Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Short List)   Hey, short people, you're just one click away from a week ruiner   (shortlist.com) divider line 71
    More: Sad, BMI  
•       •       •

8344 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Jan 2013 at 10:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-21 06:41:27 AM  
So- even more (mass = fat) bs.

The medical world cant recognize that 200lbs can look differently on two different people 6'0" tall.

Or that a muscular 5'10" can weigh the same as a soft 6'2".

BMI is for people who have no discernible judgment.
 
2013-01-21 06:59:15 AM  
blackdcc.net

5'9" @ 210lbs
BMI = 31
Obese
 
2013-01-21 07:16:01 AM  
I knew it! I always questioned why BMI says a 5'4" person can be as much as 145 lbs., but a 5'10" person is overweight at 175 lbs. I'm six inches taller but I can only be 30 pounds heavier?
 
2013-01-21 07:21:27 AM  
Heh, ShortList.com.

Still, their source is a better article.
 
2013-01-21 07:56:34 AM  
That article kept saying the same thing over and over. It repeated itself from beginning to end. It was redundant and repetitive.
 
2013-01-21 08:49:18 AM  
FTA:Short people 'fatter than they think'

So I guess I'm just a land whale, then.

The new formula would add a whole BMI point, enough to push people who are five foot tall and on the cusp of "normal" weight into the "overweight" category. Other vertically challenged people will find themselves in the 'obese' category.


I wonder if that same recalculation would move me from underweight into the normal category...

TIME FOR ANOTHER BMI THREAD.
 
2013-01-21 09:51:19 AM  
I wonder if Noticeably F.A.T. notices...

s2.postimage.org
 
2013-01-21 09:51:34 AM  

miss diminutive: TIME FOR ANOTHER BMI THREAD.


Well we got a circumcision thread a little earlier, figure just need either a tipping or a cyclist thread and that'll meet the quota.
 
2013-01-21 10:33:30 AM  
So... where's the link to the new BMI?

Mine's always the same, underweight.
 
2013-01-21 10:54:28 AM  
BMI doesn't apply to us citizens, duh
 
2013-01-21 10:59:52 AM  
Pretty sure this is SFW. It may or may not be relevant to the discussion.
 
2013-01-21 11:00:37 AM  
likely dumber and more annoying than they think also
 
2013-01-21 11:04:05 AM  
i1151.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-21 11:09:47 AM  
Now, truly, they have no reason to live.
 
2013-01-21 11:10:25 AM  
What numbers are they using for "short" and "tall"?
 
2013-01-21 11:23:26 AM  
cstrips.bitstrips.com
 
2013-01-21 11:31:57 AM  
Nope I'm still a goddamn stick.
 
2013-01-21 11:34:51 AM  

Via Infinito: Pretty sure this is SFW. It may or may not be relevant to the discussion.


From your link:

6'4" Yummm

/picture link keeps getting replaced with this:
www.cockeyed.com
 
2013-01-21 11:37:08 AM  

kyleaugustus: /picture link keeps getting replaced with this:
[www.cockeyed.com image 161x206]


WTF. That's not the picture that preview was showing and it is what I was hoping to link.
 
2013-01-21 11:46:54 AM  

kyleaugustus: kyleaugustus: /picture link keeps getting replaced with this:
[www.cockeyed.com image 161x206]

WTF. That's not the picture that preview was showing and it is what I was hoping to link.


Aaaaaand now it comes out as the creepy woman-in-door-way again that was in my original preview. I'm giving up now.
 
2013-01-21 12:16:09 PM  

Frederick: [blackdcc.net image 442x575]

5'9" @ 210lbs
BMI = 31
Obese


Hell
gofitandhealthy.com
BMI=42
Morbidly obese.
 
2013-01-21 12:17:12 PM  

Frederick: 5'9" @ 210lbs
BMI = 31
Obese


I love how critics of these labels like to use pro athletes who are in the peak of human fitness as counterpoints. With a BMI of 31, unless you too are a pro athlete with a 6-pack and an Adonis body, then sorry, you're just fat.
 
2013-01-21 12:19:01 PM  

BigLuca: Frederick: [blackdcc.net image 442x575]

5'9" @ 210lbs
BMI = 31
Obese

Hell
[gofitandhealthy.com image 430x567]
BMI=42
Morbidly obese.


Does the average person with a BMI of 42 take enough growth hormone and horse tranquilizers to look like that?
 
2013-01-21 12:25:04 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: BigLuca: Frederick: [blackdcc.net image 442x575]

5'9" @ 210lbs
BMI = 31
Obese

Hell
[gofitandhealthy.com image 430x567]
BMI=42
Morbidly obese.

Does the average person with a BMI of 42 take enough growth hormone and horse tranquilizers to look like that?


Cheetos are a type of growth hormone, right?
 
2013-01-21 12:25:36 PM  
CSB"
5'6" farker here....in my big weight loss push, I went from 240 down to 160 (BMI 25.8, still overweight). At 160, friends and family convinced me to see a doctor as I looked, in their various critiques , "sickly, weird, creepy, gross, and just not right". My old family doc mentioned my ribs probably didn't need to be showing as much as they were....and to ignore BMI. I puffed up to 180 and made everyone happy again...

/recently ran just over a 4 hour marathon (and hated it)
//not monstrously muscular at all; perhaps I am just dense?
 
2013-01-21 12:32:58 PM  
BMI is a terrible metric. I'm 5'5" 162 and gaining, a BMI of 27 which is considered over-weight - I'd be overweight if it were not for the fact that I'm into bodybuilding and the weight makes sense here. My body is about 16% while bulking, which I think is fine. My end goal is brick-shiathouse mode, but we'll see. I get blood work done regularly due to a medication I choose to take, and I know I'm healthy.
From the NHLB - "Although BMI can be used for most men and women, it does have some limits:
It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle."
 
2013-01-21 12:34:16 PM  

kyleaugustus: Via Infinito: Pretty sure this is SFW. It may or may not be relevant to the discussion.

From your link:

6'4" Yummm

/picture link keeps getting replaced with this:
[www.cockeyed.com image 161x206]


Hmmm, I've never dated anyone near my height before.
 
2013-01-21 12:36:42 PM  

BigLuca: Frederick: [blackdcc.net image 442x575]

5'9" @ 210lbs
BMI = 31
Obese

Hell
[gofitandhealthy.com image 430x567]
BMI=42
Morbidly obese.


The steroids alone must weigh 20 lbs.
 
2013-01-21 12:36:55 PM  
Damn at 6'4" and 250 lbs I am considered "obese", which is absolutely absurd. I would have to weigh 204 lbs or less to be in the "normal" range, yet when I was that weight I looked like a holocaust survivor.

Don't get me wrong I could stand to lose some weight, but I feel that the 225-235 range is more fitting for my height and build.
 
2013-01-21 12:37:45 PM  

Sasquach: 5'6" farker here....in my big weight loss push, I went from 240 down to 160 (BMI 25.8, still overweight). At 160, friends and family convinced me to see a doctor as I looked, in their various critiques , "sickly, weird, creepy, gross, and just not right".


Could be just the change... they are used to "big" you... so trim you looks more skinny that you would if you'd always been that size.

I'm ~5'9 and 160, and still have a little bit of fat around the gut I'm not happy about. Was 170 though with a belly a year ago. Certainly can't see any ribs on me, I'm thin but not skinny. Don't care much about the weight, just the fat. 160-170 with muscle is a lot different than 160-170 with love handles.
 
2013-01-21 12:40:58 PM  
I thought everybody already knew that the BMI system is worthless.

Really? There are still some people who use it?
 
2013-01-21 12:41:35 PM  
And while I can't speak about doctors, medical scientists are certainly aware that BMI is simply an indicator, not a rule. If we're running a study on overweight individuals, we'll use BMI as a first screening (say, we want BMI of 30+). Second screening will be if they are fit or fat. If an athlete walks in we'll send them right back out the door and thank them for their time.

Not that I've ever heard of an athlete signing up for an obesity study that wasn't specifically targeting larger athletes.
 
2013-01-21 12:43:40 PM  

Pariah.: I thought everybody already knew that the BMI system is worthless.

Really? There are still some people who use it?


No worse that using BAC to determine sobriety (or lack thereof).
 
2013-01-21 12:58:23 PM  
BMI was created to search for a link between height, weight, and health.

The farking god damned CREATOR said it failed miserably and there was no, asbolutely not, statistical correlation to any of it, and that it was a load of horse shiat.

Then the US needed something to tell fat farks they're a fat fark (NOW WITH MATHS!) so we get this.

/fat fark
//BMI is still pointless.
 
2013-01-21 12:58:57 PM  
Joke is on you submitter, I already know I'm fat!

/sob
 
2013-01-21 01:07:18 PM  
spelletrader
Damn at 6'4" and 250 lbs I am considered "obese", which is absolutely absurd. I would have to weigh 204 lbs or less to be in the "normal" range, yet when I was that weight I looked like a holocaust survivor.

Don't get me wrong I could stand to lose some weight, but I feel that the 225-235 range is more fitting for my height and build.


I'm 6'4", at my biggest I was 247 and I was definitely overweight. At 200-210 I looked and felt a hell of a lot better. Of course putting on more muscle I would have gone up slightly in weight and been even trimmer but still, 247 was nowhere near a health weight for my height. I would have to have been seriously bulked up to have been that weight and not also had a very high body fat percentage.

BMI is a population measure. If we take people's builds to be normally distributed it works very well for the VAST majority of the population. It breaks down for outliers, like professional athletes. Body builders to an extent (but from the data I have seen probably less so than most seem to think). Obviously very tall and very short people will start to break it as well but it will still be a fairly useful metric.
 
zez
2013-01-21 01:36:05 PM  

miss diminutive: TIME FOR ANOTHER BMI THREAD.


Yeah! I hate the way BMI overcharges bar owners for the right to play music over the radio!
 
2013-01-21 01:47:02 PM  
Apparently the current system does not take into account that a person's weight grows with their height, giving taller people more room to bulge

I thought taking this into account was the entire point of BMI

wtf
 
2013-01-21 01:55:37 PM  
Here's a quote from the guy cited in the article:

"What about the density of muscle vs. fat? We hear about this frequently in discussions of BMI (including in the Economist article I was responding to, which mentioned Olympic weight lifters), but it's a smaller effect. Muscle is about 18% denser than fat. This means that if you heroically exercised so much that you converted 10% of your body volume from fat to muscle (wow!), your BMI reading would go up just 1.8%. That's much less than the corrections just mentioned for short or tall people"

So that counters all you fatties claiming to be body builders. He has a new BMI calculator here.
 
2013-01-21 02:01:01 PM  

tmo72: So that counters all you fatties claiming to be body builders. He has a new BMI calculator here.


Huh, my standard is: 18.83
"New BMI" is: 18.23

Regardless, it's still underweight, per usual.
 
2013-01-21 02:08:58 PM  

tmo72: Here's a quote from the guy cited in the article:

"What about the density of muscle vs. fat? We hear about this frequently in discussions of BMI (including in the Economist article I was responding to, which mentioned Olympic weight lifters), but it's a smaller effect. Muscle is about 18% denser than fat. This means that if you heroically exercised so much that you converted 10% of your body volume from fat to muscle (wow!), your BMI reading would go up just 1.8%. That's much less than the corrections just mentioned for short or tall people"

So that counters all you fatties claiming to be body builders. He has a new BMI calculator here.


If you stayed the same volume. But bodybuilders are going to be thicker than average, it's just the thickness will be built from muscle.

You don't have to be Ronnie Coleman to have enough muscle mass to put you into the "overweight" category, though it's still a minority of people.
 
2013-01-21 02:09:35 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I love how critics of these labels like to use pro athletes who are in the peak of human fitness as counterpoints. With a BMI of 31, unless you too are a pro athlete with a 6-pack and an Adonis body, then sorry, you're just fat.


This. What's more depressing than the number of fat people is the pushback from fat people claiming they're not fat.

BMI correlates fine to body fat percentage for the vast majority of the population. It's just a number that tells you to stop lying about what you're seeing in the mirror.
 
2013-01-21 02:10:51 PM  

moothemagiccow: Apparently the current system does not take into account that a person's weight grows with their height, giving taller people more room to bulge

I thought taking this into account was the entire point of BMI

wtf


I think the article didn't really phrase it properly. BMI does adjust for this, however it breaks down when you get to very short or very tall people. For the majority of heights this isn't really the case.
 
2013-01-21 02:26:38 PM  

Fonaibung: BMI correlates fine to body fat percentage for the vast majority of the population. It's just a number that tells you to stop lying about what you're seeing in the mirror.


As I understand it, BMI was created to measure weight/obesity in large populations.  It's not an extremely precise measurement for individuals.  The pro athlete argument does have some weaknesses since most people aren't peak athletes with tons of muscle mass.  However, there are shades of grey in terms of body type, bone structure, muscle mass, etc.  Having said that, if you're not super muscular and BMI says you're obese, you're probably at least overweight.
 
2013-01-21 02:33:27 PM  
Apparently the current system does not take into account that a person's weight grows with their height, giving taller people more room to bulge

I thought taking this into account was the entire point of BMI


Mass goes up as a cube of height, the BMI uses a square. They couldn't find a convenient number to use that worked with the cube relationship.

BMI is a population measure. If we take people's builds to be normally distributed it works very well for the VAST majority of the population.

lol, no, it does not. BMI has so many problems with it I'm really surprised anyone uses it. The only people I see using it are lazy researchers (who don't want to bother measuring % body fat instead), or skinny people looking to pick on fat people.

While I admit I am overweight, I am not just shy of obese (My waist is still smaller than my hips or boobies - and I'm not that chesty). The BMI site that tmo72 linked said my ideal weight (at 5'8") was 123 - 166. I spent most of my teens and all of my 20s at 125 lbs and was considered a walking skeleton. It was most defiantly NOT a healthy weight. For my height and musculature 155-170 would be about right. Until they come up with a reasonable measure, people will simply not believe that there is a weight control epidemic, so they are hurting themselves more than if they found an honest way to rate people.
 
2013-01-21 02:34:23 PM  

Hoban Washburne: As I understand it, BMI was created to measure weight/obesity in large populations.  It's not an extremely precise measurement for individuals.  The pro athlete argument does have some weaknesses since most people aren't peak athletes with tons of muscle mass.  However, there are shades of grey in terms of body type, bone structure, muscle mass, etc.  Having said that, if you're not super muscular and BMI says you're obese, you're probably at least overweight.


Bingo. BMI is a terrible measurement for individual health, but it's awesome for measuring large populations. It's very easy to look at driver's license data, for example, to get mean and median BMIs for a whole state.

People come in Fark threads and biatch about BMI, but they're missing the point. BMI isn't for determining whether I am healthier than you. It's for determining whether my city/county/state is, on average, healthier than your city/county/state.
 
2013-01-21 02:47:40 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Hoban Washburne: As I understand it, BMI was created to measure weight/obesity in large populations.  It's not an extremely precise measurement for individuals.  The pro athlete argument does have some weaknesses since most people aren't peak athletes with tons of muscle mass.  However, there are shades of grey in terms of body type, bone structure, muscle mass, etc.  Having said that, if you're not super muscular and BMI says you're obese, you're probably at least overweight.

Bingo. BMI is a terrible measurement for individual health, but it's awesome for measuring large populations. It's very easy to look at driver's license data, for example, to get mean and median BMIs for a whole state.

People come in Fark threads and biatch about BMI, but they're missing the point. BMI isn't for determining whether I am healthier than you. It's for determining whether my city/county/state is, on average, healthier than your city/county/state.


Right.  There IS some use for it on an individual level, but it's not terribly precise.  That is, if your BMI is 38, you probably have a problem.  But if mine was 29 and yours was 30 I shouldn't think "Well thank goodness I'm at least not obese!  What a loser!"

Also, I think a lot of people associate the word "obese" with people that are morbidly obese.  Low end obesity looks like what a lot of people think of as overweight or fat.
 
2013-01-21 02:54:46 PM  
Five years ago I was 5'5" and 155 pounds - and Jacked.

Now, I am the same height, the same weight, and Fat.

Life is funny.
 
2013-01-21 02:56:51 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Hoban Washburne: As I understand it, BMI was created to measure weight/obesity in large populations.  It's not an extremely precise measurement for individuals.  The pro athlete argument does have some weaknesses since most people aren't peak athletes with tons of muscle mass.  However, there are shades of grey in terms of body type, bone structure, muscle mass, etc.  Having said that, if you're not super muscular and BMI says you're obese, you're probably at least overweight.

Bingo. BMI is a terrible measurement for individual health, but it's awesome for measuring large populations. It's very easy to look at driver's license data, for example, to get mean and median BMIs for a whole state.

People come in Fark threads and biatch about BMI, but they're missing the point. BMI isn't for determining whether I am healthier than you. It's for determining whether my city/county/state is, on average, healthier than your city/county/state.


Oddly enough - everyone I know who points out that BMI doesn't work is either obviously fat or obviously in shape. I figure the fat people want to point out that they might 'not' be fat, since BMI can be wrong and the obviously in shape gym rats want to raise attention to how they are so loaded with muscle that they, like professional athletes, are so awesome BMI doesn't apply to them.

BMI is great for 95% of the population.

BMI is more accurate than meteorologists, economists, hedge fund managers, stock investors, sports betters, and countless others. It's a great system. We get it, there is a tiny subset of the population that it doesn't work well for - for example, someone with no legs.
 
2013-01-21 03:01:55 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Bingo. BMI is a terrible measurement for individual health, but it's awesome for measuring large populations. It's very easy to look at driver's license data, for example, to get mean and median BMIs for a whole state.


The problem is that some health insurance want to use that as a means to adjust your premiums.   So in my case I'm ok at 112 and 5'7" since I'm underweight.  My guy is 5'11" and 190 pounds and is athletic but he is considered overweight by his insurance because of his BMI.
 
2013-01-21 03:14:25 PM  
Frederick: The medical world cant recognize that 200lbs can look differently on two different people 6'0" tall.

The problem with BMI is that it's being used by people who don't know any better to determine things that it was never designed to determine.

[standard BMI rant included below]

Basically, BMI is the same as insurance charts with ages.

Statistically speaking, younger folks are more likely to be involved in car accidents. You might be a perfect considerate driver at 18, but the majority of the 18 year olds are retarded jackoffs.

Likewise

Statistically speaking, 26 BMI folks are more likely to have weight related health problems. You might have a perfect trim muscular body, but the majority of the 26 BMI folks are fatties.

*Basically, if someone looks at 10 people and their BMI says that they're overweight, like 9/10 people will be overweight. And the 1 person that isn't is our super muscular body building guy. That still gives an accuracy of 90%, despite the fact that it was totally wrong with the last guy.

*) numbers pulled out of my ass, used as an example
 
2013-01-21 03:24:58 PM  
moothemagiccow: I thought taking this into account was the entire point of BMI

You thought wrong, here's the quick and dirty about BMI

1) For generations, doctors collected height/weight/age information from people who went in for checkups. Even back in the days before personal computers, they stored all of this in huge filing cabinets.

2) For generations, doctors also collected disease info about their patients, also written down in files.

3) Somewhere in history, someone looked at a large chunk of this data and started crunching numbers. They figured they could take the height/weight info and calculate some sort of number to classify people into risk groups for disease (Underweight, Normal, Overweight, Obese, etc).

4) Statistically speaking, people in the Overweight group are more likely to have weight related diseases, and people in the Obese category are MUCH more likely to have weight related diseases. This is backed up by the decades and decades of health statistics that doctors collected.

5) The BMI was never meant to be applied strictly to individuals. It was meant as a general guideline to be used across an entire population. You have to use some common sense when you use it and realize that there are going to be some people who lie at either end of the bell curve.
 
2013-01-21 03:26:26 PM  
CapeFearCadaver : Regardless, it's still underweight, per usual.

Underweight ... isn't that par for a cadaver?
 
2013-01-21 03:26:40 PM  

NotARocketScientist: The BMI site that tmo72 linked said my ideal weight (at 5'8") was 123 - 166. I spent most of my teens and all of my 20s at 125 lbs and was considered a walking skeleton. It was most defiantly NOT a healthy weight.


So then weigh something between 150 and 166.

The broad range takes into account different body types. People grossly overestimate how much muscle they actually have.
 
2013-01-21 03:32:50 PM  
littlett's : The problem is that some health insurance want to use that as a means to adjust your premiums. So in my case I'm ok at 112 and 5'7" since I'm underweight. My guy is 5'11" and 190 pounds and is athletic but he is considered overweight by his insurance because of his BMI.

And people under 25 pay more for car insurance, it sucks, but that's insurance for ya.

//5'10", 184, and average ... because I inherited my ancestor's cooking ability.
 
2013-01-21 03:35:56 PM  

Sasquach: CSB"
5'6" farker here....in my big weight loss push, I went from 240 down to 160 (BMI 25.8, still overweight). At 160, friends and family convinced me to see a doctor as I looked, in their various critiques , "sickly, weird, creepy, gross, and just not right". My old family doc mentioned my ribs probably didn't need to be showing as much as they were....and to ignore BMI. I puffed up to 180 and made everyone happy again...

/recently ran just over a 4 hour marathon (and hated it)
//not monstrously muscular at all; perhaps I am just dense?


I'm 5'6" at 155lbs and you're in better shape than I am. My brother is built like you, a short thick tank.
 
2013-01-21 03:44:46 PM  
BMI works just fine for me. It says I am a little bit over-weight, which I am. I'd be happy to permanently lose another ten pounds.  Of course I'm not a body-builder, am taller than average, and have a moderate to light build, so I fit the model much better than most.

The waist to height ratio is a better predictor of health: you should keep it under half. By this measure, I am still a little bit over-weight and would happily lose another ten pounds.
 
2013-01-21 04:04:19 PM  

lordargent: And people under 25 pay more for car insurance, it sucks, but that's insurance for ya.


He fought them over it.  It took him a year but after submitting the results of his physical and a body fat analysis, his insurance provider did finally take off the additional charges for him being overweight.
 
2013-01-21 04:36:56 PM  
At 6'2", I don't understand how 150 can be considered healthy. I can see ribs at 180.
 
2013-01-21 04:37:05 PM  
For some purposes the relevant health metric actually is weight/height2. Think for example in terms of pressure -- If you double a person's length/width/height and multiply their weight by 8, that'll also double the pressure on all the bones/organs in the body (because the cross-sectional area only goes up by a factor of 4).
 
2013-01-21 05:15:24 PM  

DreamyAltarBoy: Sasquach: CSB"
5'6" farker here....in my big weight loss push, I went from 240 down to 160 (BMI 25.8, still overweight). At 160, friends and family convinced me to see a doctor as I looked, in their various critiques , "sickly, weird, creepy, gross, and just not right". My old family doc mentioned my ribs probably didn't need to be showing as much as they were....and to ignore BMI. I puffed up to 180 and made everyone happy again...

/recently ran just over a 4 hour marathon (and hated it)
//not monstrously muscular at all; perhaps I am just dense?

I'm 5'6" at 155lbs and you're in better shape than I am. My brother is built like you, a short thick tank.


When I was born, everyone said "he's built just like his grandfather". I have an awful time finding shirts....anything reasonable in the chest assumes my shoulders are several inches broader than they are. On the upside, I lost my man boobs when I lost the weight. So there's that.
 
2013-01-21 05:24:04 PM  

Sasquach: CSB"
5'6" farker here....in my big weight loss push, I went from 240 down to 160 (BMI 25.8, still overweight). At 160, friends and family convinced me to see a doctor as I looked, in their various critiques , "sickly, weird, creepy, gross, and just not right". My old family doc mentioned my ribs probably didn't need to be showing as much as they were....and to ignore BMI. I puffed up to 180 and made everyone happy again...

/recently ran just over a 4 hour marathon (and hated it)
//not monstrously muscular at all; perhaps I am just dense?


Dude, kudos to you. I went from 230 to 170 in 5 months and later in the year ran a half-marathon. I'm at 190 right now and not happy about it... 180 needs be my max.

Anyways, I wanted to reply to say KEEP IT UP. I know how hard it is to hear people's comments. You know you want to lose that last 15 lbs and you have people telling you to look "sick". It's frikkin irritating. Keep it up and losing as much as you did, even if you went a few lbs beyond your "max healthy" weight, is a great accomplishment, and it's night to have some wiggle rooms so that a big weekend doesn't throw you into "overweight" territory again.
 
2013-01-21 06:09:31 PM  
Is this where a bunch of fats say their bmi isn't fat it's just big boned?
 
2013-01-21 06:23:53 PM  
littlett's: He fought them over it. It took him a year but after submitting the results of his physical and a body fat analysis, his insurance provider did finally take off the additional charges for him being overweight.

Yeah, they like to use BMI because insurance people are all about statistics. In their mind, it doesn't matter if he's healthy, he's subsiding the costs a bit for someone with the same BMI who is even unhealthier.
 
2013-01-21 09:10:21 PM  
Just another reason to believe that BMI is based on junk science.
 
2013-01-21 09:36:52 PM  

Boomerang: Five years ago I was 5'5" and 155 pounds - and Jacked.

Now, I am the same height, the same weight, and Fat.

Life is funny.


Maybe all that jacking was keeping the fat off?  What, did you have like a huge right arm?
 
2013-01-21 11:50:11 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller:

I love how critics of these labels like to use pro athletes who are in the peak of human fitness as counterpoints. With a BMI of 31, unless you too are a pro athlete with a 6-pack and an Adonis body, then sorry, you're just fat.


I'm am by no means a pro athlete, and my Doctor told me at my last physical that the ideal BMI for my body type is 30.

The last time I got my BMI below 25, my family accused me of having an eating disorder.
 
2013-01-22 05:08:22 AM  

Emposter: At 6'2", I don't understand how 150 can be considered healthy. I can see ribs at 180.


I'm with you on that. At 230lbs, yes, I was a bit heavy, but not obese (I liked my beer a little much), but BMI stated I was borderline. At 175lbs and 6'1" I'm considered borderline overweight, yet I'm starting to freak out. My face shouldn't look like a skull, or my ribs like a famine victim.
 
2013-01-22 08:02:04 AM  

jonny_q: Sasquach: CSB"
5'6" farker here....in my big weight loss push, I went from 240 down to 160 (BMI 25.8, still overweight). At 160, friends and family convinced me to see a doctor as I looked, in their various critiques , "sickly, weird, creepy, gross, and just not right". My old family doc mentioned my ribs probably didn't need to be showing as much as they were....and to ignore BMI. I puffed up to 180 and made everyone happy again...

/recently ran just over a 4 hour marathon (and hated it)
//not monstrously muscular at all; perhaps I am just dense?

Dude, kudos to you. I went from 230 to 170 in 5 months and later in the year ran a half-marathon. I'm at 190 right now and not happy about it... 180 needs be my max.

Anyways, I wanted to reply to say KEEP IT UP. I know how hard it is to hear people's comments. You know you want to lose that last 15 lbs and you have people telling you to look "sick". It's frikkin irritating. Keep it up and losing as much as you did, even if you went a few lbs beyond your "max healthy" weight, is a great accomplishment, and it's night to have some wiggle rooms so that a big weekend doesn't throw you into "overweight" territory again.


Isn't in flippin amazing/irritating how little food it takes to maintain this weight? I do 30-40 minutes of HARD cardio every damn day, keep my calorie count way down just to maintain this...

Going from a fat guy to a much less fat guy has been great for oh so many reasons....I don't want to go back!
 
2013-01-22 09:18:21 AM  
I'm not entirely surprised by this at all.

/I sound short and fat
 
2013-01-22 01:56:19 PM  
GrogSmash: I'm with you on that. At 230lbs, yes, I was a bit heavy, but not obese (I liked my beer a little much), but BMI stated I was borderline. At 175lbs and 6'1" I'm considered borderline overweight,

For 6'1", BMI gives 141-189 as normal weight. 175 is not borderline anything for that height.

The midpoint of the "normal" range is 165.

Obese starts at 228 pounds, people mistakenly think that "obese" == giant huge person with fat flops, but medically obesity is classified well before those visuals are present. And at 230 that was just slightly over the cusp anyway.

lordargent.com
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report