Ignoring BMI

greatwestescape

+1

I think body fat % is a better indicator, and BMI is a rough set of numbers for people to go by. Some people might weigh the same, but not have the same lean muscle mass, and actually BE more overweight. I think, if you reliably know your BF% that you can get around the BMI thing.

How did you determine your BF%? I'm just curious, as I'd like to, but don't have a reliable way to test it.

ksuh999

Just what is "Lean Mass"??

http://examine.com/topics/Lean+Mass/

Yeah so hey when you shrink you also lose water, which is counted in lean mass.

BMI should be used in conjunction with your BF% and waist size. Waist size especially is a very good indicator of future health problems.

Insurance companies use mortality rates to calculate life insurance premiums, among other things.

sukatx

I think it's a personal choice based on your goals. For me, I take my body fat % and my body muscle % more seriously than my BMI. That's because I have skin literally hanging off my body from being pregnant and obese at the same time. That skin comes on the scale with me and brings my BMI up showing that I'm overweight, even though my body fat is 24% and my muscle is 34%.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Yea, that's probably the other reason I've always sort of ignored BMI, because I'll use the online calculator and it will say "you're over weight", but then, as soon as I input my waist and hip measurements the calculator backtracks and says "oh never mind, you're perfectly healthy at 175". I'm at the upper range at 175, and I prefer how I look at 165, but I get really annoyed that insurance companies and other organizations will just look at my height and weight and assume I'm over weight. I do a lot of field work and when I apply for different jobs it just gets really obnoxious having to constantly go back and convince the selection people that, no really, I'm in good shape and CAN meet your physical requirements (not right now obviously).

PriceK01

I've never payed too much attention to BMI. It's a general tool, based on averages. I'm 5'10" and 126 pounds. This gives me a BMI of 18.1 which is considered underweight. My BF% is still 19, using an average between Covert Bailey and USN Circumference methods. At 160lbs, my doctor told me I needed to lose about 30lbs. Everyone is different, there is no one-size-fits-all method for determining a healthy weight.

agdyl

I'm currently around 175 and 5'8" and don't feel like I need to our should lose much more weight. Maybe 5lbs, but I look and feel pretty fit right now. I've always exercised a lot. But even when I was up in the 190's, I'd mention to my doctor that I'd like to lose weight and they'd look at me and ask "Why? If you want to for cosmetic reasons, that's okay, but you don't need to to be healthy" I have broad shoulders, muscular arms and legs and wide hips but a smaller waist and I think I just hold a lot more weight with my build than someone with a smaller frame. Apparently the average adult woman has a biacromial width (acromial arch on one shoulder to the other) of 14". Mine is 17". (so not counting the delt muscles outside the bone structure). Needless to say, I can hug some of my friends and feel like I engulf them. But no matter what kind of diet I go on, I'm not going to end up with narrow shoulders or hips (my iliac crests are also several inches wider than average) and therefore I would basically have to weigh more than the "average" healthy woman.

I've been told the waist to hip ratio is a better indicator for health - for that women are ideally less that .75 (others say .8), and I'm at .69, so I'm fine. And even with the overall waist circumference, they recommend less than 31.5" for women and I'm at 28.5. So at least according to those measurements, my big butt isn't hurting me too much.

http://www.whyiexercise.com/waist-circumference.html
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/waist-to-hip-ratio-calculator/waist-to-hip-ratio-chart.php

There was only once in my adult life that I've been in the "healthy BMI range" (by like 1 lb) and people told me I was getting too thin. So basically - I've decided to quit worrying about BMI. I don't think it's the most reasonable thing for me to go by.

KiltFuPanda

BMI is a four letter word in my book.

I'm an amateur strength competitor - I train maybe 2, 3 times a week. That mostly involves heavy lifting, but I work in some conditioning (mostly tractor tire flips). I'm not ripped at all - I'm just large.

My BMI is 46. Seriously. 6'3", 360 lbs. I do not deny that I'm overweight, and that I can lose some size. But BMI claims that to be "normal" I have to drop 160 lbs - I'm considered "Class III Obese". And I'm going to call BULL$#!% on that one.

I have been calipered as around 25% bodyfat. That's 90 lbs of fat, 270 lbs of lean weight. I could stand to get down to 300, as I accept that I may lose some muscle in the process.

lsmsrbls

I think that BMI has marginal utility for large populations and almost no utility on the individual level.

My BMI is 36 and my body fat percentage is 28%. lol.

honeysprinkles

BMI is more intended as a population measure than as an individual measure. According to BMI, I'm overweight. According to body fat, I'm in the fit range. I've never paid any attention to BMI and never will.

this.

I plan on losing 10 more pounds (hopefully it will mostly be fat, I'm trying to hold on to my muscle mass) and that will put me right on the border of healthy and underweight...but for my frame I know I will be completely healthy and not underweight, just lean. It works both ways, so don't get too hung up on bmi!

willdob3

BMI gives goals/results for things it cannot measure. I can't imagine ever taking it seriously.

But, I also think it is ridiculous to base goals on scale weight, BF% or any other number. Numbers cannot guarantee one will be happy with how one looks or feels. Even those who say that they've weighed something before so that is what they want to weigh again can't be sure. Age & body composition change things.

jwdieter

BMI is easy. It has huge ranges. It has a lot of caveats.

BF can be off by a ton (20%+), with the various ways people measure it.

I dropped from 27.8 to 23.7 recently. At the top end, I could do 20 pull ups and had perfectly healthy blood work and blood pressure. Now I can do a lot more, and have more visible side ab striations.

Anyhoo, when I see people who aren't jacked, have a gut, and are unhappy with BMI labels, it just seems kinda rationalization-y. It's not a perfect measurement system by any means, but most people simply aren't abnormally muscled.

WendyTerry420

I ignore BMI. My goal weight is "overweight" by BMI, but I agree that BF% is a better indicator than scale weight.

UsedToBeHusky

BMI doesn't calculate for body composition at all. Nor does it account for variations in your body's frame.

But then again, body fat cannot be accurately calculated without getting dunked.

I say just do what feels good, looks good, and seems right.

ItsCasey

From the CDC's website:

If an athlete or other person with a lot of muscle has a BMI over 25, is that person still considered to be overweight?

According to the BMI weight status categories, anyone with a BMI over 25 would be classified as overweight and anyone with a BMI over 30 would be classified as obese.

It is important to remember, however, that BMI is not a direct measure of body fatness and that BMI is calculated from an individual's weight which includes both muscle and fat. As a result, some individuals may have a high BMI but not have a high percentage of body fat. For example, highly trained athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness. Although some people with a BMI in the overweight range (from 25.0 to 29.9) may not have excess body fatness, most people with a BMI in the obese range (equal to or greater than 30) will have increased levels of body fatness.

It is also important to remember that weight is only one factor related to risk for disease. If you have questions or concerns about the appropriateness of your weight, you should discuss them with your healthcare provider.

They are using "highly trained athletes" as an example, probably because it's easier for the average person to picture a football player as a muscular person who weighs a lot but doesn't carry excess body fat. But the same principle applies to people in the general population, not just to athletes.

So a BMI in the "overweight" category does not necessarily mean you are carrying too much body fat. But if you're in the obese category, you probably are, regardless of how much lean mass you have.

jwdieter

Few examples of Olympic medalist sprinters (all accused of doping), who are in "normal" BMI range:

TheCaren

I think BMI is a blunt tool, and it's more suited for measuring populations rather than individuals.

^^^^ This is a great description. I think it makes a nice, broad generalization. A guideline to use if you're not doing anything more extensive to get a handle on where you are at weight-wise. But not all body compositions are the same. So one must take this number with a grain of salt...

shadus

BMI is a rough tool. It's meant to give a valid range for 95% of the population. If you're one of those who are naturally either bigger or smaller than the remaining 95%... it may not work right for you. It's a guideline, that is repeated all over the place when you read about BMI. That said... eyeballing bf% is subject to a large number of personal biases and I'd not trust my own eyeballing of myself half the distance I could throw me wind in a hurricane. Eyeballing is known to be the absolutely least accurate method subject to +/-10% (for someone trained to do it.) You're basically just guessing without any real evidence backing it up. You're better off with a weight loss scale which can be 5-8% off commonly or calipers (if you can use them accurately and with consistency... which most can't without training.)

I'm a 5'9" male and my BMI "healthy" range is between 125lbs and 168.5lbs. At 125lbs I'd look anorexic at best... but the honest truth is, unless you have your body fat measured accurately (dexa scan) when you believe you are at an appropriate weight to verify the bf%, there is no good way to know if bmi is accurate for you or not. If in doubt, assume it is.

micheleld73

How is it that BMI is ignored/dismissed only by overweight people?
If an underweight would happen to say something like this you would all send him/her to the doctor regardless of bone structure or eating habbits.

According to fat to fit ratio I need to lose a few more lbs. to be at my ideal weight versus BF%. But if I look at my BMI it says I'm underweight...so not only overweight people disregard BMI!!!

SteelySunshine

BMI is probably the worst measurement to assess how healthy a person is. It's basically a fancy height weight chart so not only is it a bad tool it's a redundant one as well.

I am 5'4" and have lean mass of 175 pounds. I am certain to lose some of that. But, I seriously doubt I will lose 75 pounds of it. Which is what I would have to lose to have a shot at getting into a normal BMI range. So far my estimate is that I will lose 20 pounds or so based on how much LW/BF that I have lost so far. No matter how I crunch the numbers I will still be over weight even if I get down to 15% BF.

Now my youngest daughter has about 140 pounds of LW and she was advised to get down to 18% BF. I don't think she will lose very much LW a couple to 5 pounds at the most. She will still be considered overweight by the BMI charts, but not obese. I will still be obese.

BTW my theory is that larger framed people with a lot of LW need to have a lower BF% than average framed people. So, I am not going to stop at at the 25% bf that I was advised to do.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Ok, here's my basis for estimating. Based on the pictures in this link I would put me at 35%

http://www.builtlean.com/2012/09/24/body-fat-percentage-men-women/

Based on the pictures in this link I would put me at 30%, but my husband says my waist is more defined than what is in the picture.

http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages

YMCA calculates me at 31%, the navy calculates me at 40% and my weight loss scale says I'm at 35%

Averaging them all together, I'm pretty comforatable just going with 35% and not paying money to get dunked in a tank.

PS no idea how to just post the pictures so if someone wants to clue me in that would be awesome...:happy: