BMI?
Replies
-
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 -
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.
You should get a new Dr. if your Dr. is applying BMI on a personal level...that's some crap doctoring. My Dr. doesn't do that and isn't concerned with it in the least given my BF%.1 -
I work in a medical centre.
Have never known doctors or nurses to look at BMI out of context.
Yes WM is also useful and that is used too.
But this idea that a health professional would see a BMI of an outlier and make recomendations solely on that - not very likely.
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.
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.
.
No in context it doesnt imply that at all.
If you are a tall active youngish man and you have a BMI slightly over the upper limit - ie of 27 or 28ish - then that is exactly what we have been saying - that is the demographic who can have a healthy BMI slightly over range.
When one is applying something that is a range to oneself, one should take into account individual factors - for example, whether one is a tall active young man or a petite middle aged asian woman
I dont think doctors are likely to miss obvious factors like that either.
0 -
The unforgiveable thing about BMI is that it tells an increasingly overweight population that they are overweight.
How dare you!
13 -
Are a tall active male and an inactive short female more likely to have an inaccurate picture painted if they solely rely on BMI? Sure...
Is waist circumference really at your navel? Did you hold the tape straight? What happens when the previously obese person's navel has moved around after weight loss?
Obviously then navel gazing sucks kittens....
BMI is quite useful and effective for what it is. A screening tool.
You want to go beyond initial screening? Then use more tools!
Do you know why screening tools are useful? Because they're people proof easy to use and yield useful information MOST of the time...3 -
Get naked and look in the mirror. Be BRUTALLY honest with yourself. You can tell if you are over/underweight or obese.
None of this I think I'm carrying a lot of muscle crap.4 -
-
paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.
If individuals claim the BMI metric is trash simply because it's wrong for them, that's poor reasoning. That's an argument sort of analogous to "averages are wrong because I'm not average": Doesn't make sense.
I can't say, when the argument is on the internet in text, but in real life, the few people I've seen make that argument against BMI *as a system*, using themselves as a counterexample, were deluding themselves, and were in fact overfat. That can make me believe they don't like it because they don't like what it implies about them, while I can still personally believe it's a reasonable screener, or possibly even useful for ballparking a general range of weights that might work for an individual (with the intention of fine-tuning the goal as it gets closer and therefore clearer). Both of those beliefs are compatible with believing that some people are at a healthy weight outside the normal BMI range, besides.
That's not trying to have it multiple ways. It works as a screener (because it captures reasonableness for many individuals), doesn't work perfectly taken alone for individuals (because it doesn't perfectly screen every individual to the right answer), and is sometimes resented and opposed as a system by people who don't like what it implies about them as individuals.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.
If individuals claim the BMI metric is trash simply because it's wrong for them, that's poor reasoning. That's an argument sort of analogous to "averages are wrong because I'm not average": Doesn't make sense.
I can't say, when the argument is on the internet in text, but in real life, the few people I've seen make that argument against BMI *as a system*, using themselves as a counterexample, were deluding themselves, and were in fact overfat. That can make me believe they don't like it because they don't like what it implies about them, while I can still personally believe it's a reasonable screener, or possibly even useful for ballparking a general range of weights that might work for an individual (with the intention of fine-tuning the goal as it gets closer and therefore clearer). Both of those beliefs are compatible with believing that some people are at a healthy weight outside the normal BMI range, besides.
That's not trying to have it multiple ways. It works as a screener (because it captures reasonableness for many individuals), doesn't work perfectly taken alone for individuals (because it doesn't perfectly screen every individual to the right answer), and is sometimes resented and opposed as a system by people who don't like what it implies about them as individuals.
To be clear, at no point have I suggested BMI is trash. I’ve said it’s simplicity makes its usefulness.
I have pointed out that it is inconsistent across a range of heights and I’ve said I think BBMI, waist circumference, and waist ratios are better (which research seems to support).
I take exception to arguments along the lines of “people don’t like it because it says they’re fat”, which seems to get a fair bit of support. As someone marginally in the overweight category is the message that it’s nuanced and only part of the picture? Or is the message that I should lose weight to get in the normal category? I’ve seen both in this thread.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.
Ann explained better than I can.
No, it isnt a pick one false dichotomy scenario.
no reason at all why BMI cannot be context dependant and be disliked by people because it doesnt say what they want to hear.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.
If individuals claim the BMI metric is trash simply because it's wrong for them, that's poor reasoning. That's an argument sort of analogous to "averages are wrong because I'm not average": Doesn't make sense.
I can't say, when the argument is on the internet in text, but in real life, the few people I've seen make that argument against BMI *as a system*, using themselves as a counterexample, were deluding themselves, and were in fact overfat. That can make me believe they don't like it because they don't like what it implies about them, while I can still personally believe it's a reasonable screener, or possibly even useful for ballparking a general range of weights that might work for an individual (with the intention of fine-tuning the goal as it gets closer and therefore clearer). Both of those beliefs are compatible with believing that some people are at a healthy weight outside the normal BMI range, besides.
That's not trying to have it multiple ways. It works as a screener (because it captures reasonableness for many individuals), doesn't work perfectly taken alone for individuals (because it doesn't perfectly screen every individual to the right answer), and is sometimes resented and opposed as a system by people who don't like what it implies about them as individuals.
To be clear, at no point have I suggested BMI is trash. I’ve said it’s simplicity makes its usefulness.
I have pointed out that it is inconsistent across a range of heights and I’ve said I think BBMI, waist circumference, and waist ratios are better (which research seems to support).
I take exception to arguments along the lines of “people don’t like it because it says they’re fat”, which seems to get a fair bit of support. As someone marginally in the overweight category is the message that it’s nuanced and only part of the picture? Or is the message that I should lose weight to get in the normal category? I’ve seen both in this thread.
Where has anybody said you individually should lose weight to get into normal range, knowing you are a young tall active male, slightly above the upper limit ?
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.
If individuals claim the BMI metric is trash simply because it's wrong for them, that's poor reasoning. That's an argument sort of analogous to "averages are wrong because I'm not average": Doesn't make sense.
I can't say, when the argument is on the internet in text, but in real life, the few people I've seen make that argument against BMI *as a system*, using themselves as a counterexample, were deluding themselves, and were in fact overfat. That can make me believe they don't like it because they don't like what it implies about them, while I can still personally believe it's a reasonable screener, or possibly even useful for ballparking a general range of weights that might work for an individual (with the intention of fine-tuning the goal as it gets closer and therefore clearer). Both of those beliefs are compatible with believing that some people are at a healthy weight outside the normal BMI range, besides.
That's not trying to have it multiple ways. It works as a screener (because it captures reasonableness for many individuals), doesn't work perfectly taken alone for individuals (because it doesn't perfectly screen every individual to the right answer), and is sometimes resented and opposed as a system by people who don't like what it implies about them as individuals.
To be clear, at no point have I suggested BMI is trash. I’ve said it’s simplicity makes its usefulness.
I have pointed out that it is inconsistent across a range of heights and I’ve said I think BBMI, waist circumference, and waist ratios are better (which research seems to support).
I take exception to arguments along the lines of “people don’t like it because it says they’re fat”, which seems to get a fair bit of support. As someone marginally in the overweight category is the message that it’s nuanced and only part of the picture? Or is the message that I should lose weight to get in the normal category? I’ve seen both in this thread.
If you're at least somewhere close to the normal BMI range, there's no way anyone knows for sure what you should do about bodyweight, from looking at your text posts (no full photos). The further from the normal range, the higher the likelihood that BMI alone suggests a good direction for weight management, but not exactly how far in that direction to go. (Someone at a class III obese BMI, for example, very likely would benefit from losing some weight. *Exactly* how much? Don't know.)
At an individual level, it's nuanced, and more information is needed. It's likely (but not 100% certain) that there is some weight in the normal BMI range that would be *a* healthy weight for you, or for most people (but not every single person). Your, or any other specific person's, individual *ideal* weight may or may not be in the normal BMI range. That's a question for you and your doctor (or similar professionals) who know more about you and your health history than just your BMI.
