What do you weigh? Seriously

Weight?

  • Total voters
    99
Mcmoon said:
BMI works pretty dang well for most people. Studies show that most issues arise from classifying people as normal weight when they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than they should. It rarely has this problem with with classifying people as overweight or obese when they are not. Now seeing how this is the strength and conditioning section you are more likely to run into outliers but that doesn't invalidate the data and its efficiency of the bmi formula. I agree though that bodyfat percentage is a better metric but it just isn't as easy to calculate at the moment.
Click to expand...
BMI was never designed to be used as a metric for individuals, and is pretty well known for failing at being a metric for individuals. It's purpose is for looking at a vast swath of population, where the outliers will average each other out.

BMI is notorious for classifying people as overweight when they are not. Most college athletes are classified as overweight according to the BMI. For instance BMI considers 132-167 lbs a "normal" weight for 5'10". 174 is overweight. 174 lbs!

Over 90% of the collegiate wrestling team I work with would be considered overweight according to BMI.
 
crxtuner said:
what you consider is the optimal weight for 174cm. currently I'm 153lbs, I want a bit more muscle but not to much cause I can't cut much weight if the weight in is 2hours prior the fight. Shall I bulk up to 170lbs or stick with my current weight. body fat is 10%.
My reach is only 65,74 inch, so i cant fight really in higher wheight classes
Click to expand...
There is no optimal weight for height.

Fight at the weight class you weigh in at. Most people vastly overrate reach for determining fighting weight.
 
TheeFaulted said:
BMI was never designed to be used as a metric for individuals, and is pretty well known for failing at being a metric for individuals. It's purpose is for looking at a vast swath of population, where the outliers will average each other out.

BMI is notorious for classifying people as overweight when they are not. Most college athletes are classified as overweight according to the BMI. For instance BMI considers 132-167 lbs a "normal" weight for 5'10". 174 is overweight. 174 lbs!

Over 90% of the collegiate wrestling team I work with would be considered overweight according to BMI.
Click to expand...

Again you are comparing the outliers with the rest of the general population. Most people aren't college athletes. Quick google search says there about 460 thousand college athletes in the NCAA but there are 323.1 million people in the US. If everyone of those athletes was classified as overweight or obese, which is doubtful, you are still looking at something like .1%. So barely 1/10 of a percent.

Most bmi calculators I see put a 5'10 174 lb person at the top of a healthy bmi but not quite into the overweight category. If you use the cdc bmi calculator it comes up as overweight but clearly says that a healthy weight for someone 5'10 is between 129-174.
 
Mcmoon said:
Again you are comparing the outliers with the rest of the general population. Most people aren't college athletes. Quick google search says there about 460 thousand college athletes in the NCAA but there are 323.1 million people in the US. If everyone of those athletes was classified as overweight or obese, which is doubtful, you are still looking at something like .1%. So barely 1/10 of a percent.

Most bmi calculators I see put a 5'10 174 lb person at the top of a healthy bmi but not quite into the overweight category. If you use the cdc bmi calculator it comes up as overweight but clearly says that a healthy weight for someone 5'10 is between 129-174.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly the point, the BMI works for large swaths of populations, not individuals, because it can then even out the outliers.
 
Mcmoon said:
BMI works pretty dang well for most people. Studies show that most issues arise from classifying people as normal weight when they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than they should. It rarely has this problem with with classifying people as overweight or obese when they are not. Now seeing how this is the strength and conditioning section you are more likely to run into outliers but that doesn't invalidate the data and its efficiency of the bmi formula. I agree though that bodyfat percentage is a better metric but it just isn't as easy to calculate at the moment.
Click to expand...

For anybody who lifts, BMI is an extremely unreliable predictor.

You can call everybody who lifts an "outlier".

But, then again, you are posting in a "strength & conditioning" forum.
 
TheeFaulted said:
Yes, that's exactly the point, the BMI works for large swaths of populations, not individuals, because it can then even out the outliers.
Click to expand...

Which means it will work for over 90% of the population individually. It is like saying vaccines don't work because some people are outliers and can't have them.

miaou said:
For anybody who lifts, BMI is an extremely unreliable predictor.

You can call everybody who lifts an "outlier".

But, then again, you are posting in a "strength & conditioning" forum.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say everybody who lifts is even an outlier. I would say plenty of lifting for certain sports don't need mass so lifting and getting strong for their sport keeps them in a normal bmi range. Horse Jockeys and probably most soccer players probably lift but aren't all that big. In the post you quoted I pointed out that I am posting in a strength and conditions forum so I completely agree there are more people outside the norms here but doesn't mean the measurement is trash and doesn't work for over 90% of the population.
 
Last edited:
Mcmoon said:
I wouldn't say everybody who lifts is even an outlier. I would say plenty of lifting for certain sports don't need mass so lifting and getting strong for their sport keeps them in a normal bmi range. Horse Jockeys and probably most soccer players probably lift but aren't all that big.
Click to expand...
Bro, are you really using horse jockey BMI as an example against outliers?
 
miaou said:
Bro, are you really using horse jockey BMI as an example against outliers?
Click to expand...

Yea I probably shouldn't have used them. I was just saying if your sport doesn't require mass then they will more likely fall within the normal range.
 
None of that negates the idiocy of the fact the the BMI already exists, so what is the point of this thread and new metric?
 
corpse said:
dude, 62kg is brutally low. were you ripped or skinnyfat haha?
Click to expand...

Just small/skinny. A bit of visible muscle, but small. Back then I hadn't touched a weight in 9-10 years and yoga was my main exercise.
 
I'm at 160lbs and 5'10. Works perfect for me, in terms of weight class I usually feel strong for my weight
 
6'5 and around 245 with 14%-17% bf (haven't measure in a while, but this was my range). Would love to dry out a bit, but hate losing strength and size.
 
My scales told me 80kg when I last stepped on them

I think they lie though
 
5'-11", between 175-180#'s. The actual weight is not so important to me, just wanna get some more definition and keep getting stronger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,505
Messages
56,651,181
Members
175,334
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top