How this has come about is that I am a member of another forum ,a sextoy forum to be more precise and whilst health and fitness is covered within the forum (stared by myself) it is still a minority thing. However on here there are a far number of like minded people who take health and fitness more seriously and hence its your opinions that count and interested in.
BMI has been described by some on this other forum as "poop" and "everyone who has a decent BMI look like golfclubs"
Now I beg to differ. Since I have lost over 6 stone I have an acceptable BMI and I don't look like a golfclub.
I agree the system does has it flaws for example fitness instructors ,bodybuilders and some sports players er Rugby players can have erroneous BMI readings because of their muscle mass .
For most it is probably the best system to date that is in place of measuring muscle fat and will be continued to be used for example by the UK Health Dept ( NHS) until a better system becomes available.
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
BMI Your Opinions please
This is actually one of my areas of expertise.
Body Mass Index is actually really only used by insurance companies to evaluate risk of morbidity in people.
For the last twenty something years I have heard the same bullshit arguments against it.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered obese by BMI standards."
Yes... BMI has little relevance to elite bodybuilders.
For the rest of the 99.99% of the population it's a completely relevant statistical means of evaluating health risks. For very short people or very tall people, the applicability decreases.
Body composition is a far better indicator of health status, but the logistics of doing either submersion body densitometry or skin fold calculations makes it difficult to use for large populations. Using the sum of 7 skinfolds is actually a very good indicator of body composition but for some reason we feel the need to get a body fat percentage number. And unfortunately, the mathematical calculations required to convert the sum of skinfolds into a bodyfat percentage injects an error that almost makes the whole method unusable.
You can use biolectrical impedance analysis to determine body composition as well, but this method involves a large degree of error that makes it pretty much worthless.
BMI is fine when calculating statistical risk of body weight related conditions in large populations. From an individual perspective however, it has very little applicability.
Body Mass Index is actually really only used by insurance companies to evaluate risk of morbidity in people.
For the last twenty something years I have heard the same bullshit arguments against it.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered obese by BMI standards."
Yes... BMI has little relevance to elite bodybuilders.
For the rest of the 99.99% of the population it's a completely relevant statistical means of evaluating health risks. For very short people or very tall people, the applicability decreases.
Body composition is a far better indicator of health status, but the logistics of doing either submersion body densitometry or skin fold calculations makes it difficult to use for large populations. Using the sum of 7 skinfolds is actually a very good indicator of body composition but for some reason we feel the need to get a body fat percentage number. And unfortunately, the mathematical calculations required to convert the sum of skinfolds into a bodyfat percentage injects an error that almost makes the whole method unusable.
You can use biolectrical impedance analysis to determine body composition as well, but this method involves a large degree of error that makes it pretty much worthless.
BMI is fine when calculating statistical risk of body weight related conditions in large populations. From an individual perspective however, it has very little applicability.
Raised on Blackroot
Quote by DamonX
This is actually one of my areas of expertise.
Body Mass Index is actually really only used by insurance companies to evaluate risk of morbidity in people.
For the last twenty something years I have heard the same bullshit arguments against it.
"Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered obese by BMI standards."
Yes... BMI has little relevance to elite bodybuilders.
For the rest of the 99.99% of the population it's a completely relevant statistical means of evaluating health risks. For very short people or very tall people, the applicability decreases.
Body composition is a far better indicator of health status, but the logistics of doing either submersion body densitometry or skin fold calculations makes it difficult to use for large populations. Using the sum of 7 skinfolds is actually a very good indicator of body composition but for some reason we feel the need to get a body fat percentage number. And unfortunately, the mathematical calculations required to convert the sum of skinfolds into a bodyfat percentage injects an error that almost makes the whole method unusable.
You can use biolectrical impedance analysis to determine body composition as well, but this method involves a large degree of error that makes it pretty much worthless.
BMI is fine when calculating statistical risk of body weight related conditions in large populations. From an individual perspective however, it has very little applicability.
Pretty much this. If you're an athlete, or your job is fitness, little relevance.
Since we're on the topic though, Damon, what are your thoughts on the reliability and accuracy of body composition testing? Specifically, the BodPod system for commercial use. Is it as accurate as it claims? I've been meaning to find one in my area to better track progress long-term since using scales isn't always the best considering how much that kind of static weight can fluctuate based on water.
Quote by MadMartigan
Pretty much this. If you're an athlete, or your job is fitness, little relevance.
Since we're on the topic though, Damon, what are your thoughts on the reliability and accuracy of body composition testing? Specifically, the BodPod system for commercial use. Is it as accurate as it claims? I've been meaning to find one in my area to better track progress long-term since using scales isn't always the best considering how much that kind of static weight can fluctuate based on water.
I was actually involved in a study using the BodPod. The error makes it slightly inferior to to densitometry. Clinicians use it because a) it's super easy and b) the company that makes it have infiltrated academia.
Both of these methods are relatively accurate in determining body density. The error occurs when we use mathematical calculations to convert body density into a body fat percentage. Density is a complete valid measure of body composition, but the general public wants a % number instead.
The main problem is that the BODpod tends to react very sensitively to water levels in the body. I did 3 measurements in a relatively short period of time and the differences in the measurements were drastic.
I'm still under the impression that this could be a valid measurement tool when used over a long period of time. I also haven't been privy to any recent studies regarding this method. When I was a subject, the Bodpod was still relatively new. My current field of study is a bit more medically inclined so I haven't really been keeping up with the current literature regarding that particular area of study.
I used to do a lot of skinfold testing to determine body composition, but honestly, you have to be very skilled to do it accurately. I also found that really fit people gave inaccurate measurements because it was hard to get a good pinch with the skinfold calipers.
All of these methods are fine when doing a large scale study because as long as you standardized everything it tends to work out from a mathematical point of view. From an individual point of view however, I encourage people to use the mirror as an indication of progress.
If a person is a relatively endomorphic type then the sum of seven skin folds is a very good indicator of overall body composition. The complex mathematical equations that convert that basic number into a % are rife with error ridden landmines however.
I guess it kind of depends on if you are trying to gain or lose weight. All of these methods work in the long term when it comes to measurement. People tend to get discouraged because they expect too much change in a very short period of time. Steer clear of any gyms offering to give you body composition testing for a price. If it's free go ahead. Just don't get sucked into paying 50 dollars for a bodpod measurement.
Cryptic Vigilante
I pretty much see the BMI as a simple tool that doctors can use whenever a straightforward "sorry but you're visibly fat and unhealthy" would be too rude to throw at their delusional/complacent patients and they need to put them on a proper chart to finally make them realize that their disproportionate body is scientifically proven to be hazardous. I seriously heard stories of people 'shopping' for a doctor that wouldn't bring attention to their fat and be just as indulgent about it as they are themselves. Aside from that delirious bunch, it frankly doesn't take a genius to appraise your level of fitness/health in a good old mirror.
Other than the candid mirror, I ordered body-fat calipers on Bodybuilding.com a few years ago:
It's been working absolutely fine for me, the numbers that I obtain with it are perfectly in line with what you would visually expect by observing what different percentages of body-fat look like on various charts. I've been standing anywhere between 10-16% body-fat since I ordered those calipers, for the record (although I've actually dropped below that a few years prior during a rather drastic cut).
Mind you, I don't exactly care what my exact percentage of body-fat is (aside from how it looks in the mirror I mean). What I'm interested to know is the ratio of fat/muscle that I'm gaining/losing while bulking/cutting. For example during a bulk where I might gain 10lbs of overall weight, while monitoring both my weight and my body-fat I can figure out which proportion of that 10lbs exactly is fat/muscle (eg. 4lbs fat, 6lbs muscle). Frankly I've never had to rectify what I was doing all that much, it's mostly a great way to motivate myself when I'm bulking and inevitably losing some definition: "Hooray, there's definitely some decent muscle growing below that unavoidable layer of fat!".
If you're diligent about it and take your measurements once every 2 weeks in near-identical circumstances (eg. I always weight myself early in the morning after taking a dump), it's possible to come up with graphs similar to what's shown below, which again, is mostly a great tool for motivation:
Other than the candid mirror, I ordered body-fat calipers on Bodybuilding.com a few years ago:
It's been working absolutely fine for me, the numbers that I obtain with it are perfectly in line with what you would visually expect by observing what different percentages of body-fat look like on various charts. I've been standing anywhere between 10-16% body-fat since I ordered those calipers, for the record (although I've actually dropped below that a few years prior during a rather drastic cut).
Mind you, I don't exactly care what my exact percentage of body-fat is (aside from how it looks in the mirror I mean). What I'm interested to know is the ratio of fat/muscle that I'm gaining/losing while bulking/cutting. For example during a bulk where I might gain 10lbs of overall weight, while monitoring both my weight and my body-fat I can figure out which proportion of that 10lbs exactly is fat/muscle (eg. 4lbs fat, 6lbs muscle). Frankly I've never had to rectify what I was doing all that much, it's mostly a great way to motivate myself when I'm bulking and inevitably losing some definition: "Hooray, there's definitely some decent muscle growing below that unavoidable layer of fat!".
If you're diligent about it and take your measurements once every 2 weeks in near-identical circumstances (eg. I always weight myself early in the morning after taking a dump), it's possible to come up with graphs similar to what's shown below, which again, is mostly a great tool for motivation:
That's very scientific. I applaud your commitment .
To be honest I have lost that much weight ie 6 and a half stone that I have developed a phobia about putting weight on of which is key to the above . TBH I am quite happy with my body and to develop my Abs at the age of 55 , I have been told by many is a great achievement . So I mainly exercise to maintain my weight (12st 3 pounds) and any toning is a bonus. Its been a long journey for me as it took just over 4 years but it probably saved my life and has taken 10 years off me in appearance wise.
To be honest I have lost that much weight ie 6 and a half stone that I have developed a phobia about putting weight on of which is key to the above . TBH I am quite happy with my body and to develop my Abs at the age of 55 , I have been told by many is a great achievement . So I mainly exercise to maintain my weight (12st 3 pounds) and any toning is a bonus. Its been a long journey for me as it took just over 4 years but it probably saved my life and has taken 10 years off me in appearance wise.