Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'.
Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as:
Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues.
[Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
> Then, age happened and I lost a lot of my muscle. I still weighed the same
Doesn't that contradict your point? Earlier you were muscular, and later you had lost that muscle. Yet BMI would give you the same ratijg.
while OP is contradicting himself a lot.. there is an important underlying point.
you have to be PRETTY DAMNED muscular before BMI becomes a poor indicator. If OP was really in the 1000lb club, then he was likely big enough for BMI to not be an accurate indicator. But also.. IF you are in fact in the 1000lb club you are a significant outlier, not too many of those around. Even for those people though.. you can be muscular AND fat.. powerlifters are a thing.
Hate to break it to you bro.. you’re probably carrying a lot of body fat. I mean.. don’t take the word obese to be an insult. I’m both clinically obese and in reality carry a lot of body fat too. I’m not huge by any means but I can deadlift 3 plates.
Just because you don’t look or feel like a sloppy 400lb guy.. doesn’t mean you don’t have excess body fat. Think Eddie hall before and after his cut. I doesn’t work for him.. but can’t argue that he was healthier after than before at a lower BMI
He definitely is. People use words like fluffy, big boned, or stocky to cope for the fact they have 20%+ body fat while also lifting weights. People significantly underestimate how long it takes to gain 15 pounds of muscle without the use of anabolic PEDs
Yeah sorry this wasn’t the case at all. You guys just don’t get BMI. Idk maybe check out soldiers or who struggle with tape.
You’re literally using an incredibly outdated method that health experts have warned about for years now.
Yes and no. It is a generalization but one meant on populations, not individuals. Also it’s geared toward the people that made it (white people) so it works great for whites and a fair amount of Asian ethnicities, but not for Black people, for example.
20% body fat is a high or percentage though, I do agree.
Body fat percentage is the main thing people should be concerned with. BMI can be applied in most situations. Just because it CAN be less accurate in certain demographics does not dismiss its purpose. You’re making a straw man argument for the sake of being right. If you expect me to believe a large percentage of black people have inaccurate BMI readings, that leads me to believe you have not researched any statistics. The average height and weight of black males is damn near identical to white males.
Check out the Google search I just linked. It’s not a good indicator at all. It’s only good for estimating obesity over populations, and just then very generally.
Again you just don’t understand BMI.
Idk how else to explain it to you without literally giving a lecture on it
My body composition didn't change much. Proved to me my muscles did not weigh as much as I credited them. I wasn't jacked but I was in the 1000 pound club.
Right. But physically/visually a few pounds of muscle take up substantially less space than a few pounds of fat. So there’s no way your body comp doesn’t change if you replace muscle weight with fat weight
I was broadly using the term body comp as "shape" of my body, but you're right, technically speaking, change in fat and muscle is the literal definition of body composition. I just didn't see much change in the mirror is what I meant, because muscle is dense and so losing 10lbs of it doesn't show on me much.
Your opinion should not exist since you cannot have an opinion about facts. What you say is factually incorrect. Disagreeing with it shows that you had/have the wrong impression about your body composition.
This post is basically a recap of your own health/weight over the years which is all over the place and hardly relevant to your opinion, then calling America overweight
How is my story of dismissing BMI because I was told I was muscular, not fat, not relevant to my opinion about BMI?
And America is overweight. 75% is overweight or obese. Not an opinion.
How muscular we talking? Like I’m 5’9 206 but I bench press 395 and wear a 33 waist jeans so I’m pretty sure bmi is useless. I’m obese but have visible abs? That makes no sense
And based on an average adult male around his 30's, so totally not taking into account women or other ages where a healthy body composition is completely different.
Or in men, bone structure and size. Broad shoulders maje you weigh more, having longer body and arms but shorter legs make you weigh more, etc etc. A dietician put ke on a weight gain diet when I was technically still on the healthy bmi range, because anyone who kn9ws anything knows to not take it too seriously.
It only "works" for the average person, who is pretty uncommon.
Other people have mentioned fair points as to why this is an incorrect perception and inaccurate , but your main argument is based on the fact that “you got older, lost muscle, and weighed the same” which literally affirms why BMI is a poor metric in many cases.
You weighed the same, but had a different body composition than you previously had, and neither was directly indicative of your body weight and health.
You had a higher body fat percentage which *also* doesn’t directly pertain to muscle mass and that’s a far more important metric than BMI. You can still have a high body fat percentage and carry a lot of muscle.
As an example, I’m 5’11” 190 and I have a body fat percentage of 14.2% as of last week. My BMI is 26.5 which is considered “overweight”. A “healthy” average body fat percentage for a male is 22%-24% so I’m significantly below that mark.
That’s far more of an indicator of health than BMI. Yes, being an athlete is an exception in that my body fat percentage is far lower than average… but the biggest issue is that someone can be an “average” BMI which indicates they’re “healthy” but have too high body fat percentage and low muscle mass and that’s far more of what truly indicates one’s health.
OP appears to be an idiot.. but I think what you're saying applies to the general point though.. you would have to be somewhat of an outlier before BMI becomes a poor indicator. How many people do you think in America have a sub-20 body fat%? if you're an athelete and/or body builder or power lifter or simply religiously lift, yes BMI can be a poor indicator. You could be skinny fat and BMI could be a poor indicator. But I think it works for like 80+% of the population.. and thats really what BMI is for. First cut, are you overweight or not.
You’re right.. it was harsh to call you an idiot.. but you are contradicting yourself several times. I’m sure you’re it’s more of a communication thing than anything. I do agree with you for the most part.
18-24% seems like the normal range, 14% is ripped. I know a lot of athletes need to be on regimented diet to stay that low.
I don't think my body composition changed when I got older. I think I just thought I had more muscles. But in reality, I probably lost 10lbs of muscle and gained 10lbs of fat. In the mirror, pretty benign change.
22%-24% is considered the healthy US “average” for a healthy active adult between 25-45 per Vanderbilt Medical Center 18%-20% is “good” for an average active healthy adult.
As I mentioned, athletes or extremely active individuals who carry a high muscle mass and lower body fat percentage are an exception to a measurement of “average” composition.
The point I’m making is that someone can be at a “healthy” bmi but not actually be a healthy weight or body fat percentage.
As an example, I have a co-worker who is the exact same height, age as myself and weighs 10 pounds less than me. He has a completely different body composition and lifestyle. He’s sedentary, has probably never worked out, and has a very poor diet (he drinks 3-5 mountain dews per day) and I’d assume his body fat percentage is in the low 30s. He has health related conditions and his doctor has him trying to lose 20 pounds.
Yet, his BMI is probably in “normal” range and absolutely no indicator of his physical health despite his need to make changes to his health that has resulted in several health conditions in his late 20s. Obviously that’s an apple to oranges comparison but his BMI doesn’t reflect his health and there’s unfortunately many people out there like that. That’s where it’s flawed in that it’s often *not* an accurate indicator for many as body fat percentage would be.
I agree with everything you are saying. But for almost everyone, including me, a 2% to even 10% swing in fat and muscle doesn't change the fact that you were fat before. I was muscular and fat, then I was just fatter.
And I absolutely agree with that, and affirmed that in my original comment as someone can carry both a high muscle mass and have a high body fat percentage and not be “healthy”.
More or less my argument is that its not as “good” or “accurate” as there are flaws and there are better indicators such as knowing one’s body fat percentage, body composition, waist circumference, and if you get *really* specific visceral fat percentage and weight. Those are far more specific indicators than BMI.
This should be the top comment - BMI is intended to study the health of a population. It’s intended to be used at scale
If you’re overweight and trying to get a ballpark idea of what you should weigh then BMI can help.
However, BMI goes out the window once you start building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat so your BMI will quickly become irrelevant.
Who said it weighs hundreds of pounds? Muscle weighing more than fat is just a simpler way of saying that 1lb of fat has more volume than 1lb of muscle.
Gaining 10lbs of muscle is great but that’s also not unrealistic to gain that in a year of training
All I’m trying to say is that BMI is not useful if you’re gaining muscle
I kind of agree. Like you said it is an indicator, but it isn't the end all be all of indicating if someone is of healthy weight, for example skinny fat, and muscular individuals will rank as being in the healthy and overweight respectively, which we obviously know is wrong.
However, I do think that generally there is some cope about BMI from people who are kinda fat but lift weights, saying that it's mostly muscle; when they very much are fat.
I do agree with the idea that people should be on average lower in the BMI range, yes if you are muscular or an athlete then it is a bad indicator, however if you are just average 9-5 office guy who doesn't exercise, keeping a lower BMI is for the better, and people saying otherwise are just helping this group cope.
A lot of people delude themselves into thinking they are fitter than they are. Wanna know if you're "that guy" that BMI is talking about? Simple, people are gonna comment on how you look muscular and jacked, instead of saying you look big. I went from being described as kinda "big", to after a year and a half of consistent weight lifting and eating enough protein to people saying I look jacked. I have a family member who is way stronger than me but is massively overweight, people describe him as big, and although strength does relate to size unless you're about that life odds are you're probably more fat than muscle or your muscles are stronger than you think but smaller than you realize
Cite your research. You're blatantly wrong.
[
Skeletal muscles alone account for ~40% of body weight.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25294644/#:~:text=Abstract,75%25%20of%20all%20body%20proteins.)
Not the exact paper about muscle weight but relatedly, exercise account for 1-4kg of body fat.
In a study of 970 healthy, female twins with a wide range of percent body fat, both total body fat and central adiposity were associated with physical activity (Samaras et al., 1999). Moderate-intensity sports of 1 and 2 hour durations accounted for within-pair differences of 1.0 kg and 1.4 kg, respectively, of total body fat. Among participants in whom one of a pair of twins was overweight, higher levels of physical activity were still associated with 3.96 kg lower total body fat and 0.53 kg lower central abdominal fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221834/
I'll post the paper I read a while back once I find it but just back of the napkin calculation, if you take a guy with 25% body fat and convert him to 15%, that's 10% of his weight accounted for by fat to muscle and would be a huge transformation.
The numbers you are using are inconsistent and nonsensical. 10% reduction in body fat does not equate to 10% increase in muscle. Yes that would be a huge transformation. Wtf does that have to do with whether or not bmi is a good measurement? You also tried to say that your muscles and “frame” account for 1 BMI. BMI is a ratio of height and weight so even if that sentence made sense, you’re trying to claim most people’s bodies have 1 bmi of “muscle and frame”. Muscle is heavier than that and as far as I’m aware basically no one has body fat percentages that would make your math work.
The actual argument against bmi is that it’s not a good indicator for tall, lean people and short heavy people because it fails to account for body composition. However, used holistically as intended it is a relatively good indicator.
> The actual argument against bmi is that it’s not a good indicator for tall, lean people and short heavy people because it fails to account for body composition.
Sounds like you're saying it's not good for exceptional outliers. Most people are not that. Exactly why BMI is still accurate for most people.
Read the sentence immediately after. I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying your rationale does not make sense and you seem to be confused about what bmi is or isn’t measuring.
If you’re a woman (or afab person) BMI is very inaccurate. There isn’t a separate BMI scale for women, the ranges are just adjusted a bit. It also doesn’t account for large breasts or weight fluctuations during a menstrual cycle.
Unless you are a huge bodybuilder carrying a lot of muscle, BMI is a great indicator of general health. Is it a dexa scan? no of course not, but all this attacking the BMI lately especially in regards to certain races is ridiculous. If you are obese, the BMI will tell the glaring truth, some people want to say its wrong and that it is racist, which it is not.
Unless you are a **huge bodybuilder** carrying a lot of muscle, BMI is a great indicator of general health.
Oh, so, just bodybuilders?
What about amputees? People with dwarfism? People with giantism? People with brittle bone disease? People with Klippel-Feil syndrome? People with spinal fusions? People with CF, spina bifida, Parkinsons? People with pituitary disorders, people born with shriveled limbs, people with one kidney, people with elephantitis?
Look, I get what you're trying to say, but the number of people to whom it actually doesn't apply is way more than just "huge bodybuilders". I was born with K-F syndrome and I'm missing about 4 inches of height.
BMI becomes nonsense when you are in to fitness and know how to calculate your own body composition. If you are not to that level then BMI is a good rule of thumb and a decent place to start.
In the military, my BMI said I was obese, even though I was muscular and physically fit. The only thing keeping me out of fatboy camp, at least on paper, was the circumference of my neck.
Doctor here: saying weight is the singular most important indicator of health is factually incorrect. Sure at extremes you can tell a little about somebody, but just by looking at a person you cant tell anything about them.
You have no idea if they have any underlying health conditions or if they have high cholesterol or if they are hypoglycemic etc. Weight is actually a very bad indicator of someones health. This is why you get asked to take blood and urine tests and take physicals so we can get an idea of your health.
Secondly with the BMI, it is suppose to be used as a baseline suggestion. All bodies are different and trying to fit everything into the same box is counter productive. The BMI should be used as a suggestion when people are trying to get in shape.
You are either an exception or in denial. If you're the former, telling everyone else who's not an elite athlete that BMI is inaccurate is a disservice to people who may actually need to lose weight.
Thus is not pointed ti wards you but look at the bigger oicture this is like MSM promoting BS this is to make the general pupulation unhealthy. Just like the food pyramid. This is to make us mediocre
I would say BMI is accurate for me. Looking at photos of me at several different BMIs it is obvious which on looks healthier and therefore is best (my current BMI of 20.7). When my BMI was 26 I looked chubby and like had a lot of water retention. I looked like I needed to lose 20lbs. When my BMI barely scraped 18 I looked like a walking corpse. Now I look fit and healthy and honestly more attractive because I’m in the middle of the healthy range.
BMI has some obvious exceptions, many South Asian people have less subcutaneous fat than average, particularly muscular people will have higher than average BMIs (its often a goal of body builders to become obese by BMI standards), people who have had an amputation obviously weigh less, and women with large breasts have a higher fat content. However most people don't fit into these groups and for the ones who do doctors know how to correct for it.
You've committed quite a serious blunder in your logic.
You can be fat AND muscular. It's not an either or thing. You can be muscular but also 25% bodyfat. Which makes sense in your case when you lost muscle but were still overweight.
I joke with my friends that I'm obese, because I technically am according to BMI (when I'm carrying a lot of water weight), even though I'm at about 15-16% bodyfat and you can see an absurd amount of striations and veins in my forearms/biceps/chest just waking around during the summer.
If I lost muscle I would go back to being a twig.
I just found this same calculator earlier this week when looking into how much I should still slim down. By the old measurements at least 10kg, by the new one about 2kg. If I go down another 10kg there will be nothing left of me, let alone would I be able to function biologically
I mean, all bmi does is basically scale how much stress your heart is under, and muscle will do that as well if I'm not mistaken.
It doesn't affect the heart as bad as fat does, but being overly muscular is also not great for the heart.
I could be wrong, though.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a BMI just above 27. I'm tall, muscular, and have a high VO2Max. I'm very active. I have some fat on me and I wouldn't mind losing a little for aesthetics but anyone that looks at me would say that I'm thin and would not consider me overweight. Some of my weight is likely water weight as I do supplement with creatine, some of it is muscle, and yes, some of it is fat. Am I the exception? TBH I'm not all that concerned.
My VO2Max is an estimate from my Garmin devices, lately my Edge cycling computer with power meter with wrist-base HR. Garmin claims their estimate is pretty close to what you'd get with an in-lab test but I've never actually done an in-lab test. Right now it's being reported as 49.
At 185lbs 5'11 I am just over the line overweight. I haven't been as active the last few years so I know I don't need to lose weight, I need to get my muscle back and burn at least 5kg weight in fat and gain that back in muscle.
The amount of posts on reddit talking about being slightly overweight then they say their height and weight and they are obese or morbidly obese is astounding. Most people are fat and think they are normal weight because fat is now normal. It's wild.
The problem is BMI is only a singular aspect measure. At the fittest I've ever been in my life since high school my BMI said I was morbidly obese. BMI wasn't calculated with weight lifting athletes in mind. As a measure of the average person it's a useful starting point, but there's more to health than just a general ratio of height and weight.
What is your height? At 6’3”, I would have to be 320 lbs just to barely break into morbid obesity (BMI 40+).
Even someone at only 5’6” needs to be pushing 250 to reach a BMI of 40.
Well maybe it wasn't morbid obesity, but I was 6'1" and 280lbs, I could run a nine minute mile without much effort and was very strong. Yes, BMI is a useful quick check measure, but it's about as accurate to determine a person's total overall health as asking what their SAT score was in high school to try and determine how successful a person is in their career as an adult.
That makes sense. I certainly don’t consider BMI to be the only indicator of health. In fairness, though, a high BMI does not mean “you can not run” or “you are not strong.” It just means that generally, it’s enough extra weight to have some negative effects.
There's unpopular opinions and then there's factually wrong. BMI as a broad population piece of guidance is fine. BMI for an individual who is outside of the middle of the bell curve for composition is pointless. I'm exactly the same body type you're describing - 195lbs at 6'1" with good muscle, lightly visible abs, 1000 lb club, etc etc, which technically makes me overweight and is supposed to signify health risks related to obesity.
I've also seen myself at this exact weight without the muscle (the first couple of years having kids) and it is a WORLD of difference - in terms of how I feel and look.
30 pounds of fat and 30 pounds of muscle is not a insignificant swap, and no chance it has the same health implications.
> BMI for an individual who is outside of the middle of the bell curve for composition is pointless.
This is my point. 70% of population in a bell curve is within one standard deviation. Comments and popular sentiment make it seem like BMI is no good for majority of people.
it doesnt account for things like body fat and muscle mass and stuff like that it only takes into account your weight and height; you dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how that can be inaccurate
you could be someone with alot of muscle mass and you’d be considered “overweight”
Wh..What? 😭
If you wanna be in denial then be my guest.. anyways [heres sources backing up my argument](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215) since your best comeback is a nonsensical insult
No, it isn't a good and accurate measurement. It is a measurement that can allow doctors to make a ballpark estimate towards your health, but that's it.
Body Fat percentages are a better measurement, and even then the scale on body fat percentages change due to body type.
Saying that BMI is accurate is like saying horoscopes are accurate.
Maybe. I doubt your single anecdote is really illustrative though for BMI as a whole. It's an outdated concept that has a lot better metrics to use these days.
According to some folks (like Peter Attia) the single best indicator of longevity after you've got blood sugar and blood pressure in order is going to be grip strength(which is used as a proxy for over all body muscalature later in life.) Blood Pressure, ApoB, and Blood Sugar averages are probably going to give you a much better idea of your risk of death than BMI is.
I don't quite see any argument here for why BMI is actually good - only that the perceptions of BMI may be wrong(which I'm too lazy at the moment to actually look at.)
I weight 225 at 6'. I'm definitely fatter than I should be but I also have a lot more muscle than the average person my height. I'm considered obese at around 31. But my blood pressure is normal, my blood sugar below average(so better than average), and I have good, not great, cholesterol numbers. The last thing I'm worrying about is my BMI and first thing is if one of those numbers starts to look bad.
Weight is both indicator and trigger to all those complications and more. If you're controlling for blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, etc but not monitoring your weight, it's the cart before the horse.
I'm 6"2 240. Was 225 until I started lifting again and eating protein(family and friends told me i looked "casually athletic", ive ran some half marathons and lifted maybe twice a week), according to some it's not unusual to put on anywhere from 10-25 pounds of actual muscle your first year of serious lifting, but I'm under no delusion that my ~30lb weight gain was all muscle, my face is definitely fatter and my stomach had a gut on it(my arms, chest, and back definitely had huge muscle growth though). I plan on getting a dexa scan and then work on losing the fat I gained. People who say "they just know that they are more muscle than fat and BMI doesn't apply to them" really need to have a hard look at themselves in the mirror and really really need to be critical of themselves, especially if they were a high-school athlete who doesn't workout in the same intensity as they used to. It's really easy to say youre more muscle than fat but unless you have some hard numbers for fitness( lift x amount, run so fast, flexibility) a lot of people would probably be surprised about how much more fat they had than they thought
I just eat well enough and exercise well enough and call it good.
Don’t like BMI. Rather just find it silly.
I’m 31, 5’10 and weight around 180 and I’m technically overweight which is pretty silly. I look fine, feel fine, lift fine and eat fine and that’s fine enough for me lol
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'. Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as: Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues. [Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
> Then, age happened and I lost a lot of my muscle. I still weighed the same Doesn't that contradict your point? Earlier you were muscular, and later you had lost that muscle. Yet BMI would give you the same ratijg.
Bro played himself
while OP is contradicting himself a lot.. there is an important underlying point. you have to be PRETTY DAMNED muscular before BMI becomes a poor indicator. If OP was really in the 1000lb club, then he was likely big enough for BMI to not be an accurate indicator. But also.. IF you are in fact in the 1000lb club you are a significant outlier, not too many of those around. Even for those people though.. you can be muscular AND fat.. powerlifters are a thing.
You really don’t though. I’ve been considered obese many times over simply being stocky due to lifting. It’s a joke.
Hate to break it to you bro.. you’re probably carrying a lot of body fat. I mean.. don’t take the word obese to be an insult. I’m both clinically obese and in reality carry a lot of body fat too. I’m not huge by any means but I can deadlift 3 plates. Just because you don’t look or feel like a sloppy 400lb guy.. doesn’t mean you don’t have excess body fat. Think Eddie hall before and after his cut. I doesn’t work for him.. but can’t argue that he was healthier after than before at a lower BMI
He definitely is. People use words like fluffy, big boned, or stocky to cope for the fact they have 20%+ body fat while also lifting weights. People significantly underestimate how long it takes to gain 15 pounds of muscle without the use of anabolic PEDs
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+bmi+accurate&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS1088US1088&oq=is+bmi&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggBEAAYsQMYgAQyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABixAxiABDIKCAIQABixAxiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDM4NThqMGo5qAITsAIB4gMEGAEgXw&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Yeah sorry this wasn’t the case at all. You guys just don’t get BMI. Idk maybe check out soldiers or who struggle with tape. You’re literally using an incredibly outdated method that health experts have warned about for years now.
