Thread: BMI Outrage
View Single Post
Old 01-10-2013, 02:50 PM   #51
jdmalm123
Less is More
Max Brawn
Points: 13,158, Level: 74 Points: 13,158, Level: 74 Points: 13,158, Level: 74
Activity: 1% Activity: 1% Activity: 1%
 
jdmalm123's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,918
Training Exp: not enough
Training Type: General Fitness
Fav Exercise: the one that doesn't hurt
Fav Supp: Milk
Reputation: 408938
jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!jdmalm123 is one with Crom!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazc View Post
I'm glad you posted those pictures, the whole reason I took issue in this thread is because of the lack of realism over the internet. Steve knows this all too well from his time around the forums, you talk to guys about genetic limits and the mere mention of the word and people get riled up, immediately you get 10 guys jump all over it saying the limits are self-defeating and small. 9 times out of 10 these guys are basically over the limit because they're fat, plain and simple and nothing to do with them actually looking good. My comment about being in denial was directed to them.

I'm happy to be proved wrong in this case.

However just looking at your photos should give people a clear indication of what 170-190lbs looks like on a 6 foot frame in good condition.

Well that would also account for the misunderstanding. Who I thought I was talking to was someone who admittedly had only trained seriously for 4 months and thought they had reached the pinnacle of drug-free bodybuilding!

Strong post JD.
Thanks.

Your points about the misuse of BMI are well taken.

I think the issue is that an average is taken across a certain population at a certain time and it becomes a "standard" that, taken out of context, is misleading.

If we need a better gauge of physical health, then we need a more absolute standard (like, strength, maybe?). For example, a raw, natural, PL total is much more telling about someone's condition.

As someone posted, even with a few extra pounds of fat, one could be healthier than a weaker person who is generally leaner.

I think BTB's post leads back to the original thread topic...

...Is it really a discount for those under BMI of 30 or is it a way to quietly surcharge those with a BMI over 30?
Considering the population trends and money as a motivation, I would believe the discounts are economic slight-of-hand...

But that is another story...



Quote:
Originally Posted by BendtheBar View Post
This is me in 2007 at a BMI of 34.3 (weight 232, height 5'9").

My arms are 17.5, hidden well in my sexy shirt.
Dude, Mine were 16.5" at 165+ ... man, I've wasted so much potential!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5kgLifter View Post
I'm just adding this for the generalised interest, nothing more:

Body mass index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geez, the weatherman has a better accuracy rate!
__________________
Balance
jdmalm123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links