BMI - useless or useful?

d'Oracle

There have been many discussions about BMI on here.
I don't think its any good of an analysis tool as it ceases to be valid when a person puts on any appreciable muscle mass.

I read a post today on a blog where a coach described a lady he knows being told she had "lost weight" by friends. She hadn't, she had gained 15 pounds but lost fat and inches. The post also had a video of the same lady deadlifting in the region of 115kg.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The BMI is the biggest pile of shíte there is, completely inacurate, false, misleading, waste of time. Why is it used? They used it in the army to tell us if were obese or not. Which is laughable. According to my BMI I will always be over weight due to my muscle content (Which isn't a massive amount either). It should be disregarded and other methods should be taken on instead.

d'Oracle

brianthebard wrote: »

BMI is a perfectly serviceable system for the vast majority of the population. For those that complain about muscle mass not being taken into account, it takes an awful lot of muscle to push someone with a decently low bf into the overweight or obese category. I have slightly more muscle than the average guy, but I still know I'm overweight, and the BMI reflects that, surprisingly.

I would absolutely and with out reservation reject that statement.
It does not take much at all.

Khannie

d'Oracle wrote: »

I would absolutely and with out reservation reject that statement.
It does not take much at all.

I think it takes a fair bit. While you may not think I look terribly muscular currently, I'd need to hit 75KG to be considered in the "overweight" category. Let me tell you...if I ever hit 75KG and have a similar bodyfat level to what I have now....well I'm gonna look BIG.

brianthebard

d'Oracle wrote: »

I would absolutely and with out reservation reject that statement.
It does not take much at all.

Do you want to put some figures behind that rejection? If you talking about a couple of kilos difference then I don't see the point in this unreserved rejection. The point I was clearly making is that whether you have muscle under the flab or not anyone who's honest with themselves will accept that a bmi of about 27 or over indicates they are carrying extra fat, unless they are exceptionally lean, which is just not the case in the majority of the population. So again, I stand behind my earlier statement.

d'Oracle

Khannie wrote: »

I think it takes a fair bit. While you may not think I look terribly muscular currently, I'd need to hit 75KG to be considered in the "overweight" category. Let me tell you...if I ever hit 75KG and have a similar bodyfat level to what I have now....well I'm gonna look BIG.

At 85kg I was "Overweight" on the BMI scale.
On the MeMI scale I was a feckin rake.

I'm supposedly obese now.
Now I am carrying a bit of extra weight, but if I am obese there isn't an epidemic.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

d'Oracle wrote: »

I would absolutely and with out reservation reject that statement.
It does not take much at all.

I am not sure about the obese part, but it would definately be possible to push you onto the overweight level with little effort.

Khannie, I apologise but I don't think I have taken part in these conversations befor, I would get flogged for digging up an old thread :P

I don't think it should be used on it's own. Maybe a guidline/indicator? Not sure how accurate calipers are but I tend to go by that machine thing you take hold of. Is that accurate?

Mine is 26.7, that's getting morbidly close to obese. I am very very far from being obese. I'm no macho man either. It never made sense to me, sorry.

d'Oracle

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you want to put some figures behind that rejection? If you talking about a couple of kilos difference then I don't see the point in this unreserved rejection. The point I was clearly making is that whether you have muscle under the flab or not anyone who's honest with themselves will accept that a bmi of about 27 or over indicates they are carrying extra fat, unless they are exceptionally lean, which is just not the case in the majority of the population. So again, I stand behind my earlier statement.

I am not obese.
I am not particularly Huuyoooge either.

We are not talking about A "lil over weight" here.
We are talking about normal people being called fat, slightly overweight people being called obese and the norm being dangerously skinny.

Now you have tried countless times to defend BMI saying that it works for normal people and I am reluctant to get into a pissing contest with you. But the reality is that any method of assessing composition which omits a large component from analysis is entirely invalid in any practical sense.

Khannie

d'Oracle wrote: »

the norm being dangerously skinny.

Hang on....I'm bang in the middle of the healthy section and I am not dangerously skinny or anything like it.

I think I'm gonna split this off into its own thread now.....(edit: Done)

d'Oracle

Why am I the thread starter?:D

See Khannie, I would have to be lighter than I have been since I was 17 to be "Healthy". I think such mad divergence is probably a great indication of its uselessness. But sure, I take it back. The norm for people of similar height and anthropometry to me is dangerously skinny.

brianthebard

d'Oracle wrote: »

I am not obese.
I am not particularly Huuyoooge either.

We are not talking about A "lil over weight" here.
We are talking about normal people being called fat, slightly overweight people being called obese and the norm being dangerously skinny.

Now you have tried countless times to defend BMI saying that it works for normal people and I am reluctant to get into a pissing contest with you. But the reality is that any method of assessing composition which omits a large component from analysis is entirely invalid in any practical sense.

You're right I disagreed with you on this before, and then as now your argument pretty much came down to 'it doesn't completely apply to my situation, therefore its wrong for everyone'. Your last line is particularly perplexing, because when a person's bodyfat is measured that is the only element taken account of, but I don't think you have the same vitriol for calipers. I've no problem stating that a person can be a 26 or 27 on the BMI and be lean and healthy, but after that a person would have to be lifting an awful lot more than you or I to register at 28 and above without having excessive fat. To use a concrete example (which I don't feel you have done), Jim Wendler is in the obese category of the BMI now, but I don't think he is particularly fat or could be considered obese outside of the BMI. Was he obese when he was 275+? Definitely.

Khannie

Priscilla Fresh Watermelon wrote: »

Khannie, I apologise but I don't think I have taken part in these conversations befor, I would get flogged for digging up an old thread :P

No worries at all. I probably got a bit "omg it's not Friday" cranky too. Apologies if so.

Priscilla Fresh Watermelon wrote: »

I don't think it should be used on it's own. Maybe a guidline/indicator? Not sure how accurate calipers are but I tend to go by that machine thing you take hold of. Is that accurate?

As I understand it a calipers is really the only way to measure it properly.

Priscilla Fresh Watermelon wrote: »

Mine is 26.7, that's getting morbidly close to obese. I am very very far from being obese. I'm no macho man either. It never made sense to me, sorry.

I think the clinical definition of obese is not what an average joe would consider all that fat.

Khannie

d'Oracle wrote: »

Why am I the thread starter?:D

HAHA. Because you like starting threads about the BMI, clearly.

d'Oracle wrote: »

See Khannie, I would have to be lighter than I have been since I was 17 to be "Healthy". I think such mad divergence is probably a great indication of its uselessness. But sure, I take it back. The norm for people of similar height and anthropometry to me is dangerously skinny.

Fair enough. While I agree that it's not going to be useful for a lot of people on here, I still think it's probably useful for the majority of the population as an indicator that they may need to more carefully examine their bodyfat levels based on their BMI.

The Davestator

As far as I know, the BMI scale was developed / devised by the American insurance industry to classify people in a higher risk category and charge them more for ionsurance.
incendently, a friend of mine was refused life insurance from Irish life based on his BMI, but he is a monster bodybuilder and had to go in to them to prove he wasnt a fat arse

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The Davestator wrote: »

As far as I know, the BMI scale was developed / devised by the American insurance industry to classify people in a higher risk category and charge them more for ionsurance.
incendently, a friend of mine was refused life insurance from Irish life based on his BMI, but he is a monster bodybuilder and had to go in to them to prove he wasnt a fat arse

Wow...

It's not something I was actually thinking of, but it does make sense. I wouldn't be surprised if some companies only took BMI :P

d'Oracle

brianthebard wrote: »

You're right I disagreed with you on this before, and then as now your argument pretty much came down to 'it doesn't completely apply to my situation, therefore its wrong for everyone'. Your last line is particularly perplexing, because when a person's bodyfat is measured that is the only element taken account of, but I don't think you have the same vitriol for calipers.

I'm not sure what is perplexing about it.
I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of a caliper analysis.
But I pretty sure it measures fat at certain sites and uses that as a basis for the analysis. i.e. using fat, to measure how fat someone is.

BMI uses height and weight to predict how fat someone is.

It is bad science, it assumes all people of the same height are the same weight. Its not even just an LBM thing. Its a body shape thing too.
Which is incidentally my argument EVERY time before.

Khannie

Ah yes, but just because a small minority don't fit it doesn't make it useless. You could (very seriously) use the same logic to argue that newtons laws are bollix, however they got man to the moon and back - tinfoil hat wearers need not argue otherwise, thanks.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I know this might sound mental, but our organs, bones and other bits and bobs can distort the end figure too. Larger parts than others, bone density/weight etc etc. Is this a crazy thought? I doubt everybodies heart would weigh the same for instance.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Khannie wrote: »

Ah yes, but just because a small minority don't fit it doesn't make it useless. You could (very seriously) use the same logic to argue that newtons laws are bollix, however they got man to the moon and back - tinfoil hat wearers need not argue otherwise, thanks.

Gravity still exists Also, back in his day, travelling to space wasn't even a thought :P

brianthebard

d'Oracle wrote: »

It is bad science, it assumes all people of the same height are the same weight. Its not even just an LBM thing. Its a body shape thing too.
Which is incidentally my argument EVERY time before.

It doesn't really, it just assumes that the vast majority fit within a certain section of a bell curve, which is not an unusual thing to assume. Again how many people have such an excessively different body shape to push them into a 28 BMI while still being lean? I've never suggested that there aren't a minority of people that BMI doesn't apply to, only that it applies to the majority, which you either don't understand or don't accept. I have no idea why though.

ragg

Im 24.2 on the bmi scale, wouldn't take much to put me into the "overweight" section & im pretty lean (Low teens bf%) & I dont think i have a whole lot of muscle & i look quite slim.

I would imagine its a good tool for joe soap to use, but if you train, its probably not worth worrying about.

My biggest problem with it being rubbished is that obese\ untrained people use the fact that its not 100% accurate for the entire world as a get out clause.

Example, a mate of mine checked it in work recently when we were all doing it, fat ass that he is, scored "obese". He turned around and said, "it doesn't take into account my muscle"
We all rounded on him and said practically in unison "what muscle?"

I don't know what im trying to convey with that story - probably that we are **** friends..

Chiorino

Useless as far as I'm concerned

G86

When I was 79kg with 23.8% bodyfat my BMI was 24.9%. Now I'm 73kg, bodyfat 15.5% and my BMI is 23%. So I've dropped 6kg, 8% bodyfat - and yet my BMI is less than 2% lower? Since then there have been months where I've stayed at the same weight whilst my bodyfat has gone down - yet a BMI calculater wouldn't reflect this at all. Doesn't make sense to me.

Also, that original 24.9% put me just within the healthy zone, but I was definitely overweight, with most of it carried on my torso which put me at greater risk of heart disease/diabetes and a whole list of nasty stuff.

I think the jist of it that it's very very generalised and not really of any use to anyone who trains regularly.

Parsley

i'm technically overweight on the scale, but i can see my abzzz :P

Good for average joe, not for strength athletes/bodybuilders. is there anything more to add to that summary?

d'Oracle

Khannie wrote: »

Ah yes, but just because a small minority don't fit it doesn't make it useless. You could (very seriously) use the same logic to argue that newtons laws are bollix, however they got man to the moon and back - tinfoil hat wearers need not argue otherwise, thanks.

What use is it then?
You seem happy to cling to this despite its
1) inadequacy from an analytical point of view
2) Its illustrated lack of practical validity.

It doesn't tell us much.
I have been the same BMI in the past, yet much less healthy and less lean.
If it is valid, then surely it has to be valid across the scale.
If the validity of it falls to **** and starts calling people obese when they are not then it is bull****.

And that comparison with Newtons laws is balls dude, the fact that this argument exists is testament to that.

I refer back to my first post in the other thread.
Ladies bodyfat goes down, gets in better shape and BMI goes up.

rubadub

Priscilla Fresh Watermelon wrote: »

The BMI is the biggest pile of shíte there is, completely inacurate, false, misleading, waste of time. Why is it used?

It is used since many experienced doctors obviously disagree with your statements. Most know where & how it should be applied are are well aware of its limits. You seem to have a very low opinions of peoples intelligence or common sense, I doubt there is any bodybuilder crying himself to sleep at night worried that his bum is too big because he got a "high score".

d'Oracle wrote: »

Its not even just an LBM thing. Its a body shape thing too.

d'Oracle wrote: »

But the reality is that any method of assessing composition which omits a large component from analysis is entirely invalid in any practical sense.

Priscilla Fresh Watermelon wrote: »

other methods should be taken on instead.

In other threads l have recommended other methods like hip to waist ratio, but you guys might say it is also false/inaccurate/invalid too. There is a girl in work who would be deemed obese by the hip to waist ratio. She has quite low bodyfat so why is she deemed obese? because she is pregnant. Now only a fucking idiot would not cop on that this measurement/result does not hold in this case, just like only an utter idiot would not cop on that BMI does not apply to bodybuilders. -But some people take great joy in supposedly "debunking" techniques, while anybody with any cop-on knows when & where to apply them. Preaching to the choir really.

There is a guy in my work who's wife probably is deemed underweight using some methods, as she had her leg amputated- again only a fool would not cop on why. I am sure whatever your preferred method is it could be ripped apart and ridiculed, but the response would usually be "well d'uh, of course it doesn't work in that exception"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

BMI has become controversial because many people, including physicians, have come to rely on its apparent numerical authority for medical diagnosis, but that was never the BMI's purpose; it is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals with an average body composition.

In work I use lots of "rules of thumb" and estimated forumlas, I know exactly where they should apply and in what cases they do not, if you don't know why I would consider you a bad engineer, like I would consider a doctor a badly trained doctor if he was applying BMI to a muscular man.

Khannie wrote: »

As I understand it a calipers is really the only way to measure it properly.

And then it depends on what forumla you use, with the same measurements I came out at 12 & 18% using 2 different forumlas. I have seen some forumlas recommended for athletes etc. Just like you can have different BMI scales for men & women, or ethnic groups, e.g. most Asians would have lower BMI at the same fat levels. You could have different scales for unusually short or tall people.

In the other thread the OP could plausibly have been interested in BMI as a guide as to how muscular members are here, in fact if it was asked on a dedicated BB site I would presume that was the case. A BBer could have a high BMI as a goal to work towards.

Hanley

Going off NOTHING but the thread title...

For the majority of the population - useful. Most people don't have enough muscle mass to skew it. Even those who train a bit and have some muscle should pay heed to it, because if you're coming out obese chances are you are carrying too much fat and it's not down to your huge guns, yo.

I think I'm borderline obese by it still actually...

tHE vAGGABOND

I'm tremendously overweight, and dealing with it, so I find it very helpful - its a very good barometer as to where I should be aiming for.

Now if I was Jamie Heaslip, 18 stone of solid muscle and with next to no body fat it would be useless, and I agree misleading

But most people are in the first section with me, the fact its useless to Jamie and people like him does not really matter to real people

Hanley

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I'm tremendously overweight, and dealing with it, so I find it very helpful - its a very good barometer as to where I should be aiming for.

Now if I was Jamie Heaslip, 18 stone of solid muscle and with next to no body fat it would be useless, and I agree misleading

But most people are in the first section with me, the fact its useless to Jamie and people like him does not really matter to real people

+1

d'Oracle

Who said anything about bodybuilders?

We are talking feckin novice strength trainees here.
My point is that it invalidates itself easily.
You don't have to be Markus Feckin Ruhl to make a monkey out of it.
Its a broad brush, sure. I never said it wasn't. In the effort to defend it people are taking what I am saying in response to a specific point and making it into something else.

Hell if you can look at people, why the **** do you need BMI?
We have established that its not so accurate around the edges, the **** kind of idiot would you be comparing someones BMI if you could just bloody look at them and see if they are overweight/obese?

edellc

BMI is useless

was watching that male doctor from embarrassing illness last week and he would be classed as over weight by his BMI so too would many rugby players
he said that what matters is the fat around your vital organs and that if you waist is above 34 inches then you need to do something about it
this is the best advice i have heard in relation to what is healthy and what is not and thats my aim

Hanley

edellc wrote: »

BMI is useless
...
if you waist is above 34 inches then you need to do something about it
this is the best advice i have heard in relation to what is healthy and what is not and thats my aim

Wrong, and wrong.

BMI isn't meant to be used for the outliers, the people who lift lots of weight and carry loads of muscle. And if it is used for them, chances are they know enough to ignore it.

34 inches is a terribly arbitrary number. A 34inch waist on someone 5 feet tall and 6 feet tall are entirely different.

Seems to me people who aren't lean are trying to justify their overweightness (yes, that's a word now) on the BMI scale by saying it's useless.

d'Oracle

Hanley wrote: »

Seems to me people who aren't lean are trying to justify their overweightness (yes, that's a word now) on the BMI scale by saying it's useless.

Look at this lad, all of a sudden he is posting picks in his boxers and talking down to fatties.....

I am not justifying anything, I am fat, I'm just not obese.

edellc

Hanley wrote: »

Wrong, and wrong.

BMI isn't meant to be used for the outliers, the people who lift lots of weight and carry loads of muscle. And if it is used for them, chances are they know enough to ignore it.

34 inches is a terribly arbitrary number. A 34inch waist on someone 5 feet tall and 6 feet tall are entirely different.

Seems to me people who aren't lean are trying to justify their overweightness (yes, that's a word now) on the BMI scale by saying it's useless.

