Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-06-09, 05:35 PM   #1
Redskin8006
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Redskin8006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Alexandria, VA
Bikes: 2007 Schwinn Fastback Elite
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Top 10 Reasons why BMI is Bogus

Courtesy of instapundit.com and NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=106268439
Redskin8006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-09, 08:19 PM   #2
deraltekluge
Senior Member
 
deraltekluge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Bikes: Kona Cinder Cone, Sun EZ-3 AX
Posts: 1,195
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From the link:

2. It is scientifically nonsensical.

There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.


So? That's the way you do things scientifically. If the formula doesn't fit reality, then you modify the formula.

However, using the square of the height seems to me to be wrong. The volume (and mass) of a body varies as the cube of its linear dimension, not the square, if its proportions stay the same. Obviously, that's not the case with the human body, because the proportions aren't the same for different height people, but using the square is equally obviously wrong.

Consider a 5-foot tall person weighing 110 lbs. That person's BMI calculation comes out 21.5, right in the middle of "normal", which is actually pretty close to being "normal". Now, consider people 6 feet and 7 feet tall... To be equally "normal", the 6-footer would have to be about 158 lbs, and the 7-footer would be only about 216 lbs. Healthy, athletic 7-footers are actually closer to 300 pounds.

The exponent for height needs to be somewhat greater than 2 for BMI to be a meaningful number...perhaps around 2.5?

Let's look at using 2.5 and consider the same people: If a 110 lb. 5-footer is "normal", the equivalent 6-footer would be 174 lbs, and the 7-footer would be 255 lbs.

Don't those look like much more reasonable figures?

Just for fun, let's try the mathematical constant e (the base of the natural logarithm system, 2.71828...).

Again, starting with the 5-foot, 110 lb. person being defined as "normal", an equivalent 6-footer would be 180 lbs., and the 7-footer would be 275 lbs.

I think that would be a far more realistic standard than what is now used.
deraltekluge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-09, 07:33 AM   #3
Griffin2020
On the road to health.
 
Griffin2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, TX
Bikes: Specialized Allez, Cervelo RS is in process.
Posts: 603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is the reason that doctors do not use BMI for anything other as an additional parameter. Since most insurance companies DO want the BMI (especially when dealing with bariatric issues), the MDs are forced to continue to use it.

Although I have to point out that the tenth reason on that list is assinine.
Griffin2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-09, 08:59 AM   #4
Tex_Arcana
Lone Star
 
Tex_Arcana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston, Tx.
Bikes:
Posts: 561
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Body Mass Index? I thought it had something to do with poo poos.
Tex_Arcana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-09, 04:42 PM   #5
Cosmoline
Biscuit Boy
 
Cosmoline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Speeenard 'laska
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's a load of bravo sierra, but it's a lot easier for providers and others in the industry to use than actually measuring health.
Cosmoline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-09, 05:01 PM   #6
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redskin8006 View Post
Courtesy of instapundit.com and NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=106268439
I think if you look at it, the BMI is useful for what it was originally intended, you take a group of say 5,000 people and compute their BMI and average it, then apply that to a much larger people group, say 300,000,000 people. Your probably going to be fairly accurate that a similar percentage of the 300,000,000 people are above normal weight for their height. Yet when applied to an individual or a group with some other meaning, like assuming because 25% of a population is fat because they have a higher then "normal" BMI, then it's bogus.

Statistics are full of this kind of thing, which is why when you look at a statistic as reported by a statistician the wording that describes the number is very exact.
It's the mass media that interprets the number to mean something it doesn't in order to sell a story.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-09, 05:43 PM   #7
chewybrian 
"Florida Man"
 
chewybrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Florida
Bikes: '66 Raleigh Superbe, 80 Nishiki Maxima, 07 Gary Fisher Utopia, 09 Surly LHT
Posts: 1,615
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
I think if you look at it, the BMI is useful for what it was originally intended, you take a group of say 5,000 people and compute their BMI and average it, then apply that to a much larger people group, say 300,000,000 people. Your probably going to be fairly accurate that a similar percentage of the 300,000,000 people are above normal weight for their height. Yet when applied to an individual or a group with some other meaning, like assuming because 25% of a population is fat because they have a higher then "normal" BMI, then it's bogus.

Statistics are full of this kind of thing, which is why when you look at a statistic as reported by a statistician the wording that describes the number is very exact.
It's the mass media that interprets the number to mean something it doesn't in order to sell a story.
Is that the intent of the formula? That doesn't make sense. If the formula is not accurate to begin with, then all you get is an equally inaccurate estimate for the larger group.

I think the intent was to give individuals a "quick and dirty" answer to a complex question: Would you be materially healthier if you lost weight?

Such formulas often break down at the extremes (wookies, oompa loompas, oddly shaped people, in this case). To get an accurate answer requires more inputs. But, like knowing that teenagers are high risk drivers, on the whole, it's easier for insurers than learning about individuals.
__________________
Campione Del Mondo Immaginario
chewybrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-09, 05:56 PM   #8
sakonnetclip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it just needs a tolerance factor.

12 years ago, when I was 6'-2" and 260 I was really fat.

10 years ago, when I was 6-2 and 205 (quite ripped mind you) I was still fat.

Now I'm 220 (less ripped) but still fat and borderline obese.

According to the BMI chart, the last time I had a good weight I was a sophomore in High School

-spence
sakonnetclip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-09, 07:54 AM   #9
slyjackson
Drop Master
 
slyjackson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Orlando FL
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix / Scott CR-1
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Reskins fans can come out of the basement now? I didnt expect to see any of you guys until you win a game.....
slyjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-09, 07:01 PM   #10
Redskin8006
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Redskin8006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Alexandria, VA
Bikes: 2007 Schwinn Fastback Elite
Posts: 178
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by slyjackson View Post
Reskins fans can come out of the basement now? I didnt expect to see any of you guys until you win a game.....
Yep, out of the basement - but just barely....not sure what to expect this season. Normally they lead the league in off-seasons, but it's been eerily quiet this year. All I can say is thank goodness I'm not a Lions fan.
Redskin8006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-09, 09:14 PM   #11
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewybrian View Post
Is that the intent of the formula? That doesn't make sense. If the formula is not accurate to begin with, then all you get is an equally inaccurate estimate for the larger group.

I think the intent was to give individuals a "quick and dirty" answer to a complex question: Would you be materially healthier if you lost weight?

Such formulas often break down at the extremes (wookies, oompa loompas, oddly shaped people, in this case). To get an accurate answer requires more inputs. But, like knowing that teenagers are high risk drivers, on the whole, it's easier for insurers than learning about individuals.
Actually it probably works well for insurers, if you take 100,000 people, generally the heavier people will be more likely to have some complications of obesity, like type 2 diabetes, higher instances of heart attack and stroke. It doesn't work for everyone though, just like there are male teens who never have a car accident, but pay the same high rates that teen drivers who have accidents do. It works as a general statistic providing you keep in mind that some individuals will fall outside the parameters. Typically the big boned and muscular individuals, lets not pretend that the average Clyde here is either, some are, most are not.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 05:27 AM   #12
chewybrian 
"Florida Man"
 
chewybrian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Florida
Bikes: '66 Raleigh Superbe, 80 Nishiki Maxima, 07 Gary Fisher Utopia, 09 Surly LHT
Posts: 1,615
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Actually it probably works well for insurers...some individuals will fall outside the parameters. Typically the big boned and muscular individuals, lets not pretend that the average Clyde here is either, some are, most are not.
Yes, it probably hits the mark for most people. I'm on the high end of average, which is probably about right. You wouldn't look at me (now), and say I was fat.

But, someone like the Beaner would be getting hosed. He might fall on the low side of overweight, but could outride all of us. He should have some kind of appeals proccess available. Let him take some insurance reps up a mountain, and see if they still think he's not fit.

I'm not sure how teen drivers could prove they are not high risk; I know I was!
__________________
Campione Del Mondo Immaginario
chewybrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 07:55 AM   #13
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewybrian View Post
Yes, it probably hits the mark for most people. I'm on the high end of average, which is probably about right. You wouldn't look at me (now), and say I was fat.

But, someone like the Beaner would be getting hosed. He might fall on the low side of overweight, but could outride all of us. He should have some kind of appeals proccess available. Let him take some insurance reps up a mountain, and see if they still think he's not fit.

I'm not sure how teen drivers could prove they are not high risk; I know I was!
Guys I think often get hosed are hockey and football players, some of those guys are freaking huge, but also quite fit. Although many insurance companies have limits, if your over a certain amount, you can't get insurance at all.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 09:13 AM   #14
kaljr82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kenosha, WI
Bikes: 2008 Fuji Newest 3.0 (My first ever road bike)
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you want a pretty accurate assement of your body composition and your level of fitness, I highly recommend getting a Bod Pod test done. It is pretty inexpensive and gives you tons of useful info pertaining to your body make-up and things like how many calories you actually burn while resting, doing light, moderate and heavy activity. I get it done once a year at the same time in order to get a good eval. of where I am, and where I need to be.
kaljr82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 10:04 AM   #15
evblazer
Thread Killer
 
evblazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Marfan Syndrome-Clyde-DFW, TX
Bikes: Fuji Touring Xtracycle, Merlin Road, Bacchetta Giro 26 (Sold), Challenge Hurricane, Cruzbike Sofrider
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaljr82 View Post
If you want a pretty accurate assement of your body composition and your level of fitness, I highly recommend getting a Bod Pod test done. It is pretty inexpensive and gives you tons of useful info pertaining to your body make-up and things like how many calories you actually burn while resting, doing light, moderate and heavy activity. I get it done once a year at the same time in order to get a good eval. of where I am, and where I need to be.
Is thsi the bodypod test you took or is it something else? This doesn't seem to fit your results although maybe they are only showing part of the report.
http://www.castlehillfitness.com/bod...on-testing.php


Regarding BMI.. _Some_ doctors use it as part most I personally have been to or my wife has been to use it as the only piece. Some have even gone so far as to run blood tests and prescribe me medicine because my cholestorol was above average, but not near their "limit", but since I was off the BMI chart I'm an extreme risk and anything above average needs to be treated with medicine.
er... well next doctor please.

Last edited by evblazer; 07-10-09 at 03:07 PM.
evblazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 10:11 AM   #16
kaljr82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kenosha, WI
Bikes: 2008 Fuji Newest 3.0 (My first ever road bike)
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
your picture failed.
kaljr82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 03:08 PM   #17
evblazer
Thread Killer
 
evblazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Marfan Syndrome-Clyde-DFW, TX
Bikes: Fuji Touring Xtracycle, Merlin Road, Bacchetta Giro 26 (Sold), Challenge Hurricane, Cruzbike Sofrider
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
oops. teach me to not preview it was a link not a pic.
evblazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 04:53 PM   #18
Schwinnrider
Mirror slap survivor
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sunny Florida
Bikes: Gunnar Sport, Surly Pacer, Access MTB, Ibex Corrida, one day a Simple City
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Of course it's bogus. BMI doesn't take muscle mass into consideration. The only number that you should pay attention to is bodyfat percentage. Being 200 pounds in single digit bodyfat is WAY different than being 200 pounds with 30 percent bodyfat. But BMI treats both the same. It's stupid. It's not designed for athletic people. It's designed for couch potatoes.
Schwinnrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 08:16 PM   #19
heckler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
Actually it probably works well for insurers, if you take 100,000 people, generally the heavier people will be more likely to have some complications of obesity, like type 2 diabetes, higher instances of heart attack and stroke. It doesn't work for everyone though, just like there are male teens who never have a car accident, but pay the same high rates that teen drivers who have accidents do. It works as a general statistic providing you keep in mind that some individuals will fall outside the parameters. Typically the big boned and muscular individuals, lets not pretend that the average Clyde here is either, some are, most are not.
Well of course it works well if you are looking to make a profit, but they could have just drawn a line in the sand and said anyone over 200lbs is obesse and it would "work" as well (higher risk for everythingthe majority of the time).

The key is to realize that anythign over 50% (a majority) is not necesarily statistically relavent. I can say nickels, dimes and pennies will come out of a random coin machine and quarters will not. And if i bet on it (aka what insurance companies do) I will ultimatly come out ahead, but that doens't mean quarters aren't there.
heckler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 08:20 PM   #20
heckler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewybrian View Post
Yes, it probably hits the mark for most people. I'm on the high end of average, which is probably about right. You wouldn't look at me (now), and say I was fat.

But, someone like the Beaner would be getting hosed. He might fall on the low side of overweight, but could outride all of us. He should have some kind of appeals proccess available. Let him take some insurance reps up a mountain, and see if they still think he's not fit.

I'm not sure how teen drivers could prove they are not high risk; I know I was!
Hey now...we have not all conceded defeat to beanz I feel very confident in my abilities and would love to ride with him if he heads out to the philly area.
heckler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 10:14 PM   #21
DX-MAN
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 4,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One MORE reason BMI is bogus -- as it pertains to the 'electrical impedance test' -- your hydration level can skew the results of the test! Seen it, done it, been there.
DX-MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 10:36 PM   #22
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Posts: 2,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwinnrider View Post
Of course it's bogus. BMI doesn't take muscle mass into consideration. The only number that you should pay attention to is bodyfat percentage. Being 200 pounds in single digit bodyfat is WAY different than being 200 pounds with 30 percent bodyfat. But BMI treats both the same. It's stupid. It's not designed for athletic people. It's designed for couch potatoes.
Of course BMI takes muscle into consideration: it just considers it the mass that it really is.

Is there any scientific evidence to support your contention that being 200 pounds because you have extra muscle is a lot healthier than being 200 because you have extra fat? The stress on your organs, your joints, etc. is exactly the same, isn't it? And for what? Unless you need that muscle for work, why eat all that extra food? Why have that extra carbon footprint? Can anyone legitimately justify it?
pacificaslim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 10:48 PM   #23
Rhodabike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Potashville
Bikes: Reynolds 531P road bike, Rocky Mountain Metropolis, Rocky Mountain Sherpa 10, Look 566
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The whole BMI thing is not necessarily good for thinner people either. How many of us know people who haven't exercised in years and think they don't need to because they're already thin? They probably get told "keep up the good work on maintaining your weight!" when they go for an annual physical. Yet the Cooper institute has found that sedentary thin people aren't any healthier than sedentary overweight people.
Remember Covert Bailey, that fellow who ran around North America dunking people in underwater weighing tanks back in the '80s? He found chunky people who were very lean and slender people with surprisingly high body fat %. One woman he weighed was 110 pounds and around 40% fat. She never exercised, just "maintained" her weight by going on a drastic crash diet every time it crept up, so her muscle mass just kept shrinking.
I just wish these experts would stop focusing on numbers and focus on fitness. I shudder when I see young women smoking, knowing what it's doing to their bones, hearts and lungs. People have gotten the idea that it doesn't matter how you get thin, just as long as you get thin.
Rhodabike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-09, 10:56 PM   #24
Rhodabike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Potashville
Bikes: Reynolds 531P road bike, Rocky Mountain Metropolis, Rocky Mountain Sherpa 10, Look 566
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacificaslim View Post
Of course BMI takes muscle into consideration: it just considers it the mass that it really is.

Is there any scientific evidence to support your contention that being 200 pounds because you have extra muscle is a lot healthier than being 200 because you have extra fat? The stress on your organs, your joints, etc. is exactly the same, isn't it? And for what? Unless you need that muscle for work, why eat all that extra food? Why have that extra carbon footprint? Can anyone legitimately justify it?
Yes, it is healthier to have more muscle, it's less insulin resistant than fat.
Can you prove that having a lot of muscle stresses organs and joints? Strong muscles and strong joints go together. I can't think of any possible way that having a lot of muscle is going to stress organs. How on earth would it?
Rhodabike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-09, 12:11 AM   #25
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Posts: 2,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I don't know. I asked the question: and you're answering that question by throwing another question back at me? Gee, that's cute. I was reading lots of justifications for being bigger than we need to be, as long as that size comes from carrying extra muscle, but no evidence that that is a lot healthier in the long run than being fat. I was asking for some justification for that idea.
pacificaslim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 AM.