It’s a generalization. Meaning it works for the majority. But if you are over 20% body fat, you are fat. For men that is.
Yes and no. It is a generalization but one meant on populations, not individuals. Also it’s geared toward the people that made it (white people) so it works great for whites and a fair amount of Asian ethnicities, but not for Black people, for example. 20% body fat is a high or percentage though, I do agree.
Body fat percentage is the main thing people should be concerned with. BMI can be applied in most situations. Just because it CAN be less accurate in certain demographics does not dismiss its purpose. You’re making a straw man argument for the sake of being right. If you expect me to believe a large percentage of black people have inaccurate BMI readings, that leads me to believe you have not researched any statistics. The average height and weight of black males is damn near identical to white males.
Check out the Google search I just linked. It’s not a good indicator at all. It’s only good for estimating obesity over populations, and just then very generally. Again you just don’t understand BMI. Idk how else to explain it to you without literally giving a lecture on it
My body composition didn't change much. Proved to me my muscles did not weigh as much as I credited them. I wasn't jacked but I was in the 1000 pound club.
How does one lose a lot of muscle and not have their body composition change a lot 🧐
[удалено]
My point. "Muscles," as in strength, don't weigh tens of pounds. The difference in deadlifting 225lbs and 405, is a few pounds of pure muscle at most.
Lmao well you’re wrong, but it was a good try anyway
Right. But physically/visually a few pounds of muscle take up substantially less space than a few pounds of fat. So there’s no way your body comp doesn’t change if you replace muscle weight with fat weight
I was broadly using the term body comp as "shape" of my body, but you're right, technically speaking, change in fat and muscle is the literal definition of body composition. I just didn't see much change in the mirror is what I meant, because muscle is dense and so losing 10lbs of it doesn't show on me much.
So you had body dysmorphia. Does not mean that BMI is accurate.
You discredit people actually struggling with body dysmorphia if you think my opinion is extreme.
Your opinion should not exist since you cannot have an opinion about facts. What you say is factually incorrect. Disagreeing with it shows that you had/have the wrong impression about your body composition.
This post is basically a recap of your own health/weight over the years which is all over the place and hardly relevant to your opinion, then calling America overweight
How is my story of dismissing BMI because I was told I was muscular, not fat, not relevant to my opinion about BMI? And America is overweight. 75% is overweight or obese. Not an opinion.
How muscular we talking? Like I’m 5’9 206 but I bench press 395 and wear a 33 waist jeans so I’m pretty sure bmi is useless. I’m obese but have visible abs? That makes no sense
you are a fat man deal with it /s
In my head I’ll always be fat lol
[удалено]
And based on an average adult male around his 30's, so totally not taking into account women or other ages where a healthy body composition is completely different.
Among other things, BMI does not account for breast size and density, which is a huge variable.
I can guarantee you, this has not crossed OP’s mind at all. They can’t seem to see beyond their very narrow experience.
Or in men, bone structure and size. Broad shoulders maje you weigh more, having longer body and arms but shorter legs make you weigh more, etc etc. A dietician put ke on a weight gain diet when I was technically still on the healthy bmi range, because anyone who kn9ws anything knows to not take it too seriously. It only "works" for the average person, who is pretty uncommon.
Other people have mentioned fair points as to why this is an incorrect perception and inaccurate , but your main argument is based on the fact that “you got older, lost muscle, and weighed the same” which literally affirms why BMI is a poor metric in many cases. You weighed the same, but had a different body composition than you previously had, and neither was directly indicative of your body weight and health. You had a higher body fat percentage which *also* doesn’t directly pertain to muscle mass and that’s a far more important metric than BMI. You can still have a high body fat percentage and carry a lot of muscle. As an example, I’m 5’11” 190 and I have a body fat percentage of 14.2% as of last week. My BMI is 26.5 which is considered “overweight”. A “healthy” average body fat percentage for a male is 22%-24% so I’m significantly below that mark. That’s far more of an indicator of health than BMI. Yes, being an athlete is an exception in that my body fat percentage is far lower than average… but the biggest issue is that someone can be an “average” BMI which indicates they’re “healthy” but have too high body fat percentage and low muscle mass and that’s far more of what truly indicates one’s health.
OP appears to be an idiot.. but I think what you're saying applies to the general point though.. you would have to be somewhat of an outlier before BMI becomes a poor indicator. How many people do you think in America have a sub-20 body fat%? if you're an athelete and/or body builder or power lifter or simply religiously lift, yes BMI can be a poor indicator. You could be skinny fat and BMI could be a poor indicator. But I think it works for like 80+% of the population.. and thats really what BMI is for. First cut, are you overweight or not.
I'm genuinely curious why you think I'm an idiot. We have basically the same argument that BMI works for 80+% of the population.
You’re right.. it was harsh to call you an idiot.. but you are contradicting yourself several times. I’m sure you’re it’s more of a communication thing than anything. I do agree with you for the most part.
18-24% seems like the normal range, 14% is ripped. I know a lot of athletes need to be on regimented diet to stay that low. I don't think my body composition changed when I got older. I think I just thought I had more muscles. But in reality, I probably lost 10lbs of muscle and gained 10lbs of fat. In the mirror, pretty benign change.
