4 ms·

Doesn't a 25 BMI seem like kind of a crappy metric for "overweight"? That makes my 6'4" brother "overweight" at like 205 which seems nuts. That doesn't feel ove

Doesn't a 25 BMI seem like kind of a crappy metric for "overweight"? That makes my 6'4" brother "overweight" at like 205 which seems nuts. That doesn't feel overweight at all. (Defined in the footnote on page 222)

nicolashahn 9y ago
BMI is a terrible metric that's mostly meaningless for anyone not sedentary.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DoreenMichele 9y ago
My ex was career army. He had to pass a PT test and pass weight to keep his job. He was a little guy, so he lifted weights to be able to do his job. When he was on recruiting duty, every year they attended a conference. Every year, there was an insurance guy there. Every year, every one in the office was pronounced overweight according to their height and weight charts. The army offers a tape test as an alternative if you can't pass weight. It is sometimes necessary to prove that bodybuilders are all muscle. My ex and his office mates were not so muscular that they needed to rely on a tape test. They were still pronounced overweight by the insurance guy every year.
- qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
  I got so sick of that bullshit when I was in. Every damn time.
doubletgl 9y ago
It's the lower end of "overweight" and also "BMI exaggerates thinness in short people and fatness in tall people". Your brother is most likely fine.
graeme 9y ago
BMI is not meant as an individual health measure. It's a general population measure valid over a large sample size. 6'4" is a statistically rare height. I believe BMI is less valid for the extremely tall and extremely short. That doesn't mean it isn't useful when viewing the whole population. For an individual, BMI + a waist measure is a better indicator. Your brother probably isn't overweight, unless he has low muscle mass and a large waist - but that individual anecdote does nothing to argue against the population level validity of BMI.
- longerthoughts 9y ago
  >It's a general population measure valid over a large sample size This assumes a relatively symmetric distribution of heights and weights though, right? I'm curious if the tails for which BMI is individually invalid are equally populated. Basically, are short, fat people as common as tall, thin people?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hervature 9y ago
BMI isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. For example, I'm 5'5'' and weigh 160lbs. Currently trying to get down to 135lbs (which is less than my peak physical form in high school) and people balk at the idea that I can lose that much weight based on my appearance. Funnily, 115lbs is still considered healthy for someone my height. At the end of the day, it is much cheaper to read a scale and a measuring stick than use an expensive DEXA scan to get an accurate measure of body fat percentage.
verteu 9y ago
According to [1], obesity classified by DEXA scan agrees with obesity classified by BMI 82% of the time. Not bad for a metric that can be easily computed at home. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-science-2015/latest/how-often-is-bmi-misleading https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-sc...

nicolashahn 9y ago

BMI is a terrible metric that's mostly meaningless for anyone not sedentary.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

DoreenMichele 9y ago

My ex was career army. He had to pass a PT test and pass weight to keep his job. He was a little guy, so he lifted weights to be able to do his job. When he was on recruiting duty, every year they attended a conference. Every year, there was an insurance guy there. Every year, every one in the office was pronounced overweight according to their height and weight charts. The army offers a tape test as an alternative if you can't pass weight. It is sometimes necessary to prove that bodybuilders are all muscle. My ex and his office mates were not so muscular that they needed to rely on a tape test. They were still pronounced overweight by the insurance guy every year.

qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
I got so sick of that bullshit when I was in. Every damn time.

doubletgl 9y ago

It's the lower end of "overweight" and also "BMI exaggerates thinness in short people and fatness in tall people". Your brother is most likely fine.

graeme 9y ago

BMI is not meant as an individual health measure. It's a general population measure valid over a large sample size. 6'4" is a statistically rare height. I believe BMI is less valid for the extremely tall and extremely short. That doesn't mean it isn't useful when viewing the whole population. For an individual, BMI + a waist measure is a better indicator. Your brother probably isn't overweight, unless he has low muscle mass and a large waist - but that individual anecdote does nothing to argue against the population level validity of BMI.

longerthoughts 9y ago
>It's a general population measure valid over a large sample size This assumes a relatively symmetric distribution of heights and weights though, right? I'm curious if the tails for which BMI is individually invalid are equally populated. Basically, are short, fat people as common as tall, thin people?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

hervature 9y ago

BMI isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. For example, I'm 5'5'' and weigh 160lbs. Currently trying to get down to 135lbs (which is less than my peak physical form in high school) and people balk at the idea that I can lose that much weight based on my appearance. Funnily, 115lbs is still considered healthy for someone my height. At the end of the day, it is much cheaper to read a scale and a measuring stick than use an expensive DEXA scan to get an accurate measure of body fat percentage.

verteu 9y ago

According to [1], obesity classified by DEXA scan agrees with obesity classified by BMI 82% of the time. Not bad for a metric that can be easily computed at home. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-science-2015/latest/how-often-is-bmi-misleading https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-sc...