BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?
Options
Replies
-
CarrieCans wrote: »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.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »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.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
0 -
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?
BMI is a range in order to take into account different body types, etc. Someone with a more athletic build would look weird at the lower end of BMI...someone with a petite build will look weird at the higher end.
It's not meant to be something where you just arbitrarily pick some number in that range...that number may not be appropriate for your body type.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »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.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.0 -
I would lose 10 lbs. or so and then see how you look in the 140s. You might want to aim for just above the BMI or on the higher end. I'm 5'1.5" and around 120, which is mid-normal BMI (around 22-23), and fairly stocky and muscular. Waist size is also a good measure; if your waist is 30" or less for your height..0
-
BMI is a guide. Very rarely is it actually wrong due to muscle mass, but it happens (someone posted a wonderful chart up above). Typically frame size suggests weights in segments within a normal BMI (ie, small frame should be the lowest healthy weight in the BMI, average can be in the middle, and large should be near the top of normal). You should base your life where you feel good, and on a number of health measures (ie, BMI, waist-hip ratio, body fat %, etc).0
-
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »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.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.
So a whole bunch of athletes are unhealthy then?0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »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.
No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.
I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.
I think you made that up from broscience
Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.
No I think you're extrapolating from your basic knowledge that Olympic class athletes whose BMI falls outside the range established have a strain put on their heart without including their increased fitness levels, low BP ...it's not just body builders who fall outside the BMI range of "healthy" ...
"Strain on your heart" eg Heart disease is more commonly caused by lack of exercise, smoking, high cholesterol etc0 -
it is not a perfect scale but gives a decent range. I have heard doctors say as long as you are within 15% of it you are good0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »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?
BMI is a range in order to take into account different body types, etc. Someone with a more athletic build would look weird at the lower end of BMI...someone with a petite build will look weird at the higher end.
It's not meant to be something where you just arbitrarily pick some number in that range...that number may not be appropriate for your body type.
I agree with this. BMI is one of many potential tools for information. But, you would base it upon your own body, and gathering information on your own and with your personal doctor about your body type, your goals/lifestyle, your personal history of weight and size, your family genetics, etc. Even kids on a growth chart will consistently be in a certain place. It's about your personal pattern and wild fluctuations that indicate a change of personal gain or loss.
0 -
I'll echo what everyone else is saying about going for body fat percentage as the end all be all.
Having said that, BMI gets a really bad rap around here, unfairly so. It's not a bad indicator for the majority of individuals and at least presents a very wide range to work within. It isn't accurate for a decent minority of outliers, but when the time comes for discussion I do think those who hate the BMI tend to overstate the presence of the outliers. Suddenly all you hear is how basically every man and woman is a He-Man or She-Ra who can exist in the overweight or obese categories while still being cut like a Greek statue.0 -
BMI is a good starting point. Yes, there are outliers, but most people are not one of them. For some reason everyone thinks that they are though.
Use it in conjunction with BF%, if that makes you happier. Unless you are purposefully adding muscle, chances are that at a healthy BF%, you will also be at a "normal" BMI.0 -
BMI is a screening tool. It will be incorrect for people with more muscle mass or less muscle mass than the average person, but for most people, it is close enough to give doctors an idea of whether they need to spend the additional time required to check other things. For the non-medical professional, it can give people a rough idea of what they ought to weigh, but it should never be taken as exact.0
-
Personally I would go by body fat percentage then BMI. Depending on what you want to accomplish. Muscle weighs more then fat so if you gain muscle you gain weight but its a good type of weight. If you are just trying to thin down then use the BMI chart to make sure that you dont go below or you could risk health risks. But all in all, it is how you feel and want to look like that matters.0
-
BMI may be valid for people close to average height; but by definition fully 1/3 of individuals fall outside of 1 standard deviation of the normal probability density function (I would call that a significant proportion of the population; hardly the rare outlier). So, if you're taller of shorter than average (by more than 1 SD), BMI really can't be relied upon.
A good metric would be meaningful across the board and would not vary based on changes of scale, for example, % BF or waist/height ratio. BMI does not scale. Try this; check the BMI for an individual that is 10% shorter and 10% lighter than you, the overall height/weight ratio will be the same, but the BMI will be lower than yours. You'll see a similar increase in the BMI number if you increase height/weight by 10%.
Call me old fashioned, but I like my metrics to scale.0 -
Use BMI as one piece of information to set your goal, but only you can say what your weight goal is.
Also, BMI is a range. With a large frame and a lot of muscle mass, you'd be underweight at 97 lbs, but I doubt you'd be underweight at 128.
If you're interested in losing, maybe set your goal to lose 10 lbs from your CW and then see how you feel?
I am a woman with your same body type. The BMI chart "overweight" range is what feels like my ideal range. But then, maybe that's only because I've always been in that range as an adult. That is, maybe I just can't visualize myself with lower body fat. Even so, I can't see myself dropping any lower than the very top of the so-called "healthy" range (BMI 24), which is my ultimate dream weight.0 -
i use it as an indicative tool,amongst others.
has helped me to reduce from 36.6 to 26.6 in 5 months.0 -
Interesting. I wouldn't expect it to scale like that because a person 10% shorter is not necessarily 10% lighter, ideally. Some short people are tinier all over but I think most humans are about the same circumference overall (at ideal weight), for want of a better word.bennettinfinity wrote: »BMI may be valid for people close to average height; but by definition fully 1/3 of individuals fall outside of 1 standard deviation of the normal probability density function (I would call that a significant proportion of the population; hardly the rare outlier). So, if you're taller of shorter than average (by more than 1 SD), BMI really can't be relied upon.
A good metric would be meaningful across the board and would not vary based on changes of scale, for example, % BF or waist/height ratio. BMI does not scale. Try this; check the BMI for an individual that is 10% shorter and 10% lighter than you, the overall height/weight ratio will be the same, but the BMI will be lower than yours. You'll see a similar increase in the BMI number if you increase height/weight by 10%.
Call me old fashioned, but I like my metrics to scale.
I'm only 5'4" but I think if you sliced me into inches and stacked 12 more of those on, I'd be shaped like a 6'4" person. Doesn't the scaling argument assume that shorter people are also less wide? I.e., that they're 10% narrower everywhere-- skull, organs, pelvis, etc.?
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »75% the measures agreed.
That's the thing - for most people, most of the time, BMI is a pretty good proxy. It's interesting to see some of the same people mocking others over non-belief in CICO proclaiming themselves special snowflakes when it comes to BMI.
0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »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
NOT this...as we get smaller these measurements also get smaller due to the fat loss. So you can start out thinking you are large boned and by the time you've lost most of your weight you can measure as small boned.
I know the BMI scale is what most medical and insurance companies use. BUT...when you consider what you should weigh, consider how you look and (more importantly) feel.
My goal weight (where I want to be, not where others think I should be) is right in the middle of the "overweight" BMI...and I'm good with that.
Good luck!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions