The BMI Conspiracy

[bennyboy]

Nobody said BMI is the most accurate measure of health, except maybe your Wii game. But the fact is that even if you ARE 220 lbs of solid muscle, and can still run a mile in under 6 minutes, the extra weight is adding a long-term drag on your body-- your heart works harder, your organs all work harder. In the end, the extra mass is likely to catch up with you, and reduce your longevity. Don't believe me? How many guys carry more than about 200 lbs past age 70 and DON'T end up having a heart attack?

I'm 5'10" and about 200 lbs, also mainly muscle, and I can run 10km at the drop of a hat (well, waddle, anyway lol). But I accept that if I want long-term health, I'm going to have to cut back the calories, and accept some loss in mass.

[5thHorseman]

Nobody said BMI is the most accurate measure of health, except maybe your Wii game. But the fact is that even if you ARE 220 lbs of solid muscle, and can still run a mile in under 6 minutes, the extra weight is adding a long-term drag on your body-- your heart works harder, your organs all work harder. In the end, the extra mass is likely to catch up with you, and reduce your longevity. Don't believe me? How many guys carry more than about 200 lbs past age 70 and DON'T end up having a heart attack?

I'm 5'10" and about 200 lbs, also mainly muscle, and I can run 10km at the drop of a hat (well, waddle, anyway lol). But I accept that if I want long-term health, I'm going to have to cut back the calories, and accept some loss in mass.

And help your joints in later life.

The reason most people do not carry that kind of weight if because most people lose their vanity by 40-50 and stop weightlifting and eating surplus calories, they have hectic lives etc. Being 200lbs of 'muscle' will not make your chances of a heart attack higher. Being 200lbs of 'fat' will.

[bennyboy]

And help your joints in later life.

The reason most people do not carry that kind of weight if because most people lose their vanity by 40-50 and stop weightlifting and eating surplus calories, they have hectic lives etc. Being 200lbs of 'muscle' will not make your chances of a heart attack higher. Being 200lbs of 'fat' will.

I can speak to the joint issues already, and I'm just over 40. Statistically, I think it's pretty obvious that a heavier guy is going to get injured more easily than a lighter guy. And in the case of chronic damage to the knees and hips, it's going to hurt the person's long-term ability to maintain a good health regimen. Given this, I ask myself this question: does having a high muscle mass provide ANY benefit to longevity at all? And I think the answer is: no, unless I have to survive an attack, or to lift a burning Harley off my leg or something. So it seems to me the smart money's on a moderate (or even light) weight level to maintain better health, longer.

That being said, I'm a bit of a hypocrite: I'm still at 200 lbs, and still pushing for a 6-pack. I want to enjoy having a bit of bulk for a few years before I scale back. But I'm doing it because I want to look and feel great now, not because I think it's the best plan for my long-term health.

[CapnAwesome]

And help your joints in later life.

The reason most people do not carry that kind of weight if because most people lose their vanity by 40-50 and stop weightlifting and eating surplus calories, they have hectic lives etc. Being 200lbs of 'muscle' will not make your chances of a heart attack higher. Being 200lbs of 'fat' will.

I can speak to the joint issues already, and I'm just over 40. Statistically, I think it's pretty obvious that a heavier guy is going to get injured more easily than a lighter guy. And in the case of chronic damage to the knees and hips, it's going to hurt the person's long-term ability to maintain a good health regimen. Given this, I ask myself this question: does having a high muscle mass provide ANY benefit to longevity at all? And I think the answer is: no, unless I have to survive an attack, or to lift a burning Harley off my leg or something. So it seems to me the smart money's on a moderate (or even light) weight level to maintain better health, longer.

That being said, I'm a bit of a hypocrite: I'm still at 200 lbs, and still pushing for a 6-pack. I want to enjoy having a bit of bulk for a few years before I scale back. But I'm doing it because I want to look and feel great now, not because I think it's the best plan for my long-term health.

I also think Cardio is the most important thing to long term health. Being heavy often times hurts your cardio. However being muscular and active is certainly better than being skinny and not-active.

[bennyboy]

I also think Cardio is the most important thing to long term health. Being heavy often times hurts your cardio. However being muscular and active is certainly better than being skinny and not-active.

I wonder. I've built up my cardio so that I can do a 6-minute mile in the gym, or about 6:30 outside, at the age of 40 and 200 lbs. Not bad for a non-athlete I think.

However, I have to really struggle to do this-- fight through the pain of anaerobic exercise, get the heart rate way up high. So how do I look at it: 1) wow, my hard work has built up a healthy heart that could keep me active for a long time if I maintain it; 2) wow, I've put a huge strain on my heart, causing a tiny amount of deterioration every time I run, and that's eventually going to catch up with me?

The truth is it doesn't matter: I'll do it anyway. But I'm not so confident that more is better.

[GreenAntiTheist]

Depending, BMI isn't always a totally accurate representation of how healthy your weight is. If you do a calculation of body fat percentage, it's much more accurate.

For example, I'm around 24% body fat and about 7-8lbs overweight. But my body fat percentage is healthy (I'm a woman; we have more body fat), as muscle weighs more than fat does. Body frame and fat distribution is also a factor. If you have a larger frame, something considered overweight for your height and age by BMI could be considered healthy.

Personally, I wouldn't be worried unless it has an adverse affect on your health.


Believe me, I know about this stuff. I had a brief stint with eating disorders over the summer.

[bennyboy]

Update

I've come from Aju, one of the best hospitals in Korea, where I had many X-rays done. The doctor showed me bone deterioration in my hips, and said surgery will eventually be necessary. Despite being in great health (could run a mile in 6 minutes at 40), and getting almost down to 6-pack territory, the extra mass of being a big guy obviously has a lot to do with long-term wear and tear.

That's an important thing: BMI doesn't mean you're unhealthy. It does, however, mean increased wear-and-tear. That naturally-bigger frame means more pressure on bones, on the heart, etc.

[Zazzy]

BMI is absolutely crap. Most calculators don't even take male vs. female into account- let alone muscle vs. fat.

I am 6 feet tall, and I won't tell you how much I weigh, but my BMI is a little over 20- low for my height. But I'm fighting the belly, and I know I could have less fat and more muscle, because for most of my life my BMI was a higher number, but I was rock solid muscle- a VERY low fat % for a woman.

So my BMI says I'm "healthier" now, when I'm clearly less healthy. To give doctors credit, the ones I know consider it only as a package numbr along with many other numbers.

[IAmNotHere]

BMI seems to be a good scare tactic for the extremely overweight but it doesnt take into consideration variables.

[rsneha]

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obes...micalc.htm

According to this, for my height of 5'10" I am at a healthy current weight between 170 and 180.

According to that, it is now healthy to be overweight.

You can also try this 

Moderator Notice
Link removed due to 30/30 violation.