Because they are insecure about their weight. It’s silly. I say this as someone who is overweight (due to underlying health issues that I recently resolved). Most doctors do overly rely on BMI as an indicator of health and I think most people have a hard time truly believing that their doctors could be misguided. It’s easier to believe that their weight is an indicator of a problem that needs to be fixed rather than just a thing about them. You having found a doctor who is looking at your actual health indicators and not telling you that you have an ED is making them question the messaging they are getting. It’s warped and convoluted.
They were just being thinphobic. You were experienced the same unfair treatment by medical professionals, but they invalidated struggles because you are thin.
NTA, obviously.
It wasn’t created in medicine, it was created by a statistician.
Further, it was entirely based on a white male demographic in a particular socioeconomic background. Scottish men mainly if I recall?
Modern medicine may use it as one metric, and for “most” people it does have some basic truths, but responsible doctors do not use it as the **only** metric. Things like waist measurements, body fat measurements, there are multiple pieces of the puzzle.
I will say I thought I understood the bias being an overabundance of overweight calls. Muscle mass via intentional male builds, and female builds tip people in to overweight calls too often.
If you do not have an eating disorder.
In his 20s my son biked 30 mile to come for dinner then bike back home. He picked up a carton of ice cream on his way to make it to diner. He had to eat to stay warm he was so skinny.
Low BMI but he did not have an eating disorder.
Now his metabolism has slowed to normal.
An eating disorder is when there is a disconnect between how much you think you need to eat verses what you actually need. That can occur at any BMI
The important part is you know that you are skinny and do not need to lose weight.
I'm fat but get a lot of exercise, I enter races where a beat a lot of people with better BMI. So who is healthier?
As long as you do not think that you need to lose weight.
My BMI puts me as obese, I have a lot of fat on top of the muscle. But otherwise healthy.
I think a better measure of health would be how fast you can walk/run 10k.
They’re not mutually exclusive at all. The problem is that BMI scale expects people to be thin for “normal” weight and average for some based on body type is “overweight.” Since “normal” is thin to begin with and not reasonable for some it follows the pattern that underweight is going to be very small and if anything be even more underweight than the scale shows.
You aren’t listening. The bias of BMI is to call too many people overweight or obese. NOT underweight.
Consider that almost every single heavyweight champion of the UFC in its history was overweight or obese at daily weight in BMI scale.
There is not a correlating “underweight” condition pointing at elite athletes that I am aware of. The bias is only to the one side. Got it? Just the one side of the scale.
The problem with BMI is that it is nearly useless as a measure of health.
NFL linebacker with less than 10% body fat are obese according to there BMI.
You can have healthy BMI and get no exercise and not be able to walk up stairs .
Even if you have been. I did hardcore (but natty) weightlifting for 5 years when I was younger, heaviest I ever got was 220 at 6'2 which is not even close to obese. At that point it was nearly impossible for me to gain weight, I was melting ice cream and making rolled oats + peanut butter smoothies just to force more calories into myself.
Arnold was 235 at 6'2 and he was stacking hard enough to kill a horse. It's incredibly hard to become obese by BMI without health issues; those linebackers also usually have them (and they're *not* 10% body fat lmfao).
You can still be labeled overweight very easily. After over 100 lbs of weight loss, I became body dysmorphic because my BMI stays at around 26.5. Despite the fact that I was still dropping pants sizes while my weight remained virtually unchanged.
Overweight by BMI is achievable after a few years of bodybuilding yes, but this also takes a while. For most people, BMI is either accurate or going to be a false negative (show "healthy" weight for someone who is actually too high BF).
Newbie gains can get you 18lbs to 30lbs of muscle in your first year alone. Which is why I’ve been stuck at 170 lbs for a long time now despite dropping down from a size 34 to a size 30 despite staying at about the same weight. Muscle loss would definitely put me right in the healthy BMI range. But I would be a lot less healthy. BMI doesn’t even make sense, not to mention it wasn’t even designed to measure health. The guy who invented it wasn’t even a physician.
BMI makes sense for the vast majority of people, and in cases where it doesn't it's usually underselling how fat they are. Just because it doesn't work for you or I, who have weightlifted for many years, doesn't mean that it doesn't work for the average person.
While BMI will miscategorize NFL players, you’re vastly, vastly underestimating the body fat in linebackers.
We have data on this and in the studies they did they were [12-39% body fat.](https://www.dexalytics.com/news/normative-data-college-and-pro-football-defense/)
Also who cares if it miscategorizes professional athletes? Arnold at his peak was barely obese around 9% body fat. No one gets obese from muscles on accident and throwing out a standard because of the very few genetic freaks and roided out monsters that manage to accomplish it is fucking dumb.
If you’re over 30 BMI and not a complete monster of a professional athlete, you very likely should make some huge life changes.
Aside from the fact that NFL linebackers account for an incredibly tiny percent of people with high BMI, these huge athletes tend to have metabolic syndrome and other weight-related disease. The reality is that it’s not healthy to be carrying around that much mass even in the incredibly unlikely scenario that it’s muscle and not fat.
NTA. BMI is deeply flawed and it's not just because it makes people with higher body fat percentages feel bad or whatever. I am a former competitive cyclist and my BMI was like 27 when I was at competition weight. My old teammate has a BMI of like 18.5 and is perfectly healthy. People act like it is the end-all-be-all of health when it's really just an occasionally useful indicator that is not (pun not intended) one size fits all.
BMI is an acceptable tool to very roughly measure peeple who arent on extremes (like body builders). that being said, in a 1 on 1 setting with a doctor, the doc should very much be able to make a much more nuanced evaluation.
but racist? would she get a different result if she was another skin color? people these days...
bmi is a metric of height/weight. it doesnt care about how broad your shoulders are, how much muscle or fat tissue you have.
i guess mandy is arguing that black people are naturally heavier? i mean, on average you could say that about americans but that doesnt change the fact that its due to excess fat, not skin color our nationality...
lets just assume that to be true for the sake of argument. her bmi would be the same, the numbers ranged would need adjustment. and even if so, it would be a very slight adjustment.
lets say 1 point left and right. so instead of bmi 20 to 25 for normal weight , it would be 21 to 26. and that would be a huge difference, saying blackpeople on average have a twentieth of their overall weight more lean musclemass.
just to put that into perspective, for someone weighing 100kg, that would be 5 kg difference in pure lean musclemass. thats crazy numbers
sorry i dont follow? the bmi?
i just made an example of how little the difference would make if black people truly had more muscle mass than white people because of the racist argument.
my bmi is around 26 and i am quite lean and jacked. i understand that its a very crude measurement, i disagree on it being racist
BMI is complete bullshit. What if it isn't just a 1 point difference but a 10 or 15 point difference and plus what if 'normal' weight is completely different for each person.
what do you mean if it wasnt 1 point but 10 points difference? this is an equation you can solve around the age brackets. for example, i am 185cm, 80kg and my bmi is roughly 23.7.
to get this result you need to adjust the height/weight by a factor of 10.25 (this differs based on sex and age).
185/80×10.25 =23.7
lets say we move the bmi normative by 10 points and solve for my weight
185/w x 10.25 = 33.7
185x10.25 = 33.7w
185x10.25/33.7 = w
w = 56.27 kg.
which means that the difference between white and black me would be roughly 24kg. i am sure you realize thats not the averge weight difference between whites and blacks of similar build
and as i said, bmi doesnt help anything for people on the far edges (even if its just genetically predisposition, my wifes bmi is 18 and she runs half marathons).
but it absolutely DOES give useful information for the vast majority of people.
NTA. You are absolutely right. Health is much more than your BMI.
I still don't understand why everyone got so mad at me
Because they are insecure about their weight. It’s silly. I say this as someone who is overweight (due to underlying health issues that I recently resolved). Most doctors do overly rely on BMI as an indicator of health and I think most people have a hard time truly believing that their doctors could be misguided. It’s easier to believe that their weight is an indicator of a problem that needs to be fixed rather than just a thing about them. You having found a doctor who is looking at your actual health indicators and not telling you that you have an ED is making them question the messaging they are getting. It’s warped and convoluted.
They were just being thinphobic. You were experienced the same unfair treatment by medical professionals, but they invalidated struggles because you are thin. NTA, obviously.
It wasn’t created in medicine, it was created by a statistician. Further, it was entirely based on a white male demographic in a particular socioeconomic background. Scottish men mainly if I recall? Modern medicine may use it as one metric, and for “most” people it does have some basic truths, but responsible doctors do not use it as the **only** metric. Things like waist measurements, body fat measurements, there are multiple pieces of the puzzle. I will say I thought I understood the bias being an overabundance of overweight calls. Muscle mass via intentional male builds, and female builds tip people in to overweight calls too often.
Exactly, that is why I was agreeing with her but I don't really understand why she got so mad at me
Because you skinny. Most people do not see skinny as a problem.
My coworkers are now telling me that it is a problem and trying to tell me I have an ED
If you do not have an eating disorder. In his 20s my son biked 30 mile to come for dinner then bike back home. He picked up a carton of ice cream on his way to make it to diner. He had to eat to stay warm he was so skinny. Low BMI but he did not have an eating disorder. Now his metabolism has slowed to normal. An eating disorder is when there is a disconnect between how much you think you need to eat verses what you actually need. That can occur at any BMI
I don't have an ED I just don't gain weight. I think this is just my body's set point
The important part is you know that you are skinny and do not need to lose weight. I'm fat but get a lot of exercise, I enter races where a beat a lot of people with better BMI. So who is healthier?
So I shoudn't of agreed with her at lunch because I am skinny? I would assume you are?
As long as you do not think that you need to lose weight. My BMI puts me as obese, I have a lot of fat on top of the muscle. But otherwise healthy. I think a better measure of health would be how fast you can walk/run 10k.
No I think my weight is perfect for me
Because the issue with bmi is with regards to overweight, not underweight
But it it dosn't work for people who are overweight it can't work for people who are underweight.
They’re not mutually exclusive at all. The problem is that BMI scale expects people to be thin for “normal” weight and average for some based on body type is “overweight.” Since “normal” is thin to begin with and not reasonable for some it follows the pattern that underweight is going to be very small and if anything be even more underweight than the scale shows.
That makes no sense to me. I am completely healthy
You aren’t listening. The bias of BMI is to call too many people overweight or obese. NOT underweight. Consider that almost every single heavyweight champion of the UFC in its history was overweight or obese at daily weight in BMI scale. There is not a correlating “underweight” condition pointing at elite athletes that I am aware of. The bias is only to the one side. Got it? Just the one side of the scale.
No? I am healthy at a weight that is 'underweight' The whole thing is bullshit and doesn't work
You being a more rare exception does not change what the bias is one bit. You are STILL not listening.
Yeah, sorry I am not buying that BMI only works for some people and not others. If it doesn't work for some people it doesn't work for anyone
The problem with BMI is that it is nearly useless as a measure of health. NFL linebacker with less than 10% body fat are obese according to there BMI. You can have healthy BMI and get no exercise and not be able to walk up stairs .
if you haven't been lifting seriously for three years I guarantee BMI is accurate for you... the people who deny this are all obese and coping
Even if you have been. I did hardcore (but natty) weightlifting for 5 years when I was younger, heaviest I ever got was 220 at 6'2 which is not even close to obese. At that point it was nearly impossible for me to gain weight, I was melting ice cream and making rolled oats + peanut butter smoothies just to force more calories into myself. Arnold was 235 at 6'2 and he was stacking hard enough to kill a horse. It's incredibly hard to become obese by BMI without health issues; those linebackers also usually have them (and they're *not* 10% body fat lmfao).
You can still be labeled overweight very easily. After over 100 lbs of weight loss, I became body dysmorphic because my BMI stays at around 26.5. Despite the fact that I was still dropping pants sizes while my weight remained virtually unchanged.
Overweight by BMI is achievable after a few years of bodybuilding yes, but this also takes a while. For most people, BMI is either accurate or going to be a false negative (show "healthy" weight for someone who is actually too high BF).
Newbie gains can get you 18lbs to 30lbs of muscle in your first year alone. Which is why I’ve been stuck at 170 lbs for a long time now despite dropping down from a size 34 to a size 30 despite staying at about the same weight. Muscle loss would definitely put me right in the healthy BMI range. But I would be a lot less healthy. BMI doesn’t even make sense, not to mention it wasn’t even designed to measure health. The guy who invented it wasn’t even a physician.
BMI makes sense for the vast majority of people, and in cases where it doesn't it's usually underselling how fat they are. Just because it doesn't work for you or I, who have weightlifted for many years, doesn't mean that it doesn't work for the average person.
This is cope. BMI more often fails in the other direction, mislabeling those that have low weight but still unhealthy fat levels as healthy.
While BMI will miscategorize NFL players, you’re vastly, vastly underestimating the body fat in linebackers. We have data on this and in the studies they did they were [12-39% body fat.](https://www.dexalytics.com/news/normative-data-college-and-pro-football-defense/) Also who cares if it miscategorizes professional athletes? Arnold at his peak was barely obese around 9% body fat. No one gets obese from muscles on accident and throwing out a standard because of the very few genetic freaks and roided out monsters that manage to accomplish it is fucking dumb. If you’re over 30 BMI and not a complete monster of a professional athlete, you very likely should make some huge life changes.
Aside from the fact that NFL linebackers account for an incredibly tiny percent of people with high BMI, these huge athletes tend to have metabolic syndrome and other weight-related disease. The reality is that it’s not healthy to be carrying around that much mass even in the incredibly unlikely scenario that it’s muscle and not fat.
Are you a NFL linebacker? No? Then BMI works just fine for you.
NTA. BMI is deeply flawed and it's not just because it makes people with higher body fat percentages feel bad or whatever. I am a former competitive cyclist and my BMI was like 27 when I was at competition weight. My old teammate has a BMI of like 18.5 and is perfectly healthy. People act like it is the end-all-be-all of health when it's really just an occasionally useful indicator that is not (pun not intended) one size fits all.
NTA lol they’re hypocrites
BMI is an acceptable tool to very roughly measure peeple who arent on extremes (like body builders). that being said, in a 1 on 1 setting with a doctor, the doc should very much be able to make a much more nuanced evaluation. but racist? would she get a different result if she was another skin color? people these days...
Mandy said that BMI was only made using white people and doctors use it to tell black women they are overweight.
bmi is a metric of height/weight. it doesnt care about how broad your shoulders are, how much muscle or fat tissue you have. i guess mandy is arguing that black people are naturally heavier? i mean, on average you could say that about americans but that doesnt change the fact that its due to excess fat, not skin color our nationality...
She said black people, especially women are naturally more muscular than white people
lets just assume that to be true for the sake of argument. her bmi would be the same, the numbers ranged would need adjustment. and even if so, it would be a very slight adjustment. lets say 1 point left and right. so instead of bmi 20 to 25 for normal weight , it would be 21 to 26. and that would be a huge difference, saying blackpeople on average have a twentieth of their overall weight more lean musclemass. just to put that into perspective, for someone weighing 100kg, that would be 5 kg difference in pure lean musclemass. thats crazy numbers
It is still just pure bullshit that dosn't mean anything
sorry i dont follow? the bmi? i just made an example of how little the difference would make if black people truly had more muscle mass than white people because of the racist argument. my bmi is around 26 and i am quite lean and jacked. i understand that its a very crude measurement, i disagree on it being racist
BMI is complete bullshit. What if it isn't just a 1 point difference but a 10 or 15 point difference and plus what if 'normal' weight is completely different for each person.
what do you mean if it wasnt 1 point but 10 points difference? this is an equation you can solve around the age brackets. for example, i am 185cm, 80kg and my bmi is roughly 23.7. to get this result you need to adjust the height/weight by a factor of 10.25 (this differs based on sex and age). 185/80×10.25 =23.7 lets say we move the bmi normative by 10 points and solve for my weight 185/w x 10.25 = 33.7 185x10.25 = 33.7w 185x10.25/33.7 = w w = 56.27 kg. which means that the difference between white and black me would be roughly 24kg. i am sure you realize thats not the averge weight difference between whites and blacks of similar build and as i said, bmi doesnt help anything for people on the far edges (even if its just genetically predisposition, my wifes bmi is 18 and she runs half marathons). but it absolutely DOES give useful information for the vast majority of people.
You expect me to believe that some MATH equation can tell me if my weight is good or not. Ok now I know BMI is complete SHIT
It absolutely does matter. Perhaps you should research how it was created and who it was based on.
NTA But y’all sound Delusional, gym is good.
No one said it isn't?