BMI, where are you on the scale?
Poll: BMI, where are you on the scale?
Total Members Polled: 217
Discussion
Waist to hip tests are difficult to get an accurate measurement as everyone cheats; they always suck their belly in consciously and subconsciously. The only way to do it is to measure it yourself and be brutally honest, it takes a bit of training before you can measure yourself in a truly relaxed state.
Try it! don't be surprised if that 32 inch waist is really a 34
Try it! don't be surprised if that 32 inch waist is really a 34
There is indeed plenty of evidence that, in lab conditions, a correctly measured waist to hip ratio is correlated more closely to certain obesity related medical problems (for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC107136... but that doesn't mean that BMI is not a fair indicator for most people of whether they're a healthy weight or not; there's still a correlation there with BMI. WHR has its problems of course - as highlighted above, measurement variation (which to be fair applies to weight as well - e.g. whether you've just eaten or not) and the distribution of fat throughout the body varies between people.
Sure, BMI fails to account for varying muscle mass, but the average level of muscle mass that it accounts for is perfectly adequate for most people, purely because most people don't tend to deviate that much from it. It takes some serious gym work to deviate more than 2 or 3 from your BMI pre-gym, and most people doing that level of serious physical exercise will be aware enough no to rely on BMI, or even WHR to be honest. The truth is that I suspect well over 90% of people with a BMI of 22 are healthy, with 27 are overweight and with 35 are obese - as will all things like this, it's a rough gaussian and therefore applies to most people, but not all. The protestations are mainly from people with BMIs over 25 who don't understand the difference between healthy and normal. It's normal now to have a BMI of 25-27, but that doesn't make it healthy in most cases!
Sure, BMI fails to account for varying muscle mass, but the average level of muscle mass that it accounts for is perfectly adequate for most people, purely because most people don't tend to deviate that much from it. It takes some serious gym work to deviate more than 2 or 3 from your BMI pre-gym, and most people doing that level of serious physical exercise will be aware enough no to rely on BMI, or even WHR to be honest. The truth is that I suspect well over 90% of people with a BMI of 22 are healthy, with 27 are overweight and with 35 are obese - as will all things like this, it's a rough gaussian and therefore applies to most people, but not all. The protestations are mainly from people with BMIs over 25 who don't understand the difference between healthy and normal. It's normal now to have a BMI of 25-27, but that doesn't make it healthy in most cases!
madzo14 said:
It has given mine at 21.6 and a healthy weight. Though it has a weight range of 9st - 13st for a male at 6ft, a guy at 6ft and around 9/10st would look a bit ill and in need of a good feed.
That would depend if they did much exercise or naturally had much muscle mass. If they had neither, then 63kg (10 stone) would be healthy, although at the very bottom end of things, yes. I think our sense of what's normal has been altered by the rise of the average BMI in the UK (27 now I think?). I frequently get told I'm skinny, but my BMI is bang in the middle of the healthy range; when I'm in France, Spain or Italy nobody says I'm skinny, I just look normal. A man of 1.8m and 63kg would look perfectly normal in many countries of the world.RobM77 said:
madzo14 said:
It has given mine at 21.6 and a healthy weight. Though it has a weight range of 9st - 13st for a male at 6ft, a guy at 6ft and around 9/10st would look a bit ill and in need of a good feed.
That would depend if they did much exercise or naturally had much muscle mass. If they had neither, then 63kg (10 stone) would be healthy, although at the very bottom end of things, yes. I think our sense of what's normal has been altered by the rise of the average BMI in the UK (27 now I think?). I frequently get told I'm skinny, but my BMI is bang in the middle of the healthy range; when I'm in France, Spain or Italy nobody says I'm skinny, I just look normal. A man of 1.8m and 63kg would look perfectly normal in many countries of the world.Mind you, I can lift and carry probably twice as much
.Flibble, whether I play or played rugby to a national level or not has precisely zero to do with the point. This isn't about me, but hey thanks for caring...
Any fit club rugby player could in theory have exactly the same stats as the example quoted- they have nothing to do with whether someone is an international quality player or not so your comment is meaningless.
Any fit club rugby player could in theory have exactly the same stats as the example quoted- they have nothing to do with whether someone is an international quality player or not so your comment is meaningless.
Flibble, whether I play or played rugby to a national level or not has precisely zero to do with the point. This isn't about me, but hey thanks for caring...
Any fit club rugby player could in theory have exactly the same stats as the example quoted- they have nothing to do with whether someone is an international quality player or not so your comment is meaningless.
Any fit club rugby player could in theory have exactly the same stats as the example quoted- they have nothing to do with whether someone is an international quality player or not so your comment is meaningless.
Edited by FBP1 on Wednesday 28th January 18:40
FBP1 said:
Flibble, whether I play or played rugby to a national level or not has precisely zero to do with the point. This isn't about me, but hey thanks for caring...
Any fit club rugby player could in theory have exactly the same stats as the example quoted- they have nothing to do with whether someone is an international quality player or not so your comment is meaningless.
If they had them stats and that BMI then they are not 'fit' not compared to the only person that matters, themselves. If that person trained to get their BMI down 3 points then they would be fitter, faster and healthier. They have purposely engineered themselves to have more weight and power for rugby - their choice.Any fit club rugby player could in theory have exactly the same stats as the example quoted- they have nothing to do with whether someone is an international quality player or not so your comment is meaningless.
Edited by FBP1 on Wednesday 28th January 18:40
Speedy1995 said:
The NHS need to put a lot more in to educating people about how vital keeping fit is. If there where pictures of obese people on the backs of Chocolate bars and pictures of clogged arteries people would think twice like there are pictures of lung cancer on the back of cigarettes.
I think the NHS do make a good effort on education but it's for the parents to make the active decision. I remember being at school 15+ years ago and there being about 2/3 fat kids in the school I popped to my nieces school last year and the ratio was 1 fat kid to every 3 kids or there abouts I was truly shocked. ecsrobin said:
Speedy1995 said:
The NHS need to put a lot more in to educating people about how vital keeping fit is. If there where pictures of obese people on the backs of Chocolate bars and pictures of clogged arteries people would think twice like there are pictures of lung cancer on the back of cigarettes.
I think the NHS do make a good effort on education but it's for the parents to make the active decision. I remember being at school 15+ years ago and there being about 2/3 fat kids in the school I popped to my nieces school last year and the ratio was 1 fat kid to every 3 kids or there abouts I was truly shocked. 
Most doctors seem to be too shy to tell their patients with knee problems that their weight is contributing to their problems.ecsrobin said:
So according to tonight's news 1 in 3 school children is over weight. Bring back bullying I say.
I was overweight at school 20 years ago, but nothing like some of the fat kids you see in school uniforms these days.Ironically, now I'm carrying less fat than the kids who were great sportsmen whilst we were at school.
RobM77 said:
There also doesn't seem to be enough awareness of the impact of weight on people's joints. The average weight for my height is 17.5kg more than I weigh (and my weight is in the 'healthy' range of BMI and I'm an average height guy, so it's a good example). Most people would accept only being slightly overweight and being the national average as ok, but it's worth bearing in mind that their total weight is equivalent to me carrying the average holiday suitcase around everywhere Most doctors seem to be too shy to tell their patients with knee problems that their weight is contributing to their problems.
I agree completely. I always found it maddening that so many senior management soldiers in the twilight of their careers would forego PT and exercise due to having ' bad knees', 'bad backs' and 'bad joints'. Holding out for all their worth to claim war pensions at the end of their time. Their problems were blamed on their service but really the cause in many cases was their inability to keep themselves at a reasonable weight or a reasonable level of fitness. Most doctors seem to be too shy to tell their patients with knee problems that their weight is contributing to their problems.No excuse for a fat soldier. I would weigh them twice a year and if they fell into the obese range then all subsequent claims for 'joint' pain should be invalid.
In the same vein, no excuse for fat kids, I wouldn't blame them but I would haul their parents across the coals for such abuse. I find it genuinely upsetting to see a fat 7yr old.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff