BMI?
Options
Replies
-
BMI is useful but shouldn't be the only tool used2
-
Wonder if the OP is reading these responses and getting something out of them?
3 -
riffraff2112 wrote: »I am 20lbs over the the top end of the range for BMI. I will never be in the range and am not striving for it. I am built pretty thick (thighs, calves, arms) and carry a decent amount of muscle so in general for me it is not a measurement I am concerned about.
What type of resistance training routine and/or manual labor job do you do to carry a decent amount of muscle?0 -
Can you even build substantial muscle mass with manual labor?
I've worked pretty tough jobs, none of the people I worked with were particularly buff. Unless they did some type of training on the side.0 -
just get within the healthy range of bmi first, then decide if it is healthy for you or not. most people say it suits them fine.0
-
Can you even build substantial muscle mass with manual labor?
I've worked pretty tough jobs, none of the people I worked with were particularly buff. Unless they did some type of training on the side.
You can build muscle with any type of repetitive progressive lifting. People had muscles before weights were invented, so it obviously can be done. That doesn't mean that most manual laborers are going to look buff, but you can also build muscle without looking really buff.3 -
Can you even build substantial muscle mass with manual labor?
I've worked pretty tough jobs, none of the people I worked with were particularly buff. Unless they did some type of training on the side.
You can build muscle with manual labor jobs. The "buff" part is how lean they look and that has to do with diet/excess calories.
Bricklayers. roofers, landscapers, farmers. Many of these jobs build muscle.5 -
I suspect that people’s issue with BMI is that there are better metrics? Like BF%, waist size or waist to hip ratio.
It’s a nicely statistically correlated risk factor for weight related health issues. But there is plenty that it doesn’t capture, as others have said, such as frame size or muscle.
It does though...that's why it's a rather large range of weight. And once again, an outlier...someone who is "obese" because of muscle mass is going to know and so is everyone else around them. It's also exceedingly rare outside of competitive bodybuilding. As I stated above, it is not particularly unusual for sporty/athletic individuals, particularly men to be at the high end or just a bit over the high end of BMI and still be pretty lean...but again, this is also fairly obvious that the individual isn't overly fat, and in most cases if over the high end, it's only by a handful of Lbs...
Odds are pretty good that if BMI is indicating "obese"...that the individual is in fact overly fat and obese and not a muscle bound beast.8 -
Can you even build substantial muscle mass with manual labor?
I've worked pretty tough jobs, none of the people I worked with were particularly buff. Unless they did some type of training on the side.
"Buff" in terms of adding on slabs of muscle like a bodybuilder...no. But yes, you can put on muscle mass with labor intensive jobs. I did landscape construction for a couple of years in college and I had a pretty good physique to show for it. Not huge in size or anything, but good musculature and pretty lean. I was also well proportioned because I was using all of the muscles in my body for just about everything I did. For "buff", I think of lots of various isolation movements to overwork specific muscles or groups of muscles to make them "unnaturally" large...ie that wouldn't really happen to that degree outside of a gym, thus the quotes.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I suspect that people’s issue with BMI is that there are better metrics? Like BF%, waist size or waist to hip ratio.
It’s a nicely statistically correlated risk factor for weight related health issues. But there is plenty that it doesn’t capture, as others have said, such as frame size or muscle.
It does though...that's why it's a rather large range of weight. And once again, an outlier...someone who is "obese" because of muscle mass is going to know and so is everyone else around them. It's also exceedingly rare outside of competitive bodybuilding. As I stated above, it is not particularly unusual for sporty/athletic individuals, particularly men to be at the high end or just a bit over the high end of BMI and still be pretty lean...but again, this is also fairly obvious that the individual isn't overly fat, and in most cases if over the high end, it's only by a handful of Lbs...
Odds are pretty good that if BMI is indicating "obese"...that the individual is in fact overly fat and obese and not a muscle bound beast.
Exactly this. The healthy BMI range for my height is FORTY POUNDS. The BMI range for my husband is just shy of 50. Trust me, that is taking muscle and frame size into account. To get outside it via muscle -- it's going to show and be obvious and no 'am I fat/not fat'. To get outside it for frame size would be... quite the unusual situation.
In truth I have a super small frame. I wear a size 4 ring. At the upper end of that BMI chart, yeah, I'm still fat. My husband has a very large frame. At the lower end of the BMI chart he'd be underweight. Meaning that the whole range is not necessarily the ideal for us, but our healthy weights still fall *within* that range.6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
It does though...that's why it's a rather large range of weight. And once again, an outlier...someone who is "obese" because of muscle mass is going to know and so is everyone else around them. It's also exceedingly rare outside of competitive bodybuilding. As I stated above, it is not particularly unusual for sporty/athletic individuals, particularly men to be at the high end or just a bit over the high end of BMI and still be pretty lean...but again, this is also fairly obvious that the individual isn't overly fat, and in most cases if over the high end, it's only by a handful of Lbs...
Odds are pretty good that if BMI is indicating "obese"...that the individual is in fact overly fat and obese and not a muscle bound beast.
You shifted the goal posts there by talking about the obese class
. There’s another whole class between that and the normal, healthy range.
I just did a Google search and it seems well know that BMI isn’t consistent across a range of heights. For example, I’m 6’4, BF 16%, waist 35”, unexceptional muscle, and just in the overweight class. This would surprise people to look at me (now that I’ve lost the beer belly at least). And I’m not particularly sporty or athletic.
I don’t think we really disagree though. I suppose being simultaneously skinny and overweight does bias my view of the metric though.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
It does though...that's why it's a rather large range of weight. And once again, an outlier...someone who is "obese" because of muscle mass is going to know and so is everyone else around them. It's also exceedingly rare outside of competitive bodybuilding. As I stated above, it is not particularly unusual for sporty/athletic individuals, particularly men to be at the high end or just a bit over the high end of BMI and still be pretty lean...but again, this is also fairly obvious that the individual isn't overly fat, and in most cases if over the high end, it's only by a handful of Lbs...
Odds are pretty good that if BMI is indicating "obese"...that the individual is in fact overly fat and obese and not a muscle bound beast.
You shifted the goal posts there by talking about the obese class. There’s another whole class between that and the normal, healthy range.
I just did a Google search and it seems well know that BMI isn’t consistent across a range of heights. For example, I’m 6’4, BF 16%, waist 35”, unexceptional muscle, and just in the overweight class. This would surprise people to look at me (now that I’ve lost the beer belly at least). And I’m not particularly sporty or athletic.
I don’t think we really disagree though. I suppose being simultaneously skinny and overweight does bias my view of the metric though.
You're not simultaneously skinny and overweight though. BMI isn't making a judgment about any individual body or telling you anything about how you APPEAR. It's simply a chart showing where risks associated with weight are. It's population level information, not a individual body appearance tool.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're not simultaneously skinny and overweight though. BMI isn't making a judgment about any individual body or telling you anything about how you APPEAR. It's simply a chart showing where risks associated with weight are. It's population level information, not a individual body appearance tool.
Agreed, and it’s super convenient too, based on only height and weight.
I’d argue that it’s derived from population but is applied on a personal level. My BMI is in the overweight category which implies a certain level of risk.
I’ll bring it back around to my original point though which is that BF and even waist size are more accurate metrics.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're not simultaneously skinny and overweight though. BMI isn't making a judgment about any individual body or telling you anything about how you APPEAR. It's simply a chart showing where risks associated with weight are. It's population level information, not a individual body appearance tool.
Agreed, and it’s super convenient too, based on only height and weight.
I’d argue that it’s derived from population but is applied on a personal level. My BMI is in the overweight category which implies a certain level of risk.
I’ll bring it back around to my original point though which is that BF and even waist size are more accurate metrics.
All population level estimates imply a certain level of risk that may or may not accurately reflect our personal status.
I don't think anyone is arguing that BMI is more accurate than individual body fat or waist measurements. But if you're looking at risk on a population level, you're much more likely to be able to use BMI than body fat simply because so many people don't even know what their body fat is.
And for the average person, we really have no reason to think that a weight within the normal range for their height isn't a good place to shoot. Many people do find that they want to refine it towards the upper or lower level once they're there, but the idea that there are many people who are wrongly classified as overweight doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You're not simultaneously skinny and overweight though. BMI isn't making a judgment about any individual body or telling you anything about how you APPEAR. It's simply a chart showing where risks associated with weight are. It's population level information, not a individual body appearance tool.
Agreed, and it’s super convenient too, based on only height and weight.
I’d argue that it’s derived from population but is applied on a personal level. My BMI is in the overweight category which implies a certain level of risk.
I’ll bring it back around to my original point though which is that BF and even waist size are more accurate metrics.
All population level estimates imply a certain level of risk that may or may not accurately reflect our personal status.
I don't think anyone is arguing that BMI is more accurate than individual body fat or waist measurements. But if you're looking at risk on a population level, you're much more likely to be able to use BMI than body fat simply because so many people don't even know what their body fat is.
And for the average person, we really have no reason to think that a weight within the normal range for their height isn't a good place to shoot. Many people do find that they want to refine it towards the upper or lower level once they're there, but the idea that there are many people who are wrongly classified as overweight doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.
My instinct is that a simple waist measurement around the naval is a better indicator than BMI, and almost as easy.0 -
I’ve just discovered the BBMI (Better Body Mass Index). 🙂
https://tall.life/better-bmi-for-short-and-tall-people/
Mine is 23, which seems about right.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You're not simultaneously skinny and overweight though. BMI isn't making a judgment about any individual body or telling you anything about how you APPEAR. It's simply a chart showing where risks associated with weight are. It's population level information, not a individual body appearance tool.
Agreed, and it’s super convenient too, based on only height and weight.
I’d argue that it’s derived from population but is applied on a personal level. My BMI is in the overweight category which implies a certain level of risk.
I’ll bring it back around to my original point though which is that BF and even waist size are more accurate metrics.
All population level estimates imply a certain level of risk that may or may not accurately reflect our personal status.
I don't think anyone is arguing that BMI is more accurate than individual body fat or waist measurements. But if you're looking at risk on a population level, you're much more likely to be able to use BMI than body fat simply because so many people don't even know what their body fat is.
And for the average person, we really have no reason to think that a weight within the normal range for their height isn't a good place to shoot. Many people do find that they want to refine it towards the upper or lower level once they're there, but the idea that there are many people who are wrongly classified as overweight doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.
My instinct is that a simple waist measurement around the naval is a better indicator than BMI, and almost as easy.
I acknowledge that's your instinct, but is there any evidence that this will show statistically significant differences on a population level than the current BMI chart?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You're not simultaneously skinny and overweight though. BMI isn't making a judgment about any individual body or telling you anything about how you APPEAR. It's simply a chart showing where risks associated with weight are. It's population level information, not a individual body appearance tool.
Agreed, and it’s super convenient too, based on only height and weight.
I’d argue that it’s derived from population but is applied on a personal level. My BMI is in the overweight category which implies a certain level of risk.
I’ll bring it back around to my original point though which is that BF and even waist size are more accurate metrics.
All population level estimates imply a certain level of risk that may or may not accurately reflect our personal status.
I don't think anyone is arguing that BMI is more accurate than individual body fat or waist measurements. But if you're looking at risk on a population level, you're much more likely to be able to use BMI than body fat simply because so many people don't even know what their body fat is.
And for the average person, we really have no reason to think that a weight within the normal range for their height isn't a good place to shoot. Many people do find that they want to refine it towards the upper or lower level once they're there, but the idea that there are many people who are wrongly classified as overweight doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.
My instinct is that a simple waist measurement around the naval is a better indicator than BMI, and almost as easy.
I acknowledge that's your instinct, but is there any evidence that this will show statistically significant differences on a population level than the current BMI chart?
That didn’t take long. The Google summary said the same. 😀
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564926/
(Edit to add the summary I saw)
In healthy men waist circumference correlated more strongly with physical fitness (as calculated by a maximal fitness test) than the BMI, whereas in healthy women BMI correlated somewhat more strongly with physical fitness than waist circumference.
(And another in a non healthy population)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22249224/
Risk of death was consistently higher from elevated WC versus BMI or WHR. Ascending tertiles of each anthropometric measure predicted increased CVD mortality risk. In contrast, all-cause mortality risk was only predicted by ascending WC and WHR tertiles and cancer mortality risk by ascending WC tertiles.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You're not simultaneously skinny and overweight though. BMI isn't making a judgment about any individual body or telling you anything about how you APPEAR. It's simply a chart showing where risks associated with weight are. It's population level information, not a individual body appearance tool.
Agreed, and it’s super convenient too, based on only height and weight.
I’d argue that it’s derived from population but is applied on a personal level. My BMI is in the overweight category which implies a certain level of risk.
I’ll bring it back around to my original point though which is that BF and even waist size are more accurate metrics.
All population level estimates imply a certain level of risk that may or may not accurately reflect our personal status.
I don't think anyone is arguing that BMI is more accurate than individual body fat or waist measurements. But if you're looking at risk on a population level, you're much more likely to be able to use BMI than body fat simply because so many people don't even know what their body fat is.
And for the average person, we really have no reason to think that a weight within the normal range for their height isn't a good place to shoot. Many people do find that they want to refine it towards the upper or lower level once they're there, but the idea that there are many people who are wrongly classified as overweight doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.
My instinct is that a simple waist measurement around the naval is a better indicator than BMI, and almost as easy.
I acknowledge that's your instinct, but is there any evidence that this will show statistically significant differences on a population level than the current BMI chart?
That didn’t take long. The Google summary said the same. 😀
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564926/
(Edit to add the summary I saw)
In healthy men waist circumference correlated more strongly with physical fitness (as calculated by a maximal fitness test) than the BMI, whereas in healthy women BMI correlated somewhat more strongly with physical fitness than waist circumference.
(And another in a non healthy population)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22249224/
Risk of death was consistently higher from elevated WC versus BMI or WHR. Ascending tertiles of each anthropometric measure predicted increased CVD mortality risk. In contrast, all-cause mortality risk was only predicted by ascending WC and WHR tertiles and cancer mortality risk by ascending WC tertiles.
I don't think BMI was ever supposed to convey information about performance on fitness tests, but it does look like that second study does confirm that WC may be useful related to risk of death. I think BMI is about overall health outcomes, not just death so it looks like this would be a good area for more research.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
It does though...that's why it's a rather large range of weight. And once again, an outlier...someone who is "obese" because of muscle mass is going to know and so is everyone else around them. It's also exceedingly rare outside of competitive bodybuilding. As I stated above, it is not particularly unusual for sporty/athletic individuals, particularly men to be at the high end or just a bit over the high end of BMI and still be pretty lean...but again, this is also fairly obvious that the individual isn't overly fat, and in most cases if over the high end, it's only by a handful of Lbs...
Odds are pretty good that if BMI is indicating "obese"...that the individual is in fact overly fat and obese and not a muscle bound beast.
You shifted the goal posts there by talking about the obese class. There’s another whole class between that and the normal, healthy range.
I just did a Google search and it seems well know that BMI isn’t consistent across a range of heights. For example, I’m 6’4, BF 16%, waist 35”, unexceptional muscle, and just in the overweight class. This would surprise people to look at me (now that I’ve lost the beer belly at least). And I’m not particularly sporty or athletic.
I don’t think we really disagree though. I suppose being simultaneously skinny and overweight does bias my view of the metric though.
I'm about 5 Lbs overweight per BMI when I'm at maintenance. Flat stomach, no love handles, etc...I don't "workout" that much, but I'm pretty active. I didn't move any goal posts...I said it's not particularly uncommon, particularly for men to be at the higher end or just a bit over BMI. When I said sporty, I just meant active in that an active person is going to build and maintain muscle mass.
Bottom line, is people know if and when they fall into that area...if you're on a forum asking, you probably don't fall into the area of being relatively lean but a tad over the high end of BMI. These things are pretty friggin' obvious to the naked eye when you look in the mirror. The reality is that most people that fall outside of BMI are overfat.
By and large, if someone is at a healthy BF% and relatively lean, they're going to fall somewhere in that range or just a tad outside of it. The cut that I'm on right now is going to take me below what has been my maintenance the last 8 years and into the top end of BMI...at 180 I'm around 15% BF...I should be around 12% BF at 175ish @ 5'10".5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions