Bmi is crap

glenelliott5872
glenelliott5872 Posts: 150 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I feel frustrated with bmi. I continue to be over bmi 25 and yet I fit in 32" trousers and using calliper have a body fat% of ~ 16%. Not after any advice. I just wanted to share that bmi is only a crude measure of being over weight.
«1

Replies

  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Most weight loss tools, including this one, are crude at best. Losing weight is as much art as it is science. Cheers.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    BMI is a population measure not an individual one
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,752 Member
    Yes, yes it is. Especially when you have any decent amount of muscle!
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,079 Member
    glenelliott5872 wrote: »
    I feel frustrated with bmi. I continue to be over bmi 25 and yet I fit in 32" trousers and using calliper have a body fat% of ~ 16%. Not after any advice. I just wanted to share that bmi is only a crude measure of being over weight.

    Bmi is for populations. Calipers are inaccurate especially if your not familiar with them. And going off pants size isn't great either, 32 inch pants in someone very tall or short wouldn't be good.

    How far off 25 are you in the bmi?
  • isulo_kura
    isulo_kura Posts: 818 Member
    glenelliott5872 wrote: »
    I feel frustrated with bmi. I continue to be over bmi 25 and yet I fit in 32" trousers and using calliper have a body fat% of ~ 16%. Not after any advice. I just wanted to share that bmi is only a crude measure of being over weight.

    So because it doesn't work for you we should just throw it out? What an interesting concept. BMI was only designed as a guide to be used in conjunction with other methods as a quick way of assessing people with limited equipment. So no it's not 'Crap'if used appropriately

    I could argue the BF is crap because the majority of methods (except DEXA) are highly inaccurate and that includes callipers which has so many variables which skew the results. As with all these numbers they need to be used in context as a guide for our overall health. People get hung up on BMI, BF and there overall weight without taking into account the whole picture
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    isulo_kura wrote: »
    glenelliott5872 wrote: »
    I feel frustrated with bmi. I continue to be over bmi 25 and yet I fit in 32" trousers and using calliper have a body fat% of ~ 16%. Not after any advice. I just wanted to share that bmi is only a crude measure of being over weight.

    So because it doesn't work for you we should just throw it out? What an interesting concept. BMI was only designed as a guide to be used in conjunction with other methods as a quick way of assessing people with limited equipment. So no it's not 'Crap'if used appropriately

    I could argue the BF is crap because the majority of methods (except DEXA) are highly inaccurate and that includes callipers which has so many variables which skew the results. As with all these numbers they need to be used in context as a guide for our overall health. People get hung up on BMI, BF and there overall weight without taking into account the whole picture

    It was actually developed in the 1800 during lean times to help decide how to disperse goods and food to the population.

    Not saying it's crap but it does apply to populations and "averages"

    It's just one measure and no one should rely on just one measure....take them all.
  • Wiseandcurious
    Wiseandcurious Posts: 730 Member
    While I understand your frustration and agree it's not a good indicator for very athletic people, may I respectfully disagree with your title statement? I read a discussion elsewhere on the net literally just 3 minutes ago in which someone very obese (BMI over 35, not at all athletic) refused to accept the fact because "BMI is crap" - well not their exact words but that was the gist. Throwing statements like that around enables people to continue their self-abusive behavior.

    Not saying that your particular title will cause harm here as supposedly most MFP-ers know better, but I thought it was worth drawing attention to the facts above.
  • ExRelaySprinter
    ExRelaySprinter Posts: 874 Member
    BMI doesn't account for peoples frame size or the amount of muscle we have.
    My Sister for instance, at the "normal BMI range" for her height would look anorexic. :/
    I don't really take much notice of it tbh.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    I'm 6'5", so I can be over 25 BMI and look like I'm not overweight. My ideal weight is very near 25 BMI. It is known that BMI has problems at the extremes and when people have more muscle mass than normal, but it serves its purpose. As a screening tool, it works very well. But those of us on the extremes need to look to other measures.
  • kittykarin
    kittykarin Posts: 104 Member
    BMI is just one of the many measurements of health. My BMI measurement says I need to be at the very highest 162 at 5'9 but when I was 160 at 20 years old, I didn't even have a period cus my body fat was so low. My goal is 180 to 185 and I will be happy with that. My blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc. is all perfect so one one measurement not being correct doesn't bother me.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    kittykarin wrote: »
    BMI is just one of the many measurements of health. My BMI measurement says I need to be at the very highest 162 at 5'9 but when I was 160 at 20 years old, I didn't even have a period cus my body fat was so low. My goal is 180 to 185 and I will be happy with that. My blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc. is all perfect so one one measurement not being correct doesn't bother me.

    I think you need to recalculate. At your height 168 would be the highest "normal" BMI. 162 would give you a BMI of 23.9.
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    BMI is a population measure not an individual one

    ^THIS^ BMI was originally created to help normalize population statistics. It didn't become a common health indication tool until life insurance companies started using it in their actuarial tables. It's a crude measure, but it's still useful to get a quick and easy datapoint, and use more detailed measurements as needed.
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    BMI is a population measure not an individual one

    ^THIS^ BMI was originally created to help normalize population statistics. It didn't become a common health indication tool until life insurance companies started using it in their actuarial tables. It's a crude measure, but it's still useful to get a quick and easy datapoint, and use more detailed measurements as needed.

    Exactly. It's still useful in actuarial tables, which are really just a statistical tool, which BMI is perfectly suited for.

    It's well know that for athletic individuals, the BMI stat is almost useless as a measure. But, for everyday folk, it's pretty useful.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    edited May 2015
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    BMI is a population measure not an individual one

    This, its a useful rule of thumb measure, but takes no account of muscle.

    It's nice to see everyone agreeing.
  • 1shauna1
    1shauna1 Posts: 993 Member
    25 is very close to "normal" BMI, and if that's a current pic of you, then you are in no way overweight!
  • MireyGal76
    MireyGal76 Posts: 7,334 Member
    glenelliott5872 wrote: »
    I feel frustrated with bmi. I continue to be over bmi 25 and yet I fit in 32" trousers and using calliper have a body fat% of ~ 16%. Not after any advice. I just wanted to share that bmi is only a crude measure of being over weight.

    If you are fitting in 32" jeans and have a body fat of 16%, why are you even looking to BMI? Why even bother with the calculations? You know you're fit, so what does it matter?

    My BMI says I'm in the middle of average. It says that I could theoretically safely lose 20 more pounds and not be underweight. I KNOW without a doubt that is not true for me... so I don't bother worrying about it anymore.

    I suggest you do the same. Don't bother using it as a measurement tool. It isn't appropriate for you.
  • glenelliott5872
    glenelliott5872 Posts: 150 Member
    Current pic yet bmi 26. Main prob re clothes is trousers that are too tight on the thighs and yet still are 32" waist. Cyclist thighs!!! I wasn't asking for advice but have had plenty. The point I wanted to make was that bmi is a poor tool for the individual. Looking in the mirror, using a tape measure and using calipers occasionally suits me better
  • glenelliott5872
    glenelliott5872 Posts: 150 Member
    Because insurance companies pay more attention to these type of metrics than the facts and the fact that my original target was to get to below bmi 25 which just isn't
  • kittykarin
    kittykarin Posts: 104 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    kittykarin wrote: »
    BMI is just one of the many measurements of health. My BMI measurement says I need to be at the very highest 162 at 5'9 but when I was 160 at 20 years old, I didn't even have a period cus my body fat was so low. My goal is 180 to 185 and I will be happy with that. My blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, etc. is all perfect so one one measurement not being correct doesn't bother me.

    I think you need to recalculate. At your height 168 would be the highest "normal" BMI. 162 would give you a BMI of 23.9.

    I meant to say 5'8, sorry. Typing on an iPhone. :-)
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Only way for us to get a real sense of where you might be at is to see pic without shirt. Based on your photo, you can be anything from what you say to what that BMI number suggests.

Categories