Posted: 1/15/2010 6:36:16 AM EDT
| Am I the only one that isn't a big fan of the BMI charts and their formulas? For my height I would have to lose 75 lbs to get to the upper edge of my "healthy" BMI. I'm not Jack Lalanne by any means but I'm no Al Roker (back in his big years) by any means. If I lost 75 lbs a good portion would be fat but I'd be loosing a good amount of muscle mass too. So whats your take on it? Is there a better measure of physical fitness? |
|
BMI is okay (at best) for population wide studies.
For individuals, it sucks. Most of us who lift weights and are moderately strong are either "overweight" or "obese" according to BMI. It is total nonsense unless your exercise routine consists of sucking your thumb for 8 hours a day in front of the TV. A better measure of fitness is how much can you squat and deadlift. Bodyfat is okay as a metric but sometimes people obsess over it and subsequently fail to eat enough to drive gains on their lifts. |
|
Quoted: What Tex said. BMI's value is when applied to large population groups and was somewhat applicable at the time of development. It was developed for that end in the 19th century (when malnutrition was more of an issue than obesity). Even most professionals will note using it on an individual bases is inappropriate, but still used today because it is extremely easy to useBMI is okay (at best) for population wide studies. For individuals, it sucks. Most of us who lift weights and are moderately strong are either "overweight" or "obese" according to BMI. It is total nonsense unless your exercise routine consists of sucking your thumb for 8 hours a day in front of the TV. A better measure of fitness is how much can you squat and deadlift. Bodyfat is okay as a metric but sometimes people obsess over it and subsequently fail to eat enough to drive gains on their lifts. |
|
That photo definitly helps illustrate how BMI is very situational and a very poor scale to use for most people. Quoted: Quoted: I think BMI is pretty accurate. Then you're wrong. First laugh of the day right here. |
|
Quoted: I think BMI is pretty accurate. I used to think not so but now that I'm at about 170 pounds (Just a tad overweight according to it), I'll be at normal weight according to it if I lose another 15 pounds which I think is spot on. It might be accurate for you, but anyone with even a fair amount of muscle is not going to fall in the BMI categories correctly. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think BMI is pretty accurate. Then you're wrong. Obviously it isn't 100% but as a guideline it is a starting point, if someone obviously has low bodyfat then they shouldn't pay attention to BMI. If you're of average or chubby/obese build then it is most certainly a good measure. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think BMI is pretty accurate. Then you're wrong. Obviously it isn't 100% but as a guideline it is a starting point, if someone obviously has low bodyfat then they shouldn't pay attention to BMI. If you're of average or chubby/obese build then it is most certainly a good measure. It's only a good measure if you're basically a sedentary person who only controls your weight via diet and moderate cardio exercise. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think BMI is pretty accurate. Then you're wrong. Obviously it isn't 100% but as a guideline it is a starting point, if someone obviously has low bodyfat then they shouldn't pay attention to BMI. If you're of average or chubby/obese build then it is most certainly a good measure. It's only a good measure if you're basically a sedentary person who only controls your weight via diet and moderate cardio exercise. What do you think most Western people are? It is a useful and simple tool to tell most of the general population if they're at a healthy weight or not. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think BMI is pretty accurate. Then you're wrong. Obviously it isn't 100% but as a guideline it is a starting point, if someone obviously has low bodyfat then they shouldn't pay attention to BMI. If you're of average or chubby/obese build then it is most certainly a good measure. It's only a good measure if you're basically a sedentary person who only controls your weight via diet and moderate cardio exercise. What do you think most Western people are? It is a useful and simple tool to tell most of the general population if they're at a healthy weight or not. See that's the thing- healthy weight? WTF does that really mean? You think a sedentary person can be healthy if they are at a particular weight??? It's BS- if you are sedentary then you AREN'T healthy period. So, really BMI is only a measure of how much of a fatass a sedentary person is... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think BMI is pretty accurate. Then you're wrong. Obviously it isn't 100% but as a guideline it is a starting point, if someone obviously has low bodyfat then they shouldn't pay attention to BMI. If you're of average or chubby/obese build then it is most certainly a good measure. It's only a good measure if you're basically a sedentary person who only controls your weight via diet and moderate cardio exercise. What do you think most Western people are? It is a useful and simple tool to tell most of the general population if they're at a healthy weight or not. See that's the thing- healthy weight? WTF does that really mean? You think a sedentary person can be healthy if they are at a particular weight??? It's BS- if you are sedentary then you AREN'T healthy period. So, really BMI is only a measure of how much of a fatass a sedentary person is... Which is a starting point... a vast minority of people are in the lower teens (or single digits) in terms of bodyfat % with tons of muscle. It is good for telling average people if they're too fat or not, it doesn't say anything about their cardiovascular health, etc. but neither does bodyfat percentage. |