|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 11:37:03 AM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT So, it really grinds my gears when GD talks about height, weight, and health. It seems like the majority of them are OK with being 20-30 pounds overweight. Take a poster who's 5'9". Many who've claimed to be this height will claim a weight above 170, some even into the 190s and 200+. If 50 of these posters are shown a BMI chart or ideal body weight formula, they'll quickly decry its credibility and balk at any weight below 170 (you'll see a lot of emoticons, jeers of "unhealthy" and how it's only achievable through starvation). That the entire basis of BMI and other such measures is to paint a population with a broad brush to account for the fact that the majority will not be sub-10% BF doesn't matter, as 100% of overweight people in GD think they're outliers and that they're a "muscular 5'9" 190, but could stand to lose maybe 10lbs"...
Here is a portion of a body comparison done a few Olympics ago by a couple of photographers. All the athletes were kept in proportion to one another. It's very interesting to see the various compositions depending on discipline. Their weights, however, are rarely in excess and well within GD's "unhealthy" zone. I realize that these are athletes in training, but it's truly nothing unattainable.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 11:47:51 AM
[Last Edit: 6/19/2012 11:48:46 AM by darktide]
That's an unfair picture grouping.
They're ELITE athletes, not just athletes in training... (hell Rulon in that picture would be "extremely" or "morbidly" obese... by BMI standards...) Plain and simple: BMI is flawed and does NOT account for muscle mass. Body fat % is more of an appropriate measure, as is pretty well known. Hell, Abdominal circumference (or hip/abdomen circum ratio) is better than BMI at predicting relative health risks... BMI was pushed for acceptance by the insurance companies as an excuse to charge more for customers. The lobbyists had much to gain from the .gov accepting it as a health standard... read that last line again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 11:53:25 AM
Interesting post. I have always found those body weight/height charts to have issues. I am heavier than I should be no matter which measurement you use but I have seen people who were slender that the chart would say they were overweight due to their heavy musculature. A body fat measurement makes more sense but is probably not as easy to do as stand on a scale, measure one's height and look at a chart.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 11:59:48 AM
BMI is much like VO2max, something that is easy to measure, but not necessarily meanginful without additional information.
That said, the OP's point is valid - most of the folks that mock the BMI standards they exceed wouldn't fare so well with a measurement of bodyfat either, a category that includes me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 12:04:24 PM
At my heaviest and fattest I was 235 with one heck of a belly. I always thought I was really muscular and could drop 15-20 pounds of fat and look awesome. I got a bodyfat test done one day and did the math and realized I would have to drop about 50 pounds of fat to look awesome. That really changed my outlook.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 12:04:34 PM
[Last Edit: 6/19/2012 12:10:29 PM by BillyDoubleU]
I'm not sure I quite get the point of the thread? Is it that GD is simply fat and they make excuses as to why or make excuses as to being in better shape and more muscular then they really are?
I've personally run the gamut of weights. I've been as big as 215-220 when bodybuilding with a BF under or at 10%. I've been as light as 162 when racing bikes with a BF around 4-5%. I've been training for BUD/s and fluctuated aroun 175-180 with BF under 10%. Now I am 192'ish and BF is probably 8-10%. I can see most of my abs, rocking a 4 3/4 pack lol! Having a good BF is easier to do when you eat better. Oh and I'm 5'10". I always looked at the BMI as good for fat people and worthless for everyone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 12:09:33 PM
[Last Edit: 6/19/2012 12:11:01 PM by AGW]
Originally Posted By darktide: That's an unfair picture grouping. They're ELITE athletes, not just athletes in training... (hell Rulon in that picture would be "extremely" or "morbidly" obese... by BMI standards...) Plain and simple: BMI is flawed and does NOT account for muscle mass. Body fat % is more of an appropriate measure, as is pretty well known. Hell, Abdominal circumference (or hip/abdomen circum ratio) is better than BMI at predicting relative health risks... BMI was pushed for acceptance by the insurance companies as an excuse to charge more for customers. The lobbyists had much to gain from the .gov accepting it as a health standard... read that last line again. Of course it's flawed... I admit as much in the OP. But when I open a patient's chart and notice a BMI of 46, it never fails to predict a whale. My point was that BMI (accepted within its 19th century limitations) can reliably fit the majority inside the curve. So when the majority (GD...) decides they don't fit inside the curve... there's a statistical problem. I could find pictures of a bunch of div 3 amateurs or BB.com basement dwellers with great physiques, too. Ultimately, all I'm doing is sharing my thoughts about how GD over-predicts its own muscle mass.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 12:22:54 PM
Yeah, GD typically overestimates muscle mass...but there are a few of us who don't. I'm 5'9" and weighed in at 186 today. I should be at about 180...but no way should I be under that. I've posted pics of myself too, and I don't think anyone would say I'm overweight...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 12:47:06 PM
BMI pissed me off when my insurance rates went up.....I am 6' and weighed 190 at the time
. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 2:56:47 PM
I was actually at the doctor today. I mean they weighted me with shoes on and I had my keys and everything on me. Also had to take a dump. I weighted 182 lbs at 5'9'' My bmi was 27%. idk if that's good or bad. If someone could tell me ?
Anyway, when I pinch myself my body fat percentage is like 12%. I'd like to get it to about 8% and weight 175lbs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 3:04:33 PM
Originally Posted By Lougotzz:
I was actually at the doctor today. I mean they weighted me with shoes on and I had my keys and everything on me. Also had to take a dump. I weighted 182 lbs at 5'9'' My bmi was 27%. idk if that's good or bad. If someone could tell me ? Anyway, when I pinch myself my body fat percentage is like 12%. I'd like to get it to about 8% and weight 175lbs.If you are 182 fully dressed you are already around 175 for a morning weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 3:24:28 PM
[Last Edit: 6/19/2012 3:25:54 PM by Blitz_308]
Originally Posted By Lougotzz: I was actually at the doctor today. I mean they weighted me with shoes on and I had my keys and everything on me. Also had to take a dump. I weighted 182 lbs at 5'9'' My bmi was 27%. idk if that's good or bad. If someone could tell me ? Anyway, when I pinch myself my body fat percentage is like 12%. I'd like to get it to about 8% and weight 175lbs.Sounds about where I'm at, well, according to the last time I checked. I need to have it checked again. Maybe after I get through this new Y3T workout we just started. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 3:40:03 PM
Originally Posted By MrKasab:
At my heaviest and fattest I was 235 with one heck of a belly. I always thought I was really muscular and could drop 15-20 pounds of fat and look awesome. I got a bodyfat test done one day and did the math and realized I would have to drop about 50 pounds of fat to look awesome. That really changed my outlook. It's amazing how that works, I have had the same realization. You "think" you will be to a certain point in bodyfat at a certain weight, you get there and realize you haven't hit your bodyfat goal yet. Last time I had my bodyfat checked I was 182(I think) and 10..5 or 10.75% bodyfat. I'm 5'8"-5'9". My waist at the time was 31.5". I am now 192ish with a 33" waist, I need to lose some fat. I seriously think I lost muscle mass and gained fat at boot camp, but it's taking awhile to get back to pre-bootcamp levels. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 5:55:55 PM
Originally Posted By darktide:
That's an unfair picture grouping. They're ELITE athletes, not just athletes in training... (hell Rulon in that picture would be "extremely" or "morbidly" obese... by BMI standards...) Plain and simple: BMI is flawed and does NOT account for muscle mass. Body fat % is more of an appropriate measure, as is pretty well known. Hell, Abdominal circumference (or hip/abdomen circum ratio) is better than BMI at predicting relative health risks... BMI was pushed for acceptance by the insurance companies as an excuse to charge more for customers. The lobbyists had much to gain from the .gov accepting it as a health standard... read that last line again. I agree with this 100% and have had a burning hatred for BMI since the day I learned about it. Even I can admit to the possibility that some of the GD fatties are simply pointing out BMIs flaws to take the attention off of their fatty fat fatness. But I still don't like the idea of using such an imperfect metric as a measure of health/weight, because it still implies that someone who's "skinny fat" is healthier than someone who is stocky. I know the excuse of being "big boned" gets way over used, but as an x-ray tech I can tell you there are honest to God body types that are dramatically different. You can have a skinny fat girl who's insulin resistant and can't make it up a flight of stairs thinking that she's healthier than someone who is in peak physical condition. It is a dangerous over-simplification. Again, I do think it's a fair assessment that GD, like much of the population, overestimates their lean mass and underestimates their fat mass. I think the way to change that is to get people interested in getting more fit, not shaming them into fitting into a category. I'd actually like to see a fitness thread in GD, where people can read stories with before and after pictures, kind of like the Paleo thread. Or just make it some kind of competition. I think that would drum up more enthusiasm than telling people they don't meet a nearly useless standard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 6:27:53 PM
Originally Posted By Prime:
I agree with this 100% and have had a burning hatred for BMI since the day I learned about it. BMI is just regression analysis of a sample population. It's as right or wrong as 220-age is for determining maximum HR |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 8:00:17 PM
Does that say Lisa Leslie is 70 pounds? Or am I just not seeing a 1 in front of that?
![]() |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 8:06:55 PM
Originally Posted By MissSnW: Does that say Lisa Leslie is 70 pounds? Or am I just not seeing a 1 in front of that? ![]() It says 170. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2012 8:56:37 PM
The BMI height/weight charts are bunk. The charts are too generic. I'm 6', 181# and 31 inch waist. Those charts say I could be 136# before I was under weight
A simple look in the mirror tells the tale. GD doesn't look in the mirror.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 2:14:20 AM
BMI dates back to the dark ages and was intended to be used for "normal" people. This was long before athletics –– particularly, weightlifting –– became so common. It should not be applied to active individuals. Anyone with a limited grasp of DOE/statistics understands this. Unfortunately, most of modern medicine is brainless and prefers to look stats up in charts/textbooks.
I am 5'11", 215 lbs which classifies me as obese. I am far from obese. As an adult I have been 125-135 lbs at my lightest. I looked like a starving refugee. Obviously, as BMI gets larger, the likelihood of the individual being obese increases. Even so, to use BMI as an indicator, especially at the lower levels, is erroneous and just ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 9:09:09 AM
BMI was pushed for acceptance by the insurance companies as an excuse to charge more for customers. The lobbyists had much to gain from the .gov accepting it as a health standard... I have a BMI chart on my refrigerator that says "Now you don't have to lie about your weight anymore. Now you can lie about your height." It's okay. Give them a few years and they'll find some other measurement to use...and it will be equally flawed. According to most charts, I'm dead on at 19... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 10:11:08 AM
[Last Edit: 6/20/2012 10:13:25 AM by AGW]
You guys are like rabid dogs; you read "BMI" and you see red. No where did I even say that BMI was a worthwhile measure. In fact, my OP specifically says that it paints with a broad brush and doesn't account for muscle mass, especially at a lower body fat. I was just enjoying one of those "What's your height/weight threads" the other day, and many of the responses were just so far from reality that it made BMI seem laughably sensible by comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 10:49:40 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I'm fat as hell.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 11:05:21 AM
Originally Posted By TwistedSister:
BMI was pushed for acceptance by the insurance companies as an excuse to charge more for customers. The lobbyists had much to gain from the .gov accepting it as a health standard... I have a BMI chart on my refrigerator that says "Now you don't have to lie about your weight anymore. Now you can lie about your height." It's okay. Give them a few years and they'll find some other measurement to use...and it will be equally flawed. According to most charts, I'm dead on at 19... Did I look fat the other day? I was 227 lbs. in running shorts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 11:07:09 AM
Originally Posted By Hank:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm fat as hell. I so want to go there....
The BBQ was good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 11:09:18 AM
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
Originally Posted By Hank:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm fat as hell. I so want to go there....
The BBQ was good. It was, glad we could hook that up. And go there, I can take it. Fatty fat fatstein. ![]() |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 11:09:51 AM
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
Originally Posted By TwistedSister:
BMI was pushed for acceptance by the insurance companies as an excuse to charge more for customers. The lobbyists had much to gain from the .gov accepting it as a health standard... I have a BMI chart on my refrigerator that says "Now you don't have to lie about your weight anymore. Now you can lie about your height." It's okay. Give them a few years and they'll find some other measurement to use...and it will be equally flawed. According to most charts, I'm dead on at 19... Did I look fat the other day? I was 227 lbs. in running shorts. This shorts thing. I will have to see it to appreciate it fully. Show me your legs, Captain Testosterone!! |
|