IN YOUR OPINION im wrong not in mine

for my height 34 inches is just fine thank you very much and im not over weight nor do i think that ppl are justifying their curves on the BMI scale by saying its useless

its like everything to do with fitness and weight loss a new fad comes in every few years and thats what BMI is a FAD
as long as you eat healthy, do half hour of cardio exercise a day and have a healthy outlook on life thats all that matters

Hanley

d'Oracle wrote: »

Look at this lad, all of a sudden he is posting picks in his boxers and talking down to fatties.....

I am not justifying anything, I am fat, I'm just not obese.

I've been posting pics in my boxers for the last 3 years!! I've done boardies and cantos too

I wasn't actually talking about you specifically, I know you're not obese, I've metcha!!

Having a high BMI seems like a badge of honour around here at times tho. Hardly counts if you've high teens bodyfat imo.

ragg

edellc wrote: »

its like everything to do with fitness and weight loss a new fad comes in every few years and thats what BMI is a FAD
as long as you eat healthy, do half hour of cardio exercise a day and have a healthy outlook on life thats all that matters

Hasn't BMI been around for over 150 years??
Hardly a "FAD"

Hanley

edellc wrote: »

IN YOUR OPINION im wrong not in mine

for my height 34 inches is just fine thank you very much and im not over weight nor do i think that ppl are justifying their curves on the BMI scale by saying its useless

No, you are wrong.

A 34 inch as a blanket measurement for health risk measurement means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unless it's also linked to height.

Surely you're not trying to say someone who is 5 feet tall with a 34 inch waist is carrying the same amount of fat as someone who's 6 feet tall with the same waist size?

ragg

What if you carry all your weight on your flute? Thats going throw the BMI measure off too...

Hanley

ragg wrote: »

What if you carry all your weight on your flute? Thats going throw the BMI measure off too...

Totally fcuk your back up too.

edellc

Hanley wrote: »

No, you are wrong.

A 34 inch as a blanket measurement for health risk measurement means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unless it's also linked to height.

Surely you're not trying to say someone who is 5 feet tall with a 34 inch waist is carrying the same amount of fat as someone who's 6 feet tall with the same waist size?

again in your opinion i am wrong in mine IM NOT
what qualifies you to say im wrong anyway unless your a qualified doctor then what you say is pointless also
im saying for me a 34 inch waist is fine FOR ME

ragg

edellc wrote: »

again in your opinion i am wrong in mine IM NOT
what qualifies you to say im wrong anyway unless your a qualified doctor then what you say is pointless also
im saying for me a 34 inch waist is fine FOR ME

Simmer down tiger, if I tell you a 34" waist means your not fat, will that make you tone down the agression?

edellc

ragg wrote: »

Simmer down tiger, if I tell you a 34" waist means your not fat, will that make you tone down the agression?

ragg

I didn't say it - you need to go on a little diet - real men have a 32" waist

Hanley

edellc wrote: »

BMI is useless

was watching that male doctor from embarrassing illness last week and he would be classed as over weight by his BMI so too would many rugby players
he said that what matters is the fat around your vital organs and that if you waist is above 34 inches then you need to do something about it
this is the best advice i have heard in relation to what is healthy and what is not and thats my aim

edellc wrote: »

again in your opinion i am wrong in mine IM NOT
what qualifies you to say im wrong anyway unless your a qualified doctor then what you say is pointless also
im saying for me a 34 inch waist is fine FOR ME

I've quoted the pertinent parts of your original post. Maybe he said that for the person's height 34 inches is good, and maybe that person's the same height as you.

But to say a 34 inch waist is the right size for EVERYONE is just plain wrong. I'm sorry, but it is.

Sean Bateman

Hanley wrote: »

I've quoted the pertinent parts of your original post. Maybe he said that for the person's height 34 inches is good, and maybe that person's the same height as you.

But to say a 34 inch waist is the right size for EVERYONE is just plain wrong. I'm sorry, but it is.

BMI isn't great for assessing rugby players either.

Many of the Irish team would be classified as obese if they were assessed using BMI.

Agree with your comments re 34 inches...a 34 inch waist on a 5'6" would suggest obesity. A 34 inch waist on a 6'5" guy would suggest he's in good shape.

Parsley

edellc wrote: »

again in your opinion i am wrong in mine IM NOT
what qualifies you to say im wrong anyway unless your a qualified doctor then what you say is pointless also
im saying for me a 34 inch waist is fine FOR ME

edellc wrote: »

BMI is useless

was watching that male doctor...
he said that if you waist is above 34 inches then you need to do something about it
this is the best advice i have heard in relation to what is healthy and what is not and thats my aim

no, it's not what you were saying.

:edit: hanley was in first...

Hanley

Sean Bateman wrote: »

BMI isn't great for assessing rugby players either.

Many of the Irish team would be classified as obese if they were assessed using BMI.

Yup, I agreed with that earlier.

I'm obese per BMI at 97kg and 5'10 with a 34 inch was, sub-10mm suprailliac skin fold and abs sure!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

rubadub wrote: »

It is used since many experienced doctors obviously disagree with your statements. Most know where & how it should be applied are are well aware of its limits. You seem to have a very low opinions of peoples intelligence or common sense, I doubt there is any bodybuilder crying himself to sleep at night worried that his bum is too big because he got a "high score".

Do you believe everything a doctor tells you? When people tell me what category I fall into using the BMI, I tell them exactly why it shouldn't be used and that it's a load of rubbish.

The BMI is obviously very flawed as it takes only two factors into account. These two factors then indicate to you wether you are obese or not.

Just because it's somewhat accurate in some cases, does not mean it should be the gospel.

The less factors used, the less accurate a complicated equation tends to be.

In other threads l have recommended other methods like hip to waist ratio, but you guys might say it is also false/inaccurate/invalid too. There is a girl in work who would be deemed obese by the hip to waist ratio. She has quite low bodyfat so why is she deemed obese? because she is pregnant. Now only a fucking idiot would not cop on that this measurement/result does not hold in this case, just like only an utter idiot would not cop on that BMI does not apply to bodybuilders. -But some people take great joy in supposedly "debunking" techniques, while anybody with any cop-on knows when & where to apply them. Preaching to the choir really.

No idea what the hip to waste ratio. Can you explain it.

Who said anything about body building? I'm no body builder, I stated this already, I have a moderate build I don't power train or bulk up, I train about 5-6 hours a week. 30% of that is cardio. Obviously using the BMI to dictate how much fat you have on a BB site is not the best of ideas, but here, nobody can tell anything unless you actually know the people. At what point do you say "nah, the bmi is no good for this person"? Also, because of this it makes it even more flawed. It can only be used in some cases? I prefer other methods that give accurate results no matter how much you train, your size, height, etc etc.

edellc

Parsley wrote: »

no, it's not what you were saying.

:edit: hanley was in first...

excuse me for not being more precise i meant to say in the first post that it was relevant to my height as per what the doctor said

anyway its about whether BMI is relevant or not and i say not the question doesn't ask for you to elaborate just a yes or no answer and my answer is no

rubadub

d'Oracle wrote: »

Who said anything about bodybuilders?

We are talking feckin novice strength trainees here.

So it should probably not apply to them as they they are physically active and probably do not have an average body composition.

that was never the BMI's purpose; it is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals with an average body composition.

Khannie wrote: »

I think the clinical definition of obese is not what an average joe would consider all that fat.

I think this is the case. People are getting all upset over a simple word. Obese might conjure up images of lads on TV having to be lifted out of bed on crane yokes etc so they take offence. Instead of getting all upset you should really be saying to yourself, "well I never knew you could carry what I consider a little extra fat to be in the obese category, I thought it meant HUGE, how wrong was I, perhaps obese is not such a negative term, in future if I hear a population is 30% obese I will not presume they are all totally massive in that country". The people who some would call obese would be classed as morbidly obese, hyperobese, superobese etc.

These charts just show that peoples idea of what obese meant was not in agreement with the medical definition. Binge drinking is defined as 4 drinks in a row by some authorities, so if they say I go binge drinking a lot it doesn't bother me in the slightest TBH, I simply understand and accept their criteria and go about my day. On BB forums you would see people saying a guy is "skinny" who my mother would probably call very muscular. Nothing to get upset over TBH. I just accept that people with a bit of a gut could be obese, I do not go trying to change the ranges, I just accept it and sing off the same hymn sheet as the medical guys, not try and create my own chart ranges which only would lead to confusion.

Look up google images for obese.
http://www.google.ie/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=obese&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
I doubt a single person there is in the obese range. They would all be well in the morbidly obese region.

ragg wrote: »

What if you carry all your weight on your flute?

Then you should give it a wash!

ragg

rubadub wrote: »

Then you should give it a wash!

Both funny AND disgusting - kudos