Doesn't a 25 BMI seem like kind of a crappy metric for "overweight"? That makes my 6'4" brother "overweight" at like 205 which seems nuts. That doesn't feel overweight at all.
(Defined in the footnote on page 222)
(Defined in the footnote on page 222)
6'4" is a statistically rare height. I believe BMI is less valid for the extremely tall and extremely short. That doesn't mean it isn't useful when viewing the whole population.
For an individual, BMI + a waist measure is a better indicator. Your brother probably isn't overweight, unless he has low muscle mass and a large waist - but that individual anecdote does nothing to argue against the population level validity of BMI.
This assumes a relatively symmetric distribution of heights and weights though, right? I'm curious if the tails for which BMI is individually invalid are equally populated. Basically, are short, fat people as common as tall, thin people?
When he was on recruiting duty, every year they attended a conference. Every year, there was an insurance guy there. Every year, every one in the office was pronounced overweight according to their height and weight charts.
The army offers a tape test as an alternative if you can't pass weight. It is sometimes necessary to prove that bodybuilders are all muscle. My ex and his office mates were not so muscular that they needed to rely on a tape test. They were still pronounced overweight by the insurance guy every year.
Not bad for a metric that can be easily computed at home.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-sc...