![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
BMI is a crock, part 2 of n
Jul. 28th, 2012 01:54 pmI continue to be amazed by the disparity between weight advice from public health types and athletic trainers.
Take my figures from a month back: 204lb., 6'4", BMI 24.8. This is just barely "normal", one more pound and I'd be considered overweight. Mid-range of normal would be 179lb; I would not be underweight until 151 pounds. My body fat via rope-and-choke is 20.5%. (If you're going to complain about the method, I have stories for you. Anything short of X-ray is an educated guess, anyhow.)
I have here the May issue of Bicycling magazine, also known as "Buycycling" and considered a little too much on the side of racers rather than real people. They provide three measures of ideal weight.
Method 1 is the generally-active person, not into heavy training. By this measure, my idea weight is 202 pounds (BMI would be 24.6; again, 25 is "overweight"!)
Method 2 is for moderate athletes, "race occasionally". This is based on target body fat, suggesting 10-25% with an admonition "Don't target the lowest possible percentage.". Based on that, I'd be good at 180 to 216 (BMI 21.9 to 26.3). At ten percent body fat, I'd still be on the high end of "normal". In fact, mid-normal would be 9.5%. To reach "underweight", since my lean mass is 162lb., I would need to lose ALL fat and nine pounds of muscle!
Method 3 is for the highly competitive, with a warning "This weight may not be realistic or even healthy to maintain long-term." I come out to 160-182lb on this scale. Remember, I'm not "underweight" until 151 pounds.
There is a hideous disconnect between weight-by-BMI and weight-for-competition, and let's face it: if anything, athletes tend towards too thin. I am not particularly muscular or "ripped" in the sense that they usually say "BMI isn't for bodybuilders". I can only infer that BMI figures are based on the assumption of no activity at all, and the decision has been made to tell Americans to starve rather than encouraging daily exercise.
This is made far worse by the notion that anorexia diagnosis will (and I believe for some insurers already does) require an "underweight" BMI. The weight loss is a symptom, and if intervention has to wait until it gets that bad, there's already serious danger.
Take my figures from a month back: 204lb., 6'4", BMI 24.8. This is just barely "normal", one more pound and I'd be considered overweight. Mid-range of normal would be 179lb; I would not be underweight until 151 pounds. My body fat via rope-and-choke is 20.5%. (If you're going to complain about the method, I have stories for you. Anything short of X-ray is an educated guess, anyhow.)
I have here the May issue of Bicycling magazine, also known as "Buycycling" and considered a little too much on the side of racers rather than real people. They provide three measures of ideal weight.
Method 1 is the generally-active person, not into heavy training. By this measure, my idea weight is 202 pounds (BMI would be 24.6; again, 25 is "overweight"!)
Method 2 is for moderate athletes, "race occasionally". This is based on target body fat, suggesting 10-25% with an admonition "Don't target the lowest possible percentage.". Based on that, I'd be good at 180 to 216 (BMI 21.9 to 26.3). At ten percent body fat, I'd still be on the high end of "normal". In fact, mid-normal would be 9.5%. To reach "underweight", since my lean mass is 162lb., I would need to lose ALL fat and nine pounds of muscle!
Method 3 is for the highly competitive, with a warning "This weight may not be realistic or even healthy to maintain long-term." I come out to 160-182lb on this scale. Remember, I'm not "underweight" until 151 pounds.
There is a hideous disconnect between weight-by-BMI and weight-for-competition, and let's face it: if anything, athletes tend towards too thin. I am not particularly muscular or "ripped" in the sense that they usually say "BMI isn't for bodybuilders". I can only infer that BMI figures are based on the assumption of no activity at all, and the decision has been made to tell Americans to starve rather than encouraging daily exercise.
This is made far worse by the notion that anorexia diagnosis will (and I believe for some insurers already does) require an "underweight" BMI. The weight loss is a symptom, and if intervention has to wait until it gets that bad, there's already serious danger.