Your BMI might be an indicator that a conversation with your doctor would be a good plan - that's what screeners are for. (If other screeners, like waist size, waist to height ratio, online body fat estimators, etc., agree with BMI that overfat is a possibility, that conversation becomes more important.) However, it's also possible to be overfat for best health, and still be in the normal BMI range. One's doctor really ought to notice that, when one visits for other health care, ideally.
That's my opinion.2 -
Why pick one? One is a tool and one is a perception, two different things that co-exist.paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.
If someone measures their waist and doesn't like / disagrees with the result they get would that invalidate that measurement as a screening tool too? Of course not.
The equivalent of a bloke flexing his biceps and sucking in his stomach to justify why BMI is wrong for them could be....
"But I can get into 32" waist jeans so I can't be overweight."
Yes you can get them on but they really don't fit as evidenced by your belly and love handles spilling over the top), they also probably measure more than 32" due to vanity sizing.
Sorry but denial is very widespread and IMHO getting worse as overweight (or overfat if you prefer) is the new normal in many countries, that's not the fault of either BMI, waist circumference or waist / hip ratio.
5 -
One of those threads where I’m not even clear what we’re arguing about anymore. We’re all saying that BMI is a useful general metric despite some flaws?
Anyways... time to check out.2 -
One of those threads where I’m not even clear what we’re arguing about anymore. We’re all saying that BMI is a useful general metric despite some flaws?
Anyways... time to check out.
So I take it there wasn't anyone in the thread after all saying you individually should lose weight, knowing your stats?
I an arguing - or my position is, 'arguing' sounds a confrontational way of putting it - that BMI is a good guide for everyone bar obvious outliers and that it is highly unlikely a person is at a healthy weight if not within the range, or at most, for some people like active young men, slightly above it.3 -
Doc told me that it doesn't matter whether it's fat or muscle pertaining to BMI. He said it puts more work on your heart with either one. He tells me I'm morbidly obese in the winter and just right the rest of the year,lol.
I would have to disagree with that. Muscle is denser than fat, so I would think that the heart has to pump thru more blood vessels if it's fat. Also, and why I replied, is the fact that it's not just about heart health. There are health concerns tied to aidpose fat, for example. Those same concerns obviously wouldn't apply if that 1 lb of fat in that location were instead 1 lb of muscle throughout the body.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »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.
But doesn't that ignore the fact that to build muscle you have to progressively continue to increase the amount of weight? The bricks don't get heavier.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »
You can’t have it both ways...
BMI is a screening tool that’s context dependent AND people don’t like it because it says they’re overweight. Pick one.
If individuals claim the BMI metric is trash simply because it's wrong for them, that's poor reasoning. That's an argument sort of analogous to "averages are wrong because I'm not average": Doesn't make sense.
I can't say, when the argument is on the internet in text, but in real life, the few people I've seen make that argument against BMI *as a system*, using themselves as a counterexample, were deluding themselves, and were in fact overfat. That can make me believe they don't like it because they don't like what it implies about them, while I can still personally believe it's a reasonable screener, or possibly even useful for ballparking a general range of weights that might work for an individual (with the intention of fine-tuning the goal as it gets closer and therefore clearer). Both of those beliefs are compatible with believing that some people are at a healthy weight outside the normal BMI range, besides.
That's not trying to have it multiple ways. It works as a screener (because it captures reasonableness for many individuals), doesn't work perfectly taken alone for individuals (because it doesn't perfectly screen every individual to the right answer), and is sometimes resented and opposed as a system by people who don't like what it implies about them as individuals.
To be clear, at no point have I suggested BMI is trash. I’ve said it’s simplicity makes its usefulness.
I have pointed out that it is inconsistent across a range of heights and I’ve said I think BBMI, waist circumference, and waist ratios are better (which research seems to support).
I take exception to arguments along the lines of “people don’t like it because it says they’re fat”, which seems to get a fair bit of support. As someone marginally in the overweight category is the message that it’s nuanced and only part of the picture? Or is the message that I should lose weight to get in the normal category? I’ve seen both in this thread.
But again...as has been mentioned about a million times now...if someone is slightly outside of the BMI range and lean and a healthy BF%...they're going to know...it's pretty easy to look in a mirror and know if you're fat or not.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions