BMI CONTROVERSY‼️🤬

WW1984

Hey MFP Fam,

Ok . . . We all know that the Body Mass index (BMI) is a screening tool that can indicate whether a person is underweight, healthy weight, excess weight, or obesity. If a person's BMI is outside of the healthy range, their health risks may increase significantly. But we’ve also heard experts say that "BMI is flawed".

I’m 48 at a mere 4’ 10” and 116 lbs with a tiny frame (goal weight 100 lbs). The BMI chart says that I’m within my weight range of 88.5 - 119.6 (BMI = 24.24 as Normal). So if it’s flawed then what the H-E-double hockey stick are we to use other than just going by appearances, health exams, etc. ⁉️😫

Replies

cmriverside

Use for...? Getting into the military? Life insurance? Or just for you and your own satisfaction?

I just go by how I look. I'm settled at dead center on the BMI range. I like how I look and it's not that hard to maintain. It's a pretty wide range.

pinuplove

BMI is fine as a dumb (read: just the numbers, no rationalization) diagnostic tool / starting point for most people. Chances are, you're one of them.

WW1984

Hi CMRIVERSIDE. I understand your perception. I’ve updated the post to include all people. Unfortunately I continuously struggle with my weight as a result from being short and in my forties. I looked ok at 120 but was considered overweight and possibly at a health risk.

pinuplove

WW1984 wrote: »

Hi CMRIVERSIDE. I understand your perception. I’ve updated the post to include all people. Unfortunately I continuously struggle with my weight as a result from being short and in my forties. I looked ok at 120 but was considered overweight and possibly at a health risk.

120 is 0.4 pounds outside the magical 'healthy' range. That's not statistically significant and well within the daily fluctuation range of weight.

If you have specific health concerns, you should discuss them with your doctor. Usually, being a few pounds above normal BMI with no other issues (high BP, cholesterol, blood sugar etc.) is NBD from a general health perspective.

ETA are you being charged more for insurance or otherwise penalized for this 0.4 pounds? I'm still confused. However, there are a couple of voluminous BMI threads in the debate folder that have examined the issue from every possible angle of you're interested.

cmriverside

WW1984 wrote: »

Hi CMRIVERSIDE. I understand your perception. I’ve updated the post to include all people. Unfortunately I continuously struggle with my weight as a result from being short and in my forties. I looked ok at 120 but was considered overweight and possibly at a health risk.

Okay, but why are you so worked up over it?

It is a range of weight that is suitable for most people.

You can lose weight. You aren't being accurate enough in your calorie calculations if you haven't been able to do so.

I think it's common to feel like the weights are too low - until you get there. Looking at people around us who are over weight makes it seem like the numbers must be skewed, but when you get there the lightbulb goes on!

lemurcat2

If I felt good and liked how I looked at BMI 26 or whatever as much as I do at BMI 22, I'd likely not worry about losing. It's not a big deal to be a bit above the healthy range, especially if you exercise and eat well, and actual fat percentage is what's really important, most people just don't have an accurate way of determining it.

tcunbeliever

It's just a metric based on an average build height/weight chart - it's not the only health metric out there. For a middle age woman your waist/hip ratio is probably a better indicator of health than BMI. Body fat percentage is a pretty good indicator of health for just about everyone. There's also all those other health metrics like blood pressure, and A1C, and calcium score.

You are more than just a collection of metrics, but if you want to use metrics to try to improve your health, maybe a collection of metrics would be more useful than any single one.

kimny72

I'm not sure I understand?

First, it's by no means commonly accepted that BMI is flawed. It's one metric, that should be used in conjunction with several other metrics. It is not meant to be the be-all-and-end-all measurement of your health. We have had several previous BMI debates that you can probably find by skimming down the recent list, and I feel like the argument why BMI is a useful metric has been represented well.

You are within the healthy weight range. That doesn't mean you should look or feel perfect at every weight within the range. It's just a general guide. If other metrics suggest you are healthy, then it's up to you if you think you would look better a little lower in the range. If other metrics put you in a danger zone (like waist measurement, BF%, or waist to hip ratio) then you might need to get to a lower weight within the healthy range.

Are you saying BMI is flawed because you are in the healthy weight range but need to lose weight? Or are you saying you don't know how to determine the right weight for you because BMI is flawed and you aren't sure you should go by it?

CSARdiver

There's a huge misconception going on regarding BMI that people are internalizing.

All this is intended to show is that risk increases if you are in the underweight, overweight, and obese risk categories. It is also representative of the population.

With any diagnostic tool, it is foolish to rely on only one metric and one must look at an individual through a holistic perspective.

This has nothing to do with how one feels as this is entirely subjective.

Duck_Puddle

People with a BMI over/under certain thresholds have a higher likelihood of developing certain conditions/issues. So it’s a tool for help evaluate risk.

It also takes roughly .2 seconds, a calculator and costs $0.01 to do-which makes it extremely cost effective as a tool in the toolkit to assess risk.

MOST people will fall correctly within the risk category based on BMI. Not 100%. But given the overall effectiveness vs the cost/skill/time needed to calculate it, it’s extremely effective for what it’s intended to do: assess likelihood/risk for developing conditions/issues due to being over or underweight.

ritzvin

cmriverside wrote: »

I think it's common to feel like the weights are too low - until you get there. Looking at people around us who are over weight makes it seem like the numbers must be skewed, but when you get there the lightbulb goes on!

Yep- totally this! (I'm 4'10", ~112-116 lbs).

mph323

To elaborate on @kimny72 's comment:

BMI has nothing to do with the way you look at a healthy weight. Different people have different views of their "ideal" body and how it should look. Many times people are happier with how they look at a weight that's over or under the "healthy" range. Another person looking at them may think they could stand to gain or lose a few pounds. This is subjective and not measurable, and doesn't have a bearing on the objective statistical population-level morbidity rates that BMI measures.

Your personal morbidity risk is dependent on a number of factors in addition to your weight, such as body fat percent, smoking, drug/alcohol use, family history, etc. BMI doesn't address any of those metrics, all it indicates is that in the population from which data was collected (which is enormous, and growing all the time), the statistical chance of dying at any given time rises with the amount that a person is outside of the optimal weight range.

Here's a thread further down on this page with an extensive discussion of BMI:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10681147/bmi-agree-or-disagree/p1

Lounmoun

I think the BMI is a pretty good guideline for what a healthy weight range is for a particular height but is not a rule that you will only be healthy and happy at a particular weight.
You ultimately have to use your own real world experience and opinion to decide the right weight for you.

wmd1979

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

tulips_and_tea

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

Oh wow. I hope as soon as they saw you the dismissed the need for a physical! That is ridiculous.

mph323

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

I bet the physical was mandated by the insurance company (yours and their malpractice insurance). At sub 10% body fat a doctor seeing you in person would have to be completely uninterested in assessing your actual health risks to automatically schedule a physical based solely on BMI. It's a starting point and shouldn't be discounted, but common sense needs to play a part as well.

Duck_Puddle

BZAH10 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

Oh wow. I hope as soon as they saw you the dismissed the need for a physical! That is ridiculous.

I don’t think they would have. The notion behind requiring the physical was probably due to overall potential risks involved being higher (for someone at a higher BMI because of excess fat). Visually, he clearly is extremely healthy and not at higher risk due to weight. On forms and checkboxes and things where liability issues are at stake-I’m going ro assume a physical was required.

wmd1979

BZAH10 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

Oh wow. I hope as soon as they saw you the dismissed the need for a physical! That is ridiculous.

I have to go regardless. Like @mph323 stated it is probably mandated by insurance or something. On the bright side, I should get the opportunity to turn my head and cough while having my balls fondled, so there's that. Great way to start off the new year.

cmriverside

That BMI/surgery thing? I've had multiple surgeries when I was a lot more over weight than wmd1979.
@wmd1979, has it been a long time since you had a physical? I have one every year, but I've never been referred back by a surgeon in order to get surgery.

That's weird, unless you just never go to the doctor.

Noreenmarie1234

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

I think BMI is far more accurate for women. I have rarely ever seen a women who was "overweight" yet still looked thin, but have seen plenty of muscular men who shouldn't be deemed overweight.

cwolfman13

WW1984 wrote: »

Hey MFP Fam,

Ok . . . We all know that the Body Mass index (BMI) is a screening tool that can indicate whether a person is underweight, healthy weight, excess weight, or obesity. If a person's BMI is outside of the healthy range, their health risks may increase significantly. But we’ve also heard experts say that "BMI is flawed".

I’m 48 at a mere 4’ 10” and 116 lbs with a tiny frame (goal weight 100 lbs). The BMI chart says that I’m within my weight range of 88.5 - 119.6 (BMI = 24.24 as Normal). So if it’s flawed then what the H-E-double hockey stick are we to use other than just going by appearances, health exams, etc. ⁉️😫

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is flawed...it is incomplete and doesn't tell the whole story. It is only one metric to gauge potential health risks in a population, not necessarily an individual. And it has nothing to do with aesthetics. I know people who are well within a healthy BMI range who are very much unhealthy and people who are just outside of a healthy range who are very fit and healthy.

My usual maintenance weight is 180 Lbs which is about 5 Lbs overweight by BMI...my Dr. isn't particularly worried as I am not overly fat and maintain a healthy BF%, eat well, and exercise regularly...I'm just not super lean either. I'm trying to get down to 175 for summer purely for aesthetic reasons, not healthy reasons...we're probably getting a pool so I'll be shirtless a lot more often. I figure 175 will put me around 12% BF and I'll be right at the high end of the BMI range for my height.

wmd1979

cmriverside wrote: »

That BMI/surgery thing? I've had multiple surgeries when I was a lot more over weight than wmd1979.
@wmd1979, has it been a long time since you had a physical? I have one every year, but I've never been referred back by a surgeon in order to get surgery.

That's weird, unless you just never go to the doctor.

I get a physical every year. I actually had cancer earlier this year and was finally cleared in July, so I have spent a lot of time at the doctor this year. This will be my fifth shoulder surgery and I don't recall having to take a physical before any of them. I think its weird too.

CSARdiver

cwolfman13 wrote: »

WW1984 wrote: »

Hey MFP Fam,

Ok . . . We all know that the Body Mass index (BMI) is a screening tool that can indicate whether a person is underweight, healthy weight, excess weight, or obesity. If a person's BMI is outside of the healthy range, their health risks may increase significantly. But we’ve also heard experts say that "BMI is flawed".

I’m 48 at a mere 4’ 10” and 116 lbs with a tiny frame (goal weight 100 lbs). The BMI chart says that I’m within my weight range of 88.5 - 119.6 (BMI = 24.24 as Normal). So if it’s flawed then what the H-E-double hockey stick are we to use other than just going by appearances, health exams, etc. ⁉️😫

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is flawed...it is incomplete and doesn't tell the whole story. It is only one metric to gauge potential health risks in a population, not necessarily an individual. And it has nothing to do with aesthetics. I know people who are well within a healthy BMI range who are very much unhealthy and people who are just outside of a healthy range who are very fit and healthy.

My usual maintenance weight is 180 Lbs which is about 5 Lbs overweight by BMI...my Dr. isn't particularly worried as I am not overly fat and maintain a healthy BF%, eat well, and exercise regularly...I'm just not super lean either. I'm trying to get down to 175 for summer purely for aesthetic reasons, not healthy reasons...we're probably getting a pool so I'll be shirtless a lot more often. I figure 175 will put me around 12% BF and I'll be right at the high end of the BMI range for my height.

BMI isn't flawed.

Application of BMI by insurance/corporate policies is flawed.

This seems to be the key distinction.

cmriverside

wmd1979 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

That BMI/surgery thing? I've had multiple surgeries when I was a lot more over weight than wmd1979.
@wmd1979, has it been a long time since you had a physical? I have one every year, but I've never been referred back by a surgeon in order to get surgery.

That's weird, unless you just never go to the doctor.

I get a physical every year. I actually had cancer earlier this year and was finally cleared in July, so I have spent a lot of time at the doctor this year. This will be my fifth shoulder surgery and I don't recall having to take a physical before any of them. I think its weird too.

Oh, sorry to hear about the cancer. May have something to do with it (?)

I hope everything goes well and you come out all shiny and fixed.

hesn92

Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

I think BMI is far more accurate for women. I have rarely ever seen a women who was "overweight" yet still looked thin, but have seen plenty of muscular men who shouldn't be deemed overweight.

I have. Unless she was lying to me to make me feel better lol

We had our on-site biometric screenings done right after I returned from maternity leave and I said "aw man, I'm in the overweight category" and she said "me too". This girl is like, the typical super healthy fit girl. She was pretty muscular but not overly-so. She did have a little stomach pudge just like... almost every other woman ever, but she was pretty thin otherwise. I thought that was strange.

aokoye

BZAH10 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

Oh wow. I hope as soon as they saw you the dismissed the need for a physical! That is ridiculous.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how healthy a weight you are, pre-surgical physicals/consults/visits with pre-surgical medicine are pretty important for a variety of reasons unrelated to weight.

aokoye

wmd1979 wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

That BMI/surgery thing? I've had multiple surgeries when I was a lot more over weight than wmd1979.
@wmd1979, has it been a long time since you had a physical? I have one every year, but I've never been referred back by a surgeon in order to get surgery.

That's weird, unless you just never go to the doctor.

I get a physical every year. I actually had cancer earlier this year and was finally cleared in July, so I have spent a lot of time at the doctor this year. This will be my fifth shoulder surgery and I don't recall having to take a physical before any of them. I think its weird too.

The hospital where I had my last two knee surgeries at requires visits to presurgical medicine for everyone who isn't have emergency surgery. It's essentially a risks assessment that I assume is primarily used by the anesthesiology team. In my experience over the past two nothing like an actual physical - though when I had back surgery as a teenager I remember it being more like a physical, though with significantly more labs.

The only times I haven't had something really similar was when I have had surgery at surgical centers. I still had pre-surgical consults though.

paperpudding

Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

I think BMI is far more accurate for women. I have rarely ever seen a women who was "overweight" yet still looked thin, but have seen plenty of muscular men who shouldn't be deemed overweight.

as I have said several times before on similar threads....

Sporty young men (not elite body builders or proffesional footballers, just generally active sporty types) will often have BMI slightly out of healthy range but in fact still have healthy bodies.

By slightly out I mean up to about 27 , not way over.

Being very tall can also skew results - you can have slightly high BMI whilst still being healthy. Again, obviously this more often applies to men.

But this is like any variable range - there wont be an exact cut off point whereby 24.99 is healthy for everyone but 25.11 is not, that is silly.
Obviously slightly outside range can be ok, within context.

Conversely other people, particularly asian women, could actually be overweight even though their BMI is around 24. and some could be at their best personal weight at around 18.

I doubt many people are healthy FAR outside the range though.

_aenyeweddien_

wmd1979 wrote: »

Personally, I find that BMI is generally a good guideline for the majority of people, but I did just have a case yesterday where I was affected by my BMI. I scheduled an upcoming shoulder surgery for mid January, and when doing so, I was forced to also schedule a pre-op physical based solely on the fact that my BMI puts me slightly into the overweight range. If I was in the normal range I would not have had to pass a physical. I am 6'2" 197 lbs and my bodyfat % is sub 10%. I was aware that I am 3-4 lbs into the overweight category but it never bothered me until yesterday when my surgeons office insisted I schedule a physical based only on my BMI. I don't have a problem with BMI being used as a guideline for people, but I think that strictly enforcing these guidelines just like what happened to me yesterday is ridiculous. Doctors offices, and insurance companies do need to recognize that there will be outliers and need to have secondary measures in place in those cases(height to waist ratio or whatever). With that being said, I believe that most people who think they are outliers actually are not, and sometimes people need to be honest with themselves and realize that they are larger than they should be.

as ridiculous as it is, it's probably for legal reasons - if they don't do a physical and something goes wrong, you could sue them and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on

johnslater461

CSARdiver wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

WW1984 wrote: »

Hey MFP Fam,

Ok . . . We all know that the Body Mass index (BMI) is a screening tool that can indicate whether a person is underweight, healthy weight, excess weight, or obesity. If a person's BMI is outside of the healthy range, their health risks may increase significantly. But we’ve also heard experts say that "BMI is flawed".

I’m 48 at a mere 4’ 10” and 116 lbs with a tiny frame (goal weight 100 lbs). The BMI chart says that I’m within my weight range of 88.5 - 119.6 (BMI = 24.24 as Normal). So if it’s flawed then what the H-E-double hockey stick are we to use other than just going by appearances, health exams, etc. ⁉️😫

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is flawed...it is incomplete and doesn't tell the whole story. It is only one metric to gauge potential health risks in a population, not necessarily an individual. And it has nothing to do with aesthetics. I know people who are well within a healthy BMI range who are very much unhealthy and people who are just outside of a healthy range who are very fit and healthy.

My usual maintenance weight is 180 Lbs which is about 5 Lbs overweight by BMI...my Dr. isn't particularly worried as I am not overly fat and maintain a healthy BF%, eat well, and exercise regularly...I'm just not super lean either. I'm trying to get down to 175 for summer purely for aesthetic reasons, not healthy reasons...we're probably getting a pool so I'll be shirtless a lot more often. I figure 175 will put me around 12% BF and I'll be right at the high end of the BMI range for my height.

BMI isn't flawed.

Application of BMI by insurance/corporate policies is flawed.

This seems to be the key distinction.

No, it really isn't. You just don't understand how actuarial analysis works.

If you belong to an at risk group, you will pay a higher premium. Just as a driver under the age of 25 will pay a higher rate for car insurance