LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • mathematical
    +3

    I guess the only problem I have with this article is the use of BMI as a healthy weight. For anyone 6'2" and over, a "healthy weight" BMI is basically a "skinnyfat" person who is not remotely fit. Many of us big guys have HUGE leg muscles (I can full-motion leg press 1000lbs). Those aren't going away because I continue to work them out as I lose weight. If I get down to 240, which for my broadness and massive legs is pretty skinny, I'd still be overweight and almost into obese land. To get into "healthy", I'd need to get down to 204lbs. With my frame and all the muscle in my arms and legs, that's not even possible. I would have to lose about half the muscle in my legs to even get near there.

    Basically, BMI is a poor metric for tall people, and as depending on the average height of their test group, it could skew results. I wonder what the numbers look like of people coming from "obese" into "overweight" on the BMI scale, as that might be more indicative of people becoming a "healthy weight".

    BTW, weight loss surgery is ridiculous at a BMI of 30. I was at a BMI of 57.2 when I started eating right and exercising and one year later I'm at 42.8. Also, instead of having health issues like those who have surgery, I'm in the best health of my life. Seriously, if anyone is considering weight loss surgery, talk to someone who has been successful in weight loss without any fad/extreme diets. Most of us love helping people. :)

    • Retzilience
      +5

      BMI is terrible for individual analysis, it does work tho in large populational measurement.

      • septimine
        +3

        I think it's decent for a rule of thumb. If you're far outside the norm you already know that, but if you're average it gives you a ballpark idea of where you are.

    • Goronmon (edited 3 years ago)
      +3

      I guess the only problem I have with this article is the use of BMI as a healthy weight.

      Honestly, the "BMI isn't a good metric" crowd seems to be used mostly by people who are unhealthy but want to justify being overweight, not people who actually fall into the rare exceptions.

    • priok
      +1

      For anyone 6'2" and over, a "healthy weight" BMI is basically a "skinnyfat" person who is not remotely fit.

      I don't think that's right at all. It's possible to gain/have weight that isn't purely fat and still be within the healthy range of the BMI. I'm over 6'2" and within the healthy BMI range and am pretty fit, definitely not "skinnyfat" at least. I think BMI is a pretty good guideline, but there are obviously some exceptions and you can be in good shape with a BMI over 25, or in bad shape with a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9, depending on the person.