Originally Posted by Fazc
I'll once again put this into perspective by applying some real world numbers...
A man of 5 foot 10 weighing 200lbs in lean condition, let's say 10% would be at pretty much the peak of his natural potential. So he'd have the equivalent condition of a Grimek or Park in their primes at that weight.
So I daresay he'd be lifting a LOT more than double bodyweight deadlifts and he'd almost certainly have 1 pet lift where he would excel. I would say a man of that size would reasonably be putting out at very least a 500 squat, 350 bench and 550 deadlift. I know guys personally who lift more at the same weight and drug-free.
That man would be 28 on the BMI scale, and while slightly over the recommended amount he wouldn't be massively so. Schwarzenegger in my previous example was 30-31 and that was Schwarzenegger. You just have to realise, lifter or not, you're not going to be carrying THAT much more weight around that the average man UNLESS you are fat. Plain and simple. This all relates to overall potential. How much natural drug-free muscle do you really think you can build over what the layman carries? It isn't as much as people think.
So no, if we actually look at this realistically it's not a terrible scale at all. It just needs to be shifted a few points.
I have to respectfully disagree...I've had doctors tell me i'm overweight (with very athletic numbers) even thought they were looking right at me.
Also, let's say you have a new trainee who uses BMI as a gauge... If they re high on the scale, lose 10 lbs of fat and gain 10 lbs of muscle, their BMI is unchanged...I just don't think BMI is sensitive enough to give most people relevant feedback.