# A Rant on behalf of Tall Women



## ocotillo

My mother is 5'-11". Two of my sisters are 6'-1". My wife is 6'-3". All three of my daughters are over 6'. I've been around tall women all my life.

Tall women are told pretty much their entire lives that they're overweight and this is based on Body Mass Index.

There are several ways of figuring BMI, but one of the most common is to divide mass in kilos by height in meters squared. So BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the height under this formula. 

In the real world though, mass increases at a much sharper vector relative to height. If I were to wave a magic wand at you and make you twice as big as you are now, you wouldn't weigh twice as much. You would weigh _*eight times as much*_. Mass actually increases by the cube of the multiplier. 

So most height to weight tables, like the one that can found  here at the NIH website are way, way off at the top end of the spectrum of human height.

Since this is easier to see with actual pictures, I will show you what overweight and obese look like when a woman is 6 foot+ in height.

This is overweight by more than ten pounds:











And this is obese. (>30 lbs. overweight)










--Not very fair if you ask me.

And yet insurance companies and even some licensed M.D.'s take these tables seriously.


----------



## HappyGilmore

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

I am not tall, not even close. In fact, I'm considered "below average height." But I have to agree with you on this one. BMI tables are highly inaccurate. It does not take body composition into account, for one. A more muscular or fit person could weigh more than someone less muscular, and still be called "obese." 

The pictures of those "obese" women you showed have bodies that are enviable by any standard. And they look healthy and athletic to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm very muscle bound and large boned (for real, not just in the "Garfield" way) and am always about 10 pounds heavier than other women my size. So I don't bother saying the weight number sometimes because it just doesn't make sense when people hear it and then look at me. This has been the case since childhood, since I gained my muscle mass then, when I was at the doctor they would make the nurse weight me again when looking at my chart because the assumed she/he had written the number down wrong. And even when they saw it for themselves they could barely believe it. 

I have a close friend who is actually larger than me in pant/dress sizes but weighs 10 pounds less than me. Her wrists and entire skeleton are really dainty compared to mine, but her other body parts are larger.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ocotillo, how tall are you?


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Ocotillo, how tall are you?


6'-6" when I was 21. It more like 6'-5" these days though...

Guys get penalized by the same flawed formula, but it seems like it's easier for a man to claim that it's because he works out. (As long as there's some truth to the claim anyway.....)


----------



## SurpriseMyself

BMI is a joke, as are many other methods of figuring out if you are overweight.

When I was a freshman in college, I remember that my gym coach used fat calipers on all the students. He measured the top of the thigh, the waist, and the back of the arm. And guess what - I was considered on the edge of obese. I was 5'4" and 125lbs at the time. I ran three times a week. Sure, I had some freshman weight gain, but obese?!?! The fact that I still remember that says that this stuff can make an impact, even if we know intellectually that it's wrong.


----------



## ConanHub

BMI makes me laugh! I am 5'10" have always been muscular ranging between 185 to 220 (heavy weight training) and even at the low end, I am considered overweight. 

When I was 18, I dated a young lady that was about 6'2". When we met she weighed maybe 135. We had a talk one time and I brought up that she looked a little uncomfortable most of the time and she wouldn't eat much. She said she was afraid to gain weight, she thought she was fat! I convinced her to get up to about 155. She looked AMAZING!!!

I hear you Oc. Tall women are beautiful and they are naturally going to weigh a lot more than women who are shorter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

P.S. Both of those women in your pictures look great and any man should feel honored to have one at his side.

They look very healthy too! Healthy is sexy!&#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

I set up a couple, he was 6'5" and she was 5'2". They really dug each other, but it was just too much of a size difference, mostly for him. He said he enjoyed taller women so much more, just to even hang his arm around a shoulder was awkward with my tiny friend. His girlfriend before her had been 6'4" and he said he loved that. 

There was also this couple of dancers in our Tango community, they were both at least 6'5" but I bet he was closer to 6'8". They were both so tall that they rarely meshed well with anyone else physically. This is obviously true in everyday things like the arm around the shoulder, but people this tall also really can't dance with average height people. It doesn't really work. So if you are that tall and want to dance, your options are very limited at any given dance.

They met and it was an instant obvious attraction, but everything else fell in place, too. They ended up this lovely couple, clearly so smitten with each other and so glad to find a suitably sized person to date and dance with. When you'd see them enter a room you couldn't help but notice...but wow, that would really suck, you know? I would NEVER want to be always noticed every time I walked in a room. These two, you literally couldn't help but look at them when they walked in, all eyes were on them. 

You must have to develop a thick skin if you will forever be stared at like this. And people in the crowd of dancers would openly "gasp" and talk about them and how tall they are. Everyone who spoke to them the first time, expressed awe at their size. They were always so gracious about it, but wtf? That would suck! WOW, hey you're SO TALL, OMG!!!! (eye roll, sigh) "yeah, I'm tall, alright...yep, really tall." (for the fiftieth time today)

But seeing them on the dance floor was a sight to behold. Dancers tend to be on the shorter side, so a room filled with dancers are going to average in a range of about 5'0" - 5'9" with very few heads popping up taller than that. So put 30 people on the dance floor at these heights, and now put Mr. 6'8 and Ms. 6'5" (or 6'7" in a 2 inch heel) in the mix and no one can look at anyone but them. It is impossible! You can't stop looking at them!

I can say though that they were simply beautiful to look at, and they danced really great together, and they were aware everyone was watching them and they beamed looking at each other while dancing. They didn't shy away from the relentless attention they were just their big, beautiful selves.


----------



## Miss Taken

Both of those women look healthy to me.

I have to say, I don't put much stock into BMI charts especially after talking to my doctor about it more than once. The BMI just wasn't built to suit every body or every race. I'm also sure they aren't geared well enough for height. I think things like height, race and somatoype (mesomorph, ectomorph and endomorph) are also important.


----------



## TiggyBlue

BMI is a guesstimate at best.


----------



## Redheadguy

:yay::yay::yay::yay:

Let's hear it again for proudly tall healthy ladies.


----------



## alexm

HappyGilmore said:


> :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:
> 
> I am not tall, not even close. In fact, I'm considered "below average height." But I have to agree with you on this one. BMI tables are highly inaccurate. It does not take body composition into account, for one. A more muscular or fit person could weigh more than someone less muscular, and still be called "obese."


You're telling me! Back in the day when I was a serious athlete, I stood 5'7" tall and weighed, at my peak, 199lbs. And I was far from obese, or even fat. Stocky, yes. And I didn't even do weight training, this was all natural due to the sports I was playing, which included LOTS of cardio. I was, and still am, naturally muscular. (though it's slowly disappearing with age!)

Now I'm around 160, but the irony is that I now look chubby-ish at that weight, whereas at my peak 20 years ago, I looked solid. It all sits much differently than it did when I was 18.

5'7" and nearly 200 lbs would probably be way, WAY off the BMI scale.


----------



## thefam

Redheadguy said:


> :yay::yay::yay::yay:
> 
> Let's hear it again for proudly tall healthy ladies.


Oh, to be a tall woman, what wouldn't I give! And I already have the tall H to match! Sigh ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

thefam...How tall (or height challenged) are you? Do you really wish you were taller, or is it just because it would match better with your husband?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm 5'3".I'm always "BMI fat" unless I've been on a runway model's diet in addition to working out like it's a full time job.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Short women get the shaft too. I'm just under 5'4" and any time spend in the petite clothing department will tell you that designers think all short women have no hips or boobs.


----------



## bbdad

BMI is actually good for population studies. If you sample a large number of people, the statistical outliers will not have an impact. Now, if you sample college athletes, then you will get a skewed sample and BMI is not appropriate. 

It is not the best metric for individuals due to variance in muscularity that BMI does not account for. Body fat is a more accurate measurement. And, you can be 125 lbs and still be obese through body fat measurements. If you have a relatively low muscle mass and relatively high body fat, then you can be obese in a body fat measurement. It is often referred to as skinny fat.

I also agree that the actuarial tables used by insurance companies and some physicians really suck. I am a weight lifter, so I carry more muscle mass than the typical individual. I am currently sub 7% body fat, but am over weight by actuarial tables and overweight for BMI.


----------



## lifeistooshort

"YOU CAN OUT DIET A BAD EXERCISE PROGRAM, BUT YOU CAN'T OUT EXERCISE A BAD DIET!"

Amen.


----------



## Almostrecovered

someone told her that she's morbidly obese


----------



## TheCuriousWife

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'm 5'3".I'm always "BMI fat" unless I've been on a runway model's diet in addition to working out like it's a full time job.


SO HAPPY to see you Scarlet. Please don't be a stranger. I miss you, and hope you are doing well.


----------



## TheCuriousWife

I don't know if I count as tall. 5'7".

But my husband struggles with this a lot. 

He is 6' and 185 pounds of muscle. He is counted as overweight, and he looks very fit and healthy. Barely any fat on the man.

He has very broad shoulders, and should not be measured the same as a more thinner boned man with a beer gut should be measured, IMHO.


----------



## clipclop2

Looks like my younger daughter might fall into the tall category. This is good info. Thank you!


----------



## Runs like Dog

lifeistooshort said:


> Short women get the shaft too. I'm just under 5'4" and any time spend in the petite clothing department will tell you that designers think all short women have no hips or boobs.



"Forever 21" is pretty *****ish


----------



## Lon

My ex was 5'8" and at one point about 200lb. She was probably considered morbidly obese by BMI, but while she was carrying around some BF she did not look "fat" by any means. When I first met her she was slim, you'd think she weighed 125, but you'd have had to add another 40 pounds on to guess correctly.

I always was 5 pounds less than her, no matter at which point in time you'd have measured us, but I always looked larger than her (except when she was preggo).


----------



## DoF

OP, IMO, the women you posted are a bit too slim (for my liking anyways).

The entire "charts" and weight things doctors/institutions go by are completely off and ridicules. I figured this out VERY early in life, as a teen actually.

I was 6'1 and was about 220lbs.....and was told I need to lose 30-40 lbs, when I thought I was too skinny as it was.

180-190 was simply UNREALISTIC. I would have to look like a holocaust victim or something.

I'm at around 240lbs now and although based on the # one might say "you need to lose weight", if you were to see me, you wouldn't say that.

When I tell people my weight they simply don't believe me and tell me to get on the scale to prove it to them!

Regardless, i do need to lose 20-30 lbs, wouldn't hurt and am working towards it.


----------



## DoF

lifeistooshort said:


> Short women get the shaft too. I'm just under 5'4" and any time spend in the petite clothing department will tell you that designers think all short women have no hips or boobs.


Crack head aka holocaust victim look is what or society considers "normal".

To me, many of these "models" look not only unhealthy but anorexic.

I get hungry just looking at them.

Mind you, I'm not a fan of petite women, but it's getting completely out of control.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DoF said:


> Crack head aka holocaust victim look is what or society considers "normal".
> 
> To me, many of these "models" look not only unhealthy but anorexic.
> 
> I get hungry just looking at them.
> 
> Mind you, I'm not a fan of petite women, but it's getting completely out of control.


I wonder sometimes if a society's tastes are driven by what is abnormal, making it sought after and exotic. I've heard brunettes are popular in Scandinavia (where they're all blond) and heavier women are popular in parts of Africa where food is scarce. I've seen articles about African women being fed rich food to fatten up before her wedding because skinny women are not considered good child bearing material. Pacific islanders, where food could be scarce, preferred heavier women. 

In Western society though heavy is normal so skeletal is held up as as standard. I call this the diet/beauty/exercise conspiracy theory, where all of these industries make a ton of money on people being unhappy with who and what they are. If people stopped spending money on diet pills the industry would collapse; black people try to be lighter, white people try to be darker, everyone tries to be what they're not and spends a ton of money doing it.

And many of the models of today are crackheads or on some kind of drugs; ready Cary Otis's book someday about how freely drugs were provided to models to keep them from getting hungry.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Runs like Dog said:


> "Forever 21" is pretty *****ish


Ironically, whicle I can fit in a lot of their stuff (except for my 
36C's) and am in really good physical shape, at 40 I'd just look plain stupid in most of it.


----------



## Rowan

lifeistooshort said:


> Ironically, whicle I can fit in a lot of their stuff (except for my
> 36C's) and am in really good physical shape, at 40 I'd just look plain stupid in most of it.


Yeah, most of their stuff has a distinctly "mutton dressed as lamb" look on me.


----------



## HappyGilmore

lifeistooshort said:


> Short women get the shaft too. I'm just under 5'4" and any time spend in the petite clothing department will tell you that designers think all short women have no hips or boobs.


Or that we have short stubby legs. Can we say: "high waters?" 

One of several reasons why I hate clothes shopping.


----------



## Rowan

I'm a little over 5'8". I find that clothes shopping is a bit of a nightmare because of the way I'm shaped. 

I'm too tall for most regular length pants, skirts and dresses, but tall sizes tend to be a bit too long. I have to buy talls and have them taken up just a bit or buy a regular and wear flats. My arms are very long, so most standard sleeves are far too short. At the same time, most tall size tops fall too low on the bust and hip. My ideal top would be a petite from shoulder to bra band, a tall through the sleeve, and a standard size everywhere else. 

For casuals, I just cut off the bottom hem of my talls jeans at home and push my too-short sleeves up to 3/4. But the woman who does my alterations should be driving a Bentley for what it costs me to not look like a bag lady in business and dress clothes.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Rowan said:


> Yeah, most of their stuff has a distinctly "mutton dressed as lamb" look on me.


My 57 year old tax attorney shops there all the time. She's 5ft tall just got a face life, stripper tits and left her husband.


----------



## badcompany

I get a horrible BMI from the doctor myself at 6'-2" and 255....yes I could stand to lose 10-15#'s but I have huge shoulders and can tear the seams on a large T-shirt by folding my arms across each other. I usually need XXL size shirts so they aren't tight in the shoulders.
Pics in the OP's post are hot


----------



## comfortablynumb82

I buy my jeans at ALLOY.COM, they come in 37" inseams and don't break the bank. There is no way I'm spending $200+ on tall jeans.

I've never had my BMI taken, measured,scanned, whatever. Could probably stand to gain a few pounds but that's another story for another time.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Runs like Dog said:


> My 57 year old tax attorney shops there all the time. She's 5ft tall just got a face life, stripper tits and left her husband.


I bet she still looks like an idiot.


----------



## Runs like Dog

lifeistooshort said:


> I bet she still looks like an idiot.


Oh sure. But she's a brilliant tax lawyer. I don't care. I don't go home with her.


----------



## GrannyMildew

*Re: Re: A Rant on behalf of Tall Women*



Faithful Wife said:


> thefam...How tall (or height challenged) are you? Do you really wish you were taller, or is it just because it would match better with your husband?


 Hello all. Most of my adult life I was 5'1/2". Now that my spine is compressing, I am a whopping 4'11" and hubby is still 6'2".
I always rely on him for seeing what's going on in crowds
BUT in my next life, I've already put in a request to be at least 5 '10". REALLY embarrassing to have to buy jeans in the children's department all my life or having a seamstress cut off 1/4 of the fabric and I get double charged for the jeans!
When the sales ladies come and try to help me I always say they are for my Granddaughter, and ask if I can try them on because if they are the right length for me, they'll be perfect for her. That's worked well so far. Dresses- forget it. I really don't want to look 12 years old. Shirts- no problem. Just jeans, shorts and leggings.


TheCuriousWife said:


> SO HAPPY to see you Scarlet. Please don't be a stranger. I miss you, and hope you are doing well.


----------



## thefam

Faithful Wife said:


> thefam...How tall (or height challenged) are you? Do you really wish you were taller, or is it just because it would match better with your husband?


I am 5'3 and H is 6'2. I would just like to 1) not have to look up when I talk to him and (2) not have to wear heels just to run to the Home Depot with him. I don't HAVE to of course but I would rather. 

As far as matching, we are a PERFECT fit horizantally  so its all good.

Aside from that I would rather be taller just for me. I have a big everything - butt, tits, thighs, calves. I do have a flat tummy again and my arms, thighs and calves have goood definition, but if I were taller I think everything would stretech out more, and look smaller, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Runs like Dog




----------



## Almostrecovered

beat you by 18 hours



Almostrecovered said:


> someone told her that she's morbidly obese





Runs like Dog said:


>


----------



## thefam

LOL, RLD! I guess I should clarify that I want to be tall-_er_. 

5'7 would be PERFECT because then I could wear my 4-inch heels and still not be taller than hubs.


----------



## ocotillo

LOL - Just for fun, where would a 50 foot tall person land on the healthy weight charts, like the one at the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute?

Let's assume that they're 5'-10" and right smack in the middle of the healthy weight range at 150 lbs for a BMI of ~21.5

If they were to suddenly start growing and growing their weight is not going to increase linearly. At 50 feet with everything else being proportionate, they're going to weigh in the neighborhood of 47 tons, which would yield an insanely high BMI of about 184.

Of course 50 foot tall people are completely impossible and this is one of the reasons why.


----------



## norajane

Rowan said:


> I'm a little over 5'8". I find that clothes shopping is a bit of a nightmare because of the way I'm shaped.
> 
> I'm too tall for most regular length pants, skirts and dresses, but tall sizes tend to be a bit too long. I have to buy talls and have them taken up just a bit or buy a regular and wear flats. My arms are very long, so most standard sleeves are far too short. At the same time, most tall size tops fall too low on the bust and hip. My ideal top would be a petite from shoulder to bra band, a tall through the sleeve, and a standard size everywhere else.
> 
> For casuals, I just cut off the bottom hem of my talls jeans at home and push my too-short sleeves up to 3/4. But the woman who does my alterations should be driving a Bentley for what it costs me to not look like a bag lady in business and dress clothes.


Go to an Ann Taylor and try their dress pants. I'm 5'6" and all of their Regular dress pants are too long for me unless I'm wearing 3 inch heels or higher. Or look at their website - they tell you what the pants lengths are in inches.


----------



## SamuraiJack

I would just like to go on the record as saying that I love ALL women.
Especially my two daughters who are both going to be just shy of 6 feet tall.


----------



## Married but Happy

Yes, BMI calculations are flawed, particularly for those who are athletic or tall.

The standard calculation dates back to around 1830, so no wonder it could use some modernization!

In the pounds/inches system, the formula is BMI = 703 * weight / (height ^ 2)

Weight actually scales closer to a 2.5 power law, so the formula would be close to (the scaling factor is adjusted to give comparable results for average height/weight):

BMI = 5840 * weight / (height ^ 2.5)

(Both the factor and exponent may need slight adjustment for better accuracy.)

Under the original formula, a 6' 2" 200 lb person would have BMI of 25.7, and under the revised formula, it would be 24.8.

Someone 5' 9" 185 lb would have BMI of 27.3 in both, and at 150 lb both give 22.15.


----------



## norajane

Why does it matter what the BMI scale is or where it puts you? I honestly have no idea why it matters. I don't think anyone has ever mentioned it to me at the doctor's office or anywhere else.


----------



## Rowan

norajane said:


> Go to an Ann Taylor and try their dress pants. I'm 5'6" and all of their Regular dress pants are too long for me unless I'm wearing 3 inch heels or higher. Or look at their website - they tell you what the pants lengths are in inches.


Thanks! I'll try there.


----------



## ocotillo

norajane said:


> Why does it matter what the BMI scale is or where it puts you? I honestly have no idea why it matters. I don't think anyone has ever mentioned it to me at the doctor's office or anywhere else.


If you were to take a wild guess, what would yours be for the weights of the two ladies in the pictures I posted?


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> If you were to take a wild guess, what would yours be for the weights of the two ladies in the pictures I posted?


Honestly, I have no idea. If they weren't 6 ft tall, I'd guess they were between 120-130, less if they weren't athletic but they look athletic. Knowing they are 6 ft tall, they'd be heavier than I probably would expect. I'd guess 150 or 160? It's hard to say for pictures.

I'm not sure how that addresses my question, though. Why is it important what the BMI scale says? It has never ever come up in my life, so I have no idea why it's a problem.


----------



## pragmaster

Who cares? Be as fat or as unhealthy as you want! F the norm!! 

Being 5'5, and rejected many times in the past for my height, dating again, I avoid tall women like the plague. 

When I see tall women, I never think they are overweight. Never!! I just think they are tall. if I had to guess I would just label them all as weighing +140lbs. 

Remember! Small women can have big va-j-j's and big women can have small ones.


----------



## ocotillo

norajane said:


> I'm not sure how that addresses my question, though. Why is it important what the BMI scale says? It has never ever come up in my life, so I have no idea why it's a problem.


The point of the question is that tall people weigh more than what people of average height think they would weigh (160 is not even close) and more than what the tables published by health organizations say they should weigh. 

It's a problem because unusually tall women are told, "Lose weight, lose weight, lose weight" all their lives, even when they are at a healthy, bikini body weight. 

I'm the first to admit that I'm not always a great communicator, but I've tried to explain why the relationship between weight and height is not a flat line on a graph.


----------



## Coffee Amore

norajane said:


> Why does it matter what the BMI scale is or where it puts you? I honestly have no idea why it matters. I don't think anyone has ever mentioned it to me at the doctor's office or anywhere else.


My doctor mentions BMI. She has a spreadsheet on her computer, which she pulls up during visits. My husband also sees the same doctor. I was surprised at the last visit when she told him he could lose about 5 pounds according to the chart. He's tall and doesn't look close to being overweight, but according to the chart, he could drop 5 pounds. He was actually planning to go on a bulking phase before cutting because he wanted more muscle mass, so I don't think he was going to listen to her. I suggested to the doctor that perhaps they should do a body fat analysis instead. The doctors don't do that. You get a referral to another professional for another day to get that analysis. I think she should do that before telling people with decent body fat to drop weight.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Thread title change: BMI is a joke.

I'm 6', a shade under 200#. BMI of 27 considers me "overweight," LOL. I Crossfit 4-6x/week and am in the best shape of my life.

The bottom end of "normal" is 18.5, which would be a male at my height weighing under 140#. Um, that dude is malnourished!

The bottom line is, BMI is sort of like an "anti-PC" tool to counteract the modern issue of some guy going "OMG, she's fat," and some left-wing defender replying, "No, she's not, the average female today is," blah blah blah....but now we go to BMI and say, "see?? BMI says she's overweght!" Which would be fine, if not for BMI being inappropriate for, like, 40% of body types and completely ignorant of body composition.


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> The point of the question is that tall people weigh more than what people of average height think they would weigh (160 is not even close) and more than what the tables published by health organizations say they should weigh.
> 
> It's a problem because unusually tall women are told, "Lose weight, lose weight, lose weight" all their lives, even when they are at a healthy, bikini body weight.
> 
> I'm the first to admit that I'm not always a great communicator, but I've tried to explain why the relationship between weight and height is not a flat line on a graph.


I understand that BMI is faulty. I don't understand why anyone would give a damn who was telling them to lose weight when they themselves can look in the mirror and see that it is unnecessary.


----------



## ocotillo

norajane said:


> I understand that BMI is faulty. I don't understand why anyone would give a damn who was telling them to lose weight when they themselves can look in the mirror and see that it is unnecessary.


I agree with you on that, Norajane. I don't know why some people take this to heart, but they do. People like my wife, who's a text book overachiever, crushed by a 'B' on a report card as a child or any other hint of imperfection as an adult seem to be especially susceptible.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: A Rant on behalf of Tall Women*



norajane said:


> I understand that BMI is faulty. I don't understand why anyone would give a damn who was telling them to lose weight when they themselves can look in the mirror and see that it is unnecessary.


Because they may have to pay higher premiums for life insurance.


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> I agree with you on that, Norajane. I don't know why some people take this to heart, but they do. People like my wife, who's a text book overachiever, crushed by a 'B' on a report card as a child or any other hint of imperfection as an adult seem to be especially susceptible.


Hmm, maybe she should focus on her blood pressure and other tests which are a better indicator of actual health. She probably passes those with flying colors.


----------



## norajane

Lon said:


> Because they may have to pay higher premiums for life insurance.


Ok, that's a concrete consequence. Maybe I've never run across this then because the only life insurance I have (no kids) is through my company and it's automatic, no questions about anything.


----------



## U.E. McGill

changedbeliefs said:


> Thread title change: BMI is a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 6', a shade under 200#. BMI of 27 considers me "overweight," LOL. I Crossfit 4-6x/week and am in the best shape of my life.
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom end of "normal" is 18.5, which would be a male at my height weighing under 140#. Um, that dude is malnourished!
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, BMI is sort of like an "anti-PC" tool to counteract the modern issue of some guy going "OMG, she's fat," and some left-wing defender replying, "No, she's not, the average female today is," blah blah blah....but now we go to BMI and say, "see?? BMI says she's overweght!" Which would be fine, if not for BMI being inappropriate for, like, 40% of body types and completely ignorant of body composition.



Me too. Very active short guy (5'6") but at 185 I'm a frog hair shy of obese. But BF% is "athletic" at 17%. 

The OP should consider a different doctor. Because if his GP is managing over all health you can't just phone it in with a couple of charts. Lifestyle, activity, are all factors. I know some Oly lifters that are probably "fat" by all definitions that are serious athletes, conversely you have people like my SIL who are skinny-fat and couldn't march up an any hill.


----------



## ocotillo

norajane said:


> Hmm, maybe she should focus on her blood pressure and other tests which are a better indicator of actual health. She probably passes those with flying colors.


That's the voice of rationality speaking and I completely relate to and respect that.


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> That's the voice of rationality speaking and I completely relate to and respect that.


I know, it's easier said than done. 

Still, if I could rock a bikini body like that, I'd be telling the doc he can get in line to kiss my fat ass, lol. 

Maybe it comes from shepherding my aging parents through the medical world that promotes drugs vs lifestyle change, prescribes statins to women despite there being NO studies showing that statins decrease heart attacks in women, and can do nothing for my dad's reflux. I just don't consider doctors to be infallible, and double and triple checking their word is required. There is a reason they call it "practicing" medicine.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I wouldn't call 5,8 tall. 5,10 or 5,11 is the lowest amount of tall.


----------



## ocotillo

U.E. McGill said:


> The OP should consider a different doctor. Because if his GP is managing over all health you can't just phone it in with a couple of charts.


---Just want to reiterate that this rant was not in behalf of men in general or me personally. IMHO this seems to affect women more than men and I think there's hard data to support that.

One of my sisters was decent at volleyball and way above average in track and field. She sucked at gymnastics though and couldn't even do the simplest thing on the uneven bars. She was shamed in front of the entire class for this and told she needed to lose weight. And she took this to heart. She lost an unhealthy about of weight, abused diet pills and is no longer with us today. 

Fast forward the clock 40+ years and these same outdated, inaccurate tables are still being trotted out by even the most reputable health organizations.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

norajane said:


> Honestly, I have no idea. If they weren't 6 ft tall, I'd guess they were between 120-130, less if they weren't athletic but they look athletic. Knowing they are 6 ft tall, they'd be heavier than I probably would expect. I'd guess 150 or 160? It's hard to say for pictures.
> 
> I'm not sure how that addresses my question, though. Why is it important what the BMI scale says? It has never ever come up in my life, so I have no idea why it's a problem.


Wow that would be wasting away at 6' at 120/130. You must be super tiny. Or talking Kg? 

But the reason why it's important is because of life insurance and health insurance. After having my daughter my ex wanted to get life insurance. It was post birth and I had put on weight for sure. at 5'6.5" I was 174. I remember it because those put me in the "overweight' category and therefore our life insurance rates were much higher and the ex shamed me about it. I was 155 when I got pregnant and yes I was chubby but BP was normal, blood sugar was normal, etc. I was in perfectly good health. 

If you are self employed or own a company and have to provide health insurance, these things really impact the actuarial tables and in turn trickle down to the general population and cost us dollars. Then again so do all of the people who really ARE obese. There should be a "heath factor" of some sort that uses weight/height, waist measurement and/or a general fitness evaluation to include body fat percentage. But that would take more time and money. 

So bottom line, BMI is not a good indicator of overall health and that's what it's being used for and that impacts the cost of healthcare and life insurance.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I kind of ignored this thread without checking it out. I'm well under average height. I've had much the same feeling about the Body mass index. Two things should be taken into consideration when using this health tool. First BMI does not diagnose it indicates a "risk". Whatever that means. Second yes this tool came from health insurance companies, who have a vested interest in keeping as many people in a higher tier as they possibly can.

There are much more accurate (though not truly infallible) methods of estimating body fat percentage. 

MN


----------



## ocotillo

EnjoliWoman said:


> Wow that would be wasting away at 6' at 120/130. You must be super tiny. Or talking Kg?


Norajane guessed 150 - 160 given the height. 

I've danced around actually saying this, but I'll just blurt it out. The height/weight of the lady in the first picture is 6'-1"/193.


----------



## Coffee Amore

ocotillo said:


> Norajane guessed 150 - 160 given the height.
> 
> I've danced around actually saying this, but I'll just blurt it out. The height/weight of the lady in the first picture is 6'-1"/193.


Wouldn't have guessed 193 pounds for her at all.


----------



## ConanHub

ocotillo said:


> Norajane guessed 150 - 160 given the height.
> 
> I've danced around actually saying this, but I'll just blurt it out. The height/weight of the lady in the first picture is 6'-1"/193.


Who cares? She looks fantastic and healthy to boot. She can pick her husband up and tuck him into bed.

If he was my size!LOL!!


----------



## Redheadguy

ocotillo said:


> I've danced around actually saying this, but I'll just blurt it out. The height/weight of the lady in the first picture is 6'-1"/193.


How tall is the 2nd beautiful lady ?


----------



## EnjoliWoman

ocotillo said:


> Norajane guessed 150 - 160 given the height.


Ah, you're right. I misread.

I see the weight - if you'd given me the height I would have guessed about 180. At 193 she carries some decent muscle.


----------



## Rowan

Runs like Dog said:


> I wouldn't call 5,8 tall. 5,10 or 5,11 is the lowest amount of tall.


The average height for women in the US is a little under 5'4". So, yeah, those of us 5'8" or better are, technically, tall women. I grew up in a family of mostly tall people, and I have several female friends who are 5'10" or more and a few who are over 6'. So, I don't consider myself particularly tall until I try to buy clothes and am reminded that most off-the-rack items are designed for the 5'4"-ish crowd.


----------



## Anon1111

The average American is fat. All you have to do is travel to a foreign country and it is immediately obvious how overweight most Americans are.

A lot of people who are fat want to deny it. They want to pretend like people who are a healthy weight "starve themselves" or are somehow abnormal. The idea being that overweight is normal.

It reminds me of the Fatboy Slim album cover with the obese guy wearing a T-shirt that read "I'm number 1 so why try harder?"

Now I can accept that BMI has flaws. If you are jacked like an NFL running back, it is probably not a great measure for you. But how many Americans really fit this description.

For the typical person, on average, BMI is probably going to be an OK approximation. Which is why insurance companies care about it. The are in the business of risking money based on data. If they rely on a metric, you can be sure that it is revealing something.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon1111 said:


> Now I can accept that BMI has flaws. If you are jacked like an NFL running back, it is probably not a great measure for you. But how many Americans really fit this description.


The standard (Quetelet) BMI formula was developed in the mid 19th century at a time when the average height for a man was 5'-5"

You can visit pretty much any high school campus in America today and you will see dozens of young men in 6'-2" to 6'-4" range and dozens of young ladies in the 5'-10 to 6'-1" range, which is not something you would have seen even 50 years ago. 

The cube law is a natural consequence of living in a three dimensional world and the reasons why the traditional BMI formula is mathematically flawed at these heights (Regardless of what country you live in....) are therefore pretty simple and straightforward.


----------



## hookares

ocotillo said:


> 6'-6" when I was 21. It more like 6'-5" these days though...
> 
> Guys get penalized by the same flawed formula, but it seems like it's easier for a man to claim that it's because he works out. (As long as there's some truth to the claim anyway.....)


 Muscle mass is ignored on the BMI charts for men.
Also as we age we tend to "compress" and can lose as much as three inches in height.
I recently lost 37 pounds due to illness 
and my BMI only lost 2 points on the chart. It was attributed to compression.
:scratchhead:


----------



## ntamph

I'm somewhere between 6' 4" and 6' 5" (a guy) and at my ideal BMI weight you can see my rib cage and I have wrists like those of a little girl (I used to be very light for my height so I know). I've been gaining weight and according to BMI anything much past 200 or 210 is overweight (where I am now) and people still think I'm thin.


----------



## ntamph

BTW, I've always been more attracted to taller women because anyone shorter than 5' 7" for me would be just awkward. Tall guys can get anyone shorter than themselves but I never understood the really short girl and really tall guy couples. How do their parts fit together? :scratchhead:

I've always struggled to keep weight on so working to keep it off is just an alien concept to me. That might be great for the ladies but when you're a guy and your arms are barely bigger than your girl's arms then it can be embarrassing.


----------



## ConanHub

Hey. Don't knock short/tall combos. They can sometimes make for great chemistry!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ntamph

ConanHub said:


> Hey. Don't knock short/tall combos. They can sometimes make for great chemistry!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


LOL, not knocking them. I've been in them. I guess I mean really big differences like 5' with 6' 6".


----------



## Runs like Dog

Of course tall women cost more to get drunk, so there's that concern.


----------



## ocotillo

ntamph said:


> I'm somewhere between 6' 4" and 6' 5" (a guy) and at my ideal BMI weight you can see my rib cage... .
> 
> ...according to BMI anything much past 200 or 210 is overweight (where I am now) and people still think I'm thin.


Yes. Here's an interesting comparison. One was an actor. Most of the rest are/were in basketball and they tend to be slim:


Yao Ming 7'-6"/311 BMI = 27 (Overweight)
Richard Kiel 7'-2"/315 BMI = 30 (Obese)
Dikembe Mutombo 7'-2"/260 BMI = 25 (Overweight) 
Shaquille O'Neal 7'-1"/310 BMI = 30 (Obese)
Wilt Chamberlain 7'-1"/275 BMI = 27 (Overweight) 
Kevin Duckworth 7'-0"/276 BMI = 27 (Overweight)
Patrick Ewing 7'-0"/240 BMI = 25 (Overweight)
Pau Gasol 7'-0"/254 BMI = 25 (Overweight)
Dwight Howard 6'-11"/265 BMI = 27 (Overweight)
Kevin Garnett 6'-11/254 BMI = 26 (Overweight)
Hakeem Olajuwon 6'-10"/256 BMI = 27 (Overweight)
Charles Barkley 6'-6"/251 BMI = 29 (Obese)​


----------



## ocotillo

Runs like Dog said:


> Of course tall women cost more to get drunk, so there's that concern.


LOL - I'm not sure that's even possible when they're from Norway...


----------



## frusdil

ConanHub said:


> Tall women are beautiful and they are naturally going to weigh a lot more than women who are shorter.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As a 6ft tall woman, that is one of, if not THE loveliest thing I've ever read about us  You've made my day, thank you


----------



## frusdil

I come from a tall family. Dad was 6' 4", mum is 5' 10", one bro is 6' 6" and the other 6' 5", I am 6'.

The only time being tall was an issue for me was probably my teenage years - I was 5' 10 when I was 13...I towered over everyone at school, and it was worse when I got to year 10 high school at a co-ed school, where I towered over the boys as well!!

But I love being tall, wouldn't trade it. Except maybe when trying to buy jeans, hehehe.

And yep, if you follow the BMI chart, I'm obese too, lol. Of course I'm not, at least I don't think so but the chart tells a different story.


----------



## ConanHub

frusdil said:


> as a 6ft tall woman, that is one of, if not the loveliest thing i've ever read about us  you've made my day, thank you


blush!


----------



## ConanHub

Anon1111 said:


> The average American is fat. All you have to do is travel to a foreign country and it is immediately obvious how overweight most Americans are.
> 
> A lot of people who are fat want to deny it. They want to pretend like people who are a healthy weight "starve themselves" or are somehow abnormal. The idea being that overweight is normal.
> 
> It reminds me of the Fatboy Slim album cover with the obese guy wearing a T-shirt that read "I'm number 1 so why try harder?"
> 
> Now I can accept that BMI has flaws. If you are jacked like an NFL running back, it is probably not a great measure for you. But how many Americans really fit this description.
> 
> For the typical person, on average, BMI is probably going to be an OK approximation. Which is why insurance companies care about it. The are in the business of risking money based on data. If they rely on a metric, you can be sure that it is revealing something.


I like women with some flesh. The people talked about in this thread are not fat. Tall women that weigh 180+ look like goddesses to me. America does have a lot of fat people. The BMI chart is simply retarded. I have always been very athletic, very strong, fast metabolism and off the charts healthy. I got injured pretty badly one time and the nurses could not believe how fast I recovered. According to the good old, brilliant BMI, I am 20 pounds overweight on average. I can crack 400 lbs. on the bench and I am not alone. there are a lot of healthy, strong and tall americans as well as fat ones. BMI is not scientific at all.


----------



## Ynot

ntamph said:


> BTW, I've always been more attracted to taller women because anyone shorter than 5' 7" for me would be just awkward. Tall guys can get anyone shorter than themselves but I never understood the really short girl and really tall guy couples. How do their parts fit together? :scratchhead:
> 
> I've always struggled to keep weight on so working to keep it off is just an alien concept to me. That might be great for the ladies but when you're a guy and your arms are barely bigger than your girl's arms then it can be embarrassing.


I'm 6'4" and was in a serious relationship with a 4'11' girl earlier in my life. The parts fit together quite well but positions were limited due to the physical differences. (ie doggie style was ackward) but others were more enjoyable. I guess it is whatever works.

I had the same problem when I was younger in regards to weight. I graduated from HS weighing 135 lbs and being 6'2". I was a rail. I hit the gym and trained hard and eventually grew to be 6'4" 225lbs of rock solid muscle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

My dad was 5'4" at his tallest but 5'3" later in life. Other than my tiny mother, all his other partners were taller than him, and he seemed to attract a certain type of tall-ish chick. He was Little Big Man, in his way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Have you seen the movie? I loved that movie.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> Have you seen the movie? I loved that movie.


No, I shall have to find it although so far google is not my friend.


----------



## ocotillo

Personal said:


> No, I shall have to find it although so far google is not my friend.


Dustin Hoffman, Faye Dunaway, Chief Dan George. Technically a comedy, but it's punctuated by some real drama and one pretty sad part.

---Also Faye Dunaway is right on the edge of being overweight - LOL


----------



## Anonymous07

Anon1111 said:


> The average American is fat. All you have to do is travel to a foreign country and it is immediately obvious how overweight most Americans are.
> 
> A lot of people who are fat want to deny it. They want to pretend like people who are a healthy weight "starve themselves" or are somehow abnormal. The idea being that overweight is normal.
> 
> It reminds me of the Fatboy Slim album cover with the obese guy wearing a T-shirt that read "I'm number 1 so why try harder?"
> 
> Now I can accept that BMI has flaws. If you are jacked like an NFL running back, it is probably not a great measure for you. But how many Americans really fit this description.
> 
> For the typical person, on average, BMI is probably going to be an OK approximation. Which is why insurance companies care about it. The are in the business of risking money based on data. If they rely on a metric, you can be sure that it is revealing something.


This is one post in which I actually agree with you Anon1111. 

BMI works for the majority of the population(other than the small outlier groups - body builders, etc.) and it's the easiest, most cost effective way to look at a person's fat content. It is not perfect, but it still works very well. Calculate Your BMI - Standard BMI Calculator

We're in a place now where overweight individuals are looked at as "normal", when they truly are overweight and could lose some weight to be healthier. I'm on the thin side(5'5" 118lbs) and get told to "eat a burger" or whatever to say I should gain weight because I'm thinner than most Americans, but I'm healthy. We've switched to thinking overweight is "good" and go on to thin shame, telling those who are thin to gain weight. Even if people think it looks more "attractive" to some people to be overweight, the health risks are still there. 

A woman who is 6'1 can weigh up to about 190 lbs and still be within the normal weight range without being overweight according to the BMI. My friend from hs was 6'1 and weighed 176 lbs. She was/is very active and healthy.


----------



## changedbeliefs

Chiming back in to say two things:

1) The OP pics were blocked at work, but my curiosity got the best of me, so I loaded them on my phone. I am a self-admitted fitness snob, and though you can sorta tell there isn't really a "fit" body underneath those clothes, both of those women have GREAT figures, and would likely turn my head any day of the week.

2) I cannot believe women still have issues with a number on a scale. I don't mean necessarily how much they weigh, per se, but I still personally hear women say things like "omg, she weighs like 100 pounds, gah, I would kill...!" when the 100#'er is like 5'1". I know I have personally never, ever, ever "ooh'd and aah'd" over knowing some woman was the "magical" 100#'s or anything. My wife is 5'8", if she was 100#, I'd dump her.....ok, not really, but sorta seriously, I'd probably take her to a clinic or something.

Potential thread jack: that's why I love Crossfit. Women of varied shapes and sizes, and yes, some are "super fit," and most fall into "sorta fit," but more than a random one or two do not necessarily have great bodies. Don't care. They strap on their compression tights, their wrist wraps, chalk up and throw down. They don't care about how they look, not at that moment at least, they care about what they can DO.


----------



## ocotillo

Anonymous07 said:


> This is one post in which I actually agree with you Anon1111.
> 
> BMI works for the majority of the population(other than the small outlier groups - body builders, etc.)


I'm not 100% sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing here because it really depends on how BMI is calculated. Most tables rely on the Quetelet formula from the 1830's. Some rely on the Ponderal formula from the 1920's and some tables are hybrids between the two.

Since you've linked to the NIH website, which relies on an unadjusted Quetelet index, I'm going to assume that you're disagreeing with my assertion that it returns an artificially high BMI for people 6' and above (?) 

If so, could you flesh that out for me a little bit? Are you disagreeing with the cube law itself or just its applicability? :scratchhead:


----------



## Anonymous07

ocotillo said:


> I'm not 100% sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing here because it really depends on how BMI is calculated. Most tables rely on the Quetelet formula from the 1830's. Some rely on the Ponderal formula from the 1920's and some tables are hybrids between the two.
> 
> Since you've linked to the NIH website, which relies on an unadjusted Quetelet index, I'm going to assume that you're disagreeing with my assertion that it returns an artificially high BMI for people 6' and above (?)
> 
> If so, could you flesh that out for me a little bit? Are you disagreeing with the cube law itself or just its applicability? :scratchhead:


The BMI table I linked works well and even those who are tall still get a fairly accurate BMI. As I stated before in my example, a person of 6'1" can be up to around 190 lbs and still be within the normal BMI range. That is accurate. Over that weight and it is unhealthy. The only reason the BMI would not be accurate is if the person was very athletic/had high muscle mass or they are old and have lost a large amount of muscle. A person's height does not really matter. 

My dad is 6'1" and about 215 lbs. He could lose some weight, which would help his health. I've been helping my parents with more health eating choices to change the numbers on the scale and help to reduce the health issues they have(high blood pressure, high cholesterol). My dad has lost 10 lbs so far and is doing good. 

I have my degree in health science and I know all of the different ways to look at fat content(skin calipers, hydrostatic weighing, air-displacement plethysmography, etc.). BMI is the easiest, most cost effective way to look at the general public. There are only small groups of people that it does not work for. In those cases, they can use other ways of testing fat content(as stated above). 

A guy from one of my classes in college was 6'2" and 220. He could definitely lose some weight, especially since he carried a lot of it in his midsection, but he was in complete denial. He thought of himself as healthy, but didn't exactly look it. 

The pictures you posted on the first page look average, but then again the "average" American is overweight. Could those women lose 10 or 20 pounds and still look great/be healthier? Yes. Being that they look young, they may not have health effects from weight now, but it can creep up on them later.


----------



## ocotillo

Anonymous07 said:


> The BMI table I linked works well and even those who are tall still get a fairly accurate BMI.


The BMI calculator you linked to is mathematically flawed, which is something that professors of mathematics, Nick Trefethen at Oxford University and Nick Korevaar at the University of Utah have both independently pointed out in papers. The calculator returns artificially high BMI's for taller than average people and even the Wikipedia entry on this subject acknowledges that fact. Although Wikipedia is not a terribly authoritative source in and of itself, the citations and the math are solid. 

I've illustrated this with several examples on this thread including a list of "Overweight" and "Obese" male NBA players ranging from Yao Ming, who's insanely tall, to Charles Barkley, who's only a little taller than I am. The list even included Wilt Chamberlain at the height of his career.


----------



## Anonymous07

ocotillo said:


> The BMI calculator you linked to is mathematically flawed, which is something that professors of mathematics, Nick Trefethen at Oxford University and Nick Korevaar at the University of Utah have both independently pointed out in papers. The calculator returns artificially high BMI's for taller than average people and even the Wikipedia entry on this subject acknowledges that fact. Although Wikipedia is not a terribly authoritative source in and of itself, the citations and the math are solid.
> 
> I've illustrated this with several examples on this thread including a list of male NBA players ranging from Yao Ming, who's insanely tall, to Charles Barkley, who's only a little taller than I am. The list even included Wilt Chamberlain at the height of his career.


Your examples are athletes, who would have a higher muslce mass, so therefore yes, BMI would not be the best indicator for fat content for them. You're not exactly proving your point. 

BMI still works just fine for the general population. I never said BMI was perfect, I just said it works the best for the largest group of people.


----------



## ocotillo

Anonymous07 said:


> Your examples are athletes, who would have a higher muslce mass, so therefore yes, BMI would not be the best indicator for fat content for them. You're not exactly proving your point.


Professional athletes, yes, but I chose NBA players who tend to be slim in comparison to other athletes and threw in an actor of comparable height for comparison who's BMI was actually higher than most of theirs. 

The point here is really one of pure mathematics. I'm still not sure if you agree or disagree with it (?) Is it accurate to assume that BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the height?

Adjusted BMI Calculator


----------



## Anonymous07

ocotillo said:


> Professional athletes, yes, but I chose NBA players who tend to be slim in comparison to other athletes and threw in an actor of comparable height for comparison who's BMI was actually higher than most of theirs.
> 
> The point here is really one of pure mathematics. I'm still not sure if you agree or disagree with it (?) Is it accurate to assume that BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the height?


Doesn't matter if they appear slim or if they appear more bulky, they still have a higher muscle mass. You can be very muscular and not look it. That all depends on the person's body type/genetics/testosterone levels. Ever see those super skinny guys(or girls) at the gym who try everything they can to "bulk up", but still don't get the muscle definition they want? It doesn't mean they aren't muscular, they are, but they still just look slim/skinny. Their BMI would reflect the muscle they have, so the BMI would not be accurate for them. 

Wilt Chamberlain is an interesting character and I was trying to think of why his name sounded familiar, when I remembered him being an outlier for his claim of sleeping with 20,000 women for a statistical analysis. :rofl: Oh boy. Sorry, got off track. 

BMI is not perfect. It works best when looking at population studies(US obesity epidemic - #1 killer), instead of individual diagnosis, but gets used for both because out of all of the ways to look at fat content, BMI is the cheapest and fastest way to go about it. And yes, BMI is inversely proportional to the square of the height. Although most people do not fall into the "tall" category(outlier group), so again BMI works the best for the largest amount of people. Those that are very tall or have higher muscle mass should use a different method other than BMI. BMI is really the best tool we have right now, even with it's limitations(pros and cons to everything).


----------



## ocotillo

Anonymous07 said:


> Doesn't matter if they appear slim or if they appear more bulky, they still have a higher muscle mass. You can be very muscular and not look it. That all depends on the person's body type/genetics/testosterone levels.


I understand about muscle mass and don't disagree. That is a limitation of BMI tables that I would attribute to improper usage rather than a mathematical flaw in the formula itself. 

Chamberlain's nickname as a young man was "Wilt the Stilt" and it's easy to see why:










If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me, but I'm not discerning how body build would be of limited or no merit here. A basketball player, like Danny Ainge for example, is going to have a substantially lower BMI than a football player of comparable height, like Michael Oher and you can tell that at a glance. 

Another way to look at this is to compare the BMI of professional athletes in the *exact same sport* when they are in normal and shorter than average height ranges:

Tyrone Bogues 5'-3"/136 BMI = 24 (Healthy)
Keith Jennings 5'-7"/160 BMI = 21 (Healthy)
Herm Klotz 5'-7"/150 BMI = 23.5 (Healthy) 
Greg Grant 5'-7"/140 BMI = 22 (Healthy)
Monte Towe 5'-7"/150 BMI = 23.5 (Healthy)
Spud Web 5'-7"/133 BMI = 21 (Healthy)
Charlie Criss 5'-8"/165 BMI = 25 (Healthy)
Ed Melvin 5'-9"/170 BMI = 25 (Healthy)

If the vector implied by the Quetelet formula was accurate here, your observation about muscle mass in athletes would apply with equal force to shorter than average athletes as well. But it doesn't. It starts to veer off at around the 6'-0" mark.

I'd also like to emphasize that this was not a rant again BMI _per se_; it was a rant against an outdated and inaccurate way of calculating it that is still very common.

I posted a link above to calculator corrected by one of the mathematicians I mentioned previously.

Thoughts? Good? Bad?


----------

