BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?

Options
sweetteadrinker2
sweetteadrinker2 Posts: 1,026 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I'm wondering how all of you use/interpret BMI. For my height I should be between 97-128 pounds. I'm 5 feet tall and currently 154 pounds. I have a moderate-heavy muscle mass from working on my family's ranch, and genetically I know I'm predisposition-ed to higher protein needs and larger muscles than average for a woman. My ideal weight range for BMI seems like a bad/wrong goal. How would I adjust for my body type/muscling?
«13456789

Replies

  • AJ_G
    AJ_G Posts: 4,158 Member
    Options
    Disregard BMI, instead use Body Fat Percentage
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Options
    AJ_G wrote: »
    Disregard BMI, instead use Body Fat Percentage

    This, and just watch your progress and measurements, and go with how you look. Sounds like BMI isn't a good tool for you. It's normal for people to fit into the range in different places and for some people to fall outside of the range.

  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    I prefer to be at least at the high side of BMI for my height if possible, with a little bit of wiggle room like a few pounds for fluctuations. I'm currently five lbs under the high weight range for my height and now just losing vanity lbs / maintaining.

    You could do something similar or just use the mirror the whole time to decide when to stop. I suppose I use just a one day at a time approach, and I'll know when I get there
  • CarrieCans
    CarrieCans Posts: 381 Member
    Options
    I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.

    http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php
  • JenniDaisy
    JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
    Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop believing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
    Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,150 Member
    Options
    BMI is a generalization. It does not consider muscle mass or frame type.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    AJ_G wrote: »
    Disregard BMI, instead use Body Fat Percentage

    This. Find out your bf percentage--try a variety of methods and compare or pay for the more accurate method--and then calculate what your weight would be if you lowered it to what you want.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    Body fat %. You will reduce fat and you will reduce size, not necessarily a lot of weight.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    JenniDaisy wrote: »
    Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop beliveing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
    Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.

    the reason is at population level, not at individual level

    you do know it was invented in the 1800s by a mathematician who explicitly said it shouldn't be used on an individual level - and there is much dispute over its appropriateness. It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body (and the formula tacitly implies sedentary lifestyles and low muscle mass and high relative body fat) . But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI.

    it is gradually being replaced with a maximum waist size

  • Wronkletoad
    Wronkletoad Posts: 368 Member
    Options
    it's good for population measures and has shortcomings with individuals. YMMV with it; but there are more accurate measures for the individual.
  • NoelFigart1
    NoelFigart1 Posts: 1,276 Member
    Options
    BMI is crap science.
  • JenniDaisy
    JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    JenniDaisy wrote: »
    Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop beliveing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
    Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.

    the reason is at population level, not at individual level

    you do know it was invented in the 1800s by a mathematician who explicitly said it shouldn't be used on an individual level - and there is much dispute over its appropriateness. It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body (and the formula tacitly implies sedentary lifestyles and low muscle mass and high relative body fat) . But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI.

    it is gradually being replaced with a maximum waist size

    Yes I did know that, which is why I said be prepared to to be hassled by medical professionals; who use it to measure a population.
    Generally you are more at risk of disease at a higher BMI, so generally you should aim to be in the normal range. It's purely statistical.
    Thorough measurements will use a combination of BMI/ Waist size/resting heart rate/blood pressure/lung capacity.

    But thank you.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    Consider using your waist measurement:
    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1431750/waist-should-be-less-than-half-your-height/p1
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    Options
    It is true that doctors, insurance, and employers who do not understand the science of all this will badger you to death. In order not to be forced to pay more for insurance etc. it may be necessary to get to the very upper weight of what they call a "healthy" BMI for you. If that isn't feasible, all I can say is best of luck. My husband is built like a Sherman tank and no one will acknowledge the obvious fact, instead harassing hm for being "over." Now it is true that he needs to drop *some* fat, but his lean body mass alone as measured at the nutritionist's office is the weight the doctor and insurance co. think his whole body should weigh, which is about 170 pounds. It's crazy. I wish the tyranny would stop and these people/companies would bother to learn a few simple scientific facts.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
    This is a cool chart. I wish it included women. It says about 17% of the men were deemed overweight by BMI but not by BF%. But about 8% were the opposite-- Ok by BMI but overweight by BF%. 75% the measures agreed.

    uu3petmtto51.png
  • KGRebelRanch
    KGRebelRanch Posts: 109 Member
    Options
    sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »
    I'm wondering how all of you use/interpret BMI. For my height I should be between 97-128 pounds. I'm 5 feet tall and currently 154 pounds. I have a moderate-heavy muscle mass from working on my family's ranch, and genetically I know I'm predisposition-ed to higher protein needs and larger muscles than average for a woman. My ideal weight range for BMI seems like a bad/wrong goal. How would I adjust for my body type/muscling?

    I'm 4'8" and the last time my BMI was normal I was an anorexic high school student. I am also predisposed to gaining muscle, especially in my legs. My BMI is obese at 132lbs and a size 7 with 22% bodyfat.

    Disregard BMI.
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Options
    Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.
  • DavidFitFocus
    DavidFitFocus Posts: 380
    Options
    I think BMI is great, and it's just one measure. So is %body fat. I think we have to be our own dietitian, doctor, detective, etc. and assess these as clues about our health. Personally, I tend to have a skewed body image, so objective measures help.
  • CarrieCans
    CarrieCans Posts: 381 Member
    Options
    FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
    Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.

    Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.

    That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.
  • esjones12
    esjones12 Posts: 1,363 Member
    Options
    It is one measuring tool. You can also use weight, measurements, Body Fat %, 1 mile run, number of push ups, etc. Use a collection of measuring tools to track your progress. Find a weight/look/composition that is healthy and that you can happily maintain.

    I see a lot of people who claim they are "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse. I've seen larger looking people turn into a lot smaller than you would have thought they could. Don't set limitations or pre-requisitions on yourself or your body. Do the work and let the results amaze you.

Categories