...According to BMI - new home page stuff
I like the bit about 'stop the press taking minutes off your time could be as simple as losing a few pounds'
That's hilarious - Personally losing a few pounds is a lot HARDER than putting in 10 hours of training every week. The training I do already - the losing the few pounds I have struggled with for years to no avail.
Its just gonna fuel the already weight obsessed peeps on here
and reinforce the fact that bigger is abd, and makes you a crap runner
its ok to run slowly
its ok to be a bit bigger-if you are healthy
which i am-rudely so
that having been said-my pbs this year are probably cos of a bit of weight loss
it wasnt training
Nick, from what I recall you're a very elegant package of solid muscle
I didn't read the original because I tend to skip past Amby Burfoot's articles (I get the impression that the old geezer has lost his marbles and needs putting out to pasture) and I've already considered and discarded the idea of trying to lose weight in the hope of getting some PBs by the back door. As GA says, it's easier to train harder than it is to lose even a few pounds off a frame that's already fairly lean.
I love this debate and would like to highlight a few points:
The entire crew of the Olympic Coxless fours were obese by BMI standards at the last Olympics. Additionally all the endurance athletes where in the stavation zone. Does this means they are about to have coronaries/keel over? Well, no it means they're the correct body shapes and trained long and hard to be specific for thier events. Which to a lesser extent we all are and as such BMI becomes less relevenant as you move away form the mainstream and towards the odd, i.e. runners.
With that said I have got faster as I have lost weight and race better at 66kg than 69kg. When I was a junior I was a lot faster and raced at 62.5kg which I would love to get back to.
Additionally people now call me skinny but when I was a junoir I about average, now that is scary. The general population see me as skinny when my waist is now 3" larger!!!
Some interesting comments on this thread....both with regard to the validity of BMI, and how it could or perhaps should be applied to afferleets like us!
Given that, and the various other comments on this thread, I question whether RW was/is right in publishing the article in its current format. (although I dont have the magazine...so perhaps there is more detail in there about the limitations??) Should there have been a greater emphasis on the limitations within the article itself...I assume the magazine doesnt have hyperlinks etc!!!
As RW is (presumably) targeted at runners...although of ALL abilities, surely the fact that BMI has recognised limitations when it comes to 'athletic' people (such as runners!), which SOME people who read the mag and site will be more 'athletic' than others......by that I mean BMI is less applicable to them, than others. (Please recognise that I am trying my best here to not offend people......some people are 'better' runners than others, but the fact that you're out there having a go is what is important....your achievements are all very much relative!!)
As people have already said....BMI is tosh/crap etc in some circumstances.
Hope I dont inadvertantly offend peeps with my inane ramblings....I just think now that perhaps RW could have published this with a greater level of responsibility. At the end of the day though it is up to us to consider and interpret stuff.
Oh and thanks Mrs P & V-rap....but i think you must confuse me with someone else!
Look guys, I've got the exact opposite problem. My BMI is 19 (170cm, 55kg), which is on the lower edge of normal. But I think it is really not a good indicator of how people look. I swear, I don't look really skinny at all, that is maybe because my fat is distributed not 100% proportionally. It's more on my thighs and bottom than on my upper body. As a consequence I am 1 dress size bigger below. I really train a lot and hard, but this difference from my upper to my lower body doesn't change.
Just to underline that I don't look really skinny: one of my runner colleagues once told me that I was "too fat" to run a 10k really fast.
So BMI or not, I don't think it is so easy to determine that one can run faster. I don't think it's much of an indicator really for running....
But these same runners gain 3.3 pounds per decade, according to a recent US analysis of 4,700 mid-life male runners by the National Runners' Health Study.
So, this study, did it look at 4700 non-runners and compare how much weight they put on in 10 years? I know plently of me ho would be delighted if they only gained 3.3 pounds in 10 years! Isn't it normal for people to gain weight as they get older, because your metabolism slows down?
He talks about the other guy who beleives that weight doesn't matter like he's clearly deluded!
Coming from the other end of the scale to some of those above, I don't trust BMI at all - at 184cm and 59kg my BMI is 17.4 so I'm technically unhealthy and underweight. Until around a month ago other pressures meant I was not doing any running at all, yet no weight gain. When I was training very hard to run a 40.33 10K last May my weight didn't change at all, nor when I last trained for a marathon. I've never been on a diet in my life, snack all day long on biscuits and fruit, and get regularly fed to bursting by the nice ladies at my church, but my weight doesn't change. I probably do increase the amount I eat when I run more, but my body seems to automatically stay in a happy equilibirum with me apparently underwieght. I don't believe that I'm unhealthy or that putting on an extra 3.5kg (if I was able to) to reach BMI 18.5, would improve my speed.
Why do researchers keep banging on about BMI when it is so mis-leading?
BMI is tosh/crap etc in some circumstances.
I actually think it's the other way round. For the VAST majority of folks BMI is a reasonably guage or at least a good starting point but for some folks it isn't. The average punter isn't an olympic rower or an endurance runner. AND these days the average punter is FAT. But because they are ALL fat they think that they are normal.
I have had folks with a BMI in the 30's saying but surely BMI doesn't apply cos then rugby players would be in the 30's and anyway I'm not that fat and I go the gym now and again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it is funny you should mention that your weight doesn't change although when training. Mine doesn't either. I can train as hard as I like (5 - 6 times a week with 2 big speed seshs and 1 long run) and nothing changes. This has already prompted me to wonder if I did anything wrong...
Maybe our non-weight change means simply that we have reached the lowest healthy weight that there is for our constitution.
Agreed BMI calculation is flawed. I'm 5ft 3 weigh 65 kilos and am just, only just, in normal weight band. One pound more and I'd be obese on BMI calculations, but consistently run 3:35 marathons which I like to think an obese person couldn't / wouldn't?
think my BMI comes out at 65 which really miff's me!
I regularly have big hefty blokes hammering past me in races of up to 10k.
My BMI is just above 20 and I'm 18 pounds heavier than my theoretical "ideal running weight", which is a very scary 6st 6lb (and is what the likes of Gete Wami actually *do* weigh). And that ideal running weight may well be fine for an elite long-distance runner, who is likely to be genetically designed to function well at a lighter weight - elite athletes tend to be a self-selected group with attributes that give them advantages in their particular sport.
But I'm not genetically the same as an elite long-distance runner and I'm not going to starve myself to try to get back to a weight I haven't been since I was 11 in order to be a little bit better at a sport I'm never going to be very good at. Or even to lose 5lb
There's more to life. Including the joy of eating cake and not being hungry
Was talking to an exercise physiologist (and holder of the Irish ironman record) about this today, as it happens. He does fitness assessments for both athletes and people off the street every day. He said that he doesn't put much emphasis on BMI at all. Reckons it's a reasonable assessment of fatness and risk of disease in the average relatively inactive person....but not at all accurate for athletic people. He believes in waist-hip ratio more for sedentary people and would rely on skinfold assessments for athletes.
So boo to BMI. Also had me all anxious before, despite fat measurements being fine....
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |