Everyday Systems

Not literally that is...I weigh 186 on my scale (5' 9"), but theoretically. One of the allusions Tom Naughton made in Fat Head is that government "ideals" don't necessarily fit. He gave an example of a 6' 2" bodybuilder who weighed 225 lbs., and according to the BMI would be considered "obese". That 6' 2" bodybuilder was Arnold Schwarzenegger. While he was "obese", Mr. Olympia had a 32 inch waist.

At 186 pounds I still wear 34 inch pants. I wear medium shirts from Izod and Ralph Lauren, and larges from Walmart sit on me like a tent.

This month my goal was to ride 120 miles on the Airdyne. I rode 130 miles for March. Although I have not lost weight my fitness level is much better than it was two months ago.

So, on government charts I am "overweight" (as many others are...) but how "overweight" am I? Really?

Where do you put it?

I'm 5'9", 179 pounds, and wear a size 36, and size L sport shirts...

Over43 wrote:Not literally that is...I weigh 186 on my scale (5' 9"), but theoretically. One of the allusions Tom Naughton made in Fat Head is that government "ideals" don't necessarily fit. He gave an example of a 6' 2" bodybuilder who weighed 225 lbs., and according to the BMI would be considered "obese". That 6' 2" bodybuilder was Arnold Schwarzenegger. While he was "obese", Mr. Olympia had a 32 inch waist.

At 186 pounds I still wear 34 inch pants. I wear medium shirts from Izod and Ralph Lauren, and larges from Walmart sit on me like a tent.

This month my goal was to ride 120 miles on the Airdyne. I rode 130 miles for March. Although I have not lost weight my fitness level is much better than it was two months ago.

So, on government charts I am "overweight" (as many others are...) but how "overweight" am I? Really?

Yeah, Scales and BMI charts don't tell the whole truth, Now if your 300lbs or at 5'9' then BMI would give you a rough idea. give or take 20 lbs. But once you get to a certain level it is much better to do actual bf% test. You can buy scales that send a pulse through you and can read bf% and bone density. BMI charts say I should weigh 2006 pounds and I have a 199 pound lean mass index. I basically would have to have like 2 or 3 % bf. My ideal weight is more like 230's or 40 .

I think the BMI is an insurance scam to charge us more for health and life insurance. My life insurance agent told me I was overweight many years ago according to the BMI. I challenged him to a foot race "to the stop sign and back." He refused.

I started this thread thinking that we are told daily we are a nation of "heavy people", but I don't think a lot of us are as heavy as the media makes us out to be. Or at least based in the "real world" we aren't.

I know the BMI has detractors, but does not apply just to people in the US. And whether people think it's accurate or not, the average American is 25 lbs. heavier than he/she was in 1960. I don't think people were underweight then. It's very true that the subjects at either end of the height scale or who have excessive muscle don't fit the named categories, but no matter what label you give, there is still a correlation between BMI's over a certain amount.

Given my age, I'll take my BMI rather than bodyfat as I know mine puts me in a worse category than BMI.

oolala, I mean if you want to accept the number that looks better for you, that's your call, but from a scientifically accurate perspective, what I'd want to see (and I would be surprised to see it happen) would be a study done tracking health rates where the BMI and Body Fat Percentage differ.

There's where we get into the insufficient data category.

Two different discussions...

1) Is BMI a good indicator? (It has faults.)

2) Are Americans heavier than they used to be. (Unqualified "yes" from me - don't need any measurement other than eyeballs and memory. Check out old photos if you like... I know every time I travel abroad, I notice prevalent levels of obesity here on my return just by the visual shock after being among generally-slimmer people.)

Well, here's the thing: there can be a difference between "heavy" and "unhealthy". Not everyone who is over the BMI range labelled "normal" is necessarily an unhealthy, unfit specimen. This is just a natural result of using population-level averages to define arbitrary cutoff values: of course any given individual may have differences from the overall average!

I don't quite think BMI is bad science, in itself: it's just a number, after all. It's how it's used that can lead to trouble. The BMI charts, which are really just fancied-up height/weight tables, are supposed to offer a first-glance idea of whether you are *likely* to have a suite of health problems associated with being overweight. But ideally, if you've got the individual right there in front of you, you could take a *second* glance and see if the person really does have the health problems *correlated* with being in a certain range. One could check out their heart, measure their blood numbers for things like cholesterol, etc. -- you don't have to *guess*, when you've got a person right there. (But, alas, medicine as practiced currently does tend towards the easy, look-it-up-on-a-chart approach, and all too many doctors never go beyond that.) And as I say, it's quite possible for someone to be outside the chart range but not unhealthy in these other ways (and vice versa: BMI in the normal range is not an automatic guarantee of health!).

So yeah, I'd think that one shouldn't panic about being a bit outside the range that The Chart says you should be in, if you're otherwise fit and healthy. At the same time, if you've got a BMI in the 30s, you probably don't really need The Chart to tell you that you may have a problem with your weight.

I think this is a case where common sense should probably be the deciding factor. According to my BMI, I'm fine at 142 and overweight at 147. I'm an insurance risk at 147 and perfectly dandy at 142, regardless of how much I've been exercising, what I've been eating, and so forth. My common sense tells me that such a fine distinction is basically useless. But I do think that BMI can be useful for overweight and obese people in giving them a rough estimate of whether or not they should be concerned. It's a tool, just not a particularly precise one.

congratulations and well done on achieving (and even exceeding) your exercise goal for the month!

amake616 wrote:According to my BMI ... I'm an insurance risk at 147 and perfectly dandy at 142 ...My common sense tells me that such a fine distinction is basically useless.

I agree with your common sense!

DaveMc wrote:Well, here's the thing: there can be a difference between "heavy" and "unhealthy". Not everyone who is over the BMI range labelled "normal" is necessarily an unhealthy, unfit specimen. This is just a natural result of using population-level averages to define arbitrary cutoff values: of course any given individual may have differences from the overall average!

I don't quite think BMI is bad science, in itself: it's just a number, after all. It's how it's used that can lead to trouble. The BMI charts, which are really just fancied-up height/weight tables, are supposed to offer a first-glance idea of whether you are *likely* to have a suite of health problems associated with being overweight. But ideally, if you've got the individual right there in front of you, you could take a *second* glance and see if the person really does have the health problems *correlated* with being in a certain range. One could check out their heart, measure their blood numbers for things like cholesterol, etc. -- you don't have to *guess*, when you've got a person right there. (But, alas, medicine as practiced currently does tend towards the easy, look-it-up-on-a-chart approach, and all too many doctors never go beyond that.) And as I say, it's quite possible for someone to be outside the chart range but not unhealthy in these other ways (and vice versa: BMI in the normal range is not an automatic guarantee of health!).

So yeah, I'd think that one shouldn't panic about being a bit outside the range that The Chart says you should be in, if you're otherwise fit and healthy. At the same time, if you've got a BMI in the 30s, you probably don't really need The Chart to tell you that you may have a problem with your weight.

Dave, I TOTALLY agree.

Here is another example of averages being skewed.

Over 25 years ago, I went to weight watchers to lose post baby weight from my first two pregnancies. I was pretty fit then and got down to 145 lbs pretty easily. I am 5 ft 6 in. The problem was that I could never get in their maintenance phase because the most you could weigh as a woman of my height was 143. I quit and never went back. I gained again with my third pregnancy and unfortunately continued to gain for years. I am wondering what the top weight is for a 5 ft 6 in woman is now on the weight watchers plan??

As of 12/20/10, I am in a new phase of life with No S, and I am loving it.

I'm pretty sure WW uses the BMI, which I think says a woman of 5'6" can be as high as 154 lbs. to be in the normal range. You got robbed!