SmartBMI
Replies
-
Both my bmi and my "smart" bmi are 23.2. Maybe because I'm middle aged (36)? Not seeing how the "smart" bmi is any different... Is it just the ranges are different, not the actual number that gets spit out?0
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »Both my bmi and my "smart" bmi are 23.2. Maybe because I'm middle aged (36)? Not seeing how the "smart" bmi is any different... Is it just the ranges are different, not the actual number that gets spit out?
It's the interpretation that is different, the calculation is the same. It looks like, to me, that they give a wider range of normal or healthy weights as you age, and that the overall healthy range is larger because being mildly overweight, in terms of BMI, is relatively low-risk for the various factors that they typically look at in association with being overweight or obese.2 -
I don't know if SmartBMI is better but BMI is total rubbish.
I am 5'8" and 163.4# w/16% BF which gives me a BMI of 24.8 barely w/in the normal range. At 165, I 'd be considered overweight at 25.1 and wouldn't reach the middle of the normal range unless I lost 20# more. I'd lose all of my muscle mass and look anorexic at that weight. That's complete nonsense! So, I put absolutely no stock in BMI.
I think it might be a good tool for those of us who are pretty normal body type or even a little flabby.
I mean, I KNOW my weight isn't because of muscles or thick bones. Other people are obviously going to be different. Not really knowing my BF% though, I guess I don't know for sure that it isn't about right. 1 -
I don't know if SmartBMI is better but BMI is total rubbish.
I am 5'8" and 163.4# w/16% BF which gives me a BMI of 24.8 barely w/in the normal range. At 165, I 'd be considered overweight at 25.1 and wouldn't reach the middle of the normal range unless I lost 20# more. I'd lose all of my muscle mass and look anorexic at that weight. That's complete nonsense! So, I put absolutely no stock in BMI.
You do know that the majority of people are not like you and don't have much muscle mass. It's accurate for the vast majority of people so it isn't rubbish. It's rubbish for you.7 -
middlehaitch wrote: »A slightly higher BMI is often recommended for those who are older. The reasoning is that as one ages (55-60+), one is more likely to have illness and injury. The extra fat can be used if eating adequate calories is a problem.
Could you link to the BMI calculator please. Just curious.
Cheers, h.
I'm only 33, though....
Here's the link
smartbmicalculator.com/
Never used that site before-just did it and it says I'm good I guess-"This assessment is based on the newly developed Smart Body Mass Index (SBMI). Its ideal range is between 30/70 and 39/70. Your SBMI is 33/70 or "33 points out of 70" "
My 'regular' bmi is 21 and I'm 38 years old/female.0 -
Mmm I tried it but no real difference really. Normal BMI calculator gets me 22.2 and this one is 22.1.
I think BMI calculators are great as a guideline, I know there's exceptions, so it won't work for everyone, but I'm sure for the majority of people it's a pretty handy tool.1 -
Don't use BMI. "SmartBMI" is an oxymoron.
"Body Mass Index" was not meant to be used on individuals but for groups and populations.
BMI implies elite bodybuilders and fitness models are obese.
BMI is simply a lazy method to categorize people that tells you nothing abut their actual fitness level or health.
Have your body fat measured and go from there. A dunk tank is best.
If you cannot find someone to help you measure your body fat properly then get a cloth tape measure.
Measure your waist at the naval/belly button every Wednesday morning after you use the bathroom but before you eat or drink anything.
Track it consistently. Use this table to estimate your number:
http://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-to-determine-the-number-of-calories-you-should-eat-1693372946
As long as your waist size is going down a 1/2 inch or so every few weeks then you are probably on the right track.
You can then plug your numbers into here to see how much you should be eating:
https://legionathletics.com/macronutrient-calculator/
Stick to 40% carbs, 40% protein and 20% fat for now, unless you have very specific training goals and know what you are doing.
No more than a 20% or 25% deficit. Try to under-estimate your activity level.
Use MFP to track what you eat.
Make sure you are weight training so you are not losing more muscle than fat.
Usually you should be doing more weight training than cardio.
Failure to do this means at least 1/2 the weight you lose will be muscle.
You are far more likely to put on fat -and therefor increase your body fat percentage- if you regain any weight.
In other words, if you "lose 10 pounds" then 5 lbs of that could be fat and 5 lbs could be muscle.
If you are not weight training hard enough and you regain those 10 lbs back then it will probably be 10 lbs of fat, which lowers your metabolic rate and makes it harder to "re-lose" those 10 pounds of fat.
It is a vicious cycle. One of the few ways to minimize the threat it is through weight lifting.
People that tell you otherwise are probably selling something, scared of hard work and/or spreading misinformation.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »A simple way of getting an idea of your frame size is to do this:
Take your thumb and middle finger and attempt to wrap them around your wrist at its narrowest point (assuming you don't have a lot of fat on your wrist and can actually feel the bone). If your fingers touch barely you have an average frame. If your fingers overlap you have a small frame. If your fingers don't touch at all you have a larger frame. Basically you are trying to measure the girth of your bones where your bone is most of the diameter of that part of your body (which is why its measured at your wrist which is basically just bone).
If I do that I can put my thumb completely over the nail of my middle finger.
Just commenting on this to say that the "fingers wrapped around the wrist" method isn't really accurate. Measuring your wrist and comparing it to charts would probably be better.
For example, I'm 6'0" and my wrist measurement is 6.75", which is solidly in the large frame category. My thumb and pinkie can touch when I wrap them around my wrist. My thumb can overlap the other fingers when I try them, which would put me in the small frame category. My wrists are bony though, so I trust the measurements. I just have extra long hands/fingers, so the finger-wrap test doesn't work.3 -
Don't use BMI. "SmartBMI" is an oxymoron.
It was not meant to be used on individuals but for groups and populations.
BMI implies elite bodybuilders and fitness models are obese.
BMI is simply a lazy method to categorize people that tells you nothing abut their actual fitness level or health.
Have your body fat measured and go from there. A dunk tank is best.
If you cannot find someone to help you measure your body fat properly then get a cloth tape measure.
Measure your waist at the naval/belly button every Wednesday morning after you use the bathroom but before you eat or drink anything.
Track it consistently. Use this table to estimate your number:
http://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-to-determine-the-number-of-calories-you-should-eat-1693372946
As long as your waist size is going down a 1/2 inch or so every few weeks then you are probably on the right track.
Make sure you are weight training so you are not losing more muscle than fat.
Usually you should be doing more weight training than cardio.
Failure to do this means about 1/2 the weight you lose will be muscle.
That means you are more likely to put on more fat -and therefor increase your body fat percentage- if you regain any weight.
It is a vicious circle. One of the few ways to minimize the threat it is through weight lifting.
My waist circumference was measured by a medical professional a few weeks ago-going by the link you gave, my 25 inch waist puts my bf% at 15 percent. I question if that's accurate, since I'm a mostly sedentary 38 year old female who's pear shaped.
For me personally (and for my doctor), bmi has been a pretty solid tool throughout my weight loss phase and now maintenance.
2 -
By definition I said it was an estimate in case you cannot have your body fat tested.crzycatlady1 wrote: »My waist circumference was measured by a medical professional a few weeks ago-going by the link you gave, my 25 inch waist puts my bf% at 15 percent. I question if that's accurate, since I'm a mostly sedentary 38 year old female who's pear shaped.
For me personally (and for my doctor), bmi has been a pretty solid tool throughout my weight loss phase and now maintenance.
I also said to track the number and make sure it was consistently going down every few weeks.
I am trying to imagine what a 25-inch navel on a pear shaped person looks like and I am failing.
That being said, I specifically say to measure at the belly button.
I am guessing that is not where the "medical professional" -who probably knows less about fitness than most of the people on MFP- measured your "waist circumference."0 -
By definition I said it was an estimate in case you cannot have your body fat tested.crzycatlady1 wrote: »My waist circumference was measured by a medical professional a few weeks ago-going by the link you gave, my 25 inch waist puts my bf% at 15 percent. I question if that's accurate, since I'm a mostly sedentary 38 year old female who's pear shaped.
For me personally (and for my doctor), bmi has been a pretty solid tool throughout my weight loss phase and now maintenance.
I also said to track the number and make sure it was consistently going down every few weeks.
But bmi will go down as you lose weight as well. I guess I'm not seeing why one tracking method is better than the other. Bmi has its issues but so does the waist tracking method-it does not take into consideration that I'm pear shaped and carry my extra weight in my thighs and bum, for example.1 -
You fail to understand that losing weight should not be your goal.crzycatlady1 wrote: »But bmi will go down as you lose weight as well.
Your goal should be losing fat while maintaining -or preferably, increasing- muscle mass.
If you lose 5 lbs of fat and replace it with 5 lbs of muscle then your "BMI" will not change at all but you will look much better and have increased your basal metabolic rate.
If you lose 10 lbs of fat and replace it with 5 lbs of muscle then the small change in "BMI" will not be an accurate reflection of the results you see in the mirror.
If you just lose "10 pounds" then about 5 pounds of that will usually be lean body mass ("muscle") and you will have done more harm than good in the long run:
1) Your metabolism is lowered, so it is harder to lose more "weight"
2) You have decreased your capacity for exercise
3) You have put your body into a stress state which makes it want to put the weight back on as soon as possible ("homeostasis")
Now if you put 10 pounds back on over the holidays, do you think it will be "fat" or that somehow it will magically be muscle?
So, now your "BMI" is exactly the same as when you started, but you have 5 pounds less muscle and 5 pounds more fat.
I doubt that is really your intent.
If the tape measure bothers you then have your body fat checked with calipers or a dunk tank.
You want your body fat to be going down, not your weight.
The most simple way to check that is to notice that your waist is shrinking.
"Most simple" is not the same as "most accurate".
It does not matter where you "carry" your weight anyway.
You cannot spot reduce body fat unless you get liposuction.3 -
By definition I said it was an estimate in case you cannot have your body fat tested.crzycatlady1 wrote: »My waist circumference was measured by a medical professional a few weeks ago-going by the link you gave, my 25 inch waist puts my bf% at 15 percent. I question if that's accurate, since I'm a mostly sedentary 38 year old female who's pear shaped.
For me personally (and for my doctor), bmi has been a pretty solid tool throughout my weight loss phase and now maintenance.
I also said to track the number and make sure it was consistently going down every few weeks.
I am trying to imagine what a 25-inch navel on a pear shaped person looks like and I am failing.
That being said, I specifically say to measure at the belly button.
I am guessing that is not where the "medical professional" -who probably knows less about fitness than most of the people on MFP- measured your "waist circumference."
I get 18% on an hourglass frame. Yeah, no. I'm somewhere around 24%, which is cool, because I'm old.
Also, your 50% muscle loss on your more/less exercise balance recommendation? What about 50/50 cardio weights? What happens then?
Dude, I get the importance of resistance training and am quite pleased with my body composition for having done it while losing weight. My body doesn't align with what you've said here.2 -
You fail to understand that losing weight should not be your goal.crzycatlady1 wrote: »But bmi will go down as you lose weight as well.
Your goal should be losing fat while maintaining -or preferably, increasing- muscle mass.
If you lose 5 lbs of fat and replace it with 5 lbs of muscle then your "BMI" will not change at all but you will look much better and have increased your basal metabolic rate.
If you lose 10 lbs of fat and replace it with 5 lbs of muscle then the small change in "BMI" will not be an accurate reflection of the results you see in the mirror.
If you just lose "10 pounds" then about 5 pounds of that will usually be lean body mass ("muscle") and you will have done more harm than good in the long run:
1) Your metabolism is lowered, so it is harder to lose more "weight"
2) You have decreased your capacity for exercise
3) You have put your body into a stress state which makes it want to put the weight back on as soon as possible ("homeostasis")
Now if you put 10 pounds back on over the holidays, do you think it will be "fat" or that somehow it will magically be muscle?
So, now your "BMI" is exactly the same as when you started, but you have 5 pounds less muscle and 5 pounds more fat.
I doubt that is really your intent.
If the tape measure bothers you then have your body fat checked with calipers or a dunk tank.
You want your body fat to be going down, not your weight.
The most simple way to check that is to notice that your waist is shrinking.
"Most simple" is not the same as "most accurate".
It does not matter where you "carry" your weight anyway.
You cannot spot reduce body fat unless you get liposuction.
No woman is going to put on 5 pounds of muscle in a deficit.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Also, your 50% muscle loss on your more/less exercise balance recommendation? What about 50/50 cardio weights? What happens then?
Dude, I get the importance of resistance training and am quite pleased with my body composition for having done it while losing weight. My body doesn't align with what you've said here.
Do what you want, but steady-state cardio is catabolic. That means it often "eats" muscle.
If you are doing HIIT cardio then it is better, but you should still be doing more weight training that cardio the older we get to prevent too much attrition to sarcopenia.
Sarcopenia costs you muscle mass (5% every decade or so).
Too much cardio over weight training accelerates this process.
I'm not your trainer here. I am just giving you the physiology and biology.
0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »But bmi will go down as you lose weight as well.
You fail to understand that losing weight should not be your goal.
Your goal should be losing fat while maintaining -or preferably, increasing- muscle mass.
If you lose 5 lbs of fat and replace it with 5 lbs of muscle then your "BMI" will not change at all but you will look much better and have increased your basal metabolic rate.
If you lose 10 lbs of fat and replace it with 5 lbs of muscle then the small change in "BMI" will not be an accurate reflection of the results you see in the mirror.
If the tape measure bothers you then have your body fat checked with calipers or a dunk tank.
You want your body fat to be going down, not your weight.
The most simple way to check that is to notice that your waist is shrinking.
"Most simple" is not the same as "most accurate".
It does not matter where you "carry" your weight anyway.
You cannot spot reduce body fat unless you get liposuction.
Only speaking of my own experience here-but when I was overweight and a pre-diabetic my doctor told me to lose weight or I was going to be a full blown type 2 in a short amount of time. I took his advice and only focused on losing poundage. I started eating less calories, still didn't exercise, still ate the foods I was eating before when I was overweight. Dropped around 50lbs and since then my blood work panels have consistently been excellent with glucose numbers under 100. My blood pressure is great, I have no health issues and I take no medications. I'm very happy with how I look, for a 38 year old mom of three kids. My husband seems to think so as well, so it's all good
I still have some oomph in my lower area but I can wear size 4 jeans comfortably so it doesn't bother me. I've never had my bf% professionally tested but for me and my goals, it hasn't been necessary. 7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Also, your 50% muscle loss on your more/less exercise balance recommendation? What about 50/50 cardio weights? What happens then?
Dude, I get the importance of resistance training and am quite pleased with my body composition for having done it while losing weight. My body doesn't align with what you've said here.
Do what you want, but steady-state cardio is catabolic. That means it often "eats" muscle.
If you are doing HIIT cardio then it is better, but you should still be doing more weight training that cardio the older we get to prevent too much attrition to sarcopenia.
Sarcopenia costs you muscle mass (5% every decade or so).
Too much cardio over weight training accelerates this process.
I'm not your trainer here. I am just giving you the physiology and biology.
Yeah, and there was another trainer on here yesterday saying the exact opposite. I'm sure you're convinced of what you're saying, but outside of the context of caloric intake, I don't think your statements have much merit and are a bit brotastic.
I'll stick with getting advice from Alan Aragon, James Krieger, Brad Schoenfeld, and Bret Contreras.
I'm good, thanks for your concern, though.
6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »A simple way of getting an idea of your frame size is to do this:
Take your thumb and middle finger and attempt to wrap them around your wrist at its narrowest point (assuming you don't have a lot of fat on your wrist and can actually feel the bone). If your fingers touch barely you have an average frame. If your fingers overlap you have a small frame. If your fingers don't touch at all you have a larger frame. Basically you are trying to measure the girth of your bones where your bone is most of the diameter of that part of your body (which is why its measured at your wrist which is basically just bone).
If I do that I can put my thumb completely over the nail of my middle finger.
Just commenting on this to say that the "fingers wrapped around the wrist" method isn't really accurate. Measuring your wrist and comparing it to charts would probably be better.
For example, I'm 6'0" and my wrist measurement is 6.75", which is solidly in the large frame category. My thumb and pinkie can touch when I wrap them around my wrist. My thumb can overlap the other fingers when I try them, which would put me in the small frame category. My wrists are bony though, so I trust the measurements. I just have extra long hands/fingers, so the finger-wrap test doesn't work.
Fair...I chose that method as an example because I figured people would try it. As soon as I suggested they would have to actually measure something chances are they wouldn't. Wasn't aware finger method was THAT inaccurate for some, makes sense though it's probably like BMI....true for the average where in this case average is finger length to frame size ratio.2 -
BMI is a height-to-weight ratio and pretty good at screening for overfatness, though you can have normal BMI and still too much fat, or, much more rarely, be over on BMI and not overfat.
As far as heavier when older, I agree this is healthier, if you are on the low end. It's healthy to be skinny when you are a kid but not great as an old lady. I try only to stay over 125 for now (i'm tall) but by 60 I want to stay at or over 140 always, and have been working out heavier to add some muscle mass now in my late 40s to get there. Basically, you get a higher % of fat when old by default, muscle tends to diminish, and bone mass. Underweight when young is quite likely lean. When old, it can mean undermuscled, frail.
At no point is it healthier to be too heavy or too fat, though0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
A simple way of getting an idea of your frame size is to do this:
Take your thumb and middle finger and attempt to wrap them around your wrist at its narrowest point (assuming you don't have a lot of fat on your wrist and can actually feel the bone). If your fingers touch barely you have an average frame. If your fingers overlap you have a small frame. If your fingers don't touch at all you have a larger frame. Basically you are trying to measure the girth of your bones where your bone is most of the diameter of that part of your body (which is why its measured at your wrist which is basically just bone).
If I do that I can put my thumb completely over the nail of my middle finger.
I always thought it was your thumb and index finger to measure frame size?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 412 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions