[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Silock

Show me someone who's naturally 5'9", 205 and doesn't have fat to lose. That person is in an EXTREME minority, as is a natural 6'3", 241 without fat to lose.

I was 5'9" and playing college sports at 235. Zach Thomas was 5'11" and 242 (even when listed at 228, he's over the obesity threshold). LdT is listed at 5'10" 221lbs. Feel free to take a look at the linebackers at the combines for more easy examples. It's not just football, either. Tyson was "obese" at 5'11.5" 218, and Razor Ruddock was "overweight at 6'3" 224 when they fought. Kendrick Perkins is 6'10" 280 (overweight at 29.3 BMI). Dwight Howard is 6'9.5" 265, making him overweight with a 28 BMI. Rodney Harrison was just short of obese (29.0 BMI) at 6'1" 220. To call it an extreme minority is just not accurate. Cam Neely played at 6'1" 218 (overweight 28.8 BMI). Albert Pujols runs about 6'3" 230 (28.7). Here's a link to the linebackers at the 2008 combine:

http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/...inebackers.htm

Also, the issue isn't "fat to lose". Anyone who's not anorexic has "fat to lose".

Originally Posted by Silock

EDIT: Just looking up some NFL guys, and there's hardly anyone that even comes close to those numbers. We have Steve Smith at 5'9", 185. BMI is "overweight." However, we've already established that the BMI isn't good for professional athletes. Show me someone in the gym that's even close to as big as Steve Smith with as low a body fat percentage, and again, we're talking EXTREME minority. As for 6'3", there are plenty of guys that tall in the skill positions, and hardly any of them come in anywhere close to 241. Linemen yes, but then, many linemen ARE carrying around a significant amount of fat (which isn't to say that they aren't in phenomenal shape, because they absolutely are). So on that end of the spectrum, too, it's an extreme minority. Like I said -- BMI is pretty inaccurate for NFL guys, but even then, most of them only come in in the "overweight" category, and not the "obese" category. They are super rare physical specimens that may or may not have obtained their size naturally. Super-rare, not a good fit for BMI. But most people aren't super-rare, as much as they like to think they are. Therefore, the BMI is generally a good INDICATOR, although it is hardly definitive of anything.

Your "therefore" is simply not accurate, it's really that simple. I just gave a bunch of easy examples to check on. Looking for 5'9" players that are wide in the shoulders in the NFL isn't going to pull up much, because there aren't many 5'9" players in the NFL playing anything but speed positions. Weightlifters, boxers, basketball players, football players, baseball players and more all fail the dreaded BMI test.

Originally Posted by Silock

Average build is average for a reason. It fits the vast majority of people. Again, BMI isn't perfect and I'm not claiming it is.

Average build is average because it's average, not "vast majority". Here's a government site on the matter:

Although BMI can be used for most men and women, it does have some limits:

* It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
* It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/publ...tm#limitations

So BMI doesn't really work with old people, athletes or people with broad shoulders/muscular bodies. It's not as if there's just a 1% "oops" rate here. It doesn't handle the muscle/fat weight difference very well.

Here, check out the sample of some "overweight/obese" people in the listed chart from the following site:

http://themiddlemanager.wordpress.co...blem-with-bmi/

I could keep citing examples, just as I could cite studies which show BMI to be problematic when it comes to predicting health issues, but there's really no need to get further afield. BMI is far too unreliable to be a worthwhile indicator, and that's really the point here.