BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?
Replies
-
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 -
My goal is to have no fat bits and be able to look in the mirror and be happy with what I see.0
-
simplydelish2 wrote: »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!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.0 -
What also is interesting is a lot of the men regulars here say they're so against 1200 calorie diets because so many young women here use it to try to get to unhealthily low weights. Yet they also often say BMI is useless at the individual level. What other tools do we have to give evidence to these young girls that their goal is unhealthy?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 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
What also is interesting is a lot of the men regulars here say they're so against 1200 calorie diets because so many young women here use it to try to get to unhealthily low weights. Yet they also often say BMI is useless at the individual level. What other tools do we have to give evidence to these young girls that their goal is unhealthy?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.
Body fat percentage is much, MUCH better. Though I concede a significant pain in the *kitten* to get accurate.0 -
NOOOOO!
BMI should not be used for individuals. Body fat % is useless!!!
LOOK in the mirror.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.
i HAVE taken a&p and never came across that. source please?
as for BMI.. it's just a tool. if you're pretty average it's a good goal target. if you are significantly over- or under-muscled it will be wrong, and waist/hip ratio (for women) and body fat % are more meaningful.
0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »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!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.?
We aren't all the same size. And our size isn't scaled by height alone. There are small framed short people, large framed short people, small framed tall people, and large framed tall people. And a wide range exists between the small, medium, large frame (there are more than 3 sizes). And all kinds of variation in how it shows up. And it impacts things like internal organ size. A short person that has a small ribe cage and consequently a small waist has less internal space, so they have smaller organs. I'm sure most people don't spend time thinking about this. I just am short and I have a very small rib cage. At the widest point (where my bra goes) my rib cage is 25 inches. So, of course being at a lower weight is more normal for me. And of course not all people will have a rib cage that small. My rib cage is small, and my ribs don't show. I'm not down to skin and bones. Another person could be down to skin and bones and still have a significantly larger rib cage. It's the bone structure of the size and shape of the rib cage. But, then my hips/butt are more than 10 inches bigger than my waist.
So another short person may have the genetics to have a larger frame allowing for larger internal organs. And a tall person with a longer torso can have a small frame with plenty more room for larger organs than a short person with a small rib cage. Models are usually tall people with small frames (and long legs) for example.
0 -
Up for life insurance renewal, etc BMI is used I have been told for rating purpose.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?
Weight loss is ultimately about calories in/out, of course, but if you're not sure where to place yourself for calorie goal-setting purposes, you could take the quality angle and focus on food choices and portions.
Just try to cut back on foods you know probably aren't great for you nutritionally, and swap them for foods that a dietician would approve of. (Like fewer chips & less McDonald's, and more almonds and home-cooked meals, type of thing.) Eat enough of the recommended servings of veg, protein, fruits and grains to fuel your activity and stop hunger, but not more. You wouldn't have to completely eliminate cake or pasta or cheese, just have less of them (basically what's in the food pyramid or any sane meal plan). Don't eat out of boredom or binge, etc. I think if you do that, your body will settle somewhere that makes sense for you.
I'm not saying packaged foods etc. are bad, they're not, but to fit them into a weight-loss diet, you do have to set specific calorie goals, which requires use of the BMI and a target weight. Focusing on food quality and nutrition in this instance might just be easier.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
that seems silly to me. why would your wrist measurements or elbow determine your entire body? anyway, i'm pretty wide framed, but i look best at a low weight. i think it's more about the muscles you have naturally than your frame.0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »simplydelish2 wrote: »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!
OP is 5' and 154 and moderately muscular. I hardly think she has to worry about her wrist and elbows changing size. I wouldn't recommend this to someone her height that was much heavier.
At 5' 3" and 142 lbs, my wrists were bigger than at my current 117 lbs. Not that I ever measured them, but my watch is now super loose. Can't speak to elbow measurements.
I wouldn't find it a stretch to think that 5', 154 might have bigger wrists than if she lost weight.
Thanks for the info. I really didn't think there could be that much variation in the wrist area. My wrists hardly change size, 20 lbs down no change here. I am also measuring at the same size i had when i was below my goal weight which would be more than 25 lbs less than i am now. My forearms are another story, they really change.
I have a feeling i am going to be stalking strangers and checking out their wrists from now on lol0 -
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
that seems silly to me. why would your wrist measurements or elbow determine your entire body? anyway, i'm pretty wide framed, but i look best at a low weight. i think it's more about the muscles you have naturally than your frame.
Supposedly, they are parts of the body that you can easily get bone measurements from. At least that was how i understood what the doctor explained. After seeing how other people vary greatly, i am not so sure what to think. Time to research more.0 -
in_the_stars wrote: »NOOOOO!
BMI should not be used for individuals. Body fat % is useless!!!
LOOK in the mirror.
The woman on the left is more like 10-12%. And clearly you are not going to get that look without major effort. Don't train like a body builder and you won't get a body like one.
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.
I think the issue is not BMI itself...it is that so many people do not understand how the range applies to them or how to apply the range and you have people trying to get to the low end of BMI or something when they naturally have more muscle or larger frames...but they think because it's in their range that they should be shooting for it.
I would agree that for most people some number along the range is likely appropriate...it's just understanding how that range applies.
I would love to get to the very highest end of my range as I would be about 10% BF vs 15% BF which would be pretty cool...but that's at the very high end of the range for me...I would have no business trying to get to the mid range or lower unless I was intentionally trying to burn muscle in order to be more competitive in endurance events for example.0 -
I'm "overweight" based on BMI. pfffffft.0
-
BMI is a guide. The problem with BMI is that it doesn't take into account muscle mass as stated. On the other side of the coin, it seems like every person that lifts weights more than twice a month seem to think they are outliers.0
-
I found BMI to be a great way to set my target weight initially. I just chose a BMI pretty much slap-bang in the middle of healthy (21.5) and as I got closer to it, just looked at myself in the mirror in a number of different settings (home, gym, fitting room) until I thought I looked OK in terms of how lean I was and acceptable amount of flabby bits. I also used waist/height ratio and also waist/hip ratio.
The combination of BMI and measurement ratios is a form of body fat measurement without the hassle IMO.
It seems to me that too many folks worry about being outliers, when by definition they're more likely just to be a regular person for the purposes of BMI.0 -
dopeysmelly wrote: »I found BMI to be a great way to set my target weight initially. I just chose a BMI pretty much slap-bang in the middle of healthy (21.5) and as I got closer to it, just looked at myself in the mirror in a number of different settings (home, gym, fitting room) until I thought I looked OK in terms of how lean I was and acceptable amount of flabby bits. I also used waist/height ratio and also waist/hip ratio.
The combination of BMI and measurement ratios is a form of body fat measurement without the hassle IMO.
It seems to me that too many folks worry about being outliers, when by definition they're more likely just to be a regular person for the purposes of BMI.
This is what I did. I've chosen a goal weight on the higher end of a normal BMI and will reassess as I get closer. The thinnest I've ever been is at the border of overweight/obese and I have no clue what I'll look like at lower weights. I don't expect myself to be an outlier like a lot of people seem to think.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.
Yes, it is very interesting how on a board that features so much collective mocking over "special snowflake" status (and often rightfully so), suddenly when discussions arise about non-fat weight ranges so many snowflakes suddenly drift down from above.
And yet, interestingly enough, 50 or so years ago the average person had no problem falling within the normal category in the very generous BMI range. Nowadays, however, it's all BS and so many claim to be outliers.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions