RE: Re: Body Mass Index (BMI) - Flawed

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/19/2006 3:51:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,

anthonymorrey@... writes:

<<<A couple of points come to mind when reading this.

Firstly I was made aware that the BMI was mostly used along with a

battery of other tests. Not a test on its own and therefore gave a

much broader picture combined with the other tests on general health

or obesity. Obviously when used on its own it has many flaws, such as

not taking into account the amount of fat free mass etc etc.

Other Factors in its defense include the scope for error of possible

alternatives and the time taken to perform them. I know if I have my

bodyfat taken with a caliper 10 people will give me 10 different

results - The BMI will give me just one result, due to its ease of use

and interpretaion.

In addition to the findings of the above article, maybe the comparison

chart itself needs revising? After all, surely our norms have changed

since the chart itself was first produced. We are now a much heavier

society in general.>>>

****

When the method itself is inherently and unforgivably flawed (despite ease

of use), simply revising the comparison chart is wasted effort. Darwin is

calling the BMI, perhaps it should follow the Dodo.

kson, CST

Minneapolis, MN USA

_www.ClubbellTrainer.com_

" Better Living Through Movement. "

" Be good to yourself. If you don't take care of your body, where will you

live? "

- Kobi Yamada

[Guest guest]

,

It is not really a trade secret. Actually initially it was not something

that we really intended to follow that closely. However after we had

collected our test results over the first few years, I started to compile

the data over time to re-evaluate the testing that we were using to identify

tests or groups of tests that seemed to be helpful in identifying the better

athletes (e.g.. starter material vs.. back-up players). Obviously, their

actual on court performance was the critical factor, but some of the

performance testing seemed to be telling us a story. Who has been doing

their off court training, who followed the summer program, who was following

our established regeneration and recovery strategies. There was the odd

exception of an athlete that fit our BMI range, but was not as athletic or

tested out as average or below average for our historical data. Almost

without exception, they were the ones who were a bit " soft " (e.g.. higher

body fat and lower lean mass) for a given body weight. We did not do % body

fat determination, but having completed 100's of body composition

assessments using calipers over the past 15+ years, I have become quite

proficient in estimating % body fat by simple observation. In our group it

was quite easy to identify the hard bodies vs. soft bodies. What we have

found is that a BMI in the 21.2 to 22.8 range seems to be optimal. These are

athletes that are 18 - 22 years of age. In fact, we have had 2 cases over

the past 2 years of athletes BMI changing due to training and diet, either

putting them outside of the range or moving them into the range and seeing

dramatic changes in their test results. In the end one that moved into the

range ended up being named as an All Canadian and the one that dropped out

of the range went from starter to back-up because she lost her power and

explosiveness and could not compete.

I realize that BMI has some limitations (as do % BF calculations using

skinfolds), but we have tried to identify athletes with the optimal body

structure and athletic ability to compete at the highest level of

volleyball. BMI to me, for my purposes, is a " useful " tool in my toolbox.

Barry Stockbrugger

Regina, SK, Canada

In a message dated 8/22/06 2:35:27 PM, Barry.Stockbrugger@

<mailto:Barry.Stockbrugger%40uregina.ca> uregina.ca writes:

> ver the past 5 years I have used BMI as " one " tool to help establish

> optimum weight in our University Women's Volleyball team. To me BMI is a

> simple ratio of height and weight. What I have found is that our best

> players over the 5 year period fall into a specific range.

>

Boardman wrote:

<<<I must not be the only one who is curious; would you care to publish the

specific range that you have clinically established to be predictive of

potential for women's volleyball excellence?

Working very occaisionally with female volleyball athletes and teams, I

would be interested in testing the veracity of the " specific range " as a

predicter of making the team and/or outstanding performance.

Of course, if you consider it a " trade secret " and choose not to share

your discovery, I will understand.>>>

[Guest guest]

Barry you might be interested in the folloiwng

calculations I made for a in a rowing discussion

group.:

Some of the 2005 US National Rowing team

Sam Burns 6'5 " 205 BMI 24.3

Coppola 6'8 " 210 BMI 23.1

Brett Newlin 6'9 " 225 BMI 24.1

Gregg Ruckman 6'1 " 155 BM! 20.4

Matt Schnobirch 6'5 " 205 BMI 24.3

Tom Paradiso 6'1 " 150 BMI 19.8

Also a well known elite cyclist:

Lance Armstrong 5'10 " 160 BMI 23.0

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington, CT

--- " Barry A. Stockbrugger "

wrote:

> ,

>

> It is not really a trade secret. Actually initially

> it was not something

> that we really intended to follow that closely.

> However after we had

> collected our test results over the first few years,

> I started to compile

> the data over time to re-evaluate the testing that

> we were using to identify

> tests or groups of tests that seemed to be helpful

> in identifying the better

> athletes (e.g.. starter material vs.. back-up

> players). Obviously, their

> actual on court performance was the critical factor,

> but some of the

> performance testing seemed to be telling us a story.

> Who has been doing

> their off court training, who followed the summer

> program, who was following

> our established regeneration and recovery

> strategies. There was the odd

> exception of an athlete that fit our BMI range, but

> was not as athletic or

> tested out as average or below average for our

> historical data. Almost

> without exception, they were the ones who were a bit

> " soft " (e.g.. higher

> body fat and lower lean mass) for a given body

> weight. We did not do % body

> fat determination, but having completed 100's of

> body composition

> assessments using calipers over the past 15+ years,

> I have become quite

> proficient in estimating % body fat by simple

> observation. In our group it

> was quite easy to identify the hard bodies vs. soft

> bodies. What we have

> found is that a BMI in the 21.2 to 22.8 range seems

> to be optimal. These are

> athletes that are 18 - 22 years of age. In fact, we

> have had 2 cases over

> the past 2 years of athletes BMI changing due to

> training and diet, either

> putting them outside of the range or moving them

> into the range and seeing

> dramatic changes in their test results. In the end

> one that moved into the

> range ended up being named as an All Canadian and

> the one that dropped out

> of the range went from starter to back-up because

> she lost her power and

> explosiveness and could not compete.

>

>

>

> I realize that BMI has some limitations (as do % BF

> calculations using

> skinfolds), but we have tried to identify athletes

> with the optimal body

> structure and athletic ability to compete at the

> highest level of

> volleyball. BMI to me, for my purposes, is a

> " useful " tool in my toolbox.

>

> Barry Stockbrugger

> Regina, SK, Canada

>

>

> In a message dated 8/22/06 2:35:27 PM,

> Barry.Stockbrugger@

> <mailto:Barry.Stockbrugger%40uregina.ca> uregina.ca

> writes:

>

> > ver the past 5 years I have used BMI as " one " tool

> to help establish

> > optimum weight in our University Women's

> Volleyball team. To me BMI is a

> > simple ratio of height and weight. What I have

> found is that our best

> > players over the 5 year period fall into a

> specific range.

> >

>

>

> Boardman wrote:

>

> <<<I must not be the only one who is curious; would

> you care to publish the

> specific range that you have clinically established

> to be predictive of

> potential for women's volleyball excellence?

>

> Working very occaisionally with female volleyball

> athletes and teams, I

> would be interested in testing the veracity of the

> " specific range " as a

> predicter of making the team and/or outstanding

> performance.

>

> Of course, if you consider it a " trade secret " and

> choose not to share

> your discovery, I will understand.>>>