https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20125098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[1]https://conscienhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/BMI-Tr...
Does it do that correctly though? I've always wondered why the formula is not w / h^3, since I imagine your weight should scale cubicly with your height.
I’m unsure I ever meet an adult that was obese on the BMI, was not obese by body fat percentage scale, and did not know BMI was inaccurate for them.
[0] CDC: BMI is not a valid diagnosis tool, but is generally correlated with body fat percentages. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/bmiforpactitioners.pdf
The nice thing about DXA scans is that they can distinguish between visceral versus subcutaneous fat. For most medical conditions it's the visceral fat that's a real killer.
If my weight gets lower, into the low-to-mid-160s, even notoriously-skinny cyclist friends start to think I'm looking exceptionally thin and should watch it.
At my physicals the software automatically classifies me as overweight, but the doctor never mentions it, because he clearly gets how these categories can go wrong for folks like us. Someone my same height, with longer legs and a shorter torso, ends up 10-20 pounds just by nature of having less core. But of course BMI is just height vs. weight.
I'm currently 180lbs and trying to put on more muscle mass. I'm still pretty lean, with ab veins and shoulder striations.
I've only ever been out of the overweight category (<174) once in my life. I felt sapped of energy and looked gaunt, with veins popping everywhere.
That is a super interesting observation about inseam length mattering. I had never considered that and I have always looked with amazement at people my height who seem muscular yet weigh in the 150s. I always thought I was doing something wrong.
Bikes are sized based on the horizontal length of the frame, via measurements "effective top tube length" or the similar "reach", with almost everything else being adjustable. So long as that length is good for your torso length, the other parts can be adjusted or swapped to dial in the fit. (This is why bicycle sizes tend to indicate a height range.)
The whole long torso length thing means that I tend to ride a larger frame with the seat adjusted shorter than someone with a shorter torso would. Thus, I generally ride a large from most companies, but have to be careful that the seat can be adjusted in the right position. Similar height buddies will often ride medium frames with the seat much higher. Their longer legs exacerbate the need for a shorter (length) frame because moving the seat up moves the hips rearward on the bike, making something even shorter needed. For a lot of the typically-athletic-build women (long legs) this can make it a real problem for them to find bikes as it's often difficult to have the seat high enough for their legs but a short enough reach.
(That old thing about sizing bikes based on being able to stand over them is completely wrong. Bike sizing needs to be done based on riding the bike, not standing over it.)
Go watch the 1985 movie The Goonies and look at the character "chunk". By 1980s American standards he was so fat that it was a defining characteristic. In 2020s America he's an average kid. The same thing can be seen anywhere. Look at any photo of the general public prior to about 1980- high school year books, concerts, festivals, political rallies, beaches, shopping malls and compare it to a similar photo today, and the change in the average body and the number of obese bodies in the contemporary photo will be night and day different.
I think it goes the other way round. Carrying excess fat has been normalized so most people don't notice they are overweight. Unless you are lean enough to have some clear abdominal definition I wouldn't be so quick to attribute overweight BMI to excess muscle.
I agree with the point you're making, but this generalization is nowhere near accurate.
And yes, heavyweight boxing champs and NFL linebackers do it, but it just goes to show what a joke PED testing is in most pro sports leagues.
> At that point, you're barely short of peak Arnold Schwarzenegger
Both of these examples are the low side of healthy body fat % though (as evidenced by impressively visible abs), approaching 10%; Where 15% body fat is 50% more than visible abs, and still very healthy.
Stallone could be an example though https://bodywhat.com/?v=ah9a486f 17.8% body fat at 5'10, 27.8 bmi (at age 38)
Vin Diesel @ 50 is not a bad option either for a 6' bmi obese (30.5), muscular, movie star (that isn't a body builder) https://www.bodywhat.com/?1=5h9cfjk7&2=39fkk0o3
Based on those numbers you were literally built like a NFL linebacker. If you were to swap out your hypertrophy sets for max-strength instead you'd likely be relatively stronger and could probably cut your per-mile time down to 7 minutes (from 9) as well.
Ignore BMI and use body fat percentage instead. Try to find a four-electrode machine (hands and feet) you can borrow periodically. (My gym has one and charges $20 per use; I would only expect to need to use it 3-4 times per year.)
At 5’10 you need to be about 210 lbs to hit a BMI of 30. Highly doubt you will get there with a sub 15% body fat without AAS.
Personally it used to cause me a ton of mental anguish until I realized that BMI (the metric used to classify someone as overweight or obese) is flat out wrong. At my peak fitness level my BMI was 30. I was lifting weights 3 days a week and running 3 days a week. Lifting sessions were 90 minutes and I was capable of running half marathons in less than 2 hours. My resting heart rate was between 52 and 57 BPM. I wasn't an athlete but my fitness level was pretty good.