BMI or Physical Appearance?

Options
13

Replies

  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,452 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    Both! Since day one, I aimed to have a normal BMI, but I also wanted to look healthy. I did end up choosing a weight range based on having a BMI of 20, but I feel like I look great at any number within the 18.5-24.9 range. I'm pear shaped, and at the higher end of the BMI, my curves are more pronounced and my hips are everything, and at the lower end, my waist is especially pronounced.
  • __TMac__
    __TMac__ Posts: 1,665 Member
    Options
    My body image issues are significant. I don't know that I'll ever "like" how I look, so that's not a useful guide for me.

    My first goal was to eliminate weight-related discomfort. Once I did that, I wanted to look "normal" (not obese). Now that I've done that, I want to meet specific health and fitness goals.

    So I track three data points to figure out how I'm doing: BMI, waist/height ratio, and clothing size.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    TmacMMM wrote: »
    My body image issues are significant. I don't know that I'll ever "like" how I look, so that's not a useful guide for me.

    My first goal was to eliminate weight-related discomfort. Once I did that, I wanted to look "normal" (not obese). Now that I've done that, I want to meet specific health and fitness goals.

    So I track three data points to figure out how I'm doing: BMI, waist/height ratio, and clothing size.

    Using clothing sizes/waist/tape is an objective means to measure "physical appearance"

  • __TMac__
    __TMac__ Posts: 1,665 Member
    Options
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    TmacMMM wrote: »
    My body image issues are significant. I don't know that I'll ever "like" how I look, so that's not a useful guide for me.

    My first goal was to eliminate weight-related discomfort. Once I did that, I wanted to look "normal" (not obese). Now that I've done that, I want to meet specific health and fitness goals.

    So I track three data points to figure out how I'm doing: BMI, waist/height ratio, and clothing size.

    Using clothing sizes/waist/tape is an objective means to measure "physical appearance"

    Sure. Among other things.

    I was making the point that, for me, it's not an either/or situation. I'd like to look nice, but have zero confidence that'll I'll recognize it if it happens. An objective measure is useful.

    I'm also interested in waist measurement to reduce visceral fat due to my family history of diabetes and my own diagnosis of insulin resistance. I'm also interested in clothing size because it'll make it a lot easier to find clothes that fit. I'm no fashionista, but I'd like to have options.
  • Amys712
    Amys712 Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    I prefer personal appearance by a long shot. BMI charts just depress me. Haha.
  • Sivadee00
    Sivadee00 Posts: 428 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    Appearance definitely. After many years, I have developed a keen eye for weight gain and observing how far is too far. Lol. My jelly rolls and muffin top will make an appearance. Take my word for it. :-)
  • RuNaRoUnDaFiEld
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld Posts: 5,864 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Neither for me really.

    Health and physical performance are more important to me. Fitter and stronger are my goals.

    This ^^
  • Erotyka
    Erotyka Posts: 82 Member
    Options
    I use a blend of all possible metrics :tongue:

    For a long time, it was entirely about getting my BMI in to the 'normal' box. Now that it is, I entertain my vanity and look towards optimising the performance of my body (I'd like it to be alive for as long as possible). So, the mirror, the tape measure, and the scale are still valid methods of assessment.
  • subcounter
    subcounter Posts: 2,382 Member
    Options
    I mean you use a simple math equation and it says you are a healthy individual? Yes, it does sound too good to be true because, well, its not true.

    BMI is a simplified statistical tool for companies & researchers to "dumb down" the input for bigger analysis tools. You can't realistically get the data for a certain individuals thigh thickness, or their neck circumference, fat percentages, compared to their height and weight, which is in most DMV or other medical records.

    It also does not apply to certain individuals depending on their height (if they're 'too tall' or 'too short') or if they have high muscle mass etc.

    Although I do get the popularity of these tools like these for individuals, as people can have certain body image disorders, or judge themselves too harshly focusing the said seeing unimportant flaws. The steroid addicted movie industry does not help either. People think these actors walk around with an 8 pack everyday. Social media is also filled with those. Some probably take 100 photos for that perfect 1 image that they want to show everyone. Anyways, /rantoff

    Perhaps a little more complex fat percentage calculations, while still flawed and still an estimation, is better use to understand if you are at a healthy weight.
  • fishgutzy
    fishgutzy Posts: 2,807 Member
    Options
    cheldadex wrote: »
    BMI is fine for most people unless they weight train.

    I don't weight train. But the last time I was at a weight that BMI says is average/normal for my height I looked skeletal. The fattest part of my leg was my knee. When I am borderline overweight, 180ish, I look fairly normal, yet not the least bit like a body builder.
    My personal goal is 180 with as close to 10% BF as is possible without getting crazy.
  • ldwatene
    ldwatene Posts: 150 Member
    Options
    BMI in my case seems ridiculous. Im shortish and have a large structure. Apparently I'm obese by BMI standards. That's just crazy.
  • buffywhitney
    buffywhitney Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    usmcmp wrote: »
    Body fat percentage and health markers. Due to having high lean mass I'll never be in a healthy BMI unless my body fat was dangerously low. Physical appearance can be deceiving and doesn't imply health.

    yep
  • animatorswearbras
    animatorswearbras Posts: 1,001 Member
    Options
    Physical appearance, BMI and the weight on the scale are just my personal measures for progress and I may change my weight goals dependent on what my appearance is although a healthy BMI is a good rule of thumb unless you are a bodybuilder.
  • Ironandwine69
    Ironandwine69 Posts: 2,432 Member
    Options
    BMI tells me I'm fat. So no, I don't like anything that tells me I'm fat
  • CJ_Holmes
    CJ_Holmes Posts: 759 Member
    Options
    Performance and appearance. My weight/BMI has not changed much with all my hard work over the past few years, but my bf%, appearance, and performance are drastically different. If I paid attention to just BMI I wouldn't think I'd made any progress. I think folks with a lot to lose or gain may find BMI a useful way to set goals.
  • not_a_runner
    not_a_runner Posts: 1,343 Member
    Options
    cheldadex wrote: »
    BMI is fine for most people unless they weight train.

    For the majority of women, BMI is still pretty applicable.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    Combination of look, bmi, and bf%. My maintenance has been around 180lbs... at that weight I'm overweight by 6 lbs according to bmi...but I'm also at around 12-15% bf and aesthetically no love handles and a relatively flat stomach except a small lower stomach pooch with visible but blurried abs and you can't pinch a thing anywhere else.

    So aesthetically fine by me, healthy bf%, but slightly over weight by bmi.
  • jrwms714
    jrwms714 Posts: 421 Member
    Options
    BMI - this is my favorite rant. It is a crude measurement and has been around too long to be pretty valuable. Even my physician says it's not right for some. I am 5'0", 135, and very fit. I wear a Petite Small in everything. I have never weighed what the charts say because I am muscular from the waist down. And more so, with all the working out that I do. According to the BMI, I am overweight. Not so. Best way to check out how you are is by your weight circumference if you want to do that medically, but otherwise, go with appearance and how you feel.
  • richardgavel
    richardgavel Posts: 1,001 Member
    Options
    BMI was good enough for me to get a crude estimate of a target. I'm a triathlete so I based my target on the BMI of professional triathletes. Now I'm focusing more on BF %, which is more about physical appearance than anything.
  • mmmpork
    mmmpork Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    Scale in kilograms as a measure of overall mass. Body fat % from the same device (my scale) as an ordinal indicator only, I don't rely on that number as being particularly accurate. If it goes down then I know my fat mass is decreasing. This is particularly useful if the weight measure is plateaued, going down slowly, or even going up slightly. Finally, I take body circumference measurements in key areas where I have the most fat and track those over time. Besides waist, hips, and bust, I measure thigh, calf, wrist, upper arm, and I distinguish between low and high waist. This is especially important as you get closer to a "normal" BMI. The scale may show very little movement but your body composition could be changing significantly. For body circumference, it's also cool to see the overall significance of the weight loss. I've lost 70 lbs which is pretty impressive, but what does that even mean? Well, it means 10" off my hips and waist and 6" off my bust. My bust circumference is now smaller than my WAIST when I was at my starting weight!!!

Categories