Member
Would comparing lifters be the one actually worthwhile use of BMI?
Most health and wellness professionals seem to think that BMI is an antiquated measurement that tells you nothing relevant (you know, since, according to it, Shaq is obese). But I started wondering whether it would be a good way to "compare" lifters more accurately than weight class. I am 6'1 and weigh 185 +/-. Don't know my exact BF %. I'm willing to bet that someone who's 5'6, 185 and the same BF % as I am can squat and DL significantly more. I'm not even that concerned with the BF %, since some of the strongest lifters out there have a decent amount of it. However, were I competing (which I don't), that guy and I would be in the same category. So, the question then becomes, would BMI (or some slight variation) make for a better comparison?
Member
Happy with my body comp and not particularly interested in competing, nor was that really the premise of the thread... More curious if BMI would be a useful tool in comparing how "strong" someone is relative to their size that might tell you more than body weight alone.
Lex
BMI says guys like Adrian Peterson are morbidly obese, it is not a useful tool to use at all.
Member
Lots of versions of 5'6, 185. That's the whole problem.Originally Posted by DannyP
Member
It already is an excellent comparison. Using the examples you cited, let's assume you and your 5'6" friend weigh exactly the same. If he lifts more, he is stronger than you (or you are weaker than he is, depending on how you look at it). If you lift more, you are stronger.
Who cares whether he is operating at X% BF or you are operating at Y% BF? The contest is for who is stronger, not who can lift more with a lower body fat. If your friend is chubby, he is welcome to lose fat to compete at a lower weight class. Just as you are welcome to gain weight and move up a class.
Member
It's not useful to determine one's health. But let's forget the health-related classifications and just look at the numerical score. Would that score, on its own, be a meaningful way to categorize strength athletes?
Sure, but then, by definition, there are significantly more versions of 185. To me it simply begs the question of what is a better way to categorize lifters: by weight alone or by "proportions" (since people of vastly different heights or weights can have the same BMI)? In other words, when lifters compete with one another, what makes for a more even match, their mass (with no accounting for height) or their proportions (accounting for both height and weight but pitting different sized lifters against one another)?
Member
No, because you make up for it by not having to pull as far in the deadlift.
Lex
I think that weight is probably the best way to compare lifters, sure there are some advantages to some lifters over others in their same weight class, but 200lbs is always 200lbs. And weight is the only thing that stays equal when you're comparing lifters of different shapes and proportions.
Member
It's still useful for measuring the rate of obesity across large groups. Just not the best for assessing individuals.
If you're the tallest guy in your weight class, odds are that you won't be that competitive.
Wilks is used to compare how strong lifters are relative to their size.
✓ Member
This and this. Competitive weight classes already have a method of comparison, although with some flaws, I don't see how BMI would be better.
And when someone else in the 72 class beats me, I just know I need to be stronger.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote