Its unfit not fat that is the problem.

[Jaded]

No reply from him, so maybe he's off doing self abuse just now!   

[Tea_Bee]

BP: 136/80, pulse 55.

Impressive. You are clearly way fitter than your BMI indicates.

d.

BMI sucks like a monkey!!! It's a rubbish form of measurement. Take any professional rugby league player and nearly all of them would be technically obese. Bet they're still fitter than most hobby cyclists.

My BMI is around the 30 mark (I haven't weighed myself in years, so I can't be exact). But my BP is around 135/80 and my resting pulse languishes as low as 47 sometimes, I can out-run most people in a sprint and I'm very rarely overtaken by anyone whilst I'm pootling to work on a single-speed with 50lbs of laptop, tools and bike chain draped around me. I'm 41, BTW, so I believe my BP is supposed to be higher than it was when I first had it taken as a teenager.

But given my size, I don't think it would be healthy for me to try to get my BMI much below maybe 28 - I would have to be trying to lose muscle, rather than fat by that point and that isn't healthy. As far as I am aware, losing muscle bulk won't improve my BP or overall health. I can't help it, I'm built more like a boxer than a runner but I like being that shape. So does my girlfriend, who wouldn't want me to have the build of a competition cyclist.

I'll never win any races at the shape I am, but then neither do I want to. I don't do cometition - I just like to riiiiiiiiiiiiiide........   

[gordon taylor]

My BMI is just a smigin lower than wowbaggers at 34.0 - although that might change this weekend!
I ride every day, pretty much, and average 7 to 8000 miles a year.
I ran a half marathon last year weighing 231lbs (16 st 7 lbs)
I'm 180cm tall.

I've managed to get it below 30 only twice in the last ten years.
One of those times was at the end of a 5400 mile Orlando-San Diego-Sydney-Perth ride.
I was 15 st 5 lbs at the end if that. Whoopee do! 

I'd really, really like to be a lot lighter, but it just doesn't happen.

[Greenbank]

BMI sucks like a monkey!!! It's a rubbish form of measurement. Take any professional rugby league player and nearly all of them would be technically obese. Bet they're still fitter than most hobby cyclists.

Like it's been said time and time again, on average it's a good measure, for certain individuals it may be complete rubbish. It's the best simple system for working out an estimate of 'healthiness' based on two easily measurable things, ones that most people will know about themselves anyway.

BVI (Body Volume Index) is much more accurate, but getting an accurate measurement of body volume is not something people can do at home or down the gym.

If I said that the average age of people on this forum was 36 you'd get 99% of people posting "that's rubbish, I'm only xx years old."

[hellymedic]

If my aging memory serves me correctly, BMI was not formulated by the vanity industry, but by actuaries and statisticians correlating height, weight and lifespan.
The insewerance industry jumped at this opportunity to weight premiums for those outside the desirable range.

[Edit] BMI was originally formulated by Adolphe Quetelet (1796-1874) so it's old...

[geraldc]

I still find BMI useful. I can either lose 10lbs, or grow 3 inches taller.
I'm not an athlete, so my bmi is caused by too much fat, and definitely not too much muscle mass.

[hellymedic]

Gerald, are you aware that the BMI for 'overweight' is >24 for those from South-East Asia?   

[Jakob]

Gerald, are you aware that the BMI for 'overweight' is >24 for those from South-East Asia?   

Body mass index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's 23< that's overweight and 25< obese...which looking at the average population, makes sense.

[Tea_Bee]

Gerald, are you aware that the BMI for 'overweight' is >24 for those from South-East Asia?   

Body mass index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's 23< that's overweight and 25< obese...which looking at the average population, makes sense.

So, by that logic...  If you're non-average in any way, then it doesn't.

And the more you are non-average, the less it will make sense.

[Tea_Bee]

It comes down to this. In increasing order of 'healthiness' would you put it as:-

a) Weight is most important:-

Obese + Unfit
Obese + Fit
Overweight + Unfit
Overweight + Fit
Normal + Unfit
Normal + Fit

Or

b) this: (which is what I think) that being obese is an overriding Bad Thing(TM), but for merely overweight people¹ it's more important to be fit:-

Obese + Unfit
Obese + Fit
Overweight + Unfit
Normal + Unfit
Overweight + Fit
Normal + Fit

My definitions are: Obese (BMI>=30), Overweight (BMI between 25 and 30), Normal (BMI between 20 and 25). I'm also ignoring people underweight (as defined as BMI<20).

"Fit" and "unfit" are as vague as you like, for me "fit" is not walking the dog twice a day for an hour in total.

1. I'm overweight (BMI>=25) and have been for at least the last 10 years, hasn't stopped me playing 5-a-side football twice a week, cycling >5000 miles last year including LEL, and running a 50 minute 10k. I'd love to get under 12st (BMI=25) but I like food and beer too much. 4 months off the bike, and plenty of celebrating the new arrival has meant I've put on a stone, but since getting back on the bike my weight is static, if not trending downwards slightly, if I can keep that up I'll be fine.

The study I read, which just looked at *people* (rather than starting with the unhealthy and working back) listed it more like this:

Obese + Unfit
Overweight + Unfit
Slim + Unfit
Overweight + Fit = Slim + Fit

There is a stereotypical view that carry some fat MUST be inherently bad for you, when it seems that fitness is the key issue.

So in terms of the OP, unfit is DEFINITELY the modern health problem in my view. Fuck the fat. If people just spent their time dieting and never got out and exercised (how could you anyway, with no energy in your food to fuel you) then the counrty will be much less healthy than if we encouraged people to get fit first and ignore the scales, because if people are busy getting fit, then fat levels will tend to take care of themselves to a large extent.

[geraldc]

Gerald, are you aware that the BMI for 'overweight' is >24 for those from South-East Asia?   

I'd conveniently forgotten about that! For a long time when going back to Hong Kong, I discovered that my 33inch waist was too big for most shops.
In the UK my t shirt size is medium. In HK it's XL.

[Martin109]

I registered with Biobank and did all their tests.  They gave me some feedback:

Blood Pressure:   138 / 80 mmHg      Good
Weight:  89.7Kg
Height:  1.80m
BMI:  27.7    8.7Kg above recommended range
Waist circumference:  96cm / 38in    Borderline
Percent body fat:  22.3%   Good
Heel bone ultrasound: 54 dB/Mhz   Borderline

It's the waist circumference and the BMI, combined with the body fat percentage that I find hard to understand.  How can I be overweight, but with a healthy percentage of fat?

[Greenbank]

It's the waist circumference and the BMI, combined with the body fat percentage that I find hard to understand.  How can I be overweight, but with a healthy percentage of fat?

If 22.3% of you is fat then 77.7% isn't, the composition of which can vary massively between people.

[hellymedic]

You are heavy. 90kg is not 75kg. You are not excessively fat. It seems much of your weight is muscle. Fat is when
1) you look like a lard arse
2) Your body fat is excessive
3) You have a big beer gut (or at least a larger waist than you do now).

How has your shirt collar size been over the years? Nobody seems to pay much attention to neck fat but I think it is relevant. It used to be thought that a crease in the earlobe was related to heart disease. IMO this crease develops when the neck gets fat.

[simonp]

Male athletes should have 6-13% body fat says wikipedia.

Today I measured 13.7% so I'm getting there.  OTOH that was just after a 600 and my muscles are probably still full of water and going "Oh no not again!". 

Was 18% back in November.  I've almost managed to get rid of the love handles. 

[Martin109]

You are heavy. 90kg is not 75kg. You are not excessively fat. It seems much of your weight is muscle. Fat is when
1) you look like a lard arse
2) Your body fat is excessive
3) You have a big beer gut (or at least a larger waist than you do now).

How has your shirt collar size been over the years? Nobody seems to pay much attention to neck fat but I think it is relevant. It used to be thought that a crease in the earlobe was related to heart disease. IMO this crease develops when the neck gets fat.

Thanks for those kind words, H!  I so rarely wear a tie that I didn't get to notice how the shirt I was able to do up in 2002 I wasn't able to do up this month!

[Rich753]

But bigger neck shirt size can also be muscular in origin - especially if you've been overdosing on kettlebell swings 

[David Martin]

It's definitely fat that is the problem. Club ride up Craigowl hill last night and I was carrying about 20kg more than the others. It would be safe to say that I was not the first to the top.. And everything creaks today.

[geraldc]

I was reading that BMI is a way of estimating body fat percentage based on just height and weight. If this is the case, I'm going to stop looking at BMI and just look at actual bodyfat percentage through measurement rather than estimation. This has nothing to do with the fact that my fat percentage at 21% (according to Tanita) makes me far happier than my calculated BMI of 27. 

[citoyen]

The reason people use BMI rather than any more accurate method is that it's easier to calculate - you only need height and weight. Measuring actual body fat requires specialised equipment.

d.

[kevinp]

When I saw the doctor a couple of weeks ago I asked her if she could do a body fat test on me, it turns out they don't do them any more and rely on BMI

[arvid]

That sounds to me like "we don't use clocks anymore, we rely on the position of the sun". I think you can get one, but at a sports medical centre or something like that.

[Frenchie]

I've always been or felt a bit round; except when I was running (properly) maybe. I definitely am round now due to little riding and a lot of work and travel. I'm sure I could ride better skinnier, esp in the hills; but feeling and being round doesn't make me that slow. I can "munch" my way. I am reasonably fit compared to my sedentary peers.

[Greenbank]

Read an interesting article about BMI vs 'healthiness' in an obscure maths journal (no online version so I can't link to it).

Based on data taken from somewhere (I don't have the journal with me) there's a very strong correlation between 'healthiness' (derived from QALY measurements/calculations) and BMI. From the data, 'Optimal' BMI seems to be 23, but anything within the usual 'normal' range of 20-25 still represents a good level of 'healthiness'.

I'll see if I can find an online version of the article or link to it, you may wish to gloss over the not very interesting maths and look at the pretty graphs and the non-equation related text.

[jogler]

In consideration of the Topic title.....
I am not losing weight , in fact my weight has increased by approx. 2kg in the last 8 weeks.
However something is occurring because last Saturday & yesterday I was able to spend time on the drops without discomfort.Previously I could not do this because my pregnancy-paunch was colliding with my thighs & kness on the pedal upstroke
So where has(some of) my waist lard gone?It's not due to weight loss.
It appears that I may becoming both fatter & fitter