It is bizarre that you would read an article which says, “using body-mass index (BMI) to measure obesity is likely the most problematic factor,” and then immediately prescribe a fixed BMI for everyone without qualification.
Overall, I think BMI looks like a pretty useful metric considering how easy it is to measure. That would explain why it sticks around despite being frequently criticized.
See charts 2.A and 2.B in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/
I've always thought that while BMI is crude, it still is reasonable for measuring metabolic syndrome, considering that many of the things associated with heart problems involve the needing a powerful heart, when adding any mass whatsoever will necessarily increase the work the heart must do.
It seems to me that in the usual case where a person develops muscle mass by working out, this isn't a problem because whatever "blood necessary to maintain excessive muscle" is negligible in the face of the body adapting to improve the cardiovascular system in order to serve muscular oxygen needs during workout. Of course, heart problems due to an unhealthy person ramping up exercise too quickly is a concern, but this is separate from your concern.
One also observes that athletes in general have lower heart rates than the average person; whatever additional burden their muscles impose, their cardiovascular system is way more adapted to handle that due to exercise.
Here are some things I found in a brief glance at google scholar. There appears to be a condition called Athlete's heart, but I dunno:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26187713/
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2020-0046...
The second describes the same thing:
> Several middle-aged and older men trying to improve their physical fitness by weightlifting have presented for repair of severe mitral regurgitation, some of whom stated that they remembered feeling a pop in the chest while weightlifting, which was the start of their dyspnea.
> Arterial BP increases most during weightlifting that is accompanied by mechanical compression of blood vessels (such as when bent forward at the waist or squatting) and when accompanied by a Valsalva maneuver.
Neither of these papers link them to muscle mass but to the stress of high-intensity exercise itself, which I have already addressed.
I agree that we should not assume things, but in the lack of cursory evidence, I would still stand by my argument that in the normal case where muscle mass is formed from working out, such workout stresses and modifies the cardiovascular system to such an extent the result is a body that is more than capable of handling whatever stress that muscle at rest imposes on the heart.
Once again I reiterate my cursory evidence to my argument, that athletes' cardiovascular system are generally so much more efficient and less taxed than the general population that their hearts beat at 3/4 the average heart rate.
It seems like athlete's heart syndrome is a benign condition.
BMI is a useful heuristic (BMI over 30 and not a powerlifter? Probably unhealthy, let's look at other characteristics and see how unhealthy and how to address it) but a terrible target until you know your own body.
that part is tricky, takes a lot of time, experiments
But also I think the body shape makes a big diff, I have very thin limbs, long legs, my best BMI is between 17 and 18, without limiting myself in food quantity (I alwways eat as much as I can, tho I naturally like to eat 1 or 2 meals a day max)
You say 30 BMI, but in my experience unless you are lifting a lot of weights 25 is the upper limit. Ten years ago I hit 25 BMI, and despite feeling "normal" there were already the first signs of being fat: thights always red, sweaty all day and way less resistance than today.
I lost 15 kg (33 lbs) not by doing crazy exercise, but by cutting 100% of shitty food and eating beyond necesity.
Which is why I also said BMI is a poor target. 22 BMI, for me, would be an awful target. I'd be gaunt and have to lose a lot of muscle mass, not just fat (which I don't have a lot of to lose). Even bringing body fat percentage from 15% to 10%, which is still healthy, would only get me down to about 180lbs. That would leave me 25lbs over the target for a 22 BMI. That's my body, not yours, not anyone else's. I've learned what is healthy for me and have set goals and expectations around that. I wouldn't expect yours, or anyone else's, to be the same. You've realized that 25 BMI is too high for you, great. Now you know, but that doesn't apply to everyone. And the original poster in this thread claiming everyone should be at 22 BMI is clearly also speaking about a particular experience which is not applicable to everyone, but writing as if it is.
I get you...
I'm 6'0" (183cm) and 212 lbs (96kg) (BMI=29). I'm at 17% body fat and am working toward 10%, but also have been lifting weights heavily. I just got down to size 32 jeans (82cm waist) but have a 48.5" chest (123cm) and 15.5" (40cm) biceps. I still wish to lose 15-20lb more, but then I'd be at 195lb and about 8% body fat -- with a BMI of ~27. (Assuming I don't add more muscle at the same time.)
It is a lot better than a 15 months ago when I made my life change - I was 240lb (109kg) and 38% body fat, and pushing a 38" (96cm) waist, truly obese. And I felt like shite.
I am surprised how much I have come to love weightlifting, rowing, and eating a diet better balanced towards low-caloric density foods (lots of veggies) and lean protein. And I am more surprised at how quickly my body changed, considering I'm now just over 50.
>The interest in an index that measures body fat came with observed increasing obesity in prosperous Western societies. Keys explicitly judged BMI as appropriate for population studies and inappropriate for individual evaluation.
>When a team of researchers adjusted BMI to take muscle mass into account back in 2018, then associated this corrected measure with mortality risk, they found that the “U” mostly transformed into a straight line.