Don't Weigh Me

[Brackish]

I don't know what's going on with most of the guys posting about BMI, but if you lift and fall easily with in the BMI numbers then maybe you should re-evalute your lifting and try something effective. I am not skinny, if i cut all the way to 240lbs at my height of 6'-0 I would have some visible abs and still be over 30 BMI. Most guys that lift SHOULD be in the upper 20's of BMI unless they have osteoporosis or are incapable of building muscle.

I don't want to be that guy, but do you happen to have any research supporting these statements? Saying every guy that lifts effectively should be in the over-weight or obese category seems like a bit of a stretch...

From the CDC:
"If an athlete or other person with a lot of muscle has a BMI over 25, is that person still considered to be overweight?
According to the BMI weight status categories, anyone with a BMI between 25 and 29.9 would be classified as overweight and anyone with a BMI over 30 would be classified as having obesity.

However, athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness. In general, a person who has a high BMI is likely to have body fatness and would be considered to be overweight or obese, but this may not apply to athletes. A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks."
I'm saying, everyone is differrent and results may vary, yada yada yada... but IF you aren't pushing that BMI envelope and you lift AND you have the intention of developing better muscle mass and strength than someone that does not lift, then maybe you are doing it wrong and should reevaluate your program. Or you have bird bones.

I don't think that lifting weights = athlete. I don't work at the CDC, but I doubt very much that the person writing that statement would put Steve, who sells insurance and lifts weights 3x week, in the same category as any college/professional athlete.

I also think we may be drifting a bit off topic here. I'm not saying that outliers don't exist. That would be silly. I'm saying that BMI (as it relates to the OP - specifically gen. pop and being overweight/obese) isn't as inaccurate as it seems, especially when we're talking about the average person on the street. People like to think they're an outlier, but, by definition, most people aren't. BMI isn't great, but it isn't useless. If we moved it to BMI + waist circumference, we'd be in an even better spot.

[mettkeks]

He has a great physique in both pictures but I'm skeptical that that's 18-20% body fat.

Agreed tbh, struggling to believe that chap is 18-20% bf in his 195lb pic...

Sick, ain't it?

SpoilerShow

[quikky]

I don't know what's going on with most of the guys posting about BMI, but if you lift and fall easily with in the BMI numbers then maybe you should re-evalute your lifting and try something effective. I am not skinny, if i cut all the way to 240lbs at my height of 6'-0 I would have some visible abs and still be over 30 BMI. Most guys that lift SHOULD be in the upper 20's of BMI unless they have osteoporosis or are incapable of building muscle.

I don't want to be that guy, but do you happen to have any research supporting these statements? Saying every guy that lifts effectively should be in the over-weight or obese category seems like a bit of a stretch...

I'd also be curious what @Hardartery's weight and waist measurements are now. "Visible abs" is an almost meaningless term. I had a 40" waist at my peak SS/TM days and you could still see an outline of my upper abs. Rippetoe claims visible abs at like 5'9" and 220lbs, with a clearly visible belly. If I had to guess, even a pretty strong dude at 6 foot and 240lbs is going to be chunky (guessing 40" waist or so).

The last time I was down to 240 lbs I had a 36" waist. I carry more muscle now, specifically in my shoulders and chest, so who knows what would happen if I cut that far again. I am trying to slowly get to 260 lbs as a cruising weight right now, even though I am honestly most comfortable at 275. BMI is a lousy measure of health, and in no way something to be too bent about. Correlation is not causation, and BMI is based 100% on specualative correlation. There are actual legitimate empirical measurements to determine your health. Obviously people are a fatter than necessary in general in Western society. They are also much larger in other ways than historically, which is largely credited to our ancestors being stunted by inadequate amounts of food and malnutrition. They weren't growing as big as they would have if they had enough food available. Now ther's plenty of food but it's too calorie dense and people don't get enough physical activity. Plenty of men are pursuing an arbitrary ideal based on nothing but conjecture and personal preference - and calling it healthy to try and make it seem like a legitimate pursuit. Then they criticize other people for having different values and objectives. What can you or I tell from some social media pictures of a guy flexing? Not much, they prove nothing. And I'll add that the guy with the hair that I've seen posted more than once on here is not big by any stretch based on the pics. Low bodyfat sure, big no. Stand him next to someone else and you will get a completely different idea of how big or little he actually is. And certainly a thing like overall bodyweight without consideration for height or build as an arbitrary value is ridiculous. When the guy that's 5'-9 is noticeably taller than everyone else in the room 200 lbs is a different metric than when 5'-10 is the average height in the room.
My BP checked out, along with all of my blood work, at my last physical a month ago, and I was 290 on the doctor's scale and had been in the US for a couple of weeks eating horribly. Was by BF% more than 15? Yep, I'm sure it was more than 20%, but less than 30%. I would be fine with 18-20% all of the time, it's a very healthy range and I would still be way over into "Obese" on the BMI.

You're kinda talking about 50 different things here. I'll get back to the BMI issue. BMI is a pretty useful metric in most cases. It has its flaws but as a broad and quick measure that can be applied to a broad population it is useful. If you map out a large population based on BMI and cardio metabolic disease risk, there is very good overlap between higher BMI and higher risk, especially at the high end. The idea that BMI does not apply to casual lifters is only true slightly. Most casual lifters with an obese BMI have an unhealthy amount of body fat. It's a lower level of fat, generally speaking, compared to obese BMI gen pop, but it's higher than ideal from a health standpoint.

Another useful measurement on addition to BMI for lifters is waist circumference. Over 40" is not good. Over 37" is not great either.

[chrisd]

I'm not so sure it's the weighing that provokes offence as much as the the whole surgery chanting the following

[Renascent]

I don't know what's going on with most of the guys posting about BMI, but if you lift and fall easily with in the BMI numbers then maybe you should re-evalute your lifting and try something effective. I am not skinny, if i cut all the way to 240lbs at my height of 6'-0 I would have some visible abs and still be over 30 BMI. Most guys that lift SHOULD be in the upper 20's of BMI unless they have osteoporosis or are incapable of building muscle.

I don't want to be that guy, but do you happen to have any research supporting these statements? Saying every guy that lifts effectively should be in the over-weight or obese category seems like a bit of a stretch...

From the CDC:
"If an athlete or other person with a lot of muscle has a BMI over 25, is that person still considered to be overweight?
According to the BMI weight status categories, anyone with a BMI between 25 and 29.9 would be classified as overweight and anyone with a BMI over 30 would be classified as having obesity.

However, athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness. In general, a person who has a high BMI is likely to have body fatness and would be considered to be overweight or obese, but this may not apply to athletes. A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks."
I'm saying, everyone is differrent and results may vary, yada yada yada... but IF you aren't pushing that BMI envelope and you lift AND you have the intention of developing better muscle mass and strength than someone that does not lift, then maybe you are doing it wrong and should reevaluate your program. Or you have bird bones.

I don't think that lifting weights = athlete. I don't work at the CDC, but I doubt very much that the person writing that statement would put Steve, who sells insurance and lifts weights 3x week, in the same category as any college/professional athlete.

I also think we may be drifting a bit off topic here. I'm not saying that outliers don't exist. That would be silly. I'm saying that BMI (as it relates to the OP - specifically gen. pop and being overweight/obese) isn't as inaccurate as it seems, especially when we're talking about the average person on the street. People like to think they're an outlier, but, by definition, most people aren't. BMI isn't great, but it isn't useless. If we moved it to BMI + waist circumference, we'd be in an even better spot.

In the past, I've been quick to correct randos who mistake my enthusiasm for lifting weights for some degree of real athletic ability. I don't see those two things as being one and the same either, but in this case I guess we'd have to know where the CDC draws its line between an "athlete" and a "non-athlete."

When I had a checkup a year ago, it ended with a summary of findings provided by a physician I communicated with remotely. She rattled off my stats, including the BMI (I don't remember what it was -- 27 or 28?) and, without missing a beat followed up a declaration that people with more soft tissue -- whether it's fat or muscle or anything that isn't bone -- will obviously rate higher on the BMI scale. She could only see my head and shoulders, so she said something about "bodybuilders" and "weightlifters" generally rating as "obese," though it means nothing since they're presumably carrying around a greater mass of soft tissue intended to help with (or provoked by) physical pursuits that go well beyond basic survival-related movements in daily life.

She wasn't a CDC employee, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "athlete" term is being generally used loosely in the context of BMI (I couldn't find a definition of the CDC's site). Whereas "we" (amateur lifters) might not be on the level of pro athletes, I'd think that it's still reasonable to have some further distinction between ourselves and people who move with even less regularity and moreso out of necessity (walking, shopping, yardwork, etc), regardless of whether or not we count as high-level performers.

If there are any valuable implications in BMI findings, I wonder if they're supposed to imply potential cardiovascular issues or a skeletal issues?

(Sorry if this strays further off-topic; I typed all this shit up before I saw your edit.)

[Hardartery]

You're kinda talking about 50 different things here. I'll get back to the BMI issue. BMI is a pretty useful metric in most cases. It has its flaws but as a broad and quick measure that can be applied to a broad population it is useful. If you map out a large population based on BMI and cardio metabolic disease risk, there is very good overlap between higher BMI and higher risk, especially at the high end. The idea that BMI does not apply to casual lifters is only true slightly. Most casual lifters with an obese BMI have an unhealthy amount of body fat. It's a lower level of fat, generally speaking, compared to obese BMI gen pop, but it's higher than ideal from a health standpoint.

Another useful measurement on addition to BMI for lifters is waist circumference. Over 40" is not good. Over 37" is not great either.

Waist circumference is no better than an arbitrary weight. There used to be a standard of waist to stomach, because technically your waist is not generally going to be the actual fattest point on you. Aguy with a 50" chest and 56" shoulders is not the same as a guy with a 40" chest and 41" shoulders, they are not going to conform to the same waist size. BMI is better than waist size, but flawed. Even a mildly inaccurate BF% would be better than either.

[quikky]

You're kinda talking about 50 different things here. I'll get back to the BMI issue. BMI is a pretty useful metric in most cases. It has its flaws but as a broad and quick measure that can be applied to a broad population it is useful. If you map out a large population based on BMI and cardio metabolic disease risk, there is very good overlap between higher BMI and higher risk, especially at the high end. The idea that BMI does not apply to casual lifters is only true slightly. Most casual lifters with an obese BMI have an unhealthy amount of body fat. It's a lower level of fat, generally speaking, compared to obese BMI gen pop, but it's higher than ideal from a health standpoint.

Another useful measurement on addition to BMI for lifters is waist circumference. Over 40" is not good. Over 37" is not great either.

Waist circumference is no better than an arbitrary weight. There used to be a standard of waist to stomach, because technically your waist is not generally going to be the actual fattest point on you. Aguy with a 50" chest and 56" shoulders is not the same as a guy with a 40" chest and 41" shoulders, they are not going to conform to the same waist size. BMI is better than waist size, but flawed. Even a mildly inaccurate BF% would be better than either.

Meh. You're trying to use exceptions to disprove general rules. Like I said, BMI has its flaws. Obviously, so does a waist size measurement. However, for most people, and most casual lifters, having an obese BMI and/or a high waist circumference is a good indicator they're carrying too much body fat.

[Hardartery]

I don't think that lifting weights = athlete. I don't work at the CDC, but I doubt very much that the person writing that statement would put Steve, who sells insurance and lifts weights 3x week, in the same category as any college/professional athlete.

I also think we may be drifting a bit off topic here. I'm not saying that outliers don't exist. That would be silly. I'm saying that BMI (as it relates to the OP - specifically gen. pop and being overweight/obese) isn't as inaccurate as it seems, especially when we're talking about the average person on the street. People like to think they're an outlier, but, by definition, most people aren't. BMI isn't great, but it isn't useless. If we moved it to BMI + waist circumference, we'd be in an even better spot.

Distance runner = athlete and I've never seen one of them that is in danger of being near the top of the BMI. There are guidelines other places that specifcally differentiate it as someone that lifts weights (Or I have seen Bodybuilder as well, which is what you expect from someone that does not lift but writes guidelines), it's pretty obvious who they are referring to, they just want to include American Football and Rugby athletes etc without writing a long list. There are plenty of people that fall within the "Healthy" range with an unhealthy BF% as well, because they have no real lean mass and are also suffering from osteopenia or osteoporosis (Like a lot of little old ladies you see walking around). BMI may be useful as a scientific tool in general, but it's fairly useless at the individual level. There's a better chance the doctor will make a more qualified judgement just looking at you, which is what they do when they disregard the BMI because it obviously doesn't apply.

[Hardartery]

You're kinda talking about 50 different things here. I'll get back to the BMI issue. BMI is a pretty useful metric in most cases. It has its flaws but as a broad and quick measure that can be applied to a broad population it is useful. If you map out a large population based on BMI and cardio metabolic disease risk, there is very good overlap between higher BMI and higher risk, especially at the high end. The idea that BMI does not apply to casual lifters is only true slightly. Most casual lifters with an obese BMI have an unhealthy amount of body fat. It's a lower level of fat, generally speaking, compared to obese BMI gen pop, but it's higher than ideal from a health standpoint.

Another useful measurement on addition to BMI for lifters is waist circumference. Over 40" is not good. Over 37" is not great either.

Waist circumference is no better than an arbitrary weight. There used to be a standard of waist to stomach, because technically your waist is not generally going to be the actual fattest point on you. Aguy with a 50" chest and 56" shoulders is not the same as a guy with a 40" chest and 41" shoulders, they are not going to conform to the same waist size. BMI is better than waist size, but flawed. Even a mildly inaccurate BF% would be better than either.

Meh. You're trying to use exceptions to disprove general rules. Like I said, BMI has its flaws. Obviously, so does a waist size measurement. However, for most people, and most casual lifters, having an obese BMI and/or a high waist circumference is a good indicator they're carrying too much body fat.

Are you seriously trying to argue that waist size in isolation as a number is a viable metric? LOL. For most people, where they live is a good indicator of whether or not they are too fat. That doesn't make it a viable metric.

[quikky]

Are you seriously trying to argue that waist size in isolation as a number is a viable metric? LOL.

It absolutely is. Just because exceptions exist and it's not perfect does not mean it is not a good metric the vast majority of the time. And, it's not me arguing that it is the case, there's a ton of studies showing just that. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself if you're genuinely interested.

Waist circumference is a very good proxy for body fat, which is one of the primary risk factors for cardio metabolic disease. It ain't rocket science. I don't even get how someone can find this controversial, to be honest.

[Hardartery]

Are you seriously trying to argue that waist size in isolation as a number is a viable metric? LOL.

It absolutely is. Just because exceptions exist and it's not perfect does not mean it is not a good metric the vast majority of the time. And, it's not me arguing that it is the case, there's a ton of studies showing just that. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself if you're genuinely interested.

Waist circumference is a very good proxy for body fat, which is one of the primary risk factors for cardio metabolic disease. It ain't rocket science. I don't even get how someone can find this controversial, to be honest.

LOL. There is a zero percent chance that A number taken in isolation is a useful metric for anything. Zero. It has to have context to have any value at all. Which is how you end up with BMI, because it is trying to provide context but fails, but that is certainly better than an arbitrary number. A guy that's 6'-5 and has a 50" chest would need the same waist circumference as a guy that's 5'-5 and has a 38" chest? I thought you were being serious, but apparently not.

[quikky]

Are you seriously trying to argue that waist size in isolation as a number is a viable metric? LOL.

It absolutely is. Just because exceptions exist and it's not perfect does not mean it is not a good metric the vast majority of the time. And, it's not me arguing that it is the case, there's a ton of studies showing just that. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself if you're genuinely interested.

Waist circumference is a very good proxy for body fat, which is one of the primary risk factors for cardio metabolic disease. It ain't rocket science. I don't even get how someone can find this controversial, to be honest.

LOL. There is a zero percent chance that A number taken in isolation is a useful metric for anything. Zero. It has to have context to have any value at all. Which is how you end up with BMI, because it is trying to provide context but fails, but that is certainly better than an arbitrary number. A guy that's 6'-5 and has a 50" chest would need the same waist circumference as a guy that's 5'-5 and has a 38" chest? I thought you were being serious, but apparently not.

Again, you keep using exceptions to try to disprove the rule. The average guy, or even the average lifter is not 6'5" with a 50" chest.

And, again, there is a ton of studies to support what I have said. Look it up yourself if you are doubting it. Saying "LOL" does not invalidate data.

Based on the information that you have provided, I think getting to 36" and 240lbs, maybe even down to 35" and 225-230lbs would be a great idea. Yes, just based on the waist size measurement alone, without knowing anything else about you. Being a lot higher than that predisposes you to hypertension, diabetes, dislipidemia, etc. However, I am just some guy on a forum, so feel free to ignore and do your thing. The data is on my side though.

[mettkeks]

What can you or I tell from some social media pictures of a guy flexing? Not much, they prove nothing. And I'll add that the guy with the hair that I've seen posted more than once on here is not big by any stretch based on the pics. Low bodyfat sure, big no. Stand him next to someone else and you will get a completely different idea of how big or little he actually is.

This guy with the hair, Alberto Nunez, is a Drug free Bodybuilder who won his pro-card back in 2008. Sure, He's not big by your standards, but those pictures show how a 38 year old, drug free professional bodybuilder looks at 5'9'' 195lb/18~20% BF and still not obese BMI (29). This can and should give a realistic perspective of what the average recreational lifter at that height can expect regarding BW/BF%/BMI.

So If someone is 5'9'' and 220lbs, he's not 20%BF and he should consider getting to a sub-obese BMI, if health is a concern.

[GrainsAndGains]

What can you or I tell from some social media pictures of a guy flexing? Not much, they prove nothing. And I'll add that the guy with the hair that I've seen posted more than once on here is not big by any stretch based on the pics. Low bodyfat sure, big no. Stand him next to someone else and you will get a completely different idea of how big or little he actually is.

This guy with the hair, Alberto Nunez, is a Drug free Bodybuilder who won his pro-card back in 2008. Sure, He's not big by your standards, but those pictures show how a 38 year old, drug free professional bodybuilder looks at 5'9'' 195lb/18~20% BF and still not obese BMI (29). This can and should give a realistic perspective of what the average recreational lifter at that height can expect regarding BW/BF%/BMI.

Are you sure about that? The physique of a professional bodybuilder definitely can't give a realistic perspective on what the average recreational lifter can expect. Even if the numbers presented are correct, there is no way that's what 18-20 percent bodyfat is going to look like for the average lifter. Most dudes aren't going to have visible abs at even 15%.

[mettkeks]

Are you sure about that? The physique of a professional bodybuilder definitely can't give a realistic perspective on what the average recreational lifter can expect. Even if the numbers presented are correct, there is no way that's what 18-20 percent bodyfat is going to look like for the average lifter. Most dudes aren't going to have visible abs at even 15%.

I don't show abs at 15% either. That's not the point. I'm not 210lbs at 15% though. That's the point. So when the average lifter says "I'm 5'10'' 230 15% BF, bro!" You either have abzZz and look like a bodybuilder, or you are WAY off with the BF% estimate. Given the weights of natural pro's who are at the end of the spectrum, the latter is more likely, and your doctor who told you the best thing for your 182/124 bloodpressure is to lose weight based on your BMI being obese... is probably not a jackass who doesn't know shit about lifting.

Tl;dr: I mean if you grossly exceed the upper limit... you probably don't. Not that the upper limit is even attainable for the average guy.

[Brackish]

You're kinda talking about 50 different things here. I'll get back to the BMI issue. BMI is a pretty useful metric in most cases. It has its flaws but as a broad and quick measure that can be applied to a broad population it is useful. If you map out a large population based on BMI and cardio metabolic disease risk, there is very good overlap between higher BMI and higher risk, especially at the high end. The idea that BMI does not apply to casual lifters is only true slightly. Most casual lifters with an obese BMI have an unhealthy amount of body fat. It's a lower level of fat, generally speaking, compared to obese BMI gen pop, but it's higher than ideal from a health standpoint.

Another useful measurement on addition to BMI for lifters is waist circumference. Over 40" is not good. Over 37" is not great either.

Waist circumference is no better than an arbitrary weight. There used to be a standard of waist to stomach, because technically your waist is not generally going to be the actual fattest point on you. Aguy with a 50" chest and 56" shoulders is not the same as a guy with a 40" chest and 41" shoulders, they are not going to conform to the same waist size. BMI is better than waist size, but flawed. Even a mildly inaccurate BF% would be better than either.

Meh. You're trying to use exceptions to disprove general rules. Like I said, BMI has its flaws. Obviously, so does a waist size measurement. However, for most people, and most casual lifters, having an obese BMI and/or a high waist circumference is a good indicator they're carrying too much body fat.

Are you seriously trying to argue that waist size in isolation as a number is a viable metric? LOL. For most people, where they live is a good indicator of whether or not they are too fat. That doesn't make it a viable metric.

Study link below. Sample size was 650,000 and they controlled for all sorts of variables - including smoking. Waist size was a better predictor of early death than smoking cigarettes…

“In white adults, higher waist circumference was positively associated with higher mortality at all levels of BMI from 20–50 kg/m2. Waist circumference should be assessed in combination with BMI, even for those in the normal BMI range, as part of risk assessment for obesity-related premature mortality.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104704/

[Hardartery]

Again, you keep using exceptions to try to disprove the rule. The average guy, or even the average lifter is not 6'5" with a 50" chest.

And, again, there is a ton of studies to support what I have said. Look it up yourself if you are doubting it. Saying "LOL" does not invalidate data.

Based on the information that you have provided, I think getting to 36" and 240lbs, maybe even down to 35" and 225-230lbs would be a great idea. Yes, just based on the waist size measurement alone, without knowing anything else about you. Being a lot higher than that predisposes you to hypertension, diabetes, dislipidemia, etc. However, I am just some guy on a forum, so feel free to ignore and do your thing. The data is on my side though.

I don't have to disprove anthing that has not been proven. There is no chance that you can provide even one study that show unequivocaly that a given waist circumference irrespective of any other biometrics equates to anything. You can say there are plenty, that doesn't make them exist. Cutting to 225-230 does not make any difference in any of my numbers, in fact some of them were worse at a lighter weight. I do not have dislipidemia (Which I don't consider an actual problem anyway, just the possible symptom of one), hypertension, or diabetes. This is in spite of a family history of the men on my father's side having diabetes at a minimum younger than I currently am - all of them. So I am almost 50, and have no such adverse issues. Prove causation. You can call me an outlier, but that is a cop out. People don't have those problems because of a waist measurement, and there is no study showing that they do once they hit a specific number.

[Hardartery]

You're kinda talking about 50 different things here. I'll get back to the BMI issue. BMI is a pretty useful metric in most cases. It has its flaws but as a broad and quick measure that can be applied to a broad population it is useful. If you map out a large population based on BMI and cardio metabolic disease risk, there is very good overlap between higher BMI and higher risk, especially at the high end. The idea that BMI does not apply to casual lifters is only true slightly. Most casual lifters with an obese BMI have an unhealthy amount of body fat. It's a lower level of fat, generally speaking, compared to obese BMI gen pop, but it's higher than ideal from a health standpoint.

Another useful measurement on addition to BMI for lifters is waist circumference. Over 40" is not good. Over 37" is not great either.

Waist circumference is no better than an arbitrary weight. There used to be a standard of waist to stomach, because technically your waist is not generally going to be the actual fattest point on you. Aguy with a 50" chest and 56" shoulders is not the same as a guy with a 40" chest and 41" shoulders, they are not going to conform to the same waist size. BMI is better than waist size, but flawed. Even a mildly inaccurate BF% would be better than either.

Meh. You're trying to use exceptions to disprove general rules. Like I said, BMI has its flaws. Obviously, so does a waist size measurement. However, for most people, and most casual lifters, having an obese BMI and/or a high waist circumference is a good indicator they're carrying too much body fat.

Are you seriously trying to argue that waist size in isolation as a number is a viable metric? LOL. For most people, where they live is a good indicator of whether or not they are too fat. That doesn't make it a viable metric.

Study link below. Sample size was 650,000 and they controlled for all sorts of variables - including smoking. Waist size was a better predictor of early death than smoking cigarettes…

“In white adults, higher waist circumference was positively associated with higher mortality at all levels of BMI from 20–50 kg/m2. Waist circumference should be assessed in combination with BMI, even for those in the normal BMI range, as part of risk assessment for obesity-related premature mortality.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104704/

From the study you linked:
"The HR per 5cm increment in waist circumference was similar for both sexes at all BMI levels from 20–50 kg/m2, but it was higher at younger ages, higher for longer follow-up, and lower among male current smokers. The associations were stronger for heart and respiratory disease mortality than for cancer."
and:
"This large sample size allowed us to (1) systematically model the association of waist circumference with mortality using clinically intuitive 5cm (~2 inch) increments for men and women, and (2) evaluate risk within relatively narrow bands of BMI to assess the validity of guidelines that use a single clinical cut-point for waist circumference and do not recommend monitoring waist circumference in underweight, normal, or extremely obese men and women"

So, waist size was not taken in isolation as an absolute measurement at any time in this study, it was evaluated in relation to other metrics like BMI which means height played a role in the data. I does not, at any point, show that an absolute waist measurement means anything at all, which was my point. You cannot determone a waist measurement number and apply it universally, because that is worse than every other option available. You can apply a number to yourself, as an individual case to be indicative of weight gain or loss, but your number has nothing in particualr to do with anyone else's waist size indications. The waist size risk assessment was categorized by patient BMI. So all that can actually be gained from it it people that have more relative amounts of fat around the abdomen have a correlated increase in chance of death FROM ALL CAUSES. Which could mean traffic accidents or skydiving.

[Brackish]

You're kinda talking about 50 different things here. I'll get back to the BMI issue. BMI is a pretty useful metric in most cases. It has its flaws but as a broad and quick measure that can be applied to a broad population it is useful. If you map out a large population based on BMI and cardio metabolic disease risk, there is very good overlap between higher BMI and higher risk, especially at the high end. The idea that BMI does not apply to casual lifters is only true slightly. Most casual lifters with an obese BMI have an unhealthy amount of body fat. It's a lower level of fat, generally speaking, compared to obese BMI gen pop, but it's higher than ideal from a health standpoint.

Another useful measurement on addition to BMI for lifters is waist circumference. Over 40" is not good. Over 37" is not great either.

Waist circumference is no better than an arbitrary weight. There used to be a standard of waist to stomach, because technically your waist is not generally going to be the actual fattest point on you. Aguy with a 50" chest and 56" shoulders is not the same as a guy with a 40" chest and 41" shoulders, they are not going to conform to the same waist size. BMI is better than waist size, but flawed. Even a mildly inaccurate BF% would be better than either.

Meh. You're trying to use exceptions to disprove general rules. Like I said, BMI has its flaws. Obviously, so does a waist size measurement. However, for most people, and most casual lifters, having an obese BMI and/or a high waist circumference is a good indicator they're carrying too much body fat.

Are you seriously trying to argue that waist size in isolation as a number is a viable metric? LOL. For most people, where they live is a good indicator of whether or not they are too fat. That doesn't make it a viable metric.

Study link below. Sample size was 650,000 and they controlled for all sorts of variables - including smoking. Waist size was a better predictor of early death than smoking cigarettes…

“In white adults, higher waist circumference was positively associated with higher mortality at all levels of BMI from 20–50 kg/m2. Waist circumference should be assessed in combination with BMI, even for those in the normal BMI range, as part of risk assessment for obesity-related premature mortality.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104704/

From the study you linked:
"The HR per 5cm increment in waist circumference was similar for both sexes at all BMI levels from 20–50 kg/m2, but it was higher at younger ages, higher for longer follow-up, and lower among male current smokers. The associations were stronger for heart and respiratory disease mortality than for cancer."
and:
"This large sample size allowed us to (1) systematically model the association of waist circumference with mortality using clinically intuitive 5cm (~2 inch) increments for men and women, and (2) evaluate risk within relatively narrow bands of BMI to assess the validity of guidelines that use a single clinical cut-point for waist circumference and do not recommend monitoring waist circumference in underweight, normal, or extremely obese men and women"

So, waist size was not taken in isolation as an absolute measurement at any time in this study, it was evaluated in relation to other metrics like BMI which means height played a role in the data. I does not, at any point, show that an absolute waist measurement means anything at all, which was my point. You cannot determone a waist measurement number and apply it universally, because that is worse than every other option available. You can apply a number to yourself, as an individual case to be indicative of weight gain or loss, but your number has nothing in particualr to do with anyone else's waist size indications. The waist size risk assessment was categorized by patient BMI. So all that can actually be gained from it it people that have more relative amounts of fat around the abdomen have a correlated increase in chance of death FROM ALL CAUSES. Which could mean traffic accidents or skydiving.

Waist circumference, no correlation with BMI. Same results. You can believe whatever you want, but like others have said above, your position is NOT supported by data.

“Results from this large prospective study emphasize the importance of WC as a risk factor for mortality in older adults, regardless of whether the BMI is categorized as normal, overweight, or obese. Our results suggest that, regardless of weight, avoiding gains in WC may reduce risk of premature mortality.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... cle/775594

[hector]

If you think BMI is f'd, check out FFMI.

BMI will tell you you're a fatty while, with the same numbers,, FFMI may tell you you're so physically impressive that steroid use is likely.