Is BMI Valid For Cyclists?



Status
Not open for further replies.
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> BMI is a measure, and it is a perfectly valid measure. BMI is BMI. The interpretation of that
>> measure depends on what you're trying to use it for. Do not confuse the metric itself with the
>> scale of interpretation. The poster didn't ask if a BMI of 25 (or 19.9 or 25.2) was appropriate
>> or valid, he asked if BMI was valid.
>
> If you go back and read the original post, the author was wondering whether BMI is a good
> "yardstick for telling if a cyclist's weight is appropriate to their height".

And if you go back and read the original post, the author asked if mass per square meter was a valid
measure, not whether cyclists should use the same interpretative scale for that measure as the
general adult population of particular geographic regions of the world. I answered the question that
was asked. However, sensing that the original poster wanted to know something different than what he
asked, I pointed to a data table that provided some interpretation using that yardstick for actual
TdF riders.
 
Robert Chung wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>> BMI is a measure, and it is a perfectly valid measure. BMI is BMI. The interpretation of that
>>> measure depends on what you're trying to use it for. Do not confuse the metric itself with the
>>> scale of interpretation. The poster didn't ask if a BMI of 25 (or 19.9 or 25.2) was appropriate
>>> or valid, he asked if BMI was valid.
>>
>> If you go back and read the original post, the author was wondering whether BMI is a good
>> "yardstick for telling if a cyclist's weight is appropriate to their height".
>
> And if you go back and read the original post, the author asked if mass per square meter was a
> valid measure, not whether cyclists should use the same interpretative scale for that measure as
> the general adult population of particular geographic regions of the world. I answered the
> question that was asked.

It may be a "valid measure" of an abstract quantity, but it's not a valid measure of human fitness
or health, as it was supposed to be. I don't see how this pedantry is useful here.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.
 
On 28 Jan 2004 19:03:53 -0800, [email protected] (Carl Fogel)
wrote:
>To return to basset hounds, keep in mind that a basset

We're in a bicycling newsgroup, and the thread is titled with the word "cyclists". We don't "return"
to basset hounds; we continue the tangent. Anyway...

>hound will often sit in hopes of working you for a dog biscuit, but the sitting often has nothing
>to do with any "Sit!" command. By sitting and raising his head, the greedy short-legged mutt almost
>doubles his height and hopes, without affecting his BMI.

Sounds like dachshunds. Except that you didn't mention chronic barkitis, a condition inherent in
dachshunds where they never shut the hell up.

>Basset hounds are almost never seen in obedience-school graduation pictures, routinely scoring in
>the bottom five breeds in canine intelligence testing. Nor are they seen trotting next to bicycles.
>In all other respects, they're perfect.

I thought dachshunds would be right down there with bassets, but some googling reveals otherwise. I
guess they're smart enough to fool me into thinking they're devoid of intelligence.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
:>graduation pictures, routinely scoring in the bottom five breeds in canine intelligence testing.
:>Nor are they seen trotting next to bicycles. In all other respects, they're perfect.
:
: I thought dachshunds would be right down there with bassets, but some googling reveals otherwise.
: I guess they're smart enough to fool me into thinking they're devoid of intelligence.

iirc (i wasn't there thank god) my aunt had her two daschunds with her when the city she lived in
was destroyed by a cyclone. they seemed relatively unaffected mentally by it all. which just goes
to show ..

if ya don't have it to lose, it can't be taken.
--
david reuteler [email protected]
 
Per Elmsäter wrote:

> I've actually never heard a woman say that.
Neither have I, but as you know:

All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Greets, Derk
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> I don't see how this pedantry is useful here.

You come to a usenet newsgroup expecting to find useful information? That's your problem in
a nutshell.
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> Andrew Swan wrote:
>> I was wondering if Body Mass Index is a valid measure for a reasonably fit road (not MTB or
>> track) cyclist, or if not, is there some other yardstick for telling if a cyclist's weight is
>> appropriate to their height?
>
> This is like asking if height is a valid measure of how tall someone is: BMI is BMI.
>
> Nonetheless, here's some data from the 1997 TdF. Look about a quarter of the way down the page:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/feb98/feb6.html

I think it is time to say that after looking at the BMIs of the TdF peloton I'd say that BMI is a
very valid measurement for cyclists. They were all in a very narrow segment something like BMI of
20-22. Very few outside of this segment and an average of 21.47

I think this very clearly demonstrates how useful BMI is for cyclists.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
 
"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > Andrew Swan wrote:
> >> I was wondering if Body Mass Index is a valid measure for a reasonably fit road (not MTB or
> >> track) cyclist, or if not, is there some other yardstick for telling if a cyclist's weight is
> >> appropriate to their height?
> >
> > This is like asking if height is a valid measure of how tall someone is: BMI is BMI.
> >
> > Nonetheless, here's some data from the 1997 TdF. Look about a quarter of the way down the page:
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/feb98/feb6.html
>
> I think it is time to say that after looking at the BMIs of the TdF peloton I'd say that BMI is a
> very valid measurement for cyclists. They were all in a very narrow segment something like BMI of
> 20-22. Very few outside of this segment and an average of 21.47
>
> I think this very clearly demonstrates how useful BMI is for cyclists.

Dear Per,

Sorry, but I read the table in the link for the 1997 Tour de France differently:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/feb98/feb6.html

The heights range from 1.61 m to 1.94 m, or about 5'3" to about 6'4".

The weights range from 54 kg to 85 kg, or about 119 lbs to 187 lbs.

The BMI's range from 18.3 to 24.4.

On the BMI scale, underweight is supposedly
18.5 or less, while overweight is 25.0. or more.

So the 1997 Tour de France riders arguably ranged from boderline underweight to borderline obese,
according to the BMI--not much of a surprise.

It seems likely that a similar table for a wider group of less fit cyclists (not Tour de France
caliber) would show an even wider range.

Carl Fogel
 
Carl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote:
: http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/feb98/feb6.html
:
: The BMI's range from 18.3 to 24.4.
:
: On the BMI scale, underweight is supposedly
: 18.5 or less, while overweight is 25.0. or more.
:
: So the 1997 Tour de France riders arguably ranged from boderline underweight to borderline obese,
: according to the BMI--not much of a surprise.

yeesh carl .. you said it yourself 25 is borderline overweight, 30 is borderline obese -- no one in
this dataset is borderline obese. 18.3 is definitely underweight.

say it isn't so, a tdf rider who's underweight? next it'll be a marathon runner!

actually the standard deviation of that dataset is 1.18 (they don't give it, i computed it) meaning
that about 95% of them fall within 19.09 and 23.81 (well within a bmi of "normal") which is a pretty
good fit for any system.

: It seems likely that a similar table for a wider group of less fit cyclists (not Tour de France
: caliber) would show an even wider range.

so? that's arguably true. i bet a lot of normal cyclists are underweight, normal and fat. it doesn't
have to fit everyone .. just enuf to be useful. it's a freakin' guideline.
--
david reuteler [email protected]
 
David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Carl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote:
> : http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1998/feb98/feb6.html
> :
> : The BMI's range from 18.3 to 24.4.
> :
> : On the BMI scale, underweight is supposedly
> : 18.5 or less, while overweight is 25.0. or more.
> :
> : So the 1997 Tour de France riders arguably ranged from boderline underweight to borderline
> : obese, according to the BMI--not much of a surprise.
>
> yeesh carl .. you said it yourself 25 is borderline overweight, 30 is borderline obese -- no one
> in this dataset is borderline obese. 18.3 is definitely underweight.
>
> say it isn't so, a tdf rider who's underweight? next it'll be a marathon runner!
>
> actually the standard deviation of that dataset is 1.18 (they don't give it, i computed it)
> meaning that about 95% of them fall within 19.09 and 23.81 (well within a bmi of "normal") which
> is a pretty good fit for any system.
>
> : It seems likely that a similar table for a wider group of less fit cyclists (not Tour de France
> : caliber) would show an even wider range.
>
> so? that's arguably true. i bet a lot of normal cyclists are underweight, normal and fat. it
> doesn't have to fit everyone .. just enuf to be useful. it's a freakin' guideline.

Dear David,

I waddle corrected.

Unfortunately, English being my native language, I don't always remember the BMI distinction between
overweight and obese--or fat, as you put it, scorning their timid language. What's a good synonym
for being merely overweight? Chunky?

Curiously, the BMI index avoids delving into such distinctions as merely underweight versus
outright anorexic.

This lack of interest in the lighter end of the scale suggests a certain cultural predjudice.
Underweight is just underweight, but the BMI divides people into overweight and then obese.

Possibly this lack of fuss about the lighter end of the scale is due to heavy folk being far
more common in a wealthy society and more likely to pay for advice and complicated weight-
height formulas?

Of course, by the time someone is starving to death, there's no need for numeric scales to explain
the obvious.

Actually, outside sports medicine, few doctors actually worry about calculating a BMI. As one doctor
recently told me, if you can't tell whether patients have a serious weight problem just by looking
at them, you probably shouldn't have a medical license.

A scale explicitly contrived to standardize a broad population's average weight-height relationship
does a fair job of reflecting a broad population's weight-height relationship. Labels are then
added, possibly at statistically accurate percentiles, possibly elsewhere. The same scale treats men
and women identically, despite obvious skeletal, muscular, and fat-layer differences.

Sheesh, as you said.

Obstinately,

Carl Fogel
 
Carl Fogel wrote:
> Curiously, the BMI index avoids delving into such distinctions as merely underweight versus
> outright anorexic.

Probably because anorexia is not determined by weight, BMI, or any other such statistic.

Dave dvt at psu dot edu
 
Robert Chung wrote:

> So you're saying newtons aren't a good metric for force?

The newton is a SI unit, not a metric unit. The metric unit for force is the dyne. ;)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
 
>Robert Chung wrote:
>> So you're saying newtons aren't a good metric for force?
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:00:37 -0600, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>The newton is a SI unit, not a metric unit. The metric unit for force is the dyne. ;)

No, the newton is a hard cake (or soft cookie) with a filling in the center; with fig filling, it is
said to be a good energy food for cyclists.

I found out that there are now "Cheesecake and strawberry Newtons". These may not be such a good
energy food. They also sound icky to me, but my girlfriend can't wait to try them.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian wrote:

> No, the newton is a hard cake (or soft cookie) with a filling in the center; with fig filling, it
> is said to be a good energy food for cyclists....

The fig newton is named after Newton, Massachusetts, and we all know who hangs out in that
neighborhood! ;)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Rick Onanian wrote:
>
> > No, the newton is a hard cake (or soft cookie) with a filling in the center; with fig filling,
> > it is said to be a good energy food for cyclists....
>
> The fig newton is named after Newton, Massachusetts, and we all know who hangs out in that
> neighborhood! ;)
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Dear Tom,

Fie, sir! A fig for your notions of mass! Choose its units carefully!

Isaac Newton
 
David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>graduation pictures, routinely scoring in the bottom five breeds in canine intelligence testing.
> :>Nor are they seen trotting next to bicycles. In all other respects, they're perfect.
> :
> : I thought dachshunds would be right down there with bassets, but some googling reveals
> : otherwise. I guess they're smart enough to fool me into thinking they're devoid of intelligence.
>
> iirc (i wasn't there thank god) my aunt had her two daschunds with her when the city she lived in
> was destroyed by a cyclone. they seemed relatively unaffected mentally by it all. which just goes
> to show ..
>
> if ya don't have it to lose, it can't be taken.

Dear David,

See the two hurricane-bereft dachshunds, Donald and Marla, in Carl Hiaasen's "Stormy Weather."
They're near the part where the corrupt Florida building inspector's would-be assassin is eaten by
the escaped lion.

Carl Fogel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.