The healthiest BMI
Options
wabmester
Posts: 2,748 Member
2013 meta-study of 2.88 million people:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227
HRs for overweight (BMI of 25-<30), obesity (BMI of ≥30), grade 1 obesity (BMI of 30-<35), and grades 2 and 3 obesity (BMI of ≥35) were calculated relative to normal weight (BMI of 18.5-<25).
The summary HRs were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96) for overweight
1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25) for obesity (all grades combined)
0.95 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01) for grade 1 obesity
1.29 (95% CI, 1.18-1.41) for grades 2 and 3 obesity.
So in order of best to worst:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227
HRs for overweight (BMI of 25-<30), obesity (BMI of ≥30), grade 1 obesity (BMI of 30-<35), and grades 2 and 3 obesity (BMI of ≥35) were calculated relative to normal weight (BMI of 18.5-<25).
The summary HRs were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96) for overweight
1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25) for obesity (all grades combined)
0.95 (95% CI, 0.88-1.01) for grade 1 obesity
1.29 (95% CI, 1.18-1.41) for grades 2 and 3 obesity.
So in order of best to worst:
- BMI 25-30
- BMI 30-35
- BMI 18.5-25
- BMI >=35
0
Replies
-
Yet another reason why the BMI is complete and utter crap....
0 -
My scales readout started at 35 BMI and are down to 28 now. I can see I am to have to go down to 25 if my gut is going to become relatively flat. I really do not want to be below 25 should I get very sick.0
-
That's bizarre!0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I really do not want to be below 25 should I get very sick.
I think part of the reason for the high death rate among "normal" BMI is that you often lose weight when you get very sick.0 -
A 28 BMI (not 25) used to be considered the upper range of normal for men. So, it doesn't shock me that it's not unhealthy to be around that BMI.0
-
My husbands BMI has always been about 26-27 and he feels at his very best when it is. It must work well for him, he has always been very fit and healthy. He got to a BMI of 24 once and said it was extremely hard to maintain and he was always starving.
If this is what overweight looks like, and overweight never gets sick, works 10 hour days moving thousands of kg's of wood for years on end and still comes home and works out...sign me up! Well, minus the penis.
0 -
Oh man this topic made me go check my BMI, I'm 5 pounds away from being under 30.
My initial goal weight would put my BMI at 26.8. I think I'll probably aim to lose a little more from that goal weight now that I've gotten closer to it, but a BMI of 25 or less has never been part of my goal in any way.0 -
According to my scale, my BMI is around 53-54% now (AFTER losing about 30 pounds). Yikes! I'm lucky I haven't keeled over and died yet!0
-
BMI's not total crap, it's good for what it's meant for: a broad indicator for most of the general public. I don't have the link still, but I took an online photo quiz at some point, where they showed a variety of people and I had to vote overweight or not, and sure enough, my answers correlated pretty well with the BMI. The exceptions for people who are in good shape like @minties82 's husband are the exception not the norm. It's fun to dismiss BMI as inaccurate the same as it's fun to dismiss wikipedia as being worth a darn, but the reality is for most people it's a useful tool.0
-
What? Did they adjust for socioeconomic status?
Wait, no, they wouldn't have, because it's a meta-analysis and I doubt most of the studies would have captured that anyway.0 -
Full text here
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234031632_Association_of_All-Cause_Mortality_With_Overweight_and_Obesity_Using_Standard_Body_Mass_Index_Categories_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-analysis
They didn't have SES data, barely any geographic data at all0 -
Thanks for that link. Looks like they excluded those with known health issues and known smokers. That blows my theory about sick people skewing the results.0
-
BMI is not my friend
I have some fat but 17" biceps
It considers that as body fat not muscle
I think it should be a new measurement
MTM
Muffin Too Measurement
0 -
BMI's not total crap, it's good for what it's meant for: a broad indicator for most of the general public. I don't have the link still, but I took an online photo quiz at some point, where they showed a variety of people and I had to vote overweight or not, and sure enough, my answers correlated pretty well with the BMI. The exceptions for people who are in good shape like @minties82 's husband are the exception not the norm. It's fun to dismiss BMI as inaccurate the same as it's fun to dismiss wikipedia as being worth a darn, but the reality is for most people it's a useful tool.
You do realize that the "normal" BMI is third on that list, right? According to it, it's better to be slightly obese than to have a normal BMI.
That said, if one wants to use it for how it was intended or created and it's actually accurate, by all means, go for it, but keep it where it belongs. I prefer not to be repeatedly beaten over the head by the BMI Bat.0 -
According to my scale, my BMI is around 53-54% now (AFTER losing about 30 pounds). Yikes! I'm lucky I haven't keeled over and died yet!
There is one of the calculators that includes neck, waist, and arm measurements to help estimate your BMI. Depending on calculators, I get everything from 40-63% body fat. In reality, I'm pretty close to 45%...but my scale measures it too and it indicates that I can change from 42-52% (corresponding to hydration levels and stupid randomness about the electrical signal going through my legs, etc.)... So I don't put a lot of stock in all this.
Remember, too, that heavy Olympic bodybuilders are generally considered to be overweight, too, because BMI does not consider muscle %. They need to update this whole concept of calculations. With what, a 60% margin of error in calculations of body fat, this whole system is outdated, yet the health industry continues to use it...0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »According to my scale, my BMI is around 53-54% now (AFTER losing about 30 pounds). Yikes! I'm lucky I haven't keeled over and died yet!
There is one of the calculators that includes neck, waist, and arm measurements to help estimate your BMI. Depending on calculators, I get everything from 40-63% body fat. In reality, I'm pretty close to 45%...but my scale measures it too and it indicates that I can change from 42-52% (corresponding to hydration levels and stupid randomness about the electrical signal going through my legs, etc.)... So I don't put a lot of stock in all this.
Remember, too, that heavy Olympic bodybuilders are generally considered to be overweight, too, because BMI does not consider muscle %. They need to update this whole concept of calculations. With what, a 60% margin of error in calculations of body fat, this whole system is outdated, yet the health industry continues to use it...
I have one of those scales that measures weight, body fat, hydration, and bone mass or something like that. I have noticed that the water/hydration number is always the same, the bone mass is always the same (thankfully, right??--on occasion it goes up or down by 0.2, but that's rare), and the body fat is verrrrrry slowly going down along with the weight. I really wanted those features, but I'm not really finding them useful at all. I wish I'd just gotten a basic scale.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »According to my scale, my BMI is around 53-54% now (AFTER losing about 30 pounds). Yikes! I'm lucky I haven't keeled over and died yet!
There is one of the calculators that includes neck, waist, and arm measurements to help estimate your BMI. Depending on calculators, I get everything from 40-63% body fat. In reality, I'm pretty close to 45%...but my scale measures it too and it indicates that I can change from 42-52% (corresponding to hydration levels and stupid randomness about the electrical signal going through my legs, etc.)... So I don't put a lot of stock in all this.
Remember, too, that heavy Olympic bodybuilders are generally considered to be overweight, too, because BMI does not consider muscle %. They need to update this whole concept of calculations. With what, a 60% margin of error in calculations of body fat, this whole system is outdated, yet the health industry continues to use it...
I have one of those scales that measures weight, body fat, hydration, and bone mass or something like that. I have noticed that the water/hydration number is always the same, the bone mass is always the same (thankfully, right??--on occasion it goes up or down by 0.2, but that's rare), and the body fat is verrrrrry slowly going down along with the weight. I really wanted those features, but I'm not really finding them useful at all. I wish I'd just gotten a basic scale.
If it was a reliable way those things were measured, I'd be all about that. I've been told that the body fat thing you hold out in front of you is thrown off by boobs - and mine are large compared to most. Also, I have large legs, so neither of those things independently will give me legit numbers. There is a bodpod thing locally i want to try when I have a few extra $$.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »According to my scale, my BMI is around 53-54% now (AFTER losing about 30 pounds). Yikes! I'm lucky I haven't keeled over and died yet!
There is one of the calculators that includes neck, waist, and arm measurements to help estimate your BMI. Depending on calculators, I get everything from 40-63% body fat. In reality, I'm pretty close to 45%...but my scale measures it too and it indicates that I can change from 42-52% (corresponding to hydration levels and stupid randomness about the electrical signal going through my legs, etc.)... So I don't put a lot of stock in all this.
Remember, too, that heavy Olympic bodybuilders are generally considered to be overweight, too, because BMI does not consider muscle %. They need to update this whole concept of calculations. With what, a 60% margin of error in calculations of body fat, this whole system is outdated, yet the health industry continues to use it...
I have one of those scales that measures weight, body fat, hydration, and bone mass or something like that. I have noticed that the water/hydration number is always the same, the bone mass is always the same (thankfully, right??--on occasion it goes up or down by 0.2, but that's rare), and the body fat is verrrrrry slowly going down along with the weight. I really wanted those features, but I'm not really finding them useful at all. I wish I'd just gotten a basic scale.
If it was a reliable way those things were measured, I'd be all about that. I've been told that the body fat thing you hold out in front of you is thrown off by boobs - and mine are large compared to most. Also, I have large legs, so neither of those things independently will give me legit numbers. There is a bodpod thing locally i want to try when I have a few extra $$.
How do you feel about 4 sensor body comp monitors?
I have a standard 2 sensor scale not a 4 sensor model that supposed to be more accurate0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »My scales readout started at 35 BMI and are down to 28 now. I can see I am to have to go down to 25 if my gut is going to become relatively flat. I really do not want to be below 25 should I get very sick.
Scales that show your body-fat are notoriously incorrect. I bought an expensive scale that has a lot of different features and one of them is to test your BMI. It says I am 30% bf. I was perplexed with this figure so I did a tape test and it showed me at 21% bf. I then purchased some calipers on bodybuilding.com and when they came in my friend did a 6 point skin fold test on me which showed me to be at 22% bf, I repeated this test several times to make sure.
Minties, there is no way your husband it 24% bf, he looks more like he is in the high teens, did he measure it on an electric scale? Get a cheap caliper and do a skin fold test or if you don't want to spend the extra money you can go with the slightly less accurate tape test.0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »According to my scale, my BMI is around 53-54% now (AFTER losing about 30 pounds). Yikes! I'm lucky I haven't keeled over and died yet!
There is one of the calculators that includes neck, waist, and arm measurements to help estimate your BMI. Depending on calculators, I get everything from 40-63% body fat. In reality, I'm pretty close to 45%...but my scale measures it too and it indicates that I can change from 42-52% (corresponding to hydration levels and stupid randomness about the electrical signal going through my legs, etc.)... So I don't put a lot of stock in all this.
Remember, too, that heavy Olympic bodybuilders are generally considered to be overweight, too, because BMI does not consider muscle %. They need to update this whole concept of calculations. With what, a 60% margin of error in calculations of body fat, this whole system is outdated, yet the health industry continues to use it...
I have one of those scales that measures weight, body fat, hydration, and bone mass or something like that. I have noticed that the water/hydration number is always the same, the bone mass is always the same (thankfully, right??--on occasion it goes up or down by 0.2, but that's rare), and the body fat is verrrrrry slowly going down along with the weight. I really wanted those features, but I'm not really finding them useful at all. I wish I'd just gotten a basic scale.
If it was a reliable way those things were measured, I'd be all about that. I've been told that the body fat thing you hold out in front of you is thrown off by boobs - and mine are large compared to most. Also, I have large legs, so neither of those things independently will give me legit numbers. There is a bodpod thing locally i want to try when I have a few extra $$.
How do you feel about 4 sensor body comp monitors?
I have a standard 2 sensor scale not a 4 sensor model that supposed to be more accurate
If it's still bio-electrical impedance, then it's still going to suffer the same pitfalls of all such meters -- namely hydration levels and the effects of being "an athlete."0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »According to my scale, my BMI is around 53-54% now (AFTER losing about 30 pounds). Yikes! I'm lucky I haven't keeled over and died yet!
There is one of the calculators that includes neck, waist, and arm measurements to help estimate your BMI. Depending on calculators, I get everything from 40-63% body fat. In reality, I'm pretty close to 45%...but my scale measures it too and it indicates that I can change from 42-52% (corresponding to hydration levels and stupid randomness about the electrical signal going through my legs, etc.)... So I don't put a lot of stock in all this.
Remember, too, that heavy Olympic bodybuilders are generally considered to be overweight, too, because BMI does not consider muscle %. They need to update this whole concept of calculations. With what, a 60% margin of error in calculations of body fat, this whole system is outdated, yet the health industry continues to use it...
I have one of those scales that measures weight, body fat, hydration, and bone mass or something like that. I have noticed that the water/hydration number is always the same, the bone mass is always the same (thankfully, right??--on occasion it goes up or down by 0.2, but that's rare), and the body fat is verrrrrry slowly going down along with the weight. I really wanted those features, but I'm not really finding them useful at all. I wish I'd just gotten a basic scale.
If it was a reliable way those things were measured, I'd be all about that. I've been told that the body fat thing you hold out in front of you is thrown off by boobs - and mine are large compared to most. Also, I have large legs, so neither of those things independently will give me legit numbers. There is a bodpod thing locally i want to try when I have a few extra $$.
How do you feel about 4 sensor body comp monitors?
I have a standard 2 sensor scale not a 4 sensor model that supposed to be more accurate
If it's still bio-electrical impedance, then it's still going to suffer the same pitfalls of all such meters -- namely hydration levels and the effects of being "an athlete."
Aw...
Hopes dashed
Going away to kick rocks....
0 -
BMI's not total crap, it's good for what it's meant for: a broad indicator for most of the general public. I don't have the link still, but I took an online photo quiz at some point, where they showed a variety of people and I had to vote overweight or not, and sure enough, my answers correlated pretty well with the BMI. The exceptions for people who are in good shape like @minties82 's husband are the exception not the norm. It's fun to dismiss BMI as inaccurate the same as it's fun to dismiss wikipedia as being worth a darn, but the reality is for most people it's a useful tool.
^ Definitely agree here. I think that for the most part, BMI isn't going to be accurate for people with large amounts of muscle and by definition those people are likely to be people who train hard. These are also the people who are least likely to need to worry about BMI.
That's clearly not going to be correct in all cases, but I'd suspect it to be a general trend.
I recall before I started lifting I was near obese (I'd have to check) and I thought that BMI was just crap and meaningless. Looking back on it, I was wrong.
0 -
On a given day, I have somewhere around 50lbs of fluid trapped in my legs, give or take 10 lbs. BMI is absolutely meaningless to me, but it doesn't stop my insurance or random ER/urgent care doctors from trying to beat me over the head with it.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »My scales readout started at 35 BMI and are down to 28 now. I can see I am to have to go down to 25 if my gut is going to become relatively flat. I really do not want to be below 25 should I get very sick.
Scales that show your body-fat are notoriously incorrect. I bought an expensive scale that has a lot of different features and one of them is to test your BMI. It says I am 30% bf. I was perplexed with this figure so I did a tape test and it showed me at 21% bf. I then purchased some calipers on bodybuilding.com and when they came in my friend did a 6 point skin fold test on me which showed me to be at 22% bf, I repeated this test several times to make sure.
Minties, there is no way your husband it 24% bf, he looks more like he is in the high teens, did he measure it on an electric scale? Get a cheap caliper and do a skin fold test or if you don't want to spend the extra money you can go with the slightly less accurate tape test.
My scales are relatively correct because as my weight goes down so does my BMI. My % of water goes up so maybe fat cells do not contain water.
0 -
Hmmmmm, these numbers look good to me. In the "Fat Head" video the guy stressed that the non-overweight BMI had a higher mortality rate as this study suggests.
In our church I looked at some guys that were my height (5'11") and that had never been overweight, that looked like they didn't have an ounce of fat on them, non-muscular - just normal looking guys. the results were: three guys that weighed 190-195. So that is what I set my goal weight to.
I agree with minties88. At 190, that would make my BMI 26.50, which would be perfect in my eyes. If they weighed 20 lbs less, they would be unhealthy looking, gaunt, starved, anorexic. We have a vegetarian at work, and she looks wasted, gaunt and anorexic. I'll see what her BMI is. I'll betcha its in the normal range.
I just checked mine: 5'11"
46.2 at my highest weight @ 331 lbs
32.0 now @ 227 lbs
26.5 @ my goal weight (190)
My current BMI of 32 is definitely fat! If I take my shirt off and take some pics, and posted here, and if you didn't know me, you'd probably think that I had posted my "before" pics... I still have man boobs! I still hate my fat body.
Dan the Man from Michigan0 -
I never really pay much mind to bmi, my doctors never mentioned it either when I was heavier. How does it really affect anything?
Though this thread to inspire me to find out what mine is, apparently I just broke in to normal range 24.7.
So I guess that's good, or possibly bad, I'm not really sure now. Lol0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »My scales readout started at 35 BMI and are down to 28 now. I can see I am to have to go down to 25 if my gut is going to become relatively flat. I really do not want to be below 25 should I get very sick.
Scales that show your body-fat are notoriously incorrect. I bought an expensive scale that has a lot of different features and one of them is to test your BMI. It says I am 30% bf. I was perplexed with this figure so I did a tape test and it showed me at 21% bf. I then purchased some calipers on bodybuilding.com and when they came in my friend did a 6 point skin fold test on me which showed me to be at 22% bf, I repeated this test several times to make sure.
Minties, there is no way your husband it 24% bf, he looks more like he is in the high teens, did he measure it on an electric scale? Get a cheap caliper and do a skin fold test or if you don't want to spend the extra money you can go with the slightly less accurate tape test.
I don't have a clue why you guys are using BMI and body fat percentage as interchangeable things? My BMI is 37 but my fat percentage is probably at least 45%. I am 149cm and 82.8kg, I should probably be 45kg if I were small framed (I am not).
My husband is 168cm and about 76kg I think. He definitely has a decent layer of fat around his middle. He was 69kg once and then his mid section was a lot smaller. He doesn't do any body building specifically, but does olympic lifts after work a few days a week. We don't have a clue what his body fat percentage is.0 -
My body comp scale about flew out the window the first few days I owned it
I check daily each morning and see 5 lbs of lean body mass changes sometimes. I know that is rubbish.
It is kind of good, some of the time. I would not advise a friend to buy one.
Closer to good for keeping a weekly average.
A scale and tape measure work better for my sanity check
If my 5 measures sites go down a little and weight stays close to the same , I added muscle.
I don't care about percentages.
I care about love handles and muffin top!
Ha!
Peace0 -
Most all measurements are relative and of value in some way. My BMI was 35 at the start and 27.9 this AM and scales reported a body fat % of 29. What is of interest is drinking the same amount of water my % of hydration has worked from 48% to 52% on average as my weight declined. My term life insurance renewal is up and BMI number will impact my renewal premium.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »My scales readout started at 35 BMI and are down to 28 now. I can see I am to have to go down to 25 if my gut is going to become relatively flat. I really do not want to be below 25 should I get very sick.
Scales that show your body-fat are notoriously incorrect. I bought an expensive scale that has a lot of different features and one of them is to test your BMI. It says I am 30% bf. I was perplexed with this figure so I did a tape test and it showed me at 21% bf. I then purchased some calipers on bodybuilding.com and when they came in my friend did a 6 point skin fold test on me which showed me to be at 22% bf, I repeated this test several times to make sure.
Minties, there is no way your husband it 24% bf, he looks more like he is in the high teens, did he measure it on an electric scale? Get a cheap caliper and do a skin fold test or if you don't want to spend the extra money you can go with the slightly less accurate tape test.
My scales are relatively correct because as my weight goes down so does my BMI. My % of water goes up so maybe fat cells do not contain water.
BF or BMI?
Not interchangeable, as far as I know.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/bmi-calculator/itt-20084938
I've never known a body comp (aka body fat) scale that tells you BMI (though it would be an easy easy thing to do, once it knows your height). Or am I missing something?0
This discussion has been closed.