Do you follow BMI guidelines?

Options
2

Replies

  • rainbow198
    rainbow198 Posts: 2,245 Member
    Options
    Yes. However, I when I was losing weight I was more focused on fat loss and reaching a dress size/measurement range more so reaching a number on the scale.

    I have to say it's awesome to be able to say that I'm in the normal BMI range after being in the overweight end most of my life and in the obese range for a short time.
  • GemstoneofHeart
    GemstoneofHeart Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    That makes you overweight by 1 pound. I know this because I too am 5'6"

    So don't freak out, lose a pound or even a few more and you'll be fine. To answer your question, yes I do stick to BMI guidelines but if I were one pound into the overweight category, I would not freak out.
  • abrubru
    abrubru Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    My initial response to this question: "Bwahahahahaha. no."
    After reading answers, I do completely understand why other people would use BMI as a tracker of health, and I do understand how it could be helpful. For me, no. I will never have "normal" BMI, and will always be--at very least-- overweight because of my muscle mass. I use a tape measure and scale. Use what works for you.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    One more thing that hasn't been mentioned: waist size is an even stronger predictor for heart disease than BMI. From your picture you don't appear to be "apple shaped", so you have more leeway with weight and can afford to be overweight if you wish to be. For women in particular BMI is a very good guideline for 99% of them (even elite bodybuilders often fall within the normal weight), but waist size also plays a role in any potential risk. I wouldn't freak out over one pound, though, especially with your shape.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,851 Member
    Options
    I don't "follow" it in the sense of being guided by it in any major way. But I do know where I fall, and that my preferred weight (120 at 5'5") is toward the lower end of normal BMI (even though I'm not devoid of muscle, and do have broad shoulders, big hands/wrists, and most simple "frame size" estimates allege I have a large frame (I don't)).

    I know where I feel best weight-wise, and look best.

    Most people can find a healthy weight in their BMI range. A few can't. It was never designed to be definitive for individuals, but it can be a useful approximation for many.
  • SCoil123
    SCoil123 Posts: 2,108 Member
    Options
    BMI is a good general guide for healthy weight ranges but I look at other things too. Body fat percentage is more important to me
  • counting_kilojoules
    counting_kilojoules Posts: 170 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I do. My goal is not to be obese by BMI, and I'm aware by choosing my goal weight in the overweight category I have a slightly increased risk of certain diseases, but not as significant being in the obese category. A risk I'm aware of and willing to take, which is why I will always and periodically keep watching my parameters. As it stands, I'm not planning to go down to normal BMI unless I have to. If something comes up out of order and weight loss helps it, I will work on going lower, but I hope I will be able to happily maintain in the overweight category for as long as possible.

    Some people could proudly claim that they're muscular enough not to need the guideline and they're right in that they aren't "overfat", but any extra weight as per statistics means increased risk, even if it's coming from muscle. Now the risk is not as high as if the extra weight was predominantly fat, but it's still there, and it's smart to acknowledge that. Wanting a much higher than normal muscle mass to the point where it makes you an outlier is a valid personal choice, but people need to be aware that it's not without cons.

    If you're "statistically" at increased risk it just means that you're in the segment of the population that is considered to be at increased risk. You as an individual may or may not be. If the only reason that you're in that segment of the population is because of muscle mass then you're not actually at increased risk.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    counting_kilojoules wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I do. My goal is not to be obese by BMI, and I'm aware by choosing my goal weight in the overweight category I have a slightly increased risk of certain diseases, but not as significant being in the obese category. A risk I'm aware of and willing to take, which is why I will always and periodically keep watching my parameters. As it stands, I'm not planning to go down to normal BMI unless I have to. If something comes up out of order and weight loss helps it, I will work on going lower, but I hope I will be able to happily maintain in the overweight category for as long as possible.

    Some people could proudly claim that they're muscular enough not to need the guideline and they're right in that they aren't "overfat", but any extra weight as per statistics means increased risk, even if it's coming from muscle. Now the risk is not as high as if the extra weight was predominantly fat, but it's still there, and it's smart to acknowledge that. Wanting a much higher than normal muscle mass to the point where it makes you an outlier is a valid personal choice, but people need to be aware that it's not without cons.

    If you're "statistically" at increased risk it just means that you're in the segment of the population that is considered to be at increased risk. You as an individual may or may not be. If the only reason that you're in that segment of the population is because of muscle mass then you're not actually at increased risk.

    Let's put it this way: who is statistically at more risk? A woman with 20% bodyfat in the normal BMI category or the same woman with 20% bodyfat in the overweight category? That's what I meant by risk being statistically higher, a possibility of risk for the individual vs what might be the risk with the same circumstances at a lower weight. Having a higher weight, even from muscle, affects certain metabolic pathways. It may be at less risk than someone in the normal weight category with high body fat, but it's smart to watch for trends in blood work and not be stubborn about it if at some point weight loss is recommended.
  • counting_kilojoules
    counting_kilojoules Posts: 170 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    counting_kilojoules wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I do. My goal is not to be obese by BMI, and I'm aware by choosing my goal weight in the overweight category I have a slightly increased risk of certain diseases, but not as significant being in the obese category. A risk I'm aware of and willing to take, which is why I will always and periodically keep watching my parameters. As it stands, I'm not planning to go down to normal BMI unless I have to. If something comes up out of order and weight loss helps it, I will work on going lower, but I hope I will be able to happily maintain in the overweight category for as long as possible.

    Some people could proudly claim that they're muscular enough not to need the guideline and they're right in that they aren't "overfat", but any extra weight as per statistics means increased risk, even if it's coming from muscle. Now the risk is not as high as if the extra weight was predominantly fat, but it's still there, and it's smart to acknowledge that. Wanting a much higher than normal muscle mass to the point where it makes you an outlier is a valid personal choice, but people need to be aware that it's not without cons.

    If you're "statistically" at increased risk it just means that you're in the segment of the population that is considered to be at increased risk. You as an individual may or may not be. If the only reason that you're in that segment of the population is because of muscle mass then you're not actually at increased risk.

    Let's put it this way: who is statistically at more risk? A woman with 20% bodyfat in the normal BMI category or the same woman with 20% bodyfat in the overweight category? That's what I meant by risk being statistically higher, a possibility of risk for the individual vs what might be the risk with the same circumstances at a lower weight. Having a higher weight, even from muscle, affects certain metabolic pathways. It may be at less risk than someone in the normal weight category with high body fat, but it's smart to watch for trends in blood work and not be stubborn about it if at some point weight loss is recommended.

    The percentage of fat is all that matters and that's the same. The reason people say that BMI works for populations rather than individuals is precisely because of cases like these. Very few people actually have enough muscle mass to skew things but for those that do BMI isn't going to be accurate.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Do you follow BMI guidelines?
    Not really. There's other metrics or feelings that have far more significance to me.
    Do the guidelines seem to apply to your body at different stages?
    Broadly speaking yes - for the vast majority of my (long!) lifetime when I've been in the overweight range I've been over fat and when I've been in the normal range I haven't been fat.

    BMI isn't very kind to me as I have a stocky build (more body than limbs) and over-sized rib cage so my best weight tends to be near the top of the range.
    Even at my lowest adult weight when I was slim but not carrying much muscle mass I was still about the middle of the range.

    There's a relative few outliers due to muscle mass (mostly men) but there's far more wishful thinkers than genuine outliers. :)
    As a simple population guideline it's reasonable.


  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,185 Member
    Options
    BMI works for me. :)

    Personally, I prefer to be in the lower half of my normal BMI range.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Let's put it this way: who is statistically at more risk? A woman with 20% bodyfat in the normal BMI category or the same woman with 20% bodyfat in the overweight category?

    If this is what the BMI suggests, then it is inappropriate. Do you have any studies that would suggest being "overweight" at 20% fat has higher health risks? Because I'm finding that hard to believe.
  • kristen8000
    kristen8000 Posts: 747 Member
    Options
    Yes, because for me, it works. I'm not mostly muscle, I'm mostly couch potato. I'm 5'11, 38 years old and currently weigh 147 after eating at a deficit since July 31st. My body fat is around 22% which I, personally, am fine with.

    I haven't been outside the normal range of BMI since 2011, when I started my weight loss journey, and I expect to never get back there. Even though I tend to go up and down upwards of 10-15lbs depending on season and motivation, I prefer to stay around a 21 BMI, which is no more than 150lbs..
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited October 2017
    Options
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Let's put it this way: who is statistically at more risk? A woman with 20% bodyfat in the normal BMI category or the same woman with 20% bodyfat in the overweight category?

    If this is what the BMI suggests, then it is inappropriate. Do you have any studies that would suggest being "overweight" at 20% fat has higher health risks? Because I'm finding that hard to believe.

    You would have higher health risks compared to yourself at the same body fat and lower BMI, not compared to the population at large. Elite athletes, for example, have generally lower mortality rate than the general population, but endurance athletes score best in that regard and athletes over 30 BMI score worst.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Let's put it this way: who is statistically at more risk? A woman with 20% bodyfat in the normal BMI category or the same woman with 20% bodyfat in the overweight category?

    If this is what the BMI suggests, then it is inappropriate. Do you have any studies that would suggest being "overweight" at 20% fat has higher health risks? Because I'm finding that hard to believe.

    You would have higher health risks compared to yourself at the same body fat and lower BMI, not compared to the population at large. Elite athletes, for example, have generally lower mortality rate than the general population, but endurance athletes score best in that regard and athletes over 30 BMI score worst.

    I guess I'd need to see research on health risks from carrying additional muscle. I honestly don't buy it.
  • counting_kilojoules
    counting_kilojoules Posts: 170 Member
    Options
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Let's put it this way: who is statistically at more risk? A woman with 20% bodyfat in the normal BMI category or the same woman with 20% bodyfat in the overweight category?

    If this is what the BMI suggests, then it is inappropriate. Do you have any studies that would suggest being "overweight" at 20% fat has higher health risks? Because I'm finding that hard to believe.

    You would have higher health risks compared to yourself at the same body fat and lower BMI, not compared to the population at large. Elite athletes, for example, have generally lower mortality rate than the general population, but endurance athletes score best in that regard and athletes over 30 BMI score worst.

    I guess I'd need to see research on health risks from carrying additional muscle. I honestly don't buy it.

    I don't buy it either. Everything I've read says the opposite.
  • Running_and_Coffee
    Running_and_Coffee Posts: 811 Member
    Options
    In your specific case, it's not about BMI as much as it is that you've gained 10-15 lbs...if you'd felt fit and healthy at that previous weight, it's more about not wanting to get into a pattern of letting your weight escalate and making sure you're making the right choices. Now if you were 16 when you were that much lighter and you're in your mid-20s now, I wouldn't worry because that's a normal part of maturing, but assuming you've been a fully matured adult for all of this time and you didn't have a bunch of babies or go through menopause or anything else really dramatic that would change your body's "healthy weight range," I'd be concerned right now about "scale creep" but NOT NOT NOT obesity. You're very far from there. You just might want to re-evaluate your choices to ensure you're not in a pattern where the gain will keep happening.

    Regarding BMI, I personally seem to line up pretty well with those recommendations. When I start to creep above a 24, that's when my pants are tight and as a runner, I notice it's harder to keep my usual pace. So I do what I can to stay around 23-24 and not go over it. That's me personally--I have plenty of extremely fit and healthy friends who look amazing and are apparently "overweight" or "obese" but don't look it at all. So I would take the actual metric with a grain of salt unless you're like me and your body seems to really conform to the charts!

Categories