BBers and BMI

From what I can gather, the higher your BMI the more at risk you are for just about everything out there. Now obviously as those who are physique oriented, a BMI of 25 on us is going to be different than a BMI on a “regular” person.

Obviously we have exercise, diet, and weight training on our side(which seem to be the great equalizer), and some of us may even be using good supplemental protocols. However, that BMI is still looming over us.

My main question, which can hopefully be answered by someone with more than internet forum knowledge, is that does having a large BMI, but a relatively low bodyfat percentage (under 15 - 20,) carry with it the same risks as someone with the same BMI. Is it really the fat mass we should be concerned with, or the overall mass of the body?

My interest was peeked because I have a BMI on the “starting to become obese” range, but carry a bodyfat percentage under 20 and still looking to get a little bigger. But my school books make no mention of anything but BMI. Any input?

BMI is inaccurate.

It doesn’t take into account the location of the fat and even the fat percentage.

A guy with 8% fat is in pretty good shape, even if the BMI says he’s obese.

And another guy with heavy central adiposy, but a weight within acceptable range according to the BMI is still in danger of many life threatening diseases.

Not you, too, Lonnie. Damn, does anyone run a search?

There are 692 hits for BMI on T-Mag.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-22,GGGL:en&q=BMI+site%3At-nation.com

Now there will be 693.

Alas.

Even though I don’t have much knowledge of this topic beyond school and the internet, this subject has kept me up at night too.

Waist circumference, in many peer reviewed journals, has been deemed to be a better indicatory of the risk factors that you mentioned. I hesitate to mention specifics but if you have a BMI of say 33 and a 32 inch waist then you certainly fall outside of the population for which BMI alone is applicable.

However, amoung Americans, BMI and waist circumference tend to be highly correlated when BMI is high. You are probably an exception to this rule but most americans with a high BMI are just plain fat. In fact, waist circumference has, in some cases, added people to the “at risk” category since being at a low BMI and having a “gut” is very unhealthy too.

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
does having a large BMI, but a relatively low bodyfat percentage (under 15 - 20,) carry with it the same risks as someone with the same BMI.[/quote]

ofcourse not.

However, whether or not trading muscle for fat is more or less “healthy” is all too much controversial. We don’t even know how to measure health objectively.

I am taking a Weight Managment Course at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and one thing I have learned is that BMI is a single number that takes height and weight into consideration, nothing more. It is designed to be a statistic for large populations. It would be useless for statistical purposes to know that 34% of the population in the US weight over 225lbs, because they will have a different height.

But if we know that 34% percent of the population have a BMI over 30, then we know that approximately 34% of the population is obese. BMI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BODY FAT PERCENTAGE. This number is useless to an individual, your body fat % will paint you a better picture on your health

BMI is bullshit. so is any other single measure. because they measure too few of the important variables.

a better indicator of health and fitness is simply the pinch test, parallel to the belly button, one inch over (that’s 2.54cm for the rest of the world) to the left or right, pinch that point in a vertical fold. the smaller the better. second to this would be blood lipid levels as they are indicative of general health also. after that, tests of aerobic and anaerobic fitness, flexibility and mobility, etc.

ignore what you learn at skool. there are slight increases in health risk starting around 15% (18-20% for women) and rising from there. of course as we all see in reality it doesn’t necessarily apply equally.

BMI was developed in the 60’s. Food guide pyramid was developed in the late 80’s. BMI is further outdated that 6-12 servings of carbs and 2-4 servings of protein. And always remember to use omega-3’s sparingly.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Not you, too, Lonnie. Damn, does anyone run a search?

There are 692 hits for BMI on T-Mag.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-22,GGGL:en&q=BMI+site%3At-nation.com

Now there will be 693.

Alas.[/quote]

Admittedly I didn’t run a search first, however I’ve been 'round these parts to know what kind of posts are being started, and having read my previous post I realize I didn’t quite make it clear what I was trying to ask.

Most of the books/info I have read seem to indicate that having a high BMI tends to be indicative of how well disease and other damaging processes can thrive in your body. While I understand that BMI doesn’t take into account, and probably is not geared towards, people with lower body fat percentages, it seems to make sense that the higher your BMI, regardless of body fat percentage, the info would still be marginally applicable to you. However, since exercise and diet seem to be the great equalizer(also in the literature), those of us with a higher BMI (I’m only 205 pounds and I’m considered “obese”) seem to be in good shape so-to-speak.

I was just curious if any doctors / nurses/ dietitians noticed that lean people with high BMI still had a slightly higher incidence of disease processes than those are equal BF% and a lower weight.

I expected the slue of “BMI is bullshit” responses, and tried to avoid getting those, but I guess it’s just the nature of the online beast.

[quote]jm85 wrote:
BMI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BODY FAT PERCENTAGE. [/quote]

Of course it does - across a segment of the normal population, individuals with a higher BMI TEND to have a higher BF% - that’s why they are heavier.

For “athletic” populations (although I’m not sure a typical bodybuilder applies here) it is not as good a risk predictor as some of the other measures mentioned.

There are of course other issues with the addition of excessive amounts of muscle tissue, but perhaps I will save that for another thread.

BTW, even though 17% is approximately the population average bodyfat for 20somethings, I would suggest that healthier levels exist within the lower teens.

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

Obviously we have exercise, diet, and weight training on our side(which seem to be the great equalizer), and some of us may even be using good supplemental protocols. However, that BMI is still looming over us.

My main question, which can hopefully be answered by someone with more than internet forum knowledge, is that does having a large BMI, but a relatively low bodyfat percentage (under 15 - 20,) carry with it the same risks as someone with the same BMI. Is it really the fat mass we should be concerned with, or the overall mass of the body?
[/quote]

You answered your own question, and you seem to know the answer as it is worded in your question. It seems pretty obvious. I mean generally speaking if you have a BMI that lists you as obese but you are single digit BF% who cares?

[quote]Cam Birtwell wrote:
jm85 wrote:
BMI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BODY FAT PERCENTAGE.

Of course it does - across a segment of the normal population, individuals with a higher BMI TEND to have a higher BF% - that’s why they are heavier.

For “athletic” populations (although I’m not sure a typical bodybuilder applies here) it is not as good a risk predictor as some of the other measures mentioned.

There are of course other issues with the addition of excessive amounts of muscle tissue, but perhaps I will save that for another thread.

BTW, even though 17% is approximately the population average bodyfat for 20somethings, I would suggest that healthier levels exist within the lower teens.[/quote]

“Excessive amounts of muscle tissue”? You will be getting to this in another thread? No, wait, you will SAVE that for another thread. I know I can’t wait for that one. Don’t save it too long because I don’t know if I can take it.

When you finally get around to it, please define specifically where the cut off is for “excessive amounts of muscle” and how that ALONE (not any associate with drug use) causes health problems or “other issues” as you put it. Please provide proof of these findings if you can.

when the girls tell you that they don’t want you to get any bigger, but you look fine now, if you got any bigger, you would have “Excessive amounts of muscle”.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Cam Birtwell wrote:
jm85 wrote:
BMI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BODY FAT PERCENTAGE.

Of course it does - across a segment of the normal population, individuals with a higher BMI TEND to have a higher BF% - that’s why they are heavier.

For “athletic” populations (although I’m not sure a typical bodybuilder applies here) it is not as good a risk predictor as some of the other measures mentioned.

There are of course other issues with the addition of excessive amounts of muscle tissue, but perhaps I will save that for another thread.

BTW, even though 17% is approximately the population average bodyfat for 20somethings, I would suggest that healthier levels exist within the lower teens.

“Excessive amounts of muscle tissue”? You will be getting to this in another thread? No, wait, you will SAVE that for another thread. I know I can’t wait for that one. Don’t save it too long because I don’t know if I can take it.

When you finally get around to it, please define specifically where the cut off is for “excessive amounts of muscle” and how that ALONE (not any associate with drug use) causes health problems or “other issues” as you put it. Please provide proof of these findings if you can.[/quote]

Check this out:

Older people with high waist-hip ratios (WHRs) have a higher mortality risk than those with a high body mass index, or BMI, a new study reveals.

Whereas justifiable attention is given to the increasing problem of obesity in the general population, far less is known about the relationship between obesity and mortality in older people, or how mortality risk should be estimated. The excess health risks associated with having a high BMI are known to decline with age, yet expert bodies such as the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organisation have continued to use in older people the same BMI criteria as for other age groups.

Today’s study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, was carried out by a team based at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. It sought to investigate the association of BMI, waist circumference (WC) and WHR with mortality and cause-specific mortality. The researchers studied 14,833 patients aged over 75 from 53 family practices in the UK; the subjects underwent a health assessment that included taking body measurements and a follow-up (with a median of 5.9 years) for mortality.

The findings confirmed that the current guidelines for BMI-based risk categories overestimate the risks of excess weight in people aged over 75 and are inappropriate for older men and women. This concurs with a previous study that found BMIs of 25-27 not to be a risk factor for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in those aged 65 and over1. Most consistently, the data highlighted the risk of having a low BMI, with people in the lowest quintile (less than 23 in men and less than 22.3 in women) demonstrating the highest risk of death for total mortality and for major causes of death. Very underweight men (those with a BMI of under 18.5) were found to be particularly at risk.

‘An explanation for the lack of a positive association with BMI and mortality at older ages is that, in older persons, BMI is a poor measure of body fat’, say the authors. 'The measurement of weight does not differentiate between fat and fat-free mass, and fat-free mass (especially muscle) is progressively lost with increasing age

Waist circumference (WC) has been proposed as an alternate or additional measure of obesity. The study found no association with waist circumference and mortality. The authors continue: ‘A limitation of WC alone as a measure is that it takes no account of body composition, whereas WHR is a measure of body shape and to some extent of lower trunk adiposity [abdominal fat]. Although it is possible theoretically for high WHR to coexist with thinness, our data show that those with high WHR had higher-than-average waist and average hip circumferences. We conclude that the association observed for WHR and mortality is probably explained by abdominal adiposity’.

The authors recommend that the current BMI-based health risk categories to define the burden of disease related to adult overweight and obesity be reviewed, as they are not appropriate for those over 75. They suggest that WHR should instead be used in this age group because of its positive relation with risk of death, and that attention should also be paid to the problem of underweight in old age.

[quote]tveddy wrote:
<<< when the girls tell you that they don’t want you to get any bigger, but you look fine now, if you got any bigger, you would have “Excessive amounts of muscle”.
[/quote]

I do hope your tongue is out of your cheek now.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Cam Birtwell wrote:
jm85 wrote:
BMI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BODY FAT PERCENTAGE.

Of course it does - across a segment of the normal population, individuals with a higher BMI TEND to have a higher BF% - that’s why they are heavier.

For “athletic” populations (although I’m not sure a typical bodybuilder applies here) it is not as good a risk predictor as some of the other measures mentioned.

There are of course other issues with the addition of excessive amounts of muscle tissue, but perhaps I will save that for another thread.

BTW, even though 17% is approximately the population average bodyfat for 20somethings, I would suggest that healthier levels exist within the lower teens.

“Excessive amounts of muscle tissue”? You will be getting to this in another thread? No, wait, you will SAVE that for another thread. I know I can’t wait for that one. Don’t save it too long because I don’t know if I can take it.

When you finally get around to it, please define specifically where the cut off is for “excessive amounts of muscle” and how that ALONE (not any associate with drug use) causes health problems or “other issues” as you put it. Please provide proof of these findings if you can.[/quote]

Push-ups are functional, bench presses make you slow and unfunctional!!!

[quote]Professor X wrote:

“Excessive amounts of muscle tissue”? You will be getting to this in another thread? No, wait, you will SAVE that for another thread. I know I can’t wait for that one. Don’t save it too long because I don’t know if I can take it.

When you finally get around to it, please define specifically where the cut off is for “excessive amounts of muscle” and how that ALONE (not any associate with drug use) causes health problems or “other issues” as you put it. Please provide proof of these findings if you can.[/quote]

Hahaha… I figured what I said might ruffle a few feathers around here… I’ll explain what I meant by that comment shortly - first I have some insight into the original post.

Great post Horatio… from my research it appears that the addition of a WHR measure greatly improves upon the prediction of BMI alone. Check out this graph of BMI groupings and WHR (for men) and BMI groupings and WC (for women).

Within each BMI grouping, there is a pattern of risk escalation with an increased WHR or WC. Notice that for men, the lowest WHR grouping is associated with the lowest risk of diabetes REGARDLESS of BMI…

Here’s another interesting graph - the one on the left showing how accurate BMI is at predicting %bodyfat.

R^2 values are variances - which indicate how much variation in one component predicts variation in the other. In this case, 50% of the variation in %bodyfat can be explained by variations in BMI. For women, that percentage is even higher (71%)

Most people are more familiar with correlations… to find a correlation, just take the square root of the variance.

So for men, the correlation is .71, which is defined as moderate to strong (depending on who you talk to).
For women, the correlation is .84, strong in anyone’s books.

So it appears that for the general pop, BMI does have something to do with %BF!!

Lastly, these references are where I got a lot of my info from (I presented on this topic for one of my graduate classes - if anyone would like a copy of the powerpoint, let me know).

Janssen, I., Heymsfield, S.B., and Ross, R. (2002). Application of simple anthropometry in the assessment of health risk: Implications for the Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness and Lifestyle Appraisal. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 27(4):396-414.
Janssen, I., Heymsfield, S.B., Allison, D.B., and Ross R. (2002). Body mass index and waist circumference independently contribute to the prediction of nonabdominal, abdominal, subcutaneous, and visceral fat. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 75:683-688.