SmartBMI
Replies
-
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 -
At no point is it healthier to be too heavy or too fat, though
If "heavier" = "more muscle", being "too heavy" is fine (if you're using BMI as the standard for your "acceptable ranges"). For those of us whose bone structure already puts us toward the upper end of the normal BMI range when at a normal healthy weight, adding a bit of muscle can very easily tip us slightly into the "overweight" range. I would be a hell of a lot healthier with a BMI of 26 than with a BMI of 20 because 20 would be underweight *for me*. (Aiming for 24ish.)
And "underweight" is accompanied by much greater health risks than "overweight". It's worth noting that there are almost no health differences between people in the "overweight" category and the "normal" category. Which makes sense since there's no real reason why BMI = 25.5 would be particularly different from BMI = 24.5 for the same person. The health risks increase as a person reaches and passes the various levels of "obese".0 -
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?
Its a total estimate anyway. Some peoples index fingers are larger than their middles, some peoples middles are larger than their index...clearly doesn't take that into account.0 -
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/
Yeah, I've come across that thing before. Wasn't impressed.
It says ...
"Weight management? This is no issue for you, luckily." ... yeah right! What rubbish.
And then goes on to tell me how to do the diet I've been on for the past 18 months, as well as telling me I need to exercise. Um. Thanks. If it was really "smart", it would ask me if I've had success with my current diet and ask me about how much exercise I do.
1 -
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/
It says my BMI is 24.6 and is optimal for my age. I want to still lose more. I still feel overweight at this BMI and don't want to see it creep up anymore. It sure is a battle. But I suppose this doesn't take into effect if one is strength training or working out?0 -
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/
It says my BMI is 24.6 and is optimal for my age. I want to still lose more. I still feel overweight at this BMI and don't want to see it creep up anymore. It sure is a battle. But I suppose this doesn't take into effect if one is strength training or working out?
If you have fine to medium bone structure and aren't very muscular, the upper part of your "healthy" BMI range may well feel "overweight" to you. Just like someone who is muscular with a large frame would probably feel "underweight" in the bottom part of their "healthy" BMI range. Theoretically, everyone has an ideal weight somewhere in the healthy BMI range for their age and height. In practice, most people do unless they're very tall, very short or very muscular. But exactly where that ideal weight lies varies dramatically from person to person.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »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/
It says my BMI is 24.6 and is optimal for my age. I want to still lose more. I still feel overweight at this BMI and don't want to see it creep up anymore. It sure is a battle. But I suppose this doesn't take into effect if one is strength training or working out?
If you have fine to medium bone structure and aren't very muscular, the upper part of your "healthy" BMI range may well feel "overweight" to you. Just like someone who is muscular with a large frame would probably feel "underweight" in the bottom part of their "healthy" BMI range. Theoretically, everyone has an ideal weight somewhere in the healthy BMI range for their age and height. In practice, most people do unless they're very tall, very short or very muscular. But exactly where that ideal weight lies varies dramatically from person to person.
This is true. I'm 5'8" and between medium to big frame. That's probably why I feel most comfortable around 23 BMI. This top end of normal BMI feels overweight because my clothes are tight. I just don't feel comfortable with myself. I've got to get more aggressive with working out and activities I guess.0 -
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?
Thumb to index finger around smallest part of wrist on me leaves a 1 inch gap apart and thumb to middle leaves a 1/2 inch gap. ( I have normal length fingers.) I measured the difference between index and middle and yup there is a 1/2 inch difference.0 -
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.
I don't put any stock in that wrist method either. I know my fingers change size quite dramatically (with weight gain/loss or even in hot vs cold weather) so I get very different results depending when I do it.
It hasn't told me anything except why my rings don't always fit me.
0 -
This link really didn't give me much I didn't already know, but I played along anyway. I'd really like to lose 5lbs more - go from 155-150, but this thing told me I'm an idiot for wanting too, basically. That it won't do anything for my health. No crap. But it will do something for my pants fitting...
38 years old with a 21.8 BMI. Yes, could be worse, but I don't need this app judging me...LOL0 -
My BMI is 22.4--solidly in the middle of the normal range. I agree that BMI is a bad indicator, especially without the added context of frame size and lean/fat mass, but I entered my data anyways because I'm (as much as I hate to admit it) getting older. Still 22.4 as a SmartBMI, but I'm not a fan of this statement it made in the interpretation:
"Your current reduction diet
Your weight is below average: Do you really need this diet?"
So--just because I'm below average I shouldn't be trying to lose weight/become fitter? Does it matter that the average has been creeping up over time because more people are obese than ever? Hmmm.
0 -
My BMI is 22.4--solidly in the middle of the normal range. I agree that BMI is a bad indicator, especially without the added context of frame size and lean/fat mass, but I entered my data anyways because I'm (as much as I hate to admit it) getting older. Still 22.4 as a SmartBMI, but I'm not a fan of this statement it made in the interpretation:
"Your current reduction diet
Your weight is below average: Do you really need this diet?"
So--just because I'm below average I shouldn't be trying to lose weight/become fitter? Does it matter that the average has been creeping up over time because more people are obese than ever? Hmmm.
I would love being 22 BMI again. I thought that I was overweight back then, and now I wish I could be rocking like that in a bikini again!
Nonetheless you are smart to nip it in the bud because mine crept slowly over the years. I think I will be very diligent to avoid future gain and work to lose a little bit at a time.0 -
Still 22.4 as a SmartBMI. . .
Look at your SmartBMI report again.
SmartBMI computes your standard BMI but also calculates its own age & sex adjusted index which it considers "healthy" between 30-39. This is what makes it different.
FWIW, no one who looks at me - - w/my musculature and 6 pack - - would ever consider me overweight at my current weight (today) of 164#.
However, my BMI at 5'8" & 164# is 24.9 (barely "normal"). My SmartBMI index is 37. BMI considers me overweight if I just gain 1# to 165 but I do not fall outside the SmartBMI healthy range until I reach 175 with a SmartBMI of 40.
I remember what I looked like at 175 when my BF was 20%+. It was my maintenance weight for years w/o dieting, exercising or logging. I didn't look "fat" but I didn't look skinny either, nor did I have the muscle defn or 6 pack I have now at 16%BF. So, at least for me, SmartBMI is a better indicator of general health and fitness.0 -
There is no universal and workable without problems estimate of body frame that I have found. That includes taking an average of all the methods.
We had 20 different opinions as to where your waist is located and where it should be measured when we talked about it on my MFP friends list.
Plus if you're the one holding the tape how do you guarantee it is equally straight all the time? When inhaling or exhaling? How much stretch on the tape? Do you count loose skin or not? I mean seriously: what is the purpose of measuring at the belly button if you have loose skin and your belly button has moved?!
Calipers yield different results according to who uses them.
Dunk tanks yield different results according to how much air you've expelled from your lungs and are at least a little bit inconvenient to implement.
DEXA scans (which I am a proponent off) still, it can be argued, can have a 1-2 point error. And an even bigger difference between scans if the operator selects the wrong pixels. So you can be 20% tested body fat one day (22%-2% error) and gain 1% fat (so 23% in reality) and measure 25% body fat the next day (23%+2% error). So as far as you're concerned you went from 20% to 25% when in reality you only gained 1% body fat from 22% to 23%. <-- obviously it is not common but it COULD happen.
So you know... WHATEVER!
BMI works well enough for most people. The people who are too muscular for it to be meaningful already know it. The people who are too short and a bit over-fat but think they are healthy because of a healthy BMI number are a bigger problem than the 20 bros on steroids who are too muscular for their BMI.
SmartBMI takes into account some of the longevity research that has taken place the past few years and which points out that a very mild amount of overweight as we get older doesn't appear to be an actual health risk. In fact, statistically, there are more health risks at the lower end of the weight spectrum. SmartBMI, while still subject to the same limitations inherent to BMI, offers a more relevant interpretation of your results, one that is probably quite worthwhile to look at.
Essentially there is nothing wrong with the sentiments you express Mr. Trainer (lose fat not muscle, your goal should be fat loss not just indiscriminate weight loss).
The problem is that none of the tools you propose (or that exist) offer more accuracy and ease of use than just a scale, a trending weight application, BMI, and some ability to interpret the results you see.5 -
Still 22.4 as a SmartBMI. . .
Look at your SmartBMI report again.
SmartBMI computes your standard BMI but also calculates its own age & sex adjusted index which it considers "healthy" between 30-39. This is what makes it different.
FWIW, no one who looks at me - - w/my musculature and 6 pack - - would ever consider me overweight at my current weight (today) of 164#.
However, my BMI at 5'8" & 164# is 24.9 (barely "normal"). My SmartBMI index is 37. BMI considers me overweight if I just gain 1# to 165 but I do not fall outside the SmartBMI healthy range until I reach 175 with a SmartBMI of 40.
I remember what I looked like at 175 when my BF was 20%+. It was my maintenance weight for years w/o dieting, exercising or logging. I didn't look "fat" but I didn't look skinny either, nor did I have the muscle defn or 6 pack I have now at 16%BF. So, at least for me, SmartBMI is a better indicator of general health and fitness.
You're right--I missed that.
Mine:
Your Smart Body Mass Index
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 34/70 or "34 points out of 70".
Still solidly in middle of my range. I'm 5'7", so if I were to weigh 160 I would be a 25.1 (overweight) on the regular BMI scale, or 37/70 for the SBMI, which is still in my range. If it were 17 pounds of muscle (without added body fat), it might be a slightly better indicator (than the standard BMI), but at my age/gender it would take me 3 years or more to accomplish that level of muscle growth (in a near perfect world) so it's not likely. I could pack on 17 pounds of fat much quicker--but then I'd still be overweight.
It still seems flawed for the extremely muscular though--my brother is a body builder and his BMI is considered overweight, but his body fat is around 10%. His SBMI is 40/70--out of the ideal range. Not that I think his lifestyle is necessarily healthy, but no one looks at him and thinks he's fat.0 -
My BMI is 22.4--solidly in the middle of the normal range. I agree that BMI is a bad indicator, especially without the added context of frame size and lean/fat mass, but I entered my data anyways because I'm (as much as I hate to admit it) getting older. Still 22.4 as a SmartBMI, but I'm not a fan of this statement it made in the interpretation:
"Your current reduction diet
Your weight is below average: Do you really need this diet?"
So--just because I'm below average I shouldn't be trying to lose weight/become fitter? Does it matter that the average has been creeping up over time because more people are obese than ever? Hmmm.
Yeah, it made the same comment to me, and I wasn't impressed either. My BMI is about 21 right now and apparently I'm lucky that I don't need to work at weight loss nor do I need to pay any attention to my diet. I guess I can just let myself go.
Oh, and with that wrist measurement thing ... each one of my fingers overlaps with my thumb, some by quite a bit. As it happens I have tiny little wrists and very long fingers. My wrists are so small, I can still wear a bracelet I was given at some point prior to turning 6 years old. But I certainly wouldn't say I've got an ultra-small frame ... it's probably "medium", whatever that is.0 -
I am also a 6’ tall man. I used to weigh 150 pounds. Then in seventh grade...
I have a very large frame. I have huge hands, and my fingers come nowhere near going around my wrist. Like not by 1.5 inches.
I did an Ironman Triathlon 10 years ago. I weighed 210 lbs. on race day, about 12% body fat. Therefore BMI classified me as "significantly overweight". I couldn't get life insurance.
BMI is BS.
No, BMI is not BS - when taken in clinical context - ie with the actual patient there or other information about the patient.
The fact that your Insurers did not do so does not invalidate BMI - it means they did not look at it in context.
Yes, people who are extremely muscular, iron men and the like, will have a high BMI despite not being overweight. Even young sporty men, not body builders, will often have a BMI around 27 and not be overweight - because they carry more muscle mass than most people of their height
However for most of us, yes, BMI is a good guide. It is a range,not an exact number. So,most of us, big framed or not,should be somewhere within the range.
Myself, without measuring anything else - when I had a BMI of 28 I knew it wasn't because I was exceptionally muscular or big boned. It was plain old because I was overweight.
Now I am within healthy range at 23 ( and 53 years old)
I guess I could measure my body fat or wrap my fingers around my wrist or whatever to get a more accurate picture - but for most of us, BMI is a good enough guide.1 -
My BMI is 22.4--solidly in the middle of the normal range. I agree that BMI is a bad indicator, especially without the added context of frame size and lean/fat mass, but I entered my data anyways because I'm (as much as I hate to admit it) getting older. Still 22.4 as a SmartBMI, but I'm not a fan of this statement it made in the interpretation:
"Your current reduction diet
Your weight is below average: Do you really need this diet?"
So--just because I'm below average I shouldn't be trying to lose weight/become fitter? Does it matter that the average has been creeping up over time because more people are obese than ever? Hmmm.
Yeah, it made the same comment to me, and I wasn't impressed either. My BMI is about 21 right now and apparently I'm lucky that I don't need to work at weight loss nor do I need to pay any attention to my diet. I guess I can just let myself go.
Oh, and with that wrist measurement thing ... each one of my fingers overlaps with my thumb, some by quite a bit. As it happens I have tiny little wrists and very long fingers. My wrists are so small, I can still wear a bracelet I was given at some point prior to turning 6 years old. But I certainly wouldn't say I've got an ultra-small frame ... it's probably "medium", whatever that is.
You wrist measurement is just one data point. Elbow breadth is also an indication of frame size.
https://www.myfooddiary.com/resources/frame_size_calculator.asp1 -
On the reduction diet point, it said this to me:Your current reduction diet
When on this diet, it is important to reduce meals to the optimum extent, but not beyond. Too great a reduction could induce the body to consume less energy and store more of it in fat deposits. Beware of the yo-yo effect. If you want to stop dieting, do it step by step.
Am I reading that wrong, or did something called "Smart" BMI just tell me I'd go into starvation mode?1 -
Every BMI thread there is always at least one person humble bragging about having loads of muscle and complaining that because they're an exception, the rule doesn't apply to anyone.
3 -
On the reduction diet point, it said this to me:Your current reduction diet
When on this diet, it is important to reduce meals to the optimum extent, but not beyond. Too great a reduction could induce the body to consume less energy and store more of it in fat deposits. Beware of the yo-yo effect. If you want to stop dieting, do it step by step.
Am I reading that wrong, or did something called "Smart" BMI just tell me I'd go into starvation mode?
Yep ... that's exactly what it told me too.
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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