Waist-circumference-to-height ratio is a proven predictor of cardio health, and is only slightly harder to measure than BMI. Waist-to-hip-ratio is another strong predictor for health outcomes, and can flag people with a normal BMI that have an elevated mortality risk.
"The 7% guy is definitely following a very strict regimen,” he explains. He’s probably eliminating certain macronutrients, like being Paleo with no carbs, and is definitely paying very close attention to what he eats.
Meanwhile the 10 to 12% guy is in constant flux—some weeks he’s at 9 percent, others he’s at 12%. “He might have a cheat meal—splurging on wings instead of steamed asparagus when out with the guys—but not necessarily a cheat day,” McCall says.
Someone at 15% is having a cheat day. “He’s paying attention and making certain decisions—no fried foods, burger without the bun, no accidental break room pastries. But he’s not uber health conscious,” he adds."
Isn’t this entire conversation about unreliable indices?
BMI requires simple passive equipment to measure, the subject doesn't really have to participate and the subject is not at risk.
But it really can be misleading and counter-productive when you start exercising when fat is replaced by muscle.
We really need more accurate static measurement devices that don't need to weigh you underwater. Fatbit maybe? :)
BMI is rejected because it tells people they're obese and since its unhealthy, they need to change themselves. Noone likes hearing that. The truth hurts.
You'll see these common rejections: 1. Bodyfat loss is hard, so its claimed as not a good measure. 2. BMI has outliers so _mine_ being bad doesn't count. 3. Because not being obese does not provide data about health, they attempt to deny obesity as a poor health marker. This is almost always "you can't tell a skinny person is unhealthy" retort as an excuse to reject obesity as unhealthy.
They will not escape the evidence-based scientific truth that obesity is unhealthy.