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
-
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 -
lynn_glenmont 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.
Ummm.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow
Beat ya!
And it doesn't really disprove the comment
0 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
BMI establishes risk categories.
One can be thin and unfit, but the risk is much higher of someone overweight or obese being unfit.
Weight & mass have tremendous impact on health, hormones in particular. These are free cycling, making it difficult if not impossible to maintain hormonal balance in someone overweight. This causes extreme stress on associated glands and dramatically increases health risks.4 -
Been thinking about this thread (yes, I need more of a life, thank you in advance for pointing that out).
Another widely used statistical grouping, drawn from millions of data points like BMI, is driver insurance rates for men under 25. That group (in the USA at least) is charged more than other groups because statistically, they are significantly more likely to get in an accident.
The statistics don't differentiate between responsible drivers with good training who don't drive recklessly or under the influence (equivalent of BMI above healthy with low body fat and less risky lifestyle), and drivers who have habits that are more likely to cause an accident any time they're behind the wheel (equivalent of BMI in the healthy range with higher bodyfat and more risky lifestyle). In other words, the statistics don't say anything about the driving habits of any individual in that group.
Insurance rates drop at age 25, though obviously no one suddenly becomes a less risky driver on their birthday, because statistically, the group of all drivers in the 25+ age group are less likely to need a payout, the same way the group of all individuals in a healthy BMI range are less likely to develop metabolic diseases.
edited to break up giant block of words.9 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
My own experience shows the complete opposite. I was overweight and had health issues. I lost the extra weight and it fixed all the health issues. During my weight loss phase I did absolutely no exercise, I was very sedentary. Didn't matter though, weight loss equaled improved health markers.7 -
It's a good starting point, but I know that for me, I only start looking healthy near the lower end of the scale. Nearer the mid-higher end, I have a huge gut and just look really unfit and overweight.4
-
-
It's a good starting point, but I know that for me, I only start looking healthy near the lower end of the scale. Nearer the mid-higher end, I have a huge gut and just look really unfit and overweight.
<bangs head on desk>
Apparently this thread starts all over again on every new page.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I know that. I actually meant that I look really fat despite being within the normal range. I just didn't want to use the f word.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I know that. I actually meant that I look really fat despite being within the normal range. I just didn't want to use the f word.
Just a suggestion, you might want to edit your original post to add that clarification to avoid having to make that explanation for the next four pages.
And I'll stop head-banging now since I mis-interpreted your comment.
2 -
robinhager3998 wrote: »BMI is crap. Period. Weight has absolutely nothing to do with health, but fitness does. You can be thin and unfit.
BMI categorizes potential risk. One is at greater risk for a number of health issues if they are obese. One can be thin and unfit, but being at a healthy weight still reduces the risk of those health issues. Nobody is saying that you can be a healthy weight and not be healthy...it's just a matter of risk.
By your logic, smoking doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer and other disease because some people who don't smoke get lung cancer and some people who do smoke live long and fruitful lives.10
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