Originally Posted by goose70

I'm interested in the opinions on that by the medical professionals on this forum.

Originally Posted by chasm54

Here's one for those who think that BMI is rubbish and doesn't apply to muscular individuals. The subject is Linford Christie, who at the time the picture was taken was the world 100 metres champion. He is 6ft 3ins tall and weighed 175lbs - a BMI of 22. I'd say he was pretty muscular.

Originally Posted by datlas

I am a so-called medical professional. With a BMI of 19 BTW.

BMI is a blunt instrument. It does not take into account a person's frame size or proportion of lean body mass (ie muscle) versus fat.

However it's easy to calculate so the public health authorities like it.

It does have some limitations but it works reasonably well for most folks.

A better metric would be body fat percentage, but you need special equipment to measure it.

That said, a football linebacker who has all muscle and low fat with a high BMI might not be the healthiest specimen either.

Alas, like most inquiries in BF (and life), the conclusion is: IT DEPENDS!!

Originally Posted by pgjackson

Not to be argumentative, but Christie is well over 200lbs. He competed around 202-207lbs. That would make his BMI 25.2...overweight. What a fattie!

Originally Posted by pgjackson

Not to be argumentative, but Christie is well over 200lbs. He competed around 202-207lbs. That would make his BMI 25.2...overweight. What a fattie!

Originally Posted by dgasmd

Dude, just because someone has great muscle definition does not mean they can't stand to easily loose 10-15 Lb of fat. You would be amazed how much fat there is under the skin of well defined muscular people.

Originally Posted by chasm54

You are mistaken. Christie is certainly over 200lbs today, But he competed at 170-175.

Originally Posted by Squirrelli

That's Voeckler.

Originally Posted by pgjackson

https://www.sports-reference.com/olym...hristie-1.html

In that picture there is no way he's under 200lbs at 6'3". He makes Carl Lewis look like a toothpick and they are both the same height.

Originally Posted by chadwick

...so many cyclists have eating disorders.

Originally Posted by chasm54

Here's one for those who think that BMI is rubbish and doesn't apply to muscular individuals. The subject is Linford Christie, who at the time the picture was taken was the world 100 metres champion. He is 6ft 3ins tall and weighed 175lbs - a BMI of 22. I'd say he was pretty muscular.

Originally Posted by chasm54

Again, you're mistaken. I followed track and field closely at the time and was in despair that at roughly Christie's height, and in the shape of my life, at 190lbs I was 15 lbs heavier than him and still looked like a stringbean by comparison. He had a twenty eight inch waist, which may have something to do with it.

Originally Posted by chasm54

Here's one for those who think that BMI is rubbish and doesn't apply to muscular individuals. The subject is Linford Christie, who at the time the picture was taken was the world 100 metres champion. He is 6ft 3ins tall and weighed 175lbs - a BMI of 22. I'd say he was pretty muscular.

Originally Posted by pgjackson

Perhaps I was wrong about his competition weight, but the guy in that picture is probably around 215-220. He looks like a linebacker. Actually, he is built a lot like Terrell Owens, who is 6'3", 225lbs. That's a BMI if 28.1, borderline obese. Another fattie.

Originally Posted by hhnngg1

It's well known that BMI does NOT apply to muscular body types, as it doesn't distinguish between fat & muscle. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

I still think Schleck looks anorexic. He might have a 'low-normal' BMI because his leg muscles are super dense, but discounting that, I'll bet the rest of him would work out to an average of a dangerously low BMI - it just happens to average out more normally because of his quads. Just look at photos of him shirtless - he's way lighter than just 'slightly underweight' for the upper body.

Originally Posted by NathanC

You only say he looks anorexic because in this day and age, that thin build looks positively underweight, but he is just lean. Tall and lean. He would eat extremely healthy, he is obviously very fit, and has a resting heart rate of probably 45.

He doesn't look anorexic at all.

Originally Posted by dgasmd

Joke? It depends what you compare it to. It is not supposed to account for everything and every single body type. It accounts for the majority based on the large numbers of people used to come up with it. 99% of the time you hear someone bashing the BMI is either the uneducated in how it was formulated and what it represents or the fat/overweight person feeling offended because they perceived themselves as something they are not. One always hear crap like: they are big bone or they have more muscle, etc. However, despite bone and more developed muscles weighting more, it is never to the over rated proportions that people give it. I remember a great quote from one of my anatomy professors in medical school: "I've been doing cadaver dissection for over 25 years and I am yet to see the first "big bone" cadaver".



Well, if your wrist is the size of a normal thigh maybe his wrist size is not the issue! Also, based on what you say, your BMI is 33, which places you in the overweight category. Either your doctor has no concept of what "normal" is/should be" or he is fat as well and looks at you with his "fat eyes". Likely a combination of both. He is human too, so he likely has his biases. It does not take away from reality. Despite that, I would be looking for health advice from someone else a bit more in tune with reality and not popular perception.

Not bashing on you personally, but using what you say above.