Timeline for Is there any way I can convince companies I'm in great shape, despite my BMI results?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2022 at 17:25 | comment | added | Dan Roberts | I'm not convinced by this. Overweight / obese is being defined by BMI and interpreted by insurance companies as unhealthy and that the BMI "healthy weight" range does actually imply better health. The issue is really whether BMI is a good indicator of health and, while there is some correlation that you may wish to consider, it's weak. Some interesting stats here: eurekalert.org/news-releases/645650 I agree that there is more stress on the body at higher weights even at low body fat levels but BMI obese with low fat percent incurs less risk than the same BMI at a high fat percent. | |
| Mar 13, 2014 at 21:33 | comment | added | user8116 | Ryan- Thanks for bringing clarity to this subject. I was upset at the rate an insurance company was giving me for life insurance. It didn't seem fair that my muscle weight was held in the same regard as fat weight. 200lbs of fat or muscle on a 6'0 frame, is 200lbs of mass being moved by the 6'0 frames heart...the other factors (blood pressure, cholesterol, family history, personal health history) are all taken into account..and then the rate is given. Great answer Jim | |
| Jun 5, 2013 at 16:51 | comment | added | Ryan Miller | I am not saying "someone who is 4'11" and 180 lbs is at similar cardiovascular risk as someone 6'3" and 180 lbs." You are inferring that from my post. Either I am describing it incorrectly or you are inferring incorrectly. I am saying that the 4'11" person is at much more risk than the 6'3" - which is what you are saying. And BMI is not about body FAT composition. It is about body MASS composition. BMI does not care whether the 180 lbs is 100% muscle or 100% fat it is still mass. And that is what most people don't understand. | |
| Jun 5, 2013 at 15:56 | comment | added | Chelonian | How am I inferring when I am refuting a direct quote of yours? Look up BMI: its intended usage was/is for roughly quantifying body fat composition, not mass. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Usage | |
| Jun 5, 2013 at 15:19 | comment | added | Ryan Miller | @Chelonian I see your point, but that's not what I am "saying"; that's what you are inferring. Describing it the way I do always makes the light bulb go on in people's heads who are confused as was the OP. Perhaps the height component assumes someone 59" has a smaller heart (size, capacity, strength?) than a 75" person. | |
| Jun 4, 2013 at 18:35 | comment | added | Chelonian | BMI surely isn't "simply the effect of MASS on your heart"--or else why is there a divisor in the equation to take into account height? We already have a way to measure mass only: the kilogram. So why don't insurance companies just use that? Because it's not a good predictor. What you are saying is that someone who is 4'11" and 180 lbs is at similar cardiovascular risk as someone 6'3" and 180 lbs. That can't be right--and isn't. | |
| May 9, 2013 at 15:17 | comment | added | MDMoore313 | I guess putting it simply (Effect of Mass on the heart) you make a great argument. | |
| May 9, 2013 at 15:11 | history | answered | Ryan Miller | CC BY-SA 3.0 |