent health markers according to her most recent blood work. I'm actually getting worried about my bf
I dont think anyone is saying people with a low BMI cannot have any health problems - including fatty liver.
Or that people who are overweight cannot have good blood results.
But the best aim is still healthy weight - and each individual is most likely to get their own best outcomes at a healthy weight - which for almost everybody will be within or very close to the standard BMI range - unless there is an obvious reason why it does not apply to them - eg they are 9 months pregnant
2 -
Health professionals disagree with weight having nothing to do with health....robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
NHS
"Risks of obesity
It's very important to take steps to tackle obesity because, as well as causing obvious physical changes, it can lead to a number of serious and potentially life-threatening conditions.
These include:
•type 2 diabetes
•coronary heart disease
•some types of cancer, such as breast cancer and bowel cancer
•stroke
Obesity can also affect your quality of life and lead to psychological problems, such as depression and low self-esteem."
Cancer Research UK would also disagree with you....
"Does obesity cause cancer?
•Yes, obesity is the second biggest preventable cause of cancer in the UK- more than 1 in 20 cancer cases are caused by excess weight
•The risk is higher the more weight a person gains and the longer they are overweight for"
11 -
KrazyKrissyy wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »Get a DEXA scan. They're really helpful!
yes they may be for those who want that info.
For most people BMI is a good guide and they can get a good idea of their healthy weight range without getting a DEXA
Sorry but I have to disagree. According to BMI, I'm currently several pounds away from being overweight. However, people always assume I'm a whopping 25-30 pounds less than I really am.
149 pounds. 5'6. Thigh gap, 25 in waist, and a size 2-4. My BMI is 24. This is why I urge DEXA scanning.
Oh, well, if there's a thigh gap I think we can safely throw BMI out the window.13 -
paperpudding wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »KrazyKrissyy wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »I personally think body fat percentage is a better metric for overall health and fitness. A male who is muscular may be very fit but "overweight" at 10% body fat (or a woman at 18%). Conversely, some one with less muscle may be normal BMI, but have an abundance of body fat. That's why I have a body fat goal, more so than a goal weight.
I agree. They don't take muscle into consideration. There's also bowel diseases, tumors, excessive water retention, and other possibilities that can substantially make a large error in the individual's real weight. I've had 20+ pound blockages that had to be medically removed. Made a large difference in BMI but not in my real body mass.
Things like muscle mass, gender, etc. are indeed taken into consideration. That's why it's a range. More muscle? Higher end of the range. So much muscle that you're out of range but still have a healthy low body fat percentage? That's possible but unusual. Someone in such good condition is also going to be unconcerned with their BMI because they got there on purpose.
Yes absolutely.
and has has been pointed out in other threads, even people with very high muscle mass are usually not far out of standard range - ie they might be 28 or so but they are not 40
and that happens with all ranges- the range of standard heights for men might go up to 6 ft 6 in - but that doesnt mean nobody is 6 ft 7.
It does mean nobody is 8 ft.
Ummm.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions