True, it doesn't distinguish different types of body composition and assumes that excess weight is fat. That means BMI doesn't apply to athletes and bodybuilders. It's still useful for the vast majority of people who aren't athletes or bodybuilders.Hoplon said:It's not no. as you so amply demonstrate it can't distinguish between fat and muscle nor skeletal types. so what it says is garbage.
I wasn't aware skeletal types varied enough to cause a weight difference? Link pls?
It's not "garbage", it's "quite useful" as a preliminary indicator, not as a be-all and end-all measure of health. Any physician worth their salt will acknowledge it has limitations, but people need to stop rejecting BMI outright because a) it hurts their feelings to be called overweight or b) they think a very specific handful of disqualifying circumstances that are usually associated with being atypically fit apply to them, too.
[edit]The studies cited here suggest that the human skeleton weighs only a few kilograms, and even accounting for sex and race differences (black people have slightly heavier skeletons than Caucasians, men have heavier skeletons than women) the maximum variance is of the order of about 1.5kg (about 3 lbs). So, I don't think skeletal type is a valid counterargument; being "big boned" is just a euphemism.