Does everyone still use the bmi scale??
Replies
-
paperpudding wrote: »
The BMI range does differ there by definition. 24.9 is in the normal range, 25 is in the overweight range. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere and that's the spot. The individual's health doesn't magically differ by crossing over that point but their BMI range does differ. BMI is rigid and that's one of the complaints about it.paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
If your health insurance company gives a discount for being in the normal BMI range, that last pound makes the difference.
Sure, for health insurance purposes, if they are that particular - different country here where that doesnt apply to me, so no experience of that.
and of course there has to be an official cut off point as there is in all guidelines.
But key word is guidelines - to think the difference in real life or in meeting personal goals matters between 24.9 and 25 seems misunderstanding of guidelines to me and applying them far too rigidly.
So just coming close to meeting your goals should be good enough? If your goals aren't rigid, why have them at all? The point of having specific measurable goals is to remove subjectivity. I used to think I was in pretty good shape 10-15 pounds overweight. I really wasn't.
They don't wave the checkered flag just because someone is close to the finish line. It's a line you have to cross.8 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
No, but making goal or not making goal is pretty black and white; close to goal isn't good enough for some of us that used BMI to set the goal.
I started my fitness journey at BMI 19, currently in the 24s. Can't wait until I hit 25.
Interesting; I was referring to losing below it, but the last pound will be just as important to you to get above it.
I know you did. I'm looking forward to being muscled and "overweight" to supposedly decrease my life expectancy.
It is about odds, not certainty for everyone in the group. people in the 23 to 24.9 range have the highest average remaining life span. It isn't much less for 22 or 25 and it is still just an average, which means a lot of people will live longer, some much longer. 25 is significantly better than 19.
But my point was/is that if 25+ is your goal , then the last pound to get at or above 25 is important to you.1 -
I feel like I triggered this last bit of discussion about “accuracy” because I stupidly rounded the BMI number in my post. I’ve known for *months* where I had to get to be considered normal BMI, and why I typed it as 25 and not 24.9 I cant tell you. You would think I’d get a milestone that was so important to me correct!4
-
CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
The BMI range does differ there by definition. 24.9 is in the normal range, 25 is in the overweight range. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere and that's the spot. The individual's health doesn't magically differ by crossing over that point but their BMI range does differ. BMI is rigid and that's one of the complaints about it.paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
If your health insurance company gives a discount for being in the normal BMI range, that last pound makes the difference.
Sure, for health insurance purposes, if they are that particular - different country here where that doesnt apply to me, so no experience of that.
and of course there has to be an official cut off point as there is in all guidelines.
But key word is guidelines - to think the difference in real life or in meeting personal goals matters between 24.9 and 25 seems misunderstanding of guidelines to me and applying them far too rigidly.
So just coming close to meeting your goals should be good enough? If your goals aren't rigid, why have them at all? The point of having specific measurable goals is to remove subjectivity. I used to think I was in pretty good shape 10-15 pounds overweight. I really wasn't.
They don't wave the checkered flag just because someone is close to the finish line. It's a line you have to cross.
For me it is. It depends on the goals. I aim for perfection... however, as a human being, I know I will never obtain it.
6 -
I don't pay much attention to BMI. But I know, no matter how much muscle I build, I will never be 25+ for my stats and as lean as I want to be. It just won't happen for me and my frame. Right now I am 21.6... but probably 22-23 will be my happy place.4
-
BMI always makes me laugh at how upset it can make people. It is a range determined by height and weight only. The proportion is then put into a range scale that CAN be a factor in determining health. People get all hinky because the words OVERweight and OBESE are horrible words and we immediately imagine a body type that fits those words. When our body does not match that image in our heads we get all offended. All it means if I have a BMI of 26.1 and overweight is that my chances of health issues are greater than they were at 23.5......chances of health issues...not that I am unhealthy. I will say that right now I am a BMI of 23.5 and I definitely see things about my body that I could change and still be strong and healthy and potentially lower my BMI a tiny bit. Most people think they are outliers to the healthy range thing too but despite lifting weights and having nice definition in my muscles etc I would need to intentionally BULK in order to create a BMI that was in the OVERWEIGHT range in such a way that it was NOT due to fat.
Point is...the ranges are medical ranges...like any medical range..your normal/healthy might be on the top/ bottom / or even outside the range AND the word used to define the range does not mean you are ugly and flabby and gross...it is just the name of a range.8 -
CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
The BMI range does differ there by definition. 24.9 is in the normal range, 25 is in the overweight range. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere and that's the spot. The individual's health doesn't magically differ by crossing over that point but their BMI range does differ. BMI is rigid and that's one of the complaints about it.paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
If your health insurance company gives a discount for being in the normal BMI range, that last pound makes the difference.
Sure, for health insurance purposes, if they are that particular - different country here where that doesnt apply to me, so no experience of that.
and of course there has to be an official cut off point as there is in all guidelines.
But key word is guidelines - to think the difference in real life or in meeting personal goals matters between 24.9 and 25 seems misunderstanding of guidelines to me and applying them far too rigidly.
So just coming close to meeting your goals should be good enough? If your goals aren't rigid, why have them at all? The point of having specific measurable goals is to remove subjectivity. I used to think I was in pretty good shape 10-15 pounds overweight. I really wasn't.
They don't wave the checkered flag just because someone is close to the finish line. It's a line you have to cross.
Well, 10 - 15 lb overweight isnt going to be a difference of one tenth on BMI is it?
to me, yes, your goals should take into account real life common sense flexibility.
Goals do not have to be rigidly precise to be worth having at all
The actual difference in health etc between 24.9 and 25 is nothing.
My goal was to lose about 10kg and is now to maintain my weight at about 62 kg which is about a BMI of 23.
My weight fluctuates slightly but it hasnt fluctuated more than 3 kg - ie 1.5 either side of goal - in 4 years though.
and I do that by consuming, on average. a net amount of about 1710 calories, might be more or less, I dont measure everything to the last gram
I don't aim to always be exactly 62kg or exactly a BMI of 23. 22.9 or whatever is fine
Real life - it isnt rigid or exact.
7 -
paperpudding wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
The BMI range does differ there by definition. 24.9 is in the normal range, 25 is in the overweight range. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere and that's the spot. The individual's health doesn't magically differ by crossing over that point but their BMI range does differ. BMI is rigid and that's one of the complaints about it.paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
If your health insurance company gives a discount for being in the normal BMI range, that last pound makes the difference.
Sure, for health insurance purposes, if they are that particular - different country here where that doesnt apply to me, so no experience of that.
and of course there has to be an official cut off point as there is in all guidelines.
But key word is guidelines - to think the difference in real life or in meeting personal goals matters between 24.9 and 25 seems misunderstanding of guidelines to me and applying them far too rigidly.
So just coming close to meeting your goals should be good enough? If your goals aren't rigid, why have them at all? The point of having specific measurable goals is to remove subjectivity. I used to think I was in pretty good shape 10-15 pounds overweight. I really wasn't.
They don't wave the checkered flag just because someone is close to the finish line. It's a line you have to cross.
Well, 10 - 15 lb overweight isnt going to be a difference of one tenth on BMI is it?
to me, yes, your goals should take into account real life common sense flexibility.
Goals do not have to be rigidly precise to be worth having at all
The actual difference in health etc between 24.9 and 25 is nothing.
My goal was to lose about 10kg and is now to maintain my weight at about 62 kg which is about a BMI of 23.
My weight fluctuates slightly but it hasnt fluctuated more than 3 kg - ie 1.5 either side of goal - in 4 years though.
and I do that by consuming, on average. a net amount of about 1710 calories, might be more or less, I dont measure everything to the last gram
I don't aim to always be exactly 62kg or exactly a BMI of 23. 22.9 or whatever is fine
Real life - it isnt rigid or exact.
You are missing the point. My goal was not to be exactly 24.9. My goal was to get below 25 and stay there. When I was at 25.0, I had not made goal yet. Sure, I felt pretty good and knew I was progressing and would soon make goal, but I didn't pretend I had made goal just because I was close. I am maintaining down around 24 and it bounces around a little but stays below 25. That's real life - you can set goals and decide to really make them and not just accept being close. You do you, but that's not how I roll.4 -
CarvedTones wrote: »That's real life - you can set goals and decide to really make them and not just accept being close. You do you, but that's not how I roll.
Hmmmmm, not to be too much of a **kitten** disturber; but, you have mentioned a couple of times how you rigidly define your goals and I am sure that we have all understood your point of view.
And as you say, that's how you roll.
At the same time on a site that is often populated by people who are obsessively focused on diet, exercise and weight control to the point of dysfunction, pointing out the counter-argument, that real life does NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE SUPER RIGIDLY DEFINED GOALS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE **OVERALL** SUCCESS, is also a point that should be highlighted in case it gets missed when inflexibly pursuing sub goals.
Thus there is nothing wrong with others point out to YOU that your approach is not the *only* "correct" one, even if it is perceived by you to be correct for you at this time.
There is NO real difference between 25.0 and 24.9. Except to your insurance company. And your brain hamsters.15 -
CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
The BMI range does differ there by definition. 24.9 is in the normal range, 25 is in the overweight range. There needs to be a cutoff somewhere and that's the spot. The individual's health doesn't magically differ by crossing over that point but their BMI range does differ. BMI is rigid and that's one of the complaints about it.paperpudding wrote: »workinonit1956 wrote: »An update to my post up thread: this morning (after an aggravating stall) the scale registered a 2 pound loss, which puts me at a BMI of 25!! While I’m happy to have achieved (finally) the top of “normal”, I most definitely have fat left to lose. But this sure feels good
Congrats on your weight loss success but you need to know that 25 is NOT the top of the "normal" BMI range. 25 is the "bottom" of the "overweight" range and 24.9 is the "top" of the "normal" range.
Sorry to be the one to burst you bubble but on the plus side this means that you are really close to achieving your goal. Just another # or 2 will do it.
Good luck!
Can't work out if this post is supposed to be funny if you are really serious ..
Surely nobody thinks their BMI status, ie whether it is in overweight range or healthy range, differs between being 24.9 and 25.
Everyone's weight fluctuates slightly anyway - do you think people vary in whether they are healthy or overweight depending on which side of ledger a lb or two puts them.
* shakes head*
If your health insurance company gives a discount for being in the normal BMI range, that last pound makes the difference.
Sure, for health insurance purposes, if they are that particular - different country here where that doesnt apply to me, so no experience of that.
and of course there has to be an official cut off point as there is in all guidelines.
But key word is guidelines - to think the difference in real life or in meeting personal goals matters between 24.9 and 25 seems misunderstanding of guidelines to me and applying them far too rigidly.
So just coming close to meeting your goals should be good enough? If your goals aren't rigid, why have them at all? The point of having specific measurable goals is to remove subjectivity. I used to think I was in pretty good shape 10-15 pounds overweight. I really wasn't.
They don't wave the checkered flag just because someone is close to the finish line. It's a line you have to cross.
Well, 10 - 15 lb overweight isnt going to be a difference of one tenth on BMI is it?
to me, yes, your goals should take into account real life common sense flexibility.
Goals do not have to be rigidly precise to be worth having at all
The actual difference in health etc between 24.9 and 25 is nothing.
My goal was to lose about 10kg and is now to maintain my weight at about 62 kg which is about a BMI of 23.
My weight fluctuates slightly but it hasnt fluctuated more than 3 kg - ie 1.5 either side of goal - in 4 years though.
and I do that by consuming, on average. a net amount of about 1710 calories, might be more or less, I dont measure everything to the last gram
I don't aim to always be exactly 62kg or exactly a BMI of 23. 22.9 or whatever is fine
Real life - it isnt rigid or exact.
You are missing the point. My goal was not to be exactly 24.9. My goal was to get below 25 and stay there. When I was at 25.0, I had not made goal yet. Sure, I felt pretty good and knew I was progressing and would soon make goal, but I didn't pretend I had made goal just because I was close. I am maintaining down around 24 and it bounces around a little but stays below 25. That's real life - you can set goals and decide to really make them and not just accept being close. You do you, but that's not how I roll.
Yes we get it - that is not how you roll.
I most certainly will do me - as indeed I pointed out in my post exactly how I do so.
Like Pav says, real difference between 24.9 and 25 is nothing - but if you want to get rigidly exact about it, do so.
But don't make blanket statements to rest of us like 'it's a line you have to cross' and ' if your goals aren't rigid why have them at all'
No - it is a line you have decided you have to cross - others can use common sense and if they are close enough so as to make no difference they are close enough.
And since, you asked, I explained why I have goals which are not rigid - basically because no difference means no difference and I don't get caught up in irelevant unneccesary precision.
You do you - but that's not how I roll nor is it how others have to roll.
9 -
OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
Eight years ago my college used BMI to determine what grad robe size people needed if they didn't know. I made the mistake of putting in my weight, and height into my grad robe application form instead of just making a guess what size I needed. They never asked for a waist circumf. This is what size they decided my BMI score made me.
Yes that bump in the sleeve is my hand. It was like half a foot beyond my fingers. It's okay to laugh, I did.8 -
aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
BMI isn't inaccurate, it's just not as hard and fast as people think it to be. Though unscientifically, I would argue that more of us conform to the BMI range than do not conform. A surprising number of people claim to be exceptions to the norm and it's likely that they're not all correct.8 -
aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
Eight years ago my college used BMI to determine what grad robe size people needed if they didn't know. I made the mistake of putting in my weight, and height into my grad robe application form instead of just making a guess what size I needed. They never asked for a waist circumf. This is what size they decided my BMI score made me.
Yes that bump in the sleeve is my hand. It was like half a foot beyond my fingers. It's okay to laugh, I did.
Your robe confuses me! Being fat doesn't make your arms longer. Trust me, I should know... so your height should have accurately determined the length of your sleeves, regardless of your waist circumference. Blame this one on people who don't understand how to make clothing, not BMI!13 -
aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
BMI isn't inaccurate, it's just not as hard and fast as people think it to be. Though unscientifically, I would argue that more of us conform to the BMI range than do not conform. A surprising number of people claim to be exceptions to the norm and it's likely that they're not all correct.
There's a study out there somewhere which determined that something like 12% of men and 5% of women were "obese" according to BMI without actually being obese according to bodyfat percentage. I'm saying this from memory so it may be off. Does anyone else remember the study or have a link to it?1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
BMI isn't inaccurate, it's just not as hard and fast as people think it to be. Though unscientifically, I would argue that more of us conform to the BMI range than do not conform. A surprising number of people claim to be exceptions to the norm and it's likely that they're not all correct.
There's a study out there somewhere which determined that something like 12% of men and 5% of women were "obese" according to BMI without actually being obese according to bodyfat percentage. I'm saying this from memory so it may be off. Does anyone else remember the study or have a link to it?
So in other words roughly 88% to 95% of the time BMI was correct, right?3 -
mburgess458 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
BMI isn't inaccurate, it's just not as hard and fast as people think it to be. Though unscientifically, I would argue that more of us conform to the BMI range than do not conform. A surprising number of people claim to be exceptions to the norm and it's likely that they're not all correct.
There's a study out there somewhere which determined that something like 12% of men and 5% of women were "obese" according to BMI without actually being obese according to bodyfat percentage. I'm saying this from memory so it may be off. Does anyone else remember the study or have a link to it?
So in other words roughly 88% to 95% of the time BMI was correct, right?
Nope, as the reverse error can be made, obese by BF% but overweight or "normal" on the BMI Chart
so two types of errors, those that are in an overweight category, but not overweight, or those in Normal but should be classified as overweight. I would assume the later is even mover common ("skinny fat") unhealthy BF% but "normal" scale weight7 -
mburgess458 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
BMI isn't inaccurate, it's just not as hard and fast as people think it to be. Though unscientifically, I would argue that more of us conform to the BMI range than do not conform. A surprising number of people claim to be exceptions to the norm and it's likely that they're not all correct.
There's a study out there somewhere which determined that something like 12% of men and 5% of women were "obese" according to BMI without actually being obese according to bodyfat percentage. I'm saying this from memory so it may be off. Does anyone else remember the study or have a link to it?
So in other words roughly 88% to 95% of the time BMI was correct, right?
No...it's far more rare for someone to be obese per BMI but still lean. It's not particularly rare for a male who works out regularly to be slightly overweight per BMI, particularly if they're at a healthy BF% but not super lean.
There's a big difference between being lean and a few Lbs overweight per BMI and obese and lean per BMI.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Your robe confuses me! Being fat doesn't make your arms longer. Trust me, I should know... so your height should have accurately determined the length of your sleeves, regardless of your waist circumference. Blame this one on people who don't understand how to make clothing, not BMI!
I actually made clothing for a living for like ten years. Never said it did made your arms longer! What I said is that it was hanging half a foot beyond my fingers. It's kinda like when kids play dress up, the shoulder seam hangs way below where it's supposed to and their tiny arms are swimming in sleeve. Same principle. What happens is you have to account for the extra shoulder space larger people need when grading a pattern up. When the shoulders of a garment are made to encompass someone much larger than you, sleeves tend to hang lower because the shoulder seam is wider than your shoulders.
It's the BMI sizing they were using, and it was made for someone much, much larger than I was at the time; there's oodles of cloth around the shoulder, arms, and the neck opening is huge. The BMI is inaccurate because it fails to consider muscle mass, and I tend to have a lot from running/cycling et ctr, because that was the way I got around for a decade and a half.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
BMI isn't inaccurate, it's just not as hard and fast as people think it to be. Though unscientifically, I would argue that more of us conform to the BMI range than do not conform. A surprising number of people claim to be exceptions to the norm and it's likely that they're not all correct.
There's a study out there somewhere which determined that something like 12% of men and 5% of women were "obese" according to BMI without actually being obese according to bodyfat percentage. I'm saying this from memory so it may be off. Does anyone else remember the study or have a link to it?
So in other words roughly 88% to 95% of the time BMI was correct, right?
No...it's far more rare for someone to be obese per BMI but still lean. It's not particularly rare for a male who works out regularly to be slightly overweight per BMI, particularly if they're at a healthy BF% but not super lean.
There's a big difference between being lean and a few Lbs overweight per BMI and obese and lean per BMI.cwolfman13 wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »aresvallis wrote: »OP, nobody should use BMI for weight loss goals. It's been decried for years now as inaccurate.
BMI isn't inaccurate, it's just not as hard and fast as people think it to be. Though unscientifically, I would argue that more of us conform to the BMI range than do not conform. A surprising number of people claim to be exceptions to the norm and it's likely that they're not all correct.
There's a study out there somewhere which determined that something like 12% of men and 5% of women were "obese" according to BMI without actually being obese according to bodyfat percentage. I'm saying this from memory so it may be off. Does anyone else remember the study or have a link to it?
So in other words roughly 88% to 95% of the time BMI was correct, right?
No...it's far more rare for someone to be obese per BMI but still lean. It's not particularly rare for a male who works out regularly to be slightly overweight per BMI, particularly if they're at a healthy BF% but not super lean.
There's a big difference between being lean and a few Lbs overweight per BMI and obese and lean per BMI.
Yes - which is what I said before - young muscular sporty men - not body builders or elite sportsman, just regular young muscular sporty men - can have BMI's of slightly over the official range and still be healthy and not over fat despite being officially over weight.
I suspect the 12% of men quoted in post upthread reflects this.
Although I agree, such men are generally "overweight" according to a BMI of around 27 - the BMI isnt high enough to be obese.
They are slightly over the official range not 5+ points over (30 being official start of obese)
Up to each of us, or our doctors or whoever is assessing our health status, to use common sense about whether this is likely to apply to us
As I said before - unlikely to apply to me as a middle aged non-muscular non-sporty woman - so a BMI of 23 is healthy for me.
2 -
aresvallis wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »
Your robe confuses me! Being fat doesn't make your arms longer. Trust me, I should know... so your height should have accurately determined the length of your sleeves, regardless of your waist circumference. Blame this one on people who don't understand how to make clothing, not BMI!
I actually made clothing for a living for like ten years. Never said it did made your arms longer! What I said is that it was hanging half a foot beyond my fingers. It's kinda like when kids play dress up, the shoulder seam hangs way below where it's supposed to and their tiny arms are swimming in sleeve. Same principle. What happens is you have to account for the extra shoulder space larger people need when grading a pattern up. When the shoulders of a garment are made to encompass someone much larger than you, sleeves tend to hang lower because the shoulder seam is wider than your shoulders.
It's the BMI sizing they were using, and it was made for someone much, much larger than I was at the time; there's oodles of cloth around the shoulder, arms, and the neck opening is huge. The BMI is inaccurate because it fails to consider muscle mass, and I tend to have a lot from running/cycling et ctr, because that was the way I got around for a decade and a half.
That doesn't make any sense. Look at the chart below. Just using it, a person at any height from 5'0" to 6'4" can have a BMI between 19 and 26. They can't use BMI to size clothes unless they also have height.
3 -
I use BMI as a guideline. BMI compares height and weight only. I prefer to use body tape measurements and weight. When I work out a lot, my height and weight may stay the same but I can lose 3 inches off my hips. I tried body fat calipers but it is really hard to use them by myself.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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