Does bmi really matters?
Replies
-
It matters to me as my Health insurance discount would be taken away if my BMI wasn't in the normal range. Actually working in the health field I've seen a lot more health insurance carriers raising premiums for workers that a)have an abnormal BMI, are smokers, c)ect... Thankfully I mange to keep my BMI between 20 to 21, so I don't need to worry about higher rates.2
-
It's a screen, so errs on the side of overweight.
Show me a person with a sub-20 BMI who is actually obese. Show me a person with a 40+ BMI who does not have fat to lose. Easy way to screen a bunch of people quickly and get to the ones that need attention/2nd look.
So true. The people who want to dismiss BMI are under the mistaken belief that BMI is supposed to be a stand-alone diagnostic with flawless results.1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »It's a screen, so errs on the side of overweight.
Show me a person with a sub-20 BMI who is actually obese. Show me a person with a 40+ BMI who does not have fat to lose. Easy way to screen a bunch of people quickly and get to the ones that need attention/2nd look.
So true. The people who want to dismiss BMI are under the mistaken belief that BMI is supposed to be a stand-alone diagnostic with flawless results.
BMI is a single piece in a huge puzzle of health for each individual. I'll use myself as an example here. My BMI is currently 37.4 at 253.3 lbs.
Now, I'll open up some of my labs to all of you.
Normal Cholesterol 158 mg/dL 125-200 mg/dL Final
Normal Triglycerides 90 mg/dL 0-150 mg/dL
Normal HDL Cholesterol 43 mg/dL 40-199 mg/dL
Normal Chol/hdlc Ratio 3.67 0.0-5.00 Final
Normal LDL (Calculated) 97 mg/dL 0-130 mg/dL
Normal non-HDL Cholesterol 113 mg/dL 0-159 mg/dL
For a total fat body I have some decent lipid panel results. WTF, impossibru?!
Normal CRP, Quantitative <0.5 mg/dL 0.0-0.8 mg/dL
Normal CMP, Serum or Plasma Normal Glucose, Fasting 78 mg/dL 65-99 mg/dL Final
Normal Bun 10 mg/dL 7-25 mg/dL Final
Normal Creatinine 1.05 mg/dL 0.60-1.35 mg/dL Final
Normal BUN/creatinine Ratio 9.5 6.0-22.0 Final
Normal Calcium 9.1 mg/dL 8.6-10.3 mg/dL Final
Normal Protein, Total 6.8 g/dL 6.1-8.1 g/dL Final
Normal Albumin 4.2 g/dL 3.6-5.1 g/dL Final
Normal Globulin 2.6 g/dL 1.9-3.7 g/dL Final
Normal A/g Ratio 1.6 1.0-2.5 Final
Normal Bilirubin, Total 0.5 mg/dL 0.2-1.2 mg/dL Final
Normal Alkaline Phosphatase 60 IU/L 40-115 IU/L Final
Normal Ast (Sgot) 16 IU/L 10-40 IU/L Final
Normal Alt (Sgpt) 19 IU/L 9-46 IU/L Final
Normal Sodium 140 mEq/L 135-146 mEq/L Final
Normal Potassium 4.9 mEq/L 3.5-5.3 mEq/L Final
Normal Chloride 105 mEq/L 98-110 mEq/L Final
Normal Co2 23 mEq/L 19-30 mEq/L Final
Normal eGFR Non-afr. American 90 >59 Final
Some factors in my overall health
On 5mg Bystolic to treat PTS induced anxiety w/ tachycardia
Essential hypertension (turned out to be rushed clinical staff) BP average of over 50 checks in 12 months by peers (other MDs/PAs, etc) = 114/68 PR avg: 64 SPO2:95% (I'm a dumb smoker)
Slight LA rigidity found in 2d Echo
Stress Test (Bruce) found no abnormalities (went for 17 minutes BTW)
128 slice CT angiogram found no problems aka blockages
16x EKGs, all normal
Non-toxic mild goiter
I do 3-4 days of vigorous weight training a week coupled with 2 days of 60 minute HIIT routines. My HR is between 122-148 whenever I work out.
Still not a truly complete picture, but you get the idea.
0 -
BMI is way out dated, it was made up by a Belgian dude between 1830 and 1850! It's that old.
According to BMI I should really clean up my diet and loose weight.. but according to my body fat % and the mirror I'd be skinny if I tried to loose as much weight as BMI tells me I should loose.0 -
It works for me2
-
Lol! Weights and measures were invented thousands of years ago, guess those are outdated too.2
-
It matters to me as my Health insurance discount would be taken away if my BMI wasn't in the normal range. Actually working in the health field I've seen a lot more health insurance carriers raising premiums for workers that a)have an abnormal BMI, are smokers, c)ect... Thankfully I mange to keep my BMI between 20 to 21, so I don't need to worry about higher rates.
And THIS is a true problem for Americans - insurance co's shouldn't be doing that. Imagine you got a pre-cancer screen test and it came back positive (which doesn't mean you have Cancer, just that you require further tests). BMI is the same thing. It defines "Definitely not fat" and "Maybe fat" and then above 30 "Almost surely fat". It's not a conclusion.
1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »It's a screen, so errs on the side of overweight.
Show me a person with a sub-20 BMI who is actually obese. Show me a person with a 40+ BMI who does not have fat to lose. Easy way to screen a bunch of people quickly and get to the ones that need attention/2nd look.
So true. The people who want to dismiss BMI are under the mistaken belief that BMI is supposed to be a stand-alone diagnostic with flawless results.
The problem is that insurance companies would love to misuse the BMI for a stand-alone diagnostic when setting rates for individuals. BMI when used correctly as a statistical measure for a population and trend analysis is fine, when used and applied to an individual as a definitive measure, not so good.0 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »It's a screen, so errs on the side of overweight.
Show me a person with a sub-20 BMI who is actually obese. Show me a person with a 40+ BMI who does not have fat to lose. Easy way to screen a bunch of people quickly and get to the ones that need attention/2nd look.
So true. The people who want to dismiss BMI are under the mistaken belief that BMI is supposed to be a stand-alone diagnostic with flawless results.
The problem is that insurance companies would love to misuse the BMI for a stand-alone diagnostic when setting rates for individuals. BMI when used correctly as a statistical measure for a population and trend analysis is fine, when used and applied to an individual as a definitive measure, not so good.
Then take it up with the insurance companies. BMI is a useful tool regardless of equivocation or extreme examples.0 -
I always understood BMI to be good for use against population figures, but very unreliable for the individual.
All of the outliers at either end get averaged out and it becomes more reliable.
For me personally its nonsense.
Im not particularly muscular, I dont have a low body fat, in general fitness terms Im quite average (I would guess).
I currently weigh 12st 7lbs and feel my ideal is somewhere around/just under 12st. So, yes, I do stand to lose a bit of weight, but nothing substantial.
The issue is that Im short and stocky built.
My current BMI is 28.2, in the upper end of "over weight" and bordering on "obese". And recommending I weigh between 8st 3lbs - 11st 2lbs.
When I initially lost weight I did so with MFP and no exercise at all. I got to 11st 7lbs (BMI 25.9, lower end of 'Overweight') and did not like what I saw at all. I was gaunt, bony, skinnyfat...
I can assure you were I to hit the very top of my healthy range any one of you to see me would think I had a terminal illness!
I started exercising, put on some muscle, put on more fat, and look a hell of a lot healthier for it. When I get myself back down to the 12st range Im aiming for Ill still be Overweight (BMI 27.1, middle of 'overweight' range) but I will be healthy, Ill look athletic, Ill be fitter than Ive ever been and I most certainly wont be paying any attention at all to BMI.0 -
For me the bmi has been fairly accurate tool for indicating a healthy weight range. I feel and look my best when I am within that range. I am a 5'4" non-athletic woman.
If someone is healthy and feels good at a higher bmi then I don't think it matters. It won't be a perfect tool for everyone.0 -
I never paid attention to BMI. Read an article one time that said a lot of the guys who play in the NBA if you went by BMI their BMI level is unhealthy. To me that sums it up perfectly it's a subjective value.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »BMI matters and can be a good general indicator, especially for females since they can't put on enough muscle mass naturally to be classed as obese. Slightly over normal is fine for some, and slightly under normal is fine for someone very small framed.
Males are a little different, they can creep up a little higher on the BMI scale due to muscle if they train, but I believe that those who can reach a weight high enough to be considered obese (over 30 BMI) naturally and purely from muscle are outliers and a scale of averages does not apply to them. This does not discredit BMI as a good general gauge, it only makes them an exception to the rule.
In general, it's just one of the tools that give you a more complete general idea. So if you consider BMI, body fat and waist circumference you get a better idea of your overall health. I think a new "overweight" and "obese" BMI cut off points should be designed specifically for athletes, but until then common sense is good enough.
Love this post.
It's also important to note that on a site like this one, you're more likely to end up talking to one of the "outliers" than you would in daily life not on MFP. This is kind of where they hang out! Meaning the population of outliers is higher on MFP than off MFP. This is a fitness site after all.0 -
samhennings wrote: »I always understood BMI to be good for use against population figures, but very unreliable for the individual.
All of the outliers at either end get averaged out and it becomes more reliable.
For me personally its nonsense.
Im not particularly muscular, I dont have a low body fat, in general fitness terms Im quite average (I would guess).
I currently weigh 12st 7lbs and feel my ideal is somewhere around/just under 12st. So, yes, I do stand to lose a bit of weight, but nothing substantial.
The issue is that Im short and stocky built.
My current BMI is 28.2, in the upper end of "over weight" and bordering on "obese". And recommending I weigh between 8st 3lbs - 11st 2lbs.
When I initially lost weight I did so with MFP and no exercise at all. I got to 11st 7lbs (BMI 25.9, lower end of 'Overweight') and did not like what I saw at all. I was gaunt, bony, skinnyfat...
I can assure you were I to hit the very top of my healthy range any one of you to see me would think I had a terminal illness!
I started exercising, put on some muscle, put on more fat, and look a hell of a lot healthier for it. When I get myself back down to the 12st range Im aiming for Ill still be Overweight (BMI 27.1, middle of 'overweight' range) but I will be healthy, Ill look athletic, Ill be fitter than Ive ever been and I most certainly wont be paying any attention at all to BMI.
But, this might also be an issue of perception. I do not know you and it is impossible for me to comment on your situation, so take this more as a general comment inspired by your post. I have heard such opinions about people looking too thin or their body being "compact" so them needing to put on more weight. From people describing themselves, to parents commenting on their kids. I am no medical expert, but 9 times out of 10, in my personal opinion, these people who think they are too thin and BMI does not apply to them or their kids, they are in fact exactly as obese as BMI indicates they are.
To give a few personal examples, my grandma grew up really skinny, ended up being also too short because of literally starving (survivor of 3 wars). As a result, as an adult when she finally had the means to eat well, she always felt more secure being overweight and whenever she saw someone thin (as in healthy thin, not malnourished) she always insisted this person needs to gain weight. It was not only my grandma, it was all her generation and this attitude did pass to many of their own kids: that being overweight is what is normal and "good".
I have a neighbour whose kids are all into sports. They are definitely athletic, have muscle and stamina. They are also all very overweight. My neighbour is upset every time their coaches give advice about losing weight. More than once she has switched the kids to different activities because "the football coach was an idiot and wanted me to starve my kid, can't he see the kid is all muscle" or "that swimming team, they want the kids to look like supermodels, my daughter has so much muscle that bathing suits just are not made for her body type". Truth is not all the coaches were idiots, and there is a lot of fat over the kids muscle, I have heard other kids refer to them as "the fat kids", being fit does not mean you are automatically thin. But their parents just cannot see it, their normal meter is broken.
5 -
martyqueen52 wrote: »The BMI is a broken scale. It literally should removed from history.
According to Navy standards you can be 300lbs out of shape, health issues out the butt..... but if you lift and your neck is so many inches, and your waist is x (can't remember the exact numbers) then the person who lifts is considered obese while the 300lber is applicable to the Navy.
Anyhow, I'm considered obese according to the BMI.... I guess my abs are made of jelly.
I wouldn't call BMI a broken scale. Like most things it has it's limitations. It's a good indicator of weight for the average person and it's a good tool for those who are overweight or underweight to use as a gauge; however, as I said it has it's limitations. For example it's just a number scale it can't determine the difference between fat and muscle. That's why it's a tool and not an be all end all. For people who have lower body fat and higher muscle content your doctor will determine whether your weight is healthy as the BMI scale becomes rather obsolete.
But for someone who is over weight or underweight it's a good thing to use for goals. For example if I lose x amount of pounds I will go from being obese to just overweight on the BMI scale and it will feel really good once you get below that mark!0 -
samhennings wrote: »I always understood BMI to be good for use against population figures, but very unreliable for the individual.
All of the outliers at either end get averaged out and it becomes more reliable.
For me personally its nonsense.
Im not particularly muscular, I dont have a low body fat, in general fitness terms Im quite average (I would guess).
I currently weigh 12st 7lbs and feel my ideal is somewhere around/just under 12st. So, yes, I do stand to lose a bit of weight, but nothing substantial.
The issue is that Im short and stocky built.
My current BMI is 28.2, in the upper end of "over weight" and bordering on "obese". And recommending I weigh between 8st 3lbs - 11st 2lbs.
When I initially lost weight I did so with MFP and no exercise at all. I got to 11st 7lbs (BMI 25.9, lower end of 'Overweight') and did not like what I saw at all. I was gaunt, bony, skinnyfat...
I can assure you were I to hit the very top of my healthy range any one of you to see me would think I had a terminal illness!
I started exercising, put on some muscle, put on more fat, and look a hell of a lot healthier for it. When I get myself back down to the 12st range Im aiming for Ill still be Overweight (BMI 27.1, middle of 'overweight' range) but I will be healthy, Ill look athletic, Ill be fitter than Ive ever been and I most certainly wont be paying any attention at all to BMI.
But, this might also be an issue of perception. I do not know you and it is impossible for me to comment on your situation, so take this more as a general comment inspired by your post. I have heard such opinions about people looking too thin or their body being "compact" so them needing to put on more weight. From people describing themselves, to parents commenting on their kids. I am no medical expert, but 9 times out of 10, in my personal opinion, these people who think they are too thin and BMI does not apply to them or their kids, they are in fact exactly as obese as BMI indicates they are.
To give a few personal examples, my grandma grew up really skinny, ended up being also too short because of literally starving (survivor of 3 wars). As a result, as an adult when she finally had the means to eat well, she always felt more secure being overweight and whenever she saw someone thin (as in healthy thin, not malnourished) she always insisted this person needs to gain weight. It was not only my grandma, it was all her generation and this attitude did pass to many of their own kids: that being overweight is what is normal and "good".
I have a neighbour whose kids are all into sports. They are definitely athletic, have muscle and stamina. They are also all very overweight. My neighbour is upset every time their coaches give advice about losing weight. More than once she has switched the kids to different activities because "the football coach was an idiot and wanted me to starve my kid, can't he see the kid is all muscle" or "that swimming team, they want the kids to look like supermodels, my daughter has so much muscle that bathing suits just are not made for her body type". Truth is not all the coaches were idiots, and there is a lot of fat over the kids muscle, I have heard other kids refer to them as "the fat kids", being fit does not mean you are automatically thin. But their parents just cannot see it, their normal meter is broken.
I totally get where you are coming from, and respect that view. Perceptions are often quite skewed arent they? And Ive seen many people I would consider still over weight talking as if they are wasting away.
In my case its not that Im especially lean or muscular or any of that. I am well aware I stand to lose some weight, its more that to get to the upper end of the healthy range would leave me looking quite seriously ill.
At 11st 7lbs my face was sinking in, I was very gaunt, I was weak as well. It wasnt even close to a healthy look for me. To lose a further half a stone would not have been a good thing for me at all.
I am 5'6", a 32" waist (nearer 31) and am broad shouldered. According to BMI, because of my height, I should be built like a school child. Thats the problem with correlating height and weight, there is no allowance for build.
As per the NBA example above, I often cite Rugby players as an example. Extremely fit, healthy and strong, and yet classified as obese. I would be very happy to be that sort of obese!0 -
STEVE142142 wrote: »I never paid attention to BMI. Read an article one time that said a lot of the guys who play in the NBA if you went by BMI their BMI level is unhealthy. To me that sums it up perfectly it's a subjective value.
And how many people are built like world class athletes.
Walk around a walmart or theme park you will find it isn't many. These are the people where bmi is a reasonable measure.3 -
samhennings wrote: »samhennings wrote: »I always understood BMI to be good for use against population figures, but very unreliable for the individual.
All of the outliers at either end get averaged out and it becomes more reliable.
For me personally its nonsense.
Im not particularly muscular, I dont have a low body fat, in general fitness terms Im quite average (I would guess).
I currently weigh 12st 7lbs and feel my ideal is somewhere around/just under 12st. So, yes, I do stand to lose a bit of weight, but nothing substantial.
The issue is that Im short and stocky built.
My current BMI is 28.2, in the upper end of "over weight" and bordering on "obese". And recommending I weigh between 8st 3lbs - 11st 2lbs.
When I initially lost weight I did so with MFP and no exercise at all. I got to 11st 7lbs (BMI 25.9, lower end of 'Overweight') and did not like what I saw at all. I was gaunt, bony, skinnyfat...
I can assure you were I to hit the very top of my healthy range any one of you to see me would think I had a terminal illness!
I started exercising, put on some muscle, put on more fat, and look a hell of a lot healthier for it. When I get myself back down to the 12st range Im aiming for Ill still be Overweight (BMI 27.1, middle of 'overweight' range) but I will be healthy, Ill look athletic, Ill be fitter than Ive ever been and I most certainly wont be paying any attention at all to BMI.
But, this might also be an issue of perception. I do not know you and it is impossible for me to comment on your situation, so take this more as a general comment inspired by your post. I have heard such opinions about people looking too thin or their body being "compact" so them needing to put on more weight. From people describing themselves, to parents commenting on their kids. I am no medical expert, but 9 times out of 10, in my personal opinion, these people who think they are too thin and BMI does not apply to them or their kids, they are in fact exactly as obese as BMI indicates they are.
To give a few personal examples, my grandma grew up really skinny, ended up being also too short because of literally starving (survivor of 3 wars). As a result, as an adult when she finally had the means to eat well, she always felt more secure being overweight and whenever she saw someone thin (as in healthy thin, not malnourished) she always insisted this person needs to gain weight. It was not only my grandma, it was all her generation and this attitude did pass to many of their own kids: that being overweight is what is normal and "good".
I have a neighbour whose kids are all into sports. They are definitely athletic, have muscle and stamina. They are also all very overweight. My neighbour is upset every time their coaches give advice about losing weight. More than once she has switched the kids to different activities because "the football coach was an idiot and wanted me to starve my kid, can't he see the kid is all muscle" or "that swimming team, they want the kids to look like supermodels, my daughter has so much muscle that bathing suits just are not made for her body type". Truth is not all the coaches were idiots, and there is a lot of fat over the kids muscle, I have heard other kids refer to them as "the fat kids", being fit does not mean you are automatically thin. But their parents just cannot see it, their normal meter is broken.
I totally get where you are coming from, and respect that view. Perceptions are often quite skewed arent they? And Ive seen many people I would consider still over weight talking as if they are wasting away.
In my case its not that Im especially lean or muscular or any of that. I am well aware I stand to lose some weight, its more that to get to the upper end of the healthy range would leave me looking quite seriously ill.
At 11st 7lbs my face was sinking in, I was very gaunt, I was weak as well. It wasnt even close to a healthy look for me. To lose a further half a stone would not have been a good thing for me at all.
I am 5'6", a 32" waist (nearer 31) and am broad shouldered. According to BMI, because of my height, I should be built like a school child. Thats the problem with correlating height and weight, there is no allowance for build.
As per the NBA example above, I often cite Rugby players as an example. Extremely fit, healthy and strong, and yet classified as obese. I would be very happy to be that sort of obese!
I'm on the other side, I fit tidily into BMI standards when I am a little fatter than I am comfortable with, or when I am muscled - when thin and lean, I am classed as "underweight". It doesn't look bad, it looks tall and thin and healthy. BUT I have bird-light bones from anorexia as a teen, and thin wrists, though normal frame in terms of shoulders/ribs/etc. so this makes sense to me, I'm sort of an outlier in that way.
I think for those at the edges like this, lean body mass vs body fat is a better measure than pounds. As long as I am close to 20% body fat, and feel lean, I am not actually worried that I am too thin or too fat, health-wise. I have a daughter who is 2" shorter than me and can carry 20 more pounds and still look very lean and athletic, same 20% bodyfat or lower. I can imagine someone with a different build at the same height could carry 40lbs more than me and still that low bodyfat percentage.
I don't, however, think it's ever healthy to carry around too much fat, or to have too little, and agree with user aggelikik that people's perception gets screwed, normal is fat now so healthy thin ends up looking too thin; and also people overestimate frame size when they are fat because shoulders and hips look wider than they are, skeleton-wise.
0 -
@robininfl my brother in law is similar. Over 6 feet tall and naturally very thin. Perfectly healthy but of course an outlier on the BMI scales.
This is where I think it is useful when applied to a population, people like you, me and him, all kind of average out to the "norm".
To an indidual though, as we show, it can be very unreliable in my opinion.
I, too, am looking at it more from a body fat % angle now. I still have a way to go before getting where I want to be - around that 20% mark, but Im a lot happier with that as a scale of how I am doing than BMI.
0 -
@ samhennings, oh and you said rugby players.... Leigh Halfpenny, OMG yes, please. 5'10" and 187, hot as anything, strong and fit, not fat, but he's 27 and does nothing but play sport and work out as his job. That is not the lifestyle of a normal human person! I don't think it's reasonable to say that body type can make that kind of difference. That's lifestyle.0
-
Of course its a more extreme example, but the point stands - BMI hasnt enough nuance to accomodate people who are outliers. So, for me, its not worth paying attention too.
Of course there are plenty of people who sit within its parameters comfortably and for them its useful.
I just think its important to recognise it isnt a "one size fits all" solution, and to try and work out how you* fit in with it.
*you being "you" as in "someone", not necessarily you directly!0 -
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, because I've noticed so many people on MFP commenting on how if they were in the healthy BMI range they'd look "sick" or "too thin." I do think that, in general, people's perceptions of what is a healthy weight are way off these days. I've also wondered if, perhaps, MFP has a higher percentage of outliers than you'd find in the general population. That, in combination with skewed perceptions of weight, could be why so many on MFP seem to think the BMI scale is inaccurate.
BMI is based on statistics. Most will fall under the curve, and then there will be outliers. Outliers don't negate BMI as a tool to identify healthy/overweight/obese weights, especially given how large a range each of those categories is. BMI is one statistical tool, and there are other tools (like waist-hip ratio) to determine whether someone is at a healthy weight. When someone is out of range on one, they might be in range on another. That's why I believe that BMI should never be taken as a standalone indicator of healthy weight, even for people who are in the healthy BMI range.1 -
samhennings wrote: »Of course its a more extreme example, but the point stands - BMI hasnt enough nuance to accomodate people who are outliers. So, for me, its not worth paying attention too.
Of course there are plenty of people who sit within its parameters comfortably and for them its useful.
I just think its important to recognise it isnt a "one size fits all" solution, and to try and work out how you* fit in with it.
*you being "you" as in "someone", not necessarily you directly!
See, you can't dismiss a scale just because someone who is atypical does not fit it perfectly. As per the example above a young man who is nicely muscled and does sports for a living is classified as slightly overweight because he has bigger muscles. A scale would be broken when someone of normal body fat is somehow classified as morbidly obese and if more people than not did not fall within the general expected ranges.
My BMR is lower than the average woman with my stats due to certain medical issues. Does that mean BMR calculations are inherently flawed and that a calorie is not a calorie? No. All it means is that I need to make adjustments to the calculations to fit my specific case. Similarly, an outlier could shift the cut off points to fit their particular case.
Almost nothing is a "one size fits all", and BMI is no different.2 -
I agree. Regarding the bolded, I think the same could be said for other things with health, most notably when it comes to strength standards.I've been thinking about this a lot lately, because I've noticed so many people on MFP commenting on how if they were in the healthy BMI range they'd look "sick" or "too thin." I do think that, in general, people's perceptions of what is a healthy weight are way off these days. I've also wondered if, perhaps, MFP has a higher percentage of outliers than you'd find in the general population. That, in combination with skewed perceptions of weight, could be why so many on MFP seem to think the BMI scale is inaccurate.
BMI is based on statistics. Most will fall under the curve, and then there will be outliers. Outliers don't negate BMI as a tool to identify healthy/overweight/obese weights, especially given how large a range each of those categories is. BMI is one statistical tool, and there are other tools (like waist-hip ratio) to determine whether someone is at a healthy weight. When someone is out of range on one, they might be in range on another. That's why I believe that BMI should never be taken as a standalone indicator of healthy weight, even for people who are in the healthy BMI range.
0 -
BMI might work well for the nonathletic masses but doesn't work well for anyone that is sports or fitness focused.0
-
My husband carries a lot of muscle, but he's short. He has very little body fat. When he went for his check up at the doctor's he told him according to the BMI chart he was considered obese. My husband has visible abs. The doctor clearly told him that the BMI chart wouldn't work for him. He could tell this by looking at him. So yes it is flawed.0
-
Re the last 2 posts - no, that doesn't mean it is flawed. It means it is a tool to be used in conjunction with clinical picture.
That is like saying height charts are flawed because someone has dwarfism or is a double amputee and the height chart says they are the height of a child - when, obviously anybody seeing the person would realise they are an exception who would sit outside the parameters.
It doesn't change the adult height standards for everyone else though.
Likewise outliers such as very muscular athletes do not change the BMI standards for everyone else.
If you are not a very muscular athlete and your BMI Says you are obese - almost certainly you Are Obese.
3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Of course its a more extreme example, but the point stands - BMI hasnt enough nuance to accomodate people who are outliers. So, for me, its not worth paying attention too.
Of course there are plenty of people who sit within its parameters comfortably and for them its useful.
I just think its important to recognise it isnt a "one size fits all" solution, and to try and work out how you* fit in with it.
*you being "you" as in "someone", not necessarily you directly!
See, you can't dismiss a scale just because someone who is atypical does not fit it perfectly. As per the example above a young man who is nicely muscled and does sports for a living is classified as slightly overweight because he has bigger muscles. A scale would be broken when someone of normal body fat is somehow classified as morbidly obese and if more people than not did not fall within the general expected ranges.
My BMR is lower than the average woman with my stats due to certain medical issues. Does that mean BMR calculations are inherently flawed and that a calorie is not a calorie? No. All it means is that I need to make adjustments to the calculations to fit my specific case. Similarly, an outlier could shift the cut off points to fit their particular case.
Almost nothing is a "one size fits all", and BMI is no different.
The first thing I said in this thread is that BMI works well across a population, but can be flawed for the individual.
I have recognised for many individuals its perfectly fine - but for me personally it is not and therefore I pay no mind to it.
It has me as bordering on obese, and I am most certainly not. WHILE not being a lean, muscular athlete either.
And as I have said, were I to follow the BMI scale and get into a healthy weight range, right at the top of healthy, I would be anything but. I would be skeletal.
I am wide, broad. A classic stocky build. BMI assumes me to be narrow in line with my being short. It just doesnt work for me.0 -
Body Fat percentage isn't the be all measure either.
Lots of posts saying I have high BMI but low body fat.
Yes, you are probably better off than a person who is the same BMI and high fat, but ultimately, your heart still has to pump blood round a bigger body.
Your joints still have to support the same weight, whether it's fat or muscle. Yes, a muscular person will likely have joints a little stronger, but joint size doesn't increase proportionally with muscle mass.
BMI is just a general health measure, and whilst being less fat will likely mean you are less predisposed to diabetes or high cholesterol, you can still suffer other effects, like extra stress on the heart, or joints. Sure there are outliers, but as a general measure, it's not bad compared to anything else we have right now.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
- 96.3K 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