Do you follow BMI guidelines?
Replies
-
Not really. There's other metrics or feelings that have far more significance to me.Do you follow BMI guidelines?
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.Do the guidelines seem to apply to your body at different stages?
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.
0 -
BMI works for me.
Personally, I prefer to be in the lower half of my normal BMI range.1 -
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.2 -
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..0 -
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.1 -
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.2 -
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.2 -
For the most part no, because BMI doesn't take into account people who have a decent amount of muscular mass. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger during his Mr. Universe days (according to the BMI charts he had a BMI of 31 back then, which is obese).
But how many of us are Arnold? For the majority of people it is a good guideline.8 -
-
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!0 -
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.
The risk is not for carrying additional muscle and honestly that applies only to a small % of outliers. Same with the short and the tall. The BMI does not generally apply to elite athletes but how many of us fit into that category really??
0 -
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.
The risk is not for carrying additional muscle and honestly that applies only to a small % of outliers. Same with the short and the tall. The BMI does not generally apply to elite athletes but how many of us fit into that category really??
The example is a person with 20% fat and normal BMI vs over the BMI, due to added muscle.
1 -
I am using my BMI and waist size to get to a healthier weight. When I hit that 175 and waist smaller than 36 inches then I will re look and decide where I should be from there. 40 more pounds to go and 9 inches! I am down almost 16 pounds and 5 inches and the 18 will be month 2 complete.3
-
BMI is a calculated number with factors only for weight and height; BMI = Weight (kg) / (Height (m))2. So, if you're not still growing and you're not shrinking, changes in your actual weight give you just as much information as do changes in your BMI. Better indicators of how you're doing with weight loss and fitness include body measurements, how well your clothes fit (or don't fit as you get smaller), body fat percentage, and even changes in how you feel. BMI charts don't consider factors like body type, bone structure, and muscle mass...just weight and height.0
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »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.
The risk is not for carrying additional muscle and honestly that applies only to a small % of outliers. Same with the short and the tall. The BMI does not generally apply to elite athletes but how many of us fit into that category really??
The example is a person with 20% fat and normal BMI vs over the BMI, due to added muscle.
Understood. And I would say that person does not have higher risk based on their BMI. They are an outlier.2 -
newheavensearth wrote: »Yes I follow BMI guidelines and I weight train regularly. But from what I've learned of the stats of professional female physique athletes most of them fall in normal BMI ranges. And I know for a fact I will never reach that level. So it can't automatically be scrapped because you pick up a weight.
This is exactly my thought as well.1 -
If I recall correctly the original pioneers of BMI developed purely as a tool for measuring large populations and never intended such a blunt instrument to be applied to the analysis of individuals.
It's a very basic formula so I'd expect it to be inaccurate at one or both ends of the bell-curve if not throughout the whole thing.2 -
I personally do because I look/feel better pretty much exactly in the middle of the range but its not a one-size-fits-all formula. My husband is the same height as me and very muscular so there is no way in hell he would ever be less than "overweight" even with a low body fat %. I agree with the other people who mentioned tracking body fat %. If you are comfortable where you are now, I dont think 1lb is going to increase health risks a whole lot 0
-
not_a_runner wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »Yes I follow BMI guidelines and I weight train regularly. But from what I've learned of the stats of professional female physique athletes most of them fall in normal BMI ranges. And I know for a fact I will never reach that level. So it can't automatically be scrapped because you pick up a weight.
This is exactly my thought as well.
Agreed. I am always confused when women say BMI doesn't apply to them because have "above average" muscle mass. I've been lifting weights for a little over four years now and my BMI is 20.4.4 -
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 do being over-muscled enough to be an outlier is not as good as being well-muscled within a normal weight. Now, I'm not saying being under-muscled is a good thing, in fact I believe it's much worse even if body fat is not high. My opinion is built on research on bodybuilders (which is sadly confounded by performance enhancing drugs), and by heavier elite athletes having on average the lowest survival rate among athletes. Sprinters, for example, are heavier but a lot of that weight is muscle, yet their life expectancy is on average lower than athletes whose sport requires a lower weight.0 -
I had a biology professor who said the bmi charts are pretty inaccurate. There's so many things it doesn't take into account.
I don't follow it. I'm 4'11 and should be around 100lbs. I will never be around 100lbs and that's fine with me. Hopefully one day I'll get to 130-135 and I'll be happy. I also do a lot of strength training so at 100lbs I'd just be skin and bones.
I rather go with body fat percentages than BMI0 -
jennydelgado09 wrote: »I rather go with body fat percentages than BMI
Ditto.
Frankly, if you are overweight or obese, you may not want to admit it but you already know it, based on your appearance, your clothes and the scale. Mirrors, photos, clothes that don't fit and scales don't lie.
I certainly knew it when I was 196# and "overweight" and borderline obese with a BMI of 29.8. In that case, the BMI was extremely accurate for me.
However, now that I weigh 160# with a BF of 10.9% (as most recently measured hydrostatically), BMI now may not be as accurate for me.
At this weight my BMI is 24.3, barely normal despite a BF level of 10.9% and, if I gain just 5#, my BMI would be 25.1 and classified as overweight, if all of the additional weight was fat, even though my BF% would still be below 15%.
So, while I take note of my BMI, I consider my BF level and my blood test results as more relevant indicators and predictors of my health status.
1 -
jennydelgado09 wrote: »I had a biology professor who said the bmi charts are pretty inaccurate. There's so many things it doesn't take into account.
I don't follow it. I'm 4'11 and should be around 100lbs. I will never be around 100lbs and that's fine with me. Hopefully one day I'll get to 130-135 and I'll be happy. I also do a lot of strength training so at 100lbs I'd just be skin and bones.
I rather go with body fat percentages than BMI
Again, as a female, you'd have to be an extreme outlier, even with strength training, not to fall within the healthy BMI range at a healthy bodyfat percentage. Even professional builders who have been at it for decades usually still fall within the healthy BMI range because female. If you want to maintain a higher weight that's totally fine and a personal choice, it doesn't change what's physiologically possible for women.8 -
jennydelgado09 wrote: »I had a biology professor who said the bmi charts are pretty inaccurate. There's so many things it doesn't take into account.
I don't follow it. I'm 4'11 and should be around 100lbs. I will never be around 100lbs and that's fine with me. Hopefully one day I'll get to 130-135 and I'll be happy. I also do a lot of strength training so at 100lbs I'd just be skin and bones.
I rather go with body fat percentages than BMI
I'm 4'11 and around 100 pounds. Was happy with 110 which is around the middle of BMI range, but continued to lose when finding maintenance calories. I am not skin and bone but just a bit too skinny for my liking. No way would I want to get back up to 130 pounds though.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »jennydelgado09 wrote: »I had a biology professor who said the bmi charts are pretty inaccurate. There's so many things it doesn't take into account.
I don't follow it. I'm 4'11 and should be around 100lbs. I will never be around 100lbs and that's fine with me. Hopefully one day I'll get to 130-135 and I'll be happy. I also do a lot of strength training so at 100lbs I'd just be skin and bones.
I rather go with body fat percentages than BMI
Again, as a female, you'd have to be an extreme outlier, even with strength training, not to fall within the healthy BMI range at a healthy bodyfat percentage. Even professional builders who have been at it for decades usually still fall within the healthy BMI range because female. If you want to maintain a higher weight that's totally fine and a personal choice, it doesn't change what's physiologically possible for women.Lillymoo01 wrote: »jennydelgado09 wrote: »I had a biology professor who said the bmi charts are pretty inaccurate. There's so many things it doesn't take into account.
I don't follow it. I'm 4'11 and should be around 100lbs. I will never be around 100lbs and that's fine with me. Hopefully one day I'll get to 130-135 and I'll be happy. I also do a lot of strength training so at 100lbs I'd just be skin and bones.
I rather go with body fat percentages than BMI
I'm 4'11 and around 100 pounds. Was happy with 110 which is around the middle of BMI range, but continued to lose when finding maintenance calories. I am not skin and bone but just a bit too skinny for my liking. No way would I want to get back up to 130 pounds though.
I did not mean it is physically impossible to be 100lbs. Just that I will never be 100lbs because I would never aim for that weight. Regardless if my bmi says that's the weight I should be.
At 154lbs I had 32% body fat. Had a baby recently so I'm sure it's a bit higher now. But I am not that far off from an acceptable body fat percentage. And I don't need to lose 50lbs to get to that acceptable range of body fat %. So for me, I go off of that and not BMI.1 -
Your BMI is 25.1 so you are right on the cusp and only a pound over so I don't think it's a big problem. I think waist to hip ratio or making sure your waist circumference is less than half your height in inches is a good measure also. If your profile picture is you, you certainly don't look overweight and probably have a smaller waist than me and I'm a BMI of 22.4.
Basically they are all guidelines, being a pound outside of the BMI guidline if you're well within other guidelines shouldn't be a problem. I put my weight on my stomach so it wasn't until I had a BMI of under 24 that my waist was a healthy circumference. x0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions