6 ms·

It’s actually pretty decent. It can make errors in the case of people with extreme muscle mass, or very low muscle mass for their size, or the very short, or th

by graeme 6y ago

It’s actually pretty decent. It can make errors in the case of people with extreme muscle mass, or very low muscle mass for their size, or the very short, or the very tall. But for most people, if you’re over 25 bmi you probably could lose some weight. And at a population levels the errors above average out, even in a smaller group. People make a big deal over the exceptions to it while ignoring that it is broadly accurate and that exceptions are not as common.

sunpar 6y ago
At 6'1" BMI seems to say I should be between 140lbs and 185 lbs. I'm currently 165 lbs and feel pretty skinny -- I can't imagine being healthy at 140 lbs! The 185 seems about right -- I've been close to 180 lbs and felt like I could lose a few.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  I guess people are downvoting because it’s not super relevant to the discussion, but I have a similar opinion that the BMI normal weight range is unreasonable for me. I’ve been in these two modes: 1) genuinely overweight with too much fat and not enough muscle 2) nearly overweight according to BMI while very fit, with low fat and high muscle. got here from the other state by exercising a lot, losing fat and gaining muscle. I think I would have to become totally sedentary again to get rid of my muscle mass and actually reach the lower end of “normal weight” according to BMI, while starving myself and feeling feeble.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    > nearly overweight according to BMI while very fit, with low fat and high muscle Not knowing you personally, it seems statistically more likely to me that your idea of "fit, low fat, high muscle" is what's at fault here (as opposed to BMI). Sure, you could be an exception. But all things being equal, you probably aren't. (Also maybe I misunderstand - if you mean that BMI was saying you were at the high end of normal then ... isn't that just saying that you're fine?) (Of course if a medical professional or academic specializing in such matters also thought BMI was inaccurate in your case then I would tend to view things differently.)
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      I can believe it. I’m curious what typical body types were like in the hunter/gather societies human evolved in, and whether those are ideal for longevity and quality of life in modern society.
      - Reelin 6y ago
        > and whether those are ideal for longevity and quality of life in modern society This seems like the real question to me; I assume pre-agrarian humans were biologically optimizing to survive famine. Not being an expert on the subject, I wonder what sort of tradeoffs are associated with intense exercise regimes (and how the balance ultimately comes out with respect to modern society).
        shajznnckfke 6y ago
        I suppose the low fat / high muscle combination would be unlikely for much of the year in places where it was necessary to store fat for the winter.
      - ridaj 6y ago
        The kind of hunt that humans are believed to have practiced early on was persistence hunting, which consists of chasing prey over long distances until they are exhausted (the gazelle can outrun any human on a scale of minutes, but not on a scale of hours). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting If that is the case then the body type would have been low mass overall, like marathoners. As for best body type for quality of life today (at least from a health perspective), that seems relatively aligned.
      - nradov 6y ago
        Neolithic hunter gatherers were as strong as elite athletes today. Civilization and automation have made us weak and frail. https://www.popsci.com/prehistoric-women-strong-rower/ https://www.popsci.com/prehistoric-women-strong-rower/
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Assuming you're male, 140 is the lower bound, so, you know, much lower than that might be considered anorexic, but in the 140s is not necessarily unhealthy per se. That's why it's the lower bound. I am your height and when I was in my 20s, I think I was in the 140s, later I was a little over 200, and now I am just about 185. So the range makes sense to me, but I've never been far from completely sedentary. I know a pro sports player at ~200 would be very skinny. I think Mariano Rivera was an example.
gameswithgo 6y ago
and high muscle mass causes some of the same heart stress that high fat does. its fun and useful but not "healthy" to be huge, fat or muscular.
- graeme 6y ago
  Source? I’ve never seen anything but heart benefits associated with muscle mass.
- nradov 6y ago
  Perhaps, but we don't have reliable data on that. The population of people with high muscle mass is small to begin with and thus hard to study. And the use of anabolic steroids and other PEDs is common in that group, which may be a larger factor in heart disease risk than muscle mass by itself. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/chronic-anabolic-steroid-use-may-damage-heart-arteries https://newsroom.heart.org/news/chronic-anabolic-steroid-use...

by graeme 6y ago

sunpar 6y ago

At 6'1" BMI seems to say I should be between 140lbs and 185 lbs. I'm currently 165 lbs and feel pretty skinny -- I can't imagine being healthy at 140 lbs! The 185 seems about right -- I've been close to 180 lbs and felt like I could lose a few.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
shajznnckfke 6y ago
I guess people are downvoting because it’s not super relevant to the discussion, but I have a similar opinion that the BMI normal weight range is unreasonable for me. I’ve been in these two modes: 1) genuinely overweight with too much fat and not enough muscle 2) nearly overweight according to BMI while very fit, with low fat and high muscle. got here from the other state by exercising a lot, losing fat and gaining muscle. I think I would have to become totally sedentary again to get rid of my muscle mass and actually reach the lower end of “normal weight” according to BMI, while starving myself and feeling feeble.
- Reelin 6y ago
  > nearly overweight according to BMI while very fit, with low fat and high muscle Not knowing you personally, it seems statistically more likely to me that your idea of "fit, low fat, high muscle" is what's at fault here (as opposed to BMI). Sure, you could be an exception. But all things being equal, you probably aren't. (Also maybe I misunderstand - if you mean that BMI was saying you were at the high end of normal then ... isn't that just saying that you're fine?) (Of course if a medical professional or academic specializing in such matters also thought BMI was inaccurate in your case then I would tend to view things differently.)
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    I can believe it. I’m curious what typical body types were like in the hunter/gather societies human evolved in, and whether those are ideal for longevity and quality of life in modern society.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      > and whether those are ideal for longevity and quality of life in modern society This seems like the real question to me; I assume pre-agrarian humans were biologically optimizing to survive famine. Not being an expert on the subject, I wonder what sort of tradeoffs are associated with intense exercise regimes (and how the balance ultimately comes out with respect to modern society).
      - shajznnckfke 6y ago
        I suppose the low fat / high muscle combination would be unlikely for much of the year in places where it was necessary to store fat for the winter.
    - ridaj 6y ago
      The kind of hunt that humans are believed to have practiced early on was persistence hunting, which consists of chasing prey over long distances until they are exhausted (the gazelle can outrun any human on a scale of minutes, but not on a scale of hours). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting If that is the case then the body type would have been low mass overall, like marathoners. As for best body type for quality of life today (at least from a health perspective), that seems relatively aligned.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Neolithic hunter gatherers were as strong as elite athletes today. Civilization and automation have made us weak and frail. https://www.popsci.com/prehistoric-women-strong-rower/ https://www.popsci.com/prehistoric-women-strong-rower/
perl4ever 6y ago
Assuming you're male, 140 is the lower bound, so, you know, much lower than that might be considered anorexic, but in the 140s is not necessarily unhealthy per se. That's why it's the lower bound. I am your height and when I was in my 20s, I think I was in the 140s, later I was a little over 200, and now I am just about 185. So the range makes sense to me, but I've never been far from completely sedentary. I know a pro sports player at ~200 would be very skinny. I think Mariano Rivera was an example.

gameswithgo 6y ago

and high muscle mass causes some of the same heart stress that high fat does. its fun and useful but not "healthy" to be huge, fat or muscular.

graeme 6y ago
Source? I’ve never seen anything but heart benefits associated with muscle mass.
nradov 6y ago
Perhaps, but we don't have reliable data on that. The population of people with high muscle mass is small to begin with and thus hard to study. And the use of anabolic steroids and other PEDs is common in that group, which may be a larger factor in heart disease risk than muscle mass by itself. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/chronic-anabolic-steroid-use-may-damage-heart-arteries https://newsroom.heart.org/news/chronic-anabolic-steroid-use...