Considering how strong you are, there is a good volume of muscle already there too.
I had one doctor ask me if I could get down to 205 lbs (a weight I haven’t seen since I was 12). I told him I could only get there if I developed anorexia. He thought I was kidding.
I guess to add to my point on this, high blood pressure is a good example. ~Half of heart attack patients had a history of high blood pressure, meaning half didn’t. As an individual variable in a vacuum, that would mean high blood pressure is not a risk factor for heart attack. In the real world, though, we accept it to be a predictive indicator for myriad cardiac outcomes. So, BMI doesn’t have to be the whole story to still have some use in the story.
So, we’ve established that BMI can be useful and that it isn’t in some scenarios. My question was, if waist size or hip to waist ratio is equally if not more simple, and is applicable to a larger population sample in terms of being an accurate predictor of health problems, why not retire BMI in favor of something better?
Well one thing BMI is good for is bitting you in the ass when it comes to health insurance premiums.
Yeah. A friend of mine worked in insurance stuff for a long time. They don’t look at people, they look at actuary tables. It’s a human sorting and categorization process.
It’s all pretty tricky. Even what, 4-5 weeks ago, I was in the cardiac ward with my circumflex 95+% blocked-BP at 120/80, bmi at like 27 waiting for another angioplasty/stent. Nurses looking at my chart, then me, then puzzled, then asking “Is this right? You’re here for…”.
Me: “Yep. That is correct. I know, I don’t look like it, huh?”.
One nurse even said “That is nuts! Your blood pressure is like text book. That’s literally what they teach us in school.”
All that to say even if somebody is on the outer edge of a statistical range, they’re still within that range.
I think BMI is a pretty good tool. I think most of us overestimate what % of the population has enough muscle mass to skew it towards obese.
Personal experience too, gone from normal to obese back to overweight over the last 5 years. Seemed pretty accurate just from the mirror test at each of those BMIs.
BMI is useful for the population that don’t consistently weight train to build muscle. Muscle skews the number.
A buddy on fb was complaining about his BMI number, I told him to go get a dexa. He then changed his tune to I know I’m carrying a little extra, but I prefer to enjoy life with my wife instead of watch my diet and exercise all the time.
Two years ago when I was in my best shape, I was at my friends office who is a surgeon. He’s known me for 20 years. We used to lift together and do triathlons. He was saying how it was the best he’s ever seen me. Then my primary care nurse called to go over my physical results. She told me I needed to lose weight. I told my friend and his nurse. They calculated my BMI and said not to listen to that dr. Dr’s are not used to dealing with athletic people. Considering that the majority of the population is obese, I believe what he told me. BMI is useful for most people, but not all.
I also got sent in for heart testing because my resting heart rate was too low. I used to run 3-6 miles 4-6 days a week. Ride 25-100 miles 3-5 days a week. Swim several times. Race on the weekends. My heart was very efficient from all the cardio. My dr was not used to dealing with people who did that much cardio.
All this to say, the people on this site lift weights. There are some that are carrying excess fat, but most on here have a lot of muscle that the general population does not have. BMI is not for “us”.
Yeah… a friend of mine was doing Sparta racing he was in the top 95% bracket for his age time wise. Ran into the whole BMI issue for are company insurance and he has like a resting BPM of 50.
I’m in the camp that thinks it is a useful tool, even for those of us who lift weights. I’d bet that most natural lifters could end up with an “overweight” BMI while still being relatively lean. If you are a natural lifter that’s in the “obese” category, then odds are you’re carrying more body fat than you probably should. And I say this as a natural lifter in the “obese” BMI category who is carrying more body fat than I probably should.
I still think there’s two ways to look at this:
I’m in no hurry to drop muscle, and I don’t necessarily think most physicians would even recommend doing so. I don’t believe, however, we should dismiss an ubiquitously-studied health marker out of hand. It’s a measurement we should probably include in our whole picture. Like the gent above, if your BMI is a little high, but your RHR is 50, probably no worries. If your BMI is high, and your RHR is 84, a couple markers are telling us we’ve got work to do.
In terms of insurance impact… well, they’re pretty notorious for finding any metric that maximizes their profit (as businesses must do). If it’s not BMI, it will be something else. I do agree it’s not a good single metric to determine someone’s total risk/ premium.
Agreed, at 6 foot and 230lbs, I’d be kidding myself if I were to believe that I shouldn’t lose 30lbs.
That would put me at a real solid 200lbs even.
Although the BMI chart would rather have me at 175, that is rediculous.
I read a doctor talk about all the ways people stuff the tape measure up. Headshaking stuff. I’ll see if I can track it down.
I think the theory is people will encounter a scale or be weighed as part of their life - where they don’t tend to come across tapemeasures all that much. I don’t think one is favoured over the other really?
I used to think that and 175 is hard for me to maintain but I think it’s probably a better weight than 200 for me (grizzle, grizzle). Also, 200 at 40 is a different ball game to 200 at 20 - muscle or not.
As someone who will likely always be north of 200 - your statement worries me…
If it’s the same person, the 200lb 20 year old is a higher % body fat, than the seasoned 200lb ripped, 40 year old.
my profile picture on here would have me in the borderline obese category.
The problem I have with BMI is the fact that the ‘normal, obese, overweight, etc’ labels are attached to it. It should just be a number without those identifying labels. These labels are just used so poorly by so many health professionals. Or if anything, these words should be used: well below average, below average, average, above average, well above average. Something that doesn’t have social connotations. The number was developed to be nothing more than a statistical measure, and for some idiotic reason we’ve attached words with social stigmas to further arbitrary goals. It’s bat shit crazy. The fact that I even have to worry about this when I go to a new doctor is absolutely insane, right?
Although on the other hand, I suppose it can help me weed out the idiot doctors.
This is great. I think you just created a new use for BMI - natty lifters should aim for being overweight (according to BMI) and lean. I never cracked the obese category even at my biggest (250 lbs at 6’5").
I’ve been 201 lbs at 6’5” which put me in the golden circle, but I looked like crap. A long stick with no muscle or strength. I’m fine with being labeled overweight for now. Can you imagine being 165 lbs at 6’5”?
That is Manute Bol’s listed playing weight, but he was 14" taller.
Trippy image of Manute swimming.
I thought this was a fake image at first! I remember when he played, he was easily moved out the way.