BMI Outrage

[jdmalm123]

Originally Posted by Fazc

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...

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

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!

Originally Posted by 5kgLifter

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!

[BendtheBar]

My only hope is that a new standard will be set that includes some form of simple body composition. A caliper isn't perfect, but it tells a better story than a simplistic formula like this.

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by jdmalm123

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.

Well that much is obvious to anyone involved in the strength & fitness world and that debate has been done to death many times. Answers which try to apply to the majority will always leave some unsatisfied.

However I also tend to think the hidden danger and perhaps the more relevant issue here is people rubbishing the BMI scale altogether to justify them being just plain overweight. The common argument is something like "well they say Arnie was obese", which sounds like a hilariously astute statement but actually when you delve a little deeper how many of those people saying that are built anything like Arnie?

I would venture to say, not many. That for me is the bigger and more relevant danger on these types of forums.

That BMI is irrelevant to lifters is not something you'll have much of an argument over and it's a fairly *safe* statement to make, but challenging people who are relatively anonymous on what they claim their bodyfat levels are, is not.

[nighttrain]

i had to deal with the ARMY bodyfat system for 20 years.... let me tell you it sucked...

in 2007 i weighed 200 lbs @ 5' 10" tall. i was 16 lbs over weight and had to be Tapped every month for the rest of my career, i was far from fat, now i wasn't an Arnold, or even a body builder. i was however in the best shape of my life and the Tape test said i was @18%, but i still had to be tested every 6 months cause i was over weight...

i think we all agree the BMI system is flawed, but i do also agree that there are many people out there that try to hide behind a computer screen and preach about how low thier BF% is and they have no real clue

[Kuytrider]

Never been a fan of BMI but some good points made in this thread.

[BendtheBar]

In the army I was not muscular at all. I was rail thin with abs, but was considered overweight because of the BMI. I was forced to run to lose weight.

I was exactly 5'10" 177, which was a 25.4 BMI. Fat, by military standards. It was the first time in my life I had a well defined six pack.

I simply think the scale in general needs tweaks, lifters aside.

[nighttrain]

^^^ agreed