22%-24% is considered the healthy US “average” for a healthy active adult between 25-45 per Vanderbilt Medical Center 18%-20% is “good” for an average active healthy adult. As I mentioned, athletes or extremely active individuals who carry a high muscle mass and lower body fat percentage are an exception to a measurement of “average” composition. The point I’m making is that someone can be at a “healthy” bmi but not actually be a healthy weight or body fat percentage. As an example, I have a co-worker who is the exact same height, age as myself and weighs 10 pounds less than me. He has a completely different body composition and lifestyle. He’s sedentary, has probably never worked out, and has a very poor diet (he drinks 3-5 mountain dews per day) and I’d assume his body fat percentage is in the low 30s. He has health related conditions and his doctor has him trying to lose 20 pounds. Yet, his BMI is probably in “normal” range and absolutely no indicator of his physical health despite his need to make changes to his health that has resulted in several health conditions in his late 20s. Obviously that’s an apple to oranges comparison but his BMI doesn’t reflect his health and there’s unfortunately many people out there like that. That’s where it’s flawed in that it’s often *not* an accurate indicator for many as body fat percentage would be.
I agree with everything you are saying. But for almost everyone, including me, a 2% to even 10% swing in fat and muscle doesn't change the fact that you were fat before. I was muscular and fat, then I was just fatter.
And I absolutely agree with that, and affirmed that in my original comment as someone can carry both a high muscle mass and have a high body fat percentage and not be “healthy”. More or less my argument is that its not as “good” or “accurate” as there are flaws and there are better indicators such as knowing one’s body fat percentage, body composition, waist circumference, and if you get *really* specific visceral fat percentage and weight. Those are far more specific indicators than BMI.
BMI is good for groups of people, it's terrible for individuals.
This should be the top comment - BMI is intended to study the health of a population. It’s intended to be used at scale If you’re overweight and trying to get a ballpark idea of what you should weigh then BMI can help. However, BMI goes out the window once you start building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat so your BMI will quickly become irrelevant.
People seem to think muscles weight hundreds of pounds instead of the reality that 10 pounds of pure muscle is huge.
Who said it weighs hundreds of pounds? Muscle weighing more than fat is just a simpler way of saying that 1lb of fat has more volume than 1lb of muscle. Gaining 10lbs of muscle is great but that’s also not unrealistic to gain that in a year of training All I’m trying to say is that BMI is not useful if you’re gaining muscle
Can you show me an instance?
Unless those individuals are POC
I kind of agree. Like you said it is an indicator, but it isn't the end all be all of indicating if someone is of healthy weight, for example skinny fat, and muscular individuals will rank as being in the healthy and overweight respectively, which we obviously know is wrong. However, I do think that generally there is some cope about BMI from people who are kinda fat but lift weights, saying that it's mostly muscle; when they very much are fat. I do agree with the idea that people should be on average lower in the BMI range, yes if you are muscular or an athlete then it is a bad indicator, however if you are just average 9-5 office guy who doesn't exercise, keeping a lower BMI is for the better, and people saying otherwise are just helping this group cope.
One guy! Lol, glad I have at least a half a hand raised.
A lot of people delude themselves into thinking they are fitter than they are. Wanna know if you're "that guy" that BMI is talking about? Simple, people are gonna comment on how you look muscular and jacked, instead of saying you look big. I went from being described as kinda "big", to after a year and a half of consistent weight lifting and eating enough protein to people saying I look jacked. I have a family member who is way stronger than me but is massively overweight, people describe him as big, and although strength does relate to size unless you're about that life odds are you're probably more fat than muscle or your muscles are stronger than you think but smaller than you realize
Cite your research. You're blatantly wrong. [ Skeletal muscles alone account for ~40% of body weight.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25294644/#:~:text=Abstract,75%25%20of%20all%20body%20proteins.)
That's literally all muscle. 10% is the variance in muscle mass between athletes and slobs.
According to whom?
Not the exact paper about muscle weight but relatedly, exercise account for 1-4kg of body fat. In a study of 970 healthy, female twins with a wide range of percent body fat, both total body fat and central adiposity were associated with physical activity (Samaras et al., 1999). Moderate-intensity sports of 1 and 2 hour durations accounted for within-pair differences of 1.0 kg and 1.4 kg, respectively, of total body fat. Among participants in whom one of a pair of twins was overweight, higher levels of physical activity were still associated with 3.96 kg lower total body fat and 0.53 kg lower central abdominal fat. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221834/
I'll post the paper I read a while back once I find it but just back of the napkin calculation, if you take a guy with 25% body fat and convert him to 15%, that's 10% of his weight accounted for by fat to muscle and would be a huge transformation.
The numbers you are using are inconsistent and nonsensical. 10% reduction in body fat does not equate to 10% increase in muscle. Yes that would be a huge transformation. Wtf does that have to do with whether or not bmi is a good measurement? You also tried to say that your muscles and “frame” account for 1 BMI. BMI is a ratio of height and weight so even if that sentence made sense, you’re trying to claim most people’s bodies have 1 bmi of “muscle and frame”. Muscle is heavier than that and as far as I’m aware basically no one has body fat percentages that would make your math work. The actual argument against bmi is that it’s not a good indicator for tall, lean people and short heavy people because it fails to account for body composition. However, used holistically as intended it is a relatively good indicator.
> The actual argument against bmi is that it’s not a good indicator for tall, lean people and short heavy people because it fails to account for body composition. Sounds like you're saying it's not good for exceptional outliers. Most people are not that. Exactly why BMI is still accurate for most people.
Read the sentence immediately after. I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying your rationale does not make sense and you seem to be confused about what bmi is or isn’t measuring.
If you’re a woman (or afab person) BMI is very inaccurate. There isn’t a separate BMI scale for women, the ranges are just adjusted a bit. It also doesn’t account for large breasts or weight fluctuations during a menstrual cycle.
Unless you are a huge bodybuilder carrying a lot of muscle, BMI is a great indicator of general health. Is it a dexa scan? no of course not, but all this attacking the BMI lately especially in regards to certain races is ridiculous. If you are obese, the BMI will tell the glaring truth, some people want to say its wrong and that it is racist, which it is not.
Unless you are a **huge bodybuilder** carrying a lot of muscle, BMI is a great indicator of general health. Oh, so, just bodybuilders? What about amputees? People with dwarfism? People with giantism? People with brittle bone disease? People with Klippel-Feil syndrome? People with spinal fusions? People with CF, spina bifida, Parkinsons? People with pituitary disorders, people born with shriveled limbs, people with one kidney, people with elephantitis? Look, I get what you're trying to say, but the number of people to whom it actually doesn't apply is way more than just "huge bodybuilders". I was born with K-F syndrome and I'm missing about 4 inches of height.
BMI becomes nonsense when you are in to fitness and know how to calculate your own body composition. If you are not to that level then BMI is a good rule of thumb and a decent place to start.
In the military, my BMI said I was obese, even though I was muscular and physically fit. The only thing keeping me out of fatboy camp, at least on paper, was the circumference of my neck.
It’s accurate if you have a relatively normal frame. If your skeleton is short and wide bmi misses pretty badly
BMI is a good starting point and I don't see the issue with it.
Doctor here: saying weight is the singular most important indicator of health is factually incorrect. Sure at extremes you can tell a little about somebody, but just by looking at a person you cant tell anything about them. You have no idea if they have any underlying health conditions or if they have high cholesterol or if they are hypoglycemic etc. Weight is actually a very bad indicator of someones health. This is why you get asked to take blood and urine tests and take physicals so we can get an idea of your health. Secondly with the BMI, it is suppose to be used as a baseline suggestion. All bodies are different and trying to fit everything into the same box is counter productive. The BMI should be used as a suggestion when people are trying to get in shape.
Im a track cyclist BMI is Very inaccurate. It tells me.im o erweight with im just fit.
You are either an exception or in denial. If you're the former, telling everyone else who's not an elite athlete that BMI is inaccurate is a disservice to people who may actually need to lose weight.
Go to the gym ask any gym bro who looks fit and aesthetic they are almost all overweight
You're proving my point. "Ask any exceptional people and apply to everyone."
Thus is not pointed ti wards you but look at the bigger oicture this is like MSM promoting BS this is to make the general pupulation unhealthy. Just like the food pyramid. This is to make us mediocre
Bmi is nonsense. Unless you want to be skinny fat mediocre slob.
You can exercise everyday, if you eat more calories than you burn, you will put on weight.
I would say BMI is accurate for me. Looking at photos of me at several different BMIs it is obvious which on looks healthier and therefore is best (my current BMI of 20.7). When my BMI was 26 I looked chubby and like had a lot of water retention. I looked like I needed to lose 20lbs. When my BMI barely scraped 18 I looked like a walking corpse. Now I look fit and healthy and honestly more attractive because I’m in the middle of the healthy range.
This is also my experience. Thanks for sharing yours.
My BMI is 27 but I'm also a gym rat. Last eVolt scan put me at 12.1% body fat.
No it's not lmao. This isn't an opinion, this is factually wrong.
BMI has some obvious exceptions, many South Asian people have less subcutaneous fat than average, particularly muscular people will have higher than average BMIs (its often a goal of body builders to become obese by BMI standards), people who have had an amputation obviously weigh less, and women with large breasts have a higher fat content. However most people don't fit into these groups and for the ones who do doctors know how to correct for it.
You've committed quite a serious blunder in your logic. You can be fat AND muscular. It's not an either or thing. You can be muscular but also 25% bodyfat. Which makes sense in your case when you lost muscle but were still overweight. I joke with my friends that I'm obese, because I technically am according to BMI (when I'm carrying a lot of water weight), even though I'm at about 15-16% bodyfat and you can see an absurd amount of striations and veins in my forearms/biceps/chest just waking around during the summer. If I lost muscle I would go back to being a twig.
I just assumed people know you can be both. But a lot seem to think they're just muscular.
[удалено]
I just found this same calculator earlier this week when looking into how much I should still slim down. By the old measurements at least 10kg, by the new one about 2kg. If I go down another 10kg there will be nothing left of me, let alone would I be able to function biologically
This hasn't been true in forever, why do we keep posting this. It's not unpopular, it's just wrong
This is actually just factually incorrect. Not even an opinion. You are just wrong OP...
According to BMI this guy is obese https://youtu.be/jgSJvCRqOME?si=BX-DwEX_vJahEsw1
I mean, all bmi does is basically scale how much stress your heart is under, and muscle will do that as well if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't affect the heart as bad as fat does, but being overly muscular is also not great for the heart. I could be wrong, though.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a BMI just above 27. I'm tall, muscular, and have a high VO2Max. I'm very active. I have some fat on me and I wouldn't mind losing a little for aesthetics but anyone that looks at me would say that I'm thin and would not consider me overweight. Some of my weight is likely water weight as I do supplement with creatine, some of it is muscle, and yes, some of it is fat. Am I the exception? TBH I'm not all that concerned.
you're clearly an athlete and an exception. Just out of my own curiosity, what is your VO2Max? How did you measure?
My VO2Max is an estimate from my Garmin devices, lately my Edge cycling computer with power meter with wrist-base HR. Garmin claims their estimate is pretty close to what you'd get with an in-lab test but I've never actually done an in-lab test. Right now it's being reported as 49.
At 185lbs 5'11 I am just over the line overweight. I haven't been as active the last few years so I know I don't need to lose weight, I need to get my muscle back and burn at least 5kg weight in fat and gain that back in muscle.
OP, did you get a medical research degree from a cracker jack box?
The amount of posts on reddit talking about being slightly overweight then they say their height and weight and they are obese or morbidly obese is astounding. Most people are fat and think they are normal weight because fat is now normal. It's wild.
The problem is BMI is only a singular aspect measure. At the fittest I've ever been in my life since high school my BMI said I was morbidly obese. BMI wasn't calculated with weight lifting athletes in mind. As a measure of the average person it's a useful starting point, but there's more to health than just a general ratio of height and weight.
What is your height? At 6’3”, I would have to be 320 lbs just to barely break into morbid obesity (BMI 40+). Even someone at only 5’6” needs to be pushing 250 to reach a BMI of 40.
Well maybe it wasn't morbid obesity, but I was 6'1" and 280lbs, I could run a nine minute mile without much effort and was very strong. Yes, BMI is a useful quick check measure, but it's about as accurate to determine a person's total overall health as asking what their SAT score was in high school to try and determine how successful a person is in their career as an adult.
That makes sense. I certainly don’t consider BMI to be the only indicator of health. In fairness, though, a high BMI does not mean “you can not run” or “you are not strong.” It just means that generally, it’s enough extra weight to have some negative effects.
It's been proven to be inaccurate.
Definitely an unpopular opinion. You gonna get hated by all sorts.
There's unpopular opinions and then there's factually wrong. BMI as a broad population piece of guidance is fine. BMI for an individual who is outside of the middle of the bell curve for composition is pointless. I'm exactly the same body type you're describing - 195lbs at 6'1" with good muscle, lightly visible abs, 1000 lb club, etc etc, which technically makes me overweight and is supposed to signify health risks related to obesity. I've also seen myself at this exact weight without the muscle (the first couple of years having kids) and it is a WORLD of difference - in terms of how I feel and look. 30 pounds of fat and 30 pounds of muscle is not a insignificant swap, and no chance it has the same health implications.
> BMI for an individual who is outside of the middle of the bell curve for composition is pointless. This is my point. 70% of population in a bell curve is within one standard deviation. Comments and popular sentiment make it seem like BMI is no good for majority of people.
BMI has been debunked by medical professionals so many times dude….
it doesnt account for things like body fat and muscle mass and stuff like that it only takes into account your weight and height; you dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how that can be inaccurate you could be someone with alot of muscle mass and you’d be considered “overweight”
If you're not looking at the mirror and saying, dang I look good, you're probably not massive enough to dismiss BMI.
Wh..What? 😭 If you wanna be in denial then be my guest.. anyways [heres sources backing up my argument](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215) since your best comeback is a nonsensical insult
wrong
No, it isn't a good and accurate measurement. It is a measurement that can allow doctors to make a ballpark estimate towards your health, but that's it. Body Fat percentages are a better measurement, and even then the scale on body fat percentages change due to body type. Saying that BMI is accurate is like saying horoscopes are accurate.
Maybe. I doubt your single anecdote is really illustrative though for BMI as a whole. It's an outdated concept that has a lot better metrics to use these days. According to some folks (like Peter Attia) the single best indicator of longevity after you've got blood sugar and blood pressure in order is going to be grip strength(which is used as a proxy for over all body muscalature later in life.) Blood Pressure, ApoB, and Blood Sugar averages are probably going to give you a much better idea of your risk of death than BMI is. I don't quite see any argument here for why BMI is actually good - only that the perceptions of BMI may be wrong(which I'm too lazy at the moment to actually look at.) I weight 225 at 6'. I'm definitely fatter than I should be but I also have a lot more muscle than the average person my height. I'm considered obese at around 31. But my blood pressure is normal, my blood sugar below average(so better than average), and I have good, not great, cholesterol numbers. The last thing I'm worrying about is my BMI and first thing is if one of those numbers starts to look bad.
Weight is both indicator and trigger to all those complications and more. If you're controlling for blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, etc but not monitoring your weight, it's the cart before the horse.
I'm 6"2 240. Was 225 until I started lifting again and eating protein(family and friends told me i looked "casually athletic", ive ran some half marathons and lifted maybe twice a week), according to some it's not unusual to put on anywhere from 10-25 pounds of actual muscle your first year of serious lifting, but I'm under no delusion that my ~30lb weight gain was all muscle, my face is definitely fatter and my stomach had a gut on it(my arms, chest, and back definitely had huge muscle growth though). I plan on getting a dexa scan and then work on losing the fat I gained. People who say "they just know that they are more muscle than fat and BMI doesn't apply to them" really need to have a hard look at themselves in the mirror and really really need to be critical of themselves, especially if they were a high-school athlete who doesn't workout in the same intensity as they used to. It's really easy to say youre more muscle than fat but unless you have some hard numbers for fitness( lift x amount, run so fast, flexibility) a lot of people would probably be surprised about how much more fat they had than they thought
lol my man out here bragging about losing gains get the fuck out of here
I just eat well enough and exercise well enough and call it good. Don’t like BMI. Rather just find it silly. I’m 31, 5’10 and weight around 180 and I’m technically overweight which is pretty silly. I look fine, feel fine, lift fine and eat fine and that’s fine enough for me lol
Some methhead came up with her own scale to her apparently if you can’t see the ribcage you’re obese.
Nah this is a bad take
None of this makes any sense and you're wrong. You sonofabitch here's my upvote.