In 1960, the average 6 foot tall American male in the 45 to 54 year old category weighed 187 pounds. This is a BMI of 25.4 which is officially classified as overweight. The 75th percentile was 208 pounds which is a BMI of 28.2, officially overweight towards obese.
It is complete nonsense to claim that more than 50% of American males who were 6 foot tall in 1960 were overweight. BMI is bullshit because it claims you're overweight if you're of above average height.
Americans have always been fat,and they will always be fat
The Canadian weights were similar but the British were skinny as fuck in 1943.
That's what WW2 starvation diets do to you.
It doesn't even go past 6.2 Feet. Dang.
i see asian women over 6ft tall all the time now, volleyball playing queens. People everywhere are getting bigger and better, they have been for decades.
30 years ago an asian woman over 6ft would be a freak
>BMI is bullshit
*snifff sniff* hmmm hohh that concentrated copium fuck yeah smells like murican freedom innit?
BMI doesn't account for bodyfat percentage.
BMI doesn't give a sensible weight for your height if you are tall even ignoring body fat percentage.
It is bullshit for other factors.
I started lifting last february at 68kg 180cm. That's 'healthy weight', although skinny. I'm now at 84kg, being squarely 'overweight'. My bodyfat is around 14-15% according to navy method which is well within expectations considering I never, ever cut. BMI tells me I'm 'unhealthy' and should drop the weight. I can probably hit at least 90kg natty, getting ever closer to being considered 'obese'.
Does that sound like a good system for you?
lol you got fat
Here. My bodyfat estimation is taken doing the navy method at home, I do not own nor am interested in doing bioimpedance shit or more expensive methods. I have a visible six pack even at my heaviest, and am completely satisfied with it considering I do not ever cut. My arms are 39.5cm large.
If I look unhealthily overweight to you, because that's what BMI implies, maybe you should try lifting some weights
>visibile 6 pack
Stop kidding yourself. You're fat
I can see it both in the picture and irl.
You still give BMI any credit?
You can't see a 6 pack in the picture you posted
>I have a visible six pack
Do you have any particular reason for taking that picture from the side sir
Yes, it was meant to be a shot of my glutes for comparison. Some fellow told me my ass was disproportionately big and I was just checking, it happens to be the most recent picture I have
I have pictures from the front and can see it just as well. What's your point? I'm not arguing I couldn't be leaner, I'm arguing BMI is shit for suggesting my current weight is unhealthy.
>I have pictures from the front and can see it just as well.
So post them you idiot
I do have it. I've been leaner and had it more apparent, sure, as a former skelly I do not bother with cutting at all, at least not for now. I'm permabulking until I hit my natural limit and only then I'll think about cutting.
I do not see how any of this argues against BMI being a shitty metric that takes neither body fat or lean mass into consideration
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
lmao that's a 6 pack??? Bruh.... not like this. Not like this....
Yeah, I can see the entirety of the abs. I gave you my numbers above, you can figure out whether that's fat or not. Keep in mind I gained nearly 20kg of mass in one year of lifting and there's plenty more to go
>b-but you're not lean!!!!!!
sure. Unhealthily fat? lol
no offense m8 but I wouldn't call that a 6 pack. looks like you need more ab hypertrophy
I don't disagree with you. Picrel was around 76-77kg (I'm 84 now), I know it's not just fat because I measure my arms and they're very low in fat. Right now I'm just mindlessly bulking to get as heavy as I can before I do a single cut into maintenance.
The glorious system of BMI would throw me, in this picture, in a 'borderline overweight' status. Does that look borderline overweight to anyone?
Read into how humans store fat mate, not much will ever go to your arms as a man
Correct, which means that if my arms went from 33cm to 39.5cm, it is in great majority lean mass. I have not gained 'only fat'. That's my point.
What I'm trying to convey is that BMI is shit. That's it. Not saying I'm lean, or the leanest I could be, or that I mog people. I said I have a six pack in all pictures I uploaded, and I can see a six pack looking down right now. It's fine if people don't, I still think BMI is inadequate and worthless for lifters.
I didn't realise it's possible to have body dysmorphia in the opposite direction.
Bro you don't even have a six pack here even though you've clearly tried to use gypsy lighting to highlight any shred of gains. You say you gained 20kg of mass in one year - I agree, but mass doesn't refer only to muscle anon.
Do a cut for fucks sake.
You are at least 20% bf, I've done over 400 DEXAs for people trust me
you arent "fat" but you arent anywhere near lean either, you need to drop at least 20lbs bro
He would probably lose 30lbs before he's at a legit 10% bodyfat. I remember being about as delusional as him on my first bulk though so there's that
Lol you're fat dude. Strongfat, but still fat.
nice butt! Are you a bottom?
so probably butt virgin, all the better
Kek you are like 25% bodyfat and all your fat goes into your gigantic bubble butt that only an 8 inch dick could penetrate u thick as shit white boy
nice grindr pic, bet you're getting tons of attention there
youre full of shit
Are you telling me that the average middle aged, 6 foot tall American male in 1960 was clinically overweight?
yes I absolutely believe that
>my made up formula says it, so it must be true
do BMItards really believe this
>I say it isn't, so it must be true
Post abdomen fatty
>made up formula
It’s literally just a ratio that correlates with optimal bodily function. Cope fatty
>It’s literally just a ratio that correlates with optimal bodily function. Cope fatty
BMI was invented centuries ago. It's a convenient measure but not based on any kind of modern research.
You are not 84kg and 14-15% bodyfat, simple as.
You are likely 20% bf+. People suck at guessing their bf, I have a visible six pack, SUPER veiny, and I'm 14% based on DEXA
15% is the number I got from navy test done at home. It's actually from 13 to 14, every time. One time I got 14.9% and that's the upper limit I'm basing my posts off of.
My pictures are above, you can check and guess. BMI is still shit.
I literally have the same height and went from the same weight as you bulking to 87kg and my body fat% went up from about 12% to at least 20%. What you're implying is that you only gained muscle while gaining no fat which is highly unlikely. If most people were like you steroids would be unnecessary for body building. So I'm personally doubtful.
That's not how it works. I was real skinny before starting to workout. Say, 10%bf. Even if I stood at 10% and gained 20kg, it wouldn't be 20kg of 'pure muscle'. Bodyfat is a %. 10% of 80 is more than 10% of 60. But it didn't, it increased to around 13-15%. I gained quite a bit of fat, as is normal for powerbulks.
>BUT YOU HAVE AT LEAST 20%!!!!!! YOU'RE FAT!!!!
Not only does navy method points to my bodyfat being 14%, most charts also do the same. Call it reverse dysmorphia or whatever if you will, but I do not see myself anywhere even near the 20% picture. I can clearly see my abs, despite there being quite a lot of fat I could lose to make them more defined.
My ONLY point is that BMI indicates I am unhealthily overweight, when that's not the case. Muscle is much more dense than fat, and someone who didn't lift at my height and weight would start having issues with visceral fat around the organs and shit, because their bodyfat% would necessarily be way higher - they don't lift, there's no way they have 40cm lean arms.
> 84kg 180 cm
Ponderal Index = 14.4
> 118 lbs 66 inches
Ponderal Index = 11.36
I'm 19 bmi too which is normal so
Max pull ups is a better indicator of whether or not you're a healthy weight than BMI. I've never once seen a fat person who could do a decent number of pull ups.
I can do maybe 10 at my fatass weight
Has the average muscle mass declined though?
Also, imagine the data was saying they weighed far less than the healthy BMI Range. Would you come here claiming that having a BMI of 16 is the healthy ideal? If not, why would the reverse apply?
Presumably there wasn't an obesity crisis all the way back in 1960 when ultraprocessed food was unknown. It doesn't make sense to say that most adults back then had an unhealthy weight.
> Also, imagine the data was saying they weighed far less than the healthy BMI Range. Would you come here claiming that having a BMI of 16 is the healthy ideal
If that was what the data said then I guess I would agree with that. Whatever people weighed before the obesity crisis should be around what we consider to be a healthy weight.
Fair enough. I would add though that, as far as I know, average height has increased steadily, meaning that people who were tall decades ago may have had better access to nutrition overall, so a higher percentage of that population may have been overfat. Would be interesting to see if there are any large datasets of caliper measurements.
And there's still the question of whether this would mean that BMI is bullshit, or whether the recommendations would simply need to be adjusted. I still think amount of mass per (estimate of) body size seems like a pretty decent measure for practical purposes (e.g. for the doctor to tell you you're at risk of something without having to do a whole dexa scan or some shit).
1960 was the beginning of the obesity crisis it wasnt nearly as bad as it is now. It started because after WW2 peoples lives became increasingly sedentary as more people started moving to suburbs, driving everywhere instead of walking and working white collar jobs. Ultraprocessed food just exploded it into orbit.
Thats why the food pyramid looks how it does, because back then there wasnt an abundance of ultraprocessed carbs so if someone was overweight its probably because they were eating steak and ground beef all the time.
This makes the food pyramid actually make sense for the first time, since products with bread were probably also more plain and less sugary (think sandwiches and doubletriplebaconcheesesugarsauceburger), no hyperpalatable MSG instant noodles etc.
Nah bmi is accurate, stop eating so much you fucking disgusting pig.
source: I'm a disgusting pig
>the average american
And yet I'm willing to bet the average 6ft American age 45+ WAS overweight, or should I say, overfat
"Overfat" is defined as "having enough fat mass to be detrimental to health"
It's a better metric than referring to weight which as you say can be confounded by variables like height and bone density/structure
Fat levels are also easily and reliably measured using tape
Overfat directly refers and relates to health outcomes, where weight and BMI don't necessarily
Stop using overweight and start thinking overfat, anons
>should I say, overfat
>"Overfat" is defined as "having enough fat mass to be detrimental to health"
>It's a better metric than referring to weight which as you say can be confounded by variables like height and bone density/structure
I like this, much like "MSM" it cuts through the bullshit to focus on the important stuff
I am 74 inches tall and 178 pounds and I think I am out of shape and slightly fat but everyone I know thinks I am slim and in shape...
Basically the average American is so fat that all you have to do to look in shape is not eat a container of cookies, party size bag of chips, large pizza or drink a two liter of soda while sitting on your ass all day.
I don't work out and still eat like shit but because I don't stuff myself full of sugar and I actually get off my ass I am somehow in better shape and size than the average American.
I always get a laugh when people say getting ahead in life is hard in America. If you just look at the average American you will see that all it takes is a tiny bit of effort to be successful.
The victimhood culture going around have made people not even want to try in the first place.
Why are you so concerned with BMI?
And to your point about height, the picture you posted shows an equation for BMI that takes height into account. Dividing by height means that larger height equals smaller overall BMI so the idea that you’re specifically targeted by the BMI garden gnomes for being above average height is not the case.
You need to put any more stock into BMI because of this, but just stop eating so much if you look in the mirror and appear to be fat.
BMI is a quick measure to see general health. Doctors measure your height, weight, blood pressure, temperature, and a couple other things to get a general idea of good health vs bad health. For like 90% of people it’s going to be generally right. If you’re right above the border of healthy and over weight and your other test are fine and you are visibly fit unless the doctor graduated bottom of their class they aren’t gonna say you are overweight and need to lose weight. If your BMI says you are obese and aren’t built like an NFL linebacker then you are fat.
Allegedly, I look like the guy on the far right.
Now stand normally bitch tits
Sorry I can bench 3pl8? Whats does that have to do with me looking like OPs pic of an obese?
you can still look like a lardass and bench 3pl8 dimwit
But i dont.
And i have no gut.
>bmi calls him fat
So where is the discrepancy
>tfw was skinnyfat with "perfect" bmi
healthy bmi doesn't say much
unhealthy bmi usually is right
BMI is a simple heuristic to assess general health in combination with a bunch of other heuristics/tests and not to be taken too seriously. If you're overweight and your bloodwork is shit and your resting HR is shit and your blood pressure is shit, your weight is probably an issue. If you're a BMI of 26 but you're otherwise in peak health, it's clearly not a problem.
The bmi is meant to be used on a population for a general indication of its fatness. Op is pointing out correctly that bmi doesn’t work for taller than average individuals getting worse the taller you get. It’s a valid criticism and probably one of the reasons the population is getting more overweight as it gets taller.
The average dad back then was a skinny fat mess though. Watch literally any old media and all the dads look like complete shit, skinny twig arms and beer bellies, not even a respectable built fat dad bod. These are the losers that beat their wives and kids after drinking every day
they look like champions
Hey! I've seen this episode!
People are retarded and dont understand BMI is an estimate to be used by medical practitioners and isnt for aesthetics
Even if you are low bodyfat high muscle high BMI, your cardiovascular system doesnt care if you have fat or muscle, just weight.
they changed the cutoff in the 90s from 27 to 25. probably coincident with rising bodyfat percentages
>BMI is bullshit because it claims you're overweight if you're of above average height.
>tfw I have a condition that makes my bones unusually dense so BMI actually doesn't calculate correctly for me
I'm moderately skinny but my BMI calculates to 30. I sink like a rock in water.
BMI was originally created to tell whether or not someone was underweight. Which is why you start getting some fucky ratings the larger you go.
Broadly, it's not bullshit. For the most part it's accurate assuming you're interpreting "overweight" and "obese" as measurements of overall health, which you should.
The problem arises when you're high BMI but also high muscle. If you're 6'2 230 you're in the "overweight" category. If you're built like an NFL linebacker and low BF%, high in muscle (assuming you're natty) are you really "unhealthy" or overweight/obese? Most likely not. At the same time you could be 6'2, 170 lbs and in the normal weight range but you're a skinny-fat dyel with absolutely ZERO muscle on his body and a layer of pudge covering everything with a shit diet and being generally unhealthy.
Still, it's accurate and correct in probably 95% of cases. Most people who pretend they shouldn't be categorized as overweight are indeed overweight. They might be fairly athletic, they might be fairly muscular, they're almost certainly fat enough to be unhealthy. Railing against BMI is a massive cope for fat fucks who want to pretend that they should be considered healthy before actually becoming healthy. How about you cut, remove all that fat, and then we'll talk? If your BMI is still overweight and you're low BF then you won't even CARE what some BMI number says about you because it'll be so obvious and self-evident that you're still healthy that you don't seek validation in some kind of bs number.
>trust the science guys!
At the very least, BMI is a good rule of thumb for general health, in particular regards to how much strain/pressure your body weight is putting on your joints and organs.
That is still absolutely relevant when lifting.
This thread is just a fat homosexual raging about being overweight and posting pics of his ass to other men.
The dod bod from the 1960s was a six foot man with a beer belly and weighed 187 pounds. Beer belly = fat. Stop coping and have a little discipline with your diet if you don't want to be considered fat.
>that 20 bf% guy itt coping and thinking he's close to 15%
Oh no no, rippetoe kickstarted another dreamer bulk.
I must be 20-25% bf at 5'6 59kg. Can barely see my abs and still have the skinnyfat belly.
Hey fellows, I just arrived from work and gym. The numbers I gave you are what I always got through navy method. It's what I have available to consistently measure at home. As far as I know it's considered relatively accurate - if anything, at least it's very reliable because I always get either 13 or 14%.
I don't care whether or not I'm at that level, the point of the thread and all my posts is showing you that BMI is a shitty scale that does not means shit. This thread isn't about myself. I'm permabulking and I'll cut once I can't get any bigger. If I'm 14% or 20% or 30% means little, I'm more concerned with the consistency of the test. It is very consistent.
what if you hold alot of fat at your waist but barely anywhere else
>“BMI is bullshit because it claims you're overweight if you're of above average height”
>the picture that you posted literally shows that BMI is is inversely proportional to the square of height
You are retarded and you understand math at less than a 6th grade level.
>95% of men overweight according to BMI are also overweight according to BF%
>same for 99% of women
>only requires height and weight. So advanced machinery or measurement device. No special training or variables like with calibers/displacement weighing/ DEXA.
BMI is an excellent metric and unless you’re absolutely jacked, it’s an accurate assessment of your general fitness
>You are retarded and you understand math at less than a 6th grade level.
you are an actual fucking retard. BMI is a formula that someone made up. it does not necessarily give sensible answers for the relationship between a healthy weight and height. historical data shows that even way back before obesity was a crisis, most tall men were classified as "overweight" by BMI. therefore it seems likely that BMI is not a sensible measurement formula for healthy weight at all heights.
I am 6’1, 175 lbs and lean but not thin and my BMI is smack in the middle of the healthy range. There is no excuse to not have a BMI between 21-24 unless you choose to use gear and put on extra muscle
It's not good for athletes but it's pretty good for general populations. A man standing 6feet at 190pounds who doesn't work out (as most don't) is just barely overwheight under the standard BMI measure.
And if you were to look at him, you would probably agree: most men of that height and weight *who don't work out, as most people don't* will have love handles and little to no definition anywhere. He wouldn't be obese, in fact he'd be less overweight than the average American, but most of his cohort will look unremarkable and a little heavier than he needs to be.
BMI is bullshit but because the statistics its based on are no longer true.
The average man when BMI was formulated had MORE muscle on average than now. Alot of people that are at a healthy weight BMI are still fat.
Its why skinny fat even exists, you can be at a healthy weight but have auschwitz levels of muscle mass.
this lol, fatties have it backwards.
Pic related is a graph from 2013, so it's safe to assume that the current situation is even worse
btw maybe putting the line at 20% bf is a bit harsh, but even at 25% the point still stands.
Also I'd like to see the guy in pic related
People with enough muscle to skew their BMI towards overweight/obese even when relatively low bodyfat% are the exception, not the rule.
This guy is sadly right. I was in denial at 6’3 220. I looked good with clothes on but bf was probably close to 20. Dropped down to 199 which is like the top of normal weight and looked much better. Got on roids and am about 15% at 225 so now I know what the copers should look like at 28 bmi (much less higher). I look pretty fucking juiced. Anyone natty with a 28+ bmi is in denial if they think they aren’t fat
You're literally proving my point. Being 6 foot 3, if you were in the middle of the supposedly "healthy" 18-25 range with BMI 21.5, you'd weigh 172 pounds. That is very lean. At any time in history when obesity was not a problem, a healthy tall man would be BMI>25. Probably tall men should take any BMI less than 27 as healthy.
Reminder that average height has also increased over the last almost 80 years.
The further you tread from the average the more wrong bmi is.
It doesn't mean its not a useful tool for the average person.
And If your not the average person, why would you be using bmi over calipers anyways?
You people are like those people who say physics is fake because newton is wrong.
The vast majority of the time newton is right and thats all that matters for most people.
It accounts for height, fatfuck.
Can you fucking read? It doesn't account correctly for height unless you think the majority of tall men in 1960 were clinically overweight.
>unless you think the majority of tall men in 1960 were clinically overweight.
Yeah, they probably were. Overweight is not obese.
by what clinical definition of overweight?
See the chart here
The people who are high BMI but relatively low bodyfat % are the exception. 99/100 people with a BMI over 25 have a bodyfat % above 20.
It's different for women, but if you're a man with bodyfat% above 20, you are overweight.
That doesn't provide any clinical definition of overweight. That plot doesn't even look at the range of standard weights for a given height and its relationship with BF%. The assumption is that BMI standardizes the weight-height relationship whereas in reality it fails increasingly badly for tall people.
>That doesn't provide any clinical definition of overweight.
The clinical definition is based on BMI, but you knew that, and were hoping to catch me in a tautology. BMI works in 99% of cases. Are their edge cases where a 6'8 guy might be below 20% bodyfat and still classed as overweight? Sure. It still works in 99% of cases so it's a useful metric when looking at groups as a whole.
Look at the chart again. Look at the crosses, representing men. The vast majority of them are above 20% bodyfat.
Are you implying that taller people can be at a higher bodyfat% than shorter people whilst remaining healthy? How do you think percentages work?
nta but a bf% over 25 for men and over 35 for women is considered obese, I'm not sure what the cutoff is for overweight tho
>BMI is bullshit
Oh boy, another coping fatty.
> 2+ weeks pregnant.
> 4+ months pregnant.
> 8+ months pregnant.
BMI only factors in weight.
its a good metric if you use it on the people it was designed for.
Yep this, it doesn't count for trained individuals. Obese powershitters are still coping though.
>internet says i'm overweight
>mention it to GP during twice yearly check up
>get told muscle weighs more than fat and i should cut the shit and stop being a hypochondriac like all sporty people are
>only come to IST to see young men worry about decimal points and fad diets like a bunch of neurotic housewives
found another graph that has a much smaller difference between the skinnyfat and the fatfit.
These were all 18-20yo males at a military recruitment centre (in 2008) tho, so it makes sense for them to be much more fit on average than the general population
>The limitation of the BMI to classify subjects has been largely described in literature.
>A higher proportion of muscle mass overestimates BMI. Subjects who are rela-tively disproportionate between upper and lower body parts usually have their BMI underestimated. In our sample, the sensitivity of the BMI was 91.9%, which means that 90% of the normal weight people were classified as normal. The specificity was only 48.4%, which means that 50% of the overweight individuals were classified as overweight.
>There are two possibilities to limit FN: using an additional method to evaluate BF% or using a higher cutoff for the BMI. In our sample, 29 candidates were classified as FN. It is important to note that 23 individuals (80%) of the 29 classified as FN had a BMI between 25.0 kg/m2 and 27.0 kg/m2.
>Adding an impedance measurement for the BMI category at 25.0 kg/m2 to 27.0 kg/m2 would classify these candidates correctly. A second approach would be using a higher BMI cutoff: with a cutoff of 27.0 kg/m2, FN would decrease to 6.
>However, the number of FP would increase compared with a BMI cutoff of 25.0 kg/m2, from 47 to 68. A problem with this second approach is that using a higher cutoff of 27.0 kg/m2 would select a different sample, probably with the same problems as FN.
>From this study, we can conclude that the BMI method, combined with impedance, classified 83% of the volunteers correctly: 372 of the 448 were correctly classified with both methods as normal or overweight. This criterion is also technically easy to use. Because of the high number of candidates each year for a military career, using a systematic bioelectrical impedance measurement is too time-consuming. However, a BMI between 25.0 kg/m 2 and 27.0 kg/m 2 does not indicate that an individual is over-fat.
>Additional impedance testing for this category should therefore be performed to determine whether the excess weight in such individuals really is due to an excess of fat accumulation.
It doesn't matter if your BMI is high due to fat or muscles. You are putting more stress in your joints and your heart either way.
try corpulence index
interesting. Next time that a retarded butterball says that BMI doesn't make sense because the body is a volume and not a surface I'll whip out this
>makes fats seethe
yeah BMI is epic
I agree. Body fat % and weight are a better measurement.
>It is complete nonsense to claim that more than 50% of American males who were 6 foot tall in 1960 were overweight
He thinks its nonsense to claim most Americans are overweight
Anon, go touch some grass and you'll see.
what year are you claiming most people were healthy in?
or if you can't answer, what does "being healthy" even mean?
Do we need a bmi thread every day? Bmi works for most of the population. But its not perfect for every situation. Especially if you have a ton of muscle. But usually, if you are really mad at the bmi chart, you have a large amount of fat in your mid section that you are coping about.
t. 6'2 210 pounds....he could lose some weight