LRB and I were just discussing a mutual acquaintance the other day.  He's one giant muscle with almost no bodyfat.  He's losing weight right now in the form of sacrificing muscle mass for the sake of a faster marathon.  He's performance driven.  Most would say he has no weight to lose, and they'd be wrong.

 

Right.  My point above was that everyone has weight to lose.  Until you are skin and bones, you can lose weight.  The question is should you and is that healthy for you the individual.

It's a matter of taking a calculated number - BMI - and trying to assign a qualitative characteristic to it - health/fitness.    The qualitative aspect depends on a lot of things - goals, health history, athletic build etc - that the assignment will never be fully accurate.   And why we'll probably continue debating this for another 10 pages. lol

Thats why I think it is important to differentiate between health, performance and appearance.  If you don't, the debate is pointless.

 

Thanks for reminding us of the Special Snowflake.  Classic.

Everyone in life has their calling.

 

That has never stopped us before. lol

 

You know, if we're looking at a "number" to determine fitness, I think we'd be more accurate with waist circumference.   I would think it would be hard to be truly fit and carry much weight around your middle.... even weight lifters tend to have pretty trim waistlines, no?

I agree with the waist thing. Look at the picture you posted... She's thick waisted. 

A 280 pound bodybuilder can have a tiny waist, sleep apnea and heart problems from the excess mass.  So, not a clear indicator of health or performance in running.  I think it has to be based on the individual and their goal.

 

I definitely am not talking about running performance, just health.   I guess I don't know many 280lb bodybuilders to know what sort of health issues they have.

In running, thin is better.  There's no way around that.

 

You clearly need to hang out with more fat people. lol

Nah... I'm PMS, which means I just want to argue endlessly. 

 

That has never stopped us before. lol

 

You know, if we're looking at a "number" to determine fitness, I think we'd be more accurate with waist circumference.   I would think it would be hard to be truly fit and carry much weight around your middle.... even weight lifters tend to have pretty trim waistlines, no?

Waist to height (better than raw waist) is better than BMI

or waist to hip is even better.

Of course I am so short and broad I classify as obese in waist to height well

Waist to hip I do well in