Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
The BMI basically screws up the whole discussion: it's a useless tool when applied to individuals.
Consider Michael Backlund for example. Listed at 6 feet and roughly 200 lbs, he's got a BMI of 27, which lands him squarely in the "overweight" camp.
In order to barely squeak into the "normal" category, he'd have to lose about 15 pounds. Does anyone really believe Backlund would be healthier if he lost 15 pounds?
But even worse, Backlund could actually lose as much as 60 pounds and still be in the "normal" category. Does anyone really believe Backlund would be healthier if he lost 60 pounds?
Personally, I think he'd have to either develop anorexia or cancer to pull that off - neither of which is very healthy based on everything I've read.
|
Reminds me of doing fitness testing when in Uni, a mate of mine that played high level rugby got a BMI of morbidly obese.
The Fat ####!