BMI vs alternative measurements

BMI cannot be the end of the discussion. It intentionally casts a wide net but should always have additional follow up if you fall outside the "healthy" range.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. BMI could indicate something is wrong if you are outside the normal, but you could actually be fine.
 
As Justice Potter famously said “I know it when I see it.” All the measurement stuff seems like folks, me included, trying to pretend that just being fat isn’t so bad and that it’s those obese folks that that have a problem.

I’m 1.822 meters tall and 100kg…oh crap, I just crossed over to obese at 30kg/m^2. Diet starts tomorrow.
 
GoWolfpack said:
BMI cannot be the end of the discussion. It intentionally casts a wide net but should always have additional follow up if you fall outside the "healthy" range.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. BMI could indicate something is wrong if you are outside the normal, but you could actually be fine.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is that most articles or papers, when discussing things like obesity averages, use BMI as the primary supporting evidence. So there is a whole nation of people out there "out of standards" but actually quite healthy, included in the 'obesity' numbers. I would be curious to see this drilled down more to see if the difference is statistically significant.

I agree that it should be used as a screening tool for further follow up: "oh, you're BMI is 28. Let's get a 3D scan or hydro scan. Oh, you're 16% body fat with great labs and can run 3 miles in 21 minutes? You're good to go." Very different story from "oh, your BMI is 28, you are obese. Follow the SALT diet and see me in six months."
 
GymB said:
As Justice Potter famously said “I know it when I see it.” All the measurement stuff seems like folks, me included, trying to pretend that just being fat isn’t so bad and that it’s those obese folks that that have a problem.

I’m 1.822 meters tall and 100kg…oh crap, I just crossed over to obese at 30kg/m^2. Diet starts tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree, someone takes their shirt off and you have a good idea where they are on the fat/obese level of healthy.
Chuckman said:
What is interesting is that most articles or papers, when discussing things like obesity averages, use BMI as the primary supporting evidence. So there is a whole nation of people out there "out of standards" but actually quite healthy, included in the 'obesity' numbers. I would be curious to see this drilled down more to see if the difference is statistically significant.

I agree that it should be used as a screening tool for further follow up: "oh, you're BMI is 28. Let's get a 3D scan or hydro scan. Oh, you're 16% body fat with great labs and can run 3 miles in 21 minutes? You're good to go." Very different story from "oh, your BMI is 28, you are obese. Follow the SALT diet and see me in six months."
Click to expand...
I've always had a problem with BMI never feeling even close. I ran a half marathon several years ago, and by all means was at the weight where italian moms and anyone's grandmas were trying to stuff as much food in my mouth as they could while telling me I needed to eat more. Just a bit skinnier than I should have been probably but not personally worrisome.
I did a BMI test/mile run time as part of research by a few friends at State and I was right on the line of healthy and overweight. They brought the researching professor out to double check and he explained to them sometimes it wasn't indicative but from what he had observed was best matched with a visual. I just think like they relayed in the article - the actual body fat % is much harder to measure in mass for most purposes so they just roll with BMI
 
How about a new social media site called “you fat.” You post an unaltered pic with your height and weight and people tell you. The results go to your doctor so he isn’t the one judging you, it’s the world.
 
BMI is a blunt tool, but is far from a useless metric. It was originally invented and used by actuaries to predict health-related risks at the population level and was then adopted for clinical use. Any given individual with a high BMI can pretty easily figure out if theirs is high because of excess fat or because they have more lean tissue than is typical. But because we have an epidemic of fatness and not of muscularity, it is more likely than not that a person with a high BMI is overweight in the traditional sense of the term and would improve their risk by losing fat.
 
BMI doesn't fit well with built folks. Anthropometric measuring can be useful but why are you doing it? Hydrostatic weighing is the proven only accurate way of measuring but most dont have the tank to perform it.
I usually discourage too much "tracking" in fitness because some(women) become obsessive with doing it.
The best, easy metric is how ones clothes fit. I like simple as I am.
R
 
I think it is a good guideline when used in a reasonable fashion. If your BMI is 26 but you actively lift weights then you are fine. If your BMI is 28 and your waist size in bigger than your inseam you’re fat.
Only other way is to measure your body fat percentage which requires specialized tools which is impractical.
 
Gov't loves BMI. In countries with gov't run healthcare access, BMI is used to deny access to care.
Gov't doesn't care if one is 6' tall weigh 250# with 30% body fat or 4% body fat. An NIH dweeb actually told me that as the gov't believes the 4% body fat is less healthy because the heart has to work harder pushing blood through muscle than fat. Dude had no reply when asked about resting heart rate being much lower for the person with 4% body fat than the person with 30%.
At least the military standard includes "taping" to determine max weight. (Taping did not work in my case. It lowered my max allowed weight by 20#. So they did not use that)
 
fishgutzy said:
MI is used to deny access to care
Click to expand...
the context that you fail to mention is If you are obese you are more likely to die on the table during an operation so limits make sense in this case.
fishgutzy said:
4% body fat is less healthy
Click to expand...
All extremes are unhealthy. Just talk to Karen Carpenter….oh wait she’s dead…
 
fishgutzy said:
Gov't loves BMI. In countries with gov't run healthcare access, BMI is used to deny access to care.
Gov't doesn't care if one is 6' tall weigh 250# with 30% body fat or 4% body fat. An NIH dweeb actually told me that as the gov't believes the 4% body fat is less healthy because the heart has to work harder pushing blood through muscle than fat. Dude had no reply when asked about resting heart rate being much lower for the person with 4% body fat than the person with 30%.
At least the military standard includes "taping" to determine max weight. (Taping did not work in my case. It lowered my max allowed weight by 20#. So they did not use that)
Click to expand...

Taping doesn't work, either, which is why the military has, or will be, abandoning it as a metric. Labeling guys who weighed 15 pounds more than the chart allowed as "overweight", who had a 30" waist and a 46" chest who could run 3 miles in under 20 minutes and had < 10% BF. Such a waste of time.

keepcalmandcarryon said:
the context that you fail to mention is If you are obese you are more likely to die on the table during an operation so limits make sense in this case.

All extremes are unhealthy. Just talk to Karen Carpenter….oh wait she’s dead…
Click to expand...

Not just surgery, there is a metric crap-ton of literature about all sorts of treatments for all sorts of things that are not as efficacious with a BMI > 32, and to your point, the biggest issue with high BMI and surgery is the anesthesia risk. And those professional bodybuilders who compete with super low body fat %? Even they canot and do not maintain it outside of competitions because a) they really can't, and b) it's just so unhealthy.
 
Desron23 said:
Definitely agree, someone takes their shirt off and you have a good idea where they are on the fat/obese level of healthy.
Click to expand...


That all depends on the size of her (pauses to see what section this is in). Slowly strolls off whistling to myself.




GymB said:
How about a new social media site called “you fat.” You post an unaltered pic with your height and weight and people tell you. The results go to your doctor so he isn’t the one judging you, it’s the world.
Click to expand...


Depends. If these are gonna be nude photos then that is a solid NO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom