BMI Insanity!!!

syvret

I notice a lot of people listing their BMI, and wondered how much stock people put in BMI.
My starting BMI was 41.7 (aaargh!), and in order to get to the middle of the "normal" BMI range I need to get to 22.8. Those numbers are scary enough, but my starting weight was 291, and a BMI of 22.8 would require a weight of 152. I used the NIH site (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm) for the calculator.
I am 5'10" and almost 54 years old. I am broad shouldered and not weak (muscle mass?). I have been heavy (fat) since I was about 9 years old. I don't see any chance in hell of me ever getting close to 152, and to be honest I don't want to. Even my goal weight (210) still has me just in the obese range. Opinions?

ManiacalLaugh

It bugs me to no end that the government and some doctors see the BMI as the end-all-be-all of measuring health. The scale of it is off, meaning that it's less forgiving of tall people than short people. It doesn't account for people who have more muscle mass, too. And I hate that my medical insurance company keeps calling me because my BMI is two whole points above where they'd like it. (I've decreased my BMI by 15 points, but that's apparently inconsequential to them.)

That being said, it's a good tool in a vast toolbox of scales that will help you determine where you stand. I don't want to knock it entirely. I just think there should be other considerations made before they so casually categorize people into one of three columns for overall health.

WakkoW

I think it's a great tool and that the range is quite wide. There is no reason sitting in the middle or lower end of the range is better. Some people look good at the high end and others look soft and would probably be better off with a lower number.

The only people I ever hear complain about it are those that look fat and mushy and the "swole" guys who actually have some appreciable muscle mass.

Packerjohn

You mention muscle mass. Have you lifted on a regular basis and/or do physical labor as a job? If so there could be some muscle mass playing in and 152 would be too light for you. If neither of these is the case might want to rethink body composition.

Would suggest getting closer to your goal weight and then take another assessment

Best of luck.

dietstokes

I think the BMI is mostly a good tool (except for a select few, and the select few is a very small number: however with that being said, many people seem to think they are outliers on this. They would be wrong). We are so used to seeing people overweight or obese (let alone morbidly obese) that that is now what appears "normal" in our eyes and "normal" looks sickly. Take a look at pictures of people from the 30's and 40's. Most would be considered very slight by our standards today.

For now, why don't you aim for the upper end of your BMI? When I plugged your numbers in, I got a slightly different weight than you did. I got 22.8 BMI for 159. So upper end for someone 5'10" would be 173.

grza36

BMI is a useful tool to get a rough idea of things, but it's not the be all end all. I'm actually in the opposite boat, I'm now smack dab in the middle of "healthy" for my height, but still have a higher body fat percentage than I consider to be healthy. After you've been losing weight and training for a while numbers like BMI kind of lose personal significance and at least in my case I end up paying more attention to the mirror and body fat percentage than the scale or BMI charts.

Also, not to make assumptions or anything but I think as you approach that goal weight it is possible you will begin to see lower BMIs as a valid option for you.

RevivingRachel

I don't put too much stock in BMI. I know a lot of people who don't need to lose any weight that are in the overweight range. It is because it doesn't take into account if you have a muscular build.

shadow2soul

I think it can be off depending on body composition and such. It's probably off for quite a few people.
My husband started at 260 lbs/6ft. He thought the normal range of BMI would be to light and as such he set a goal of 200 (he thought he had more muscle on him then he actually does). He is in the 180's now and is aiming for the middle of the normal BMI range for his height. When he got to 200, he realized he didn't have as much muscle as he thought and still had a lot of fat so he adjusted his goal.

For me, I know that I need to be closer to mid range of the BMI and there is even a possibility of closer to the lower end. But I spent most of my life in the normal range and only landed in the obese range (BMI 44) after a few years of marriage and a pregnancy. At the top end of healthy, I don't look bad, but I could definitely stand to lose a few pounds. I've never really been at the low end, usually hover in the middle. I'm a few pounds away from having a BMI of 22 (literally 2.3lbs away), but I'm debating between starting recomp or seeing what I look like at a BMI of 20.6 (122lbs). However, I'm also watching my estimated BF%, measurements, etc. While I'm considered healthy by BMI standards, I can tell that I still have a few lbs of fat that I could get rid of and yes my plan is to move to recomp; I just can't decide when I want to do it.


I guess the point is, I use it as a general guide, but there are other things that I take into consideration as well.

kshama2001

Ya, my goal weight will put me in Overweight as well. But I wear Women's 11 shoes and XL hats and gloves so I don't worry about it.

When I was in Boot Camp for the USAF, I had to go to the guy's side of the uniform room to get boots and hats big enough for me.

Many of my fellow airmen who lifted a lot were Overweight according to their BMI. Am drooling right now thinking of one in particular.

WakkoW

dietstokes wrote: »

I think the BMI is mostly a good tool (except for a select few, and the select few is a very small number: however with that being said, many people seem to think they are outliers on this. They would be wrong). We are so used to seeing people overweight or obese (let alone morbidly obese) that that is now what appears "normal" in our eyes and "normal" looks sickly. Take a look at pictures of people from the 30's and 40's. Most would be considered very slight by our standards today.

For now, why don't you aim for the upper end of your BMI? When I plugged your numbers in, I got a slightly different weight than you did. I got 22.8 BMI for 159. So upper end for someone 5'10" would be 173.

I agree with you. We are so used to seeing morbidly obese people everywhere that we think of obese people as being merely "overweight" and overweight people as "normal" or "skinny".

Kalikel

I think it's an excellent scale for most of us. Those Normal ranges take a variety of bodies into account. There are a few groups who can exclude themselves, but it works for for many.

It's extraordinarily important to me right now because I'm less than three pounds from being in the Normal range, where I haven't been in 25-30 years. I was at the top end of Class II Obese, went to Obese, to overweight and in a week or two, I'll be Normal again.

I can't wait.

lemurcat12

I think most people for whom BMI doesn't work (more men than women, and probably fewer of both than those who think it doesn't work for them) likely are going to be aware of it.

But ultimately I think body fat percentage is much more significant and BMI may not be at all, depending on the person. It's hard to get an accurate BF% number without paying for it (DEXA or some such), but if you honestly can judge when looking in the mirror that's likely good enough.

BMI works fine for me.

I think a lot of obese people who have been active do have quite a bit of muscle mass from carrying around all that weight. You will lose some no matter what, but if you manage to maintain most of it maybe you won't need to be light. I agree that it's premature to worry about it, though.

TimothyFish

Don't assume that "the middle" of your normal BMI range is your ideal weight. Taller or more athletic people should be near the top of the range. Shorter or less active people should be closer to the bottom. At best, BMI gives you a starting point, but it won't tell you what is ideal.

jaga13

I think it's a good tool. You can aim for the high end of your BMI range. Or, heck, even slightly above it. It would still be better than a very high number, right?

kshama2001

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I think most people for whom BMI doesn't work (more men than women, and probably fewer of both than those who think it doesn't work for them) likely are going to be aware of it.

But ultimately I think body fat percentage is much more significant and BMI may not be at all, depending on the person. It's hard to get an accurate BF% number without paying for it (DEXA or some such), but if you honestly can judge when looking in the mirror that's likely good enough.

BMI works fine for me.

I think a lot of obese people who have been active do have quite a bit of muscle mass from carrying around all that weight. You will lose some no matter what, but if you manage to maintain most of it maybe you won't need to be light. I agree that it's premature to worry about it, though.

Ya, I've always been a relatively active obese person - walking, swimming, gardening, yoga, strength training and gym cardio whenever I had a gym membership - 3.5 of the past 6 years.

Bshmerlie

Yes I also think we get use to seeing most of society as overweight. When I first started my diet I was shooting for 160 pounds at 5'5" because I would be thrilled to be that skinny. I haven't been that skinny in 15 years. But then I stopped to think about it. When I was in college I was roughly 130 pounds, I was in great shape and I looked fantastic. So why wouldn't I shoot for that? I think we would just be happy to weigh less that we settle for weighing more that we really should.

WyshIKnew

It is a generalised tool as far as I'm concerned. I have relatively short legs compared to my body, I take a short leg in trouser size.

In the pic below, if I had religiously followed BMI, it had me listed as very overweight. Providing you are 'normal' it is probably a useful tool.

I challenge anyone to say I look very overweight in the below picture! And mean it!


A slight tummy, yes but very overweight???????

tannibal_lecter

You can always find out your approximate body fat % and then calculate out your lean body mass to find out if you actually do carry around a lot of muscle. I track that instead of bmi as I find its more pertinent to MY INDIVIDUAL BODY. Even the guy who made the bmi system said it should never be used by health practitioners and is for statistics only.

Also keeping up with the changes in your lean body mass eliminates the "maybe I just put on a lot of muscle?" question when you see the numbers going up on the scale. You can actually see if it was or not.

Mrj183

The BMI is an outdated piece of *kitten*. Sure it may have slightly reflected the average middle class european 100 years ago....but come on...im samoan. At 16 i was 6"2 and already 90kg. How am i supposed to fit that? Dont pay attention to it. My whole adult life has me in the range of obese....i even recieved a letter reffering me to a heart specialist once after i changed doctors. just use the mirror, dont pay attention to numbers on scales and keep grinding away. Just take a couple small steps each week. After a few hundred steps youll be surprised how far youve gone.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

SergeantSausage

I find, generally, the folks who don't take "much stock" in BMI are the ones who need to the most.

Mostly.

minties82

My husband has a BMI of 26.something so is overweight, but is somewhat muscular and does weight lifting in the garage at least 4 times a week. He's a shining (irritating...haha) image of glowing good health. This is an older picture but still from this year. I wouldn't say he was fat.



My BMI is 36, down from 52, and I am under no illusion that I am all muscle or giant bones - har har har. I do have a large bone structure for a short person (had some determination of this done by the doc) and I am wanting to gain and maintain a decent amount of muscle structure. So instead of the...what...43kg I could safely weigh at my height, I'm aiming more for 55-60kg. 55.5kg-66.6kg is the overweight catagory for my height.

Overweight catagory doesn't frighten me. Obese class 3 did.

My 2 year old is apparently obese, despite wearing size 2 clothes and looking like other 2 year olds we meet. My 4.5 year old is quite slim and muscular for a little kid but he's verging on overweight according to BMI.

This is my obese 2 year old. Chubby - yeah...she is a toddler! Obese? Erm...seems extreme. She's followed the same growth curves since birth.

PAV8888

BMI is just a number. The interpretation of the number is where the issues of ethnicity, age, and other such come into play.

Since BMI recommendations are connected to population data... they are accurate for the vast majority of people.

Many adult male outliers appear to non casually lift weights.

If you're an athletic obese person you may be able to lose weight and with enough protein and weight-lifting slim down to a low body fat "I've been pumping iron" shape where you rock abs of steel while still sporting an overweight, or obese BMI.

Or not ;-)

You will know more as you approach your goal at which point you can re-evaluate!

Some interesting new cut off points for BMI recommendations:
http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_3.html

syvret

Thanks for all of the feedback. I will definitely look at the upper end of the range for me. I am somewhat big boned (size 13 feet, XL glove size, most hats don't fit well unless they are the XL version). Damm I sound like a mutant. I will set 210lb as my interim goal and work to/from there.