Determine your body fitness
- Thread starter Phate89
- Start date
You honestly believe that BMI is a good way of measuring fitness?
Maybe for the average joe, but not for fitness minded people or weight lifters, since you are on a fitness board spewing BMI spam i'm guessing you don't.
Some people on this board would be labeled "obese" according to bmi charts when the majority of that weight is from muscle mass.
my 2000th post will be in my journal so im done postin for now
BMI is almost completely useless.
why?
your average professional heavyweight bodybuilder weighs over 200lbs, and has about 4% bodyfat on competition day. However his BMI will put him as morbidly obese.
or, someone who is very tall, has a very low (below average) muscle mass, and a beer guy will have a perfectly good BMI, possibly even a 'too thin, gain weight' BMI.
BMI is nothing but a height to weight ratio that takes NO other variables into account.
Body fat percentage, body weight, and looking in the mirror are much better ways to gauge yourself.
why?
your average professional heavyweight bodybuilder weighs over 200lbs, and has about 4% bodyfat on competition day. However his BMI will put him as morbidly obese.
or, someone who is very tall, has a very low (below average) muscle mass, and a beer guy will have a perfectly good BMI, possibly even a 'too thin, gain weight' BMI.
BMI is nothing but a height to weight ratio that takes NO other variables into account.
Body fat percentage, body weight, and looking in the mirror are much better ways to gauge yourself.
true. I went to the hospital for a check up on my diabeties and they weigh me to. Im 17 stone but everyone says I dont look it. I do weights at the gym aswell as cardio. lol.
???
I think you missed the comment about having your body fat percentage tested, in ADDITION to weighing yourself, and looking at yourself in the mirror. granted, if you're not getting a dexa scan or hydrostatic weighing, then the bodyfat test will be +/- 1% even by a skilled/trained testing person.
that is far less of an approximation than BMI, which is just someone saying "if you are this tall, you can only weigh this much" without quantifying their statement.
state what is the dexa scan please
DEXA Scan is similar to how an MRI machine works, but can 'see' at a greater detail.
They often use DEXA for testing osteoporosis, and other ailments that used to require painful biopsies...now they can just 'see' the problem with the machine.
Google 'dexa scan' and you'll find a few thousand links. Here is one:
They often use DEXA for testing osteoporosis, and other ailments that used to require painful biopsies...now they can just 'see' the problem with the machine.
Google 'dexa scan' and you'll find a few thousand links. Here is one:
where are you from sara? For some reason you sound asian. ehhhhhhhhhhh
When people get to thinking in BMI-esque ways, people like me watch a football game, see the stats for a running back, and go "190 pounds, 5'11", wow, I'm like an NFL running back!"
BMI is only useful in establishing that someone is not morbidly obese, since someone with a really low BMI can't really have a lot of fat, or muscle, on them. It really says nothing about whether a person is in optimal condition. I myself wouldn't mind losing a few pounds, but I would also be content staying in the 185-190 pound range (i.e., same BMI) while going from about 18 to 10% body fat. Any indicator of fitness that labels you as unhealthy because you gain muscle mass is worthless.
In the Navy (which I used to be in), they would use BMI to see if someone is thin enough to be within standards, but to their credit, they use BF% as a back-up standard for the people who are "overweight" because of their muscle mass.
BF% is a much better indicator of fitness. And if I were trying to get some objective idea of my health or some other person's health, I think blood pressure, resting pulse rate, cholesterol, triglycerides, and performance in some sort of cardiovascular exercise are all more telling than BMI.
BMI is only useful in establishing that someone is not morbidly obese, since someone with a really low BMI can't really have a lot of fat, or muscle, on them. It really says nothing about whether a person is in optimal condition. I myself wouldn't mind losing a few pounds, but I would also be content staying in the 185-190 pound range (i.e., same BMI) while going from about 18 to 10% body fat. Any indicator of fitness that labels you as unhealthy because you gain muscle mass is worthless.
In the Navy (which I used to be in), they would use BMI to see if someone is thin enough to be within standards, but to their credit, they use BF% as a back-up standard for the people who are "overweight" because of their muscle mass.
BF% is a much better indicator of fitness. And if I were trying to get some objective idea of my health or some other person's health, I think blood pressure, resting pulse rate, cholesterol, triglycerides, and performance in some sort of cardiovascular exercise are all more telling than BMI.
BMI is useful in population studies, because only a very small percentage of high-BMI people are highly muscular (most are just fat). As an individual assessment for normal to "overweight" people, it is much less useful, because there are people who are "overweight" with muscle rather than fat (although there are some people who have a lot of muscle and fat, so they are overfat, but not as overfat as BMI alone would ordinarily imply).
On the other hand, if BMI < 19, the person is "underweight". Seems like some such people posting here still want to lose weight, which does not seem very healthy.