How accurate is BMI
Replies
-
jseams1234 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
BMI is a realistic benchmark for 80-90% of the population. It will correlate well with other measures such as bodyfat % and waist measurement (i.e, someone with an overweight/obese BMI will most likely be in the same category on the other measurements) and it easier to determine.
If someone is significantly overweight/obese on BMI, they should talk to their doctor and determine if there are other factors such as a high level of muscularity that mitigates the health threats associated with higher BMI. If one truly has a high level of muscle, and is being honest with themselves they know it (hint, it's not happening without extensive resistance training).
BTW 11-12% BF is fantastic and not what you typically see on your average gym goer and certainly not the average male on the street. Could I ask how you are determining BF%?
...outliers, outliers everywhere!
Really - every time a thread that mentions BMI starts there are always a few folks trying to discredit it by claiming outlier status. Heck, all my lifting buddies are outliers so I know they exist as I see them every day - but I also know that BMI is accurate for the vast majority of the population. Really, even with active "fit" people - how many actually train with the sole purpose of getting massive and yoked? Most just end up settling with being relatively athletically lean and ripped. I recently took a co-worker to the gym with me after he expressed a desire to improve his fitness. He also claimed that although he was a bit fluffy - it was mostly muscle as he was a "big boned" guy and he'd just need to lose a bit of that fluff. Dude couldn't bench a plate - my WIFE can bench more than he could. I don't think that massive turkey boob chest of his was hiding any serious amount of muscle.
I've mentioned this before - outliers against BMI should be mandated to post their stats and a pic of their physique. I'm sure that some of them might even pass the "sniffer test" but in my experience - those that actually do meet outlier status aren't the ones that are so adamant in trying to discredit BMI - as they know exactly how hard and long they had to train to achieve that status.
I agree. Although there is a small percentage of outliers, most are simply in denial that they are either overweight or underweight. They simply are not at that point of accepting the truth. That, or they are so used to seeing overweight that they don't actually know what a normal, healthy weight looks like anymore.
Edited to add that this is from someone who was convinced she had a larger than average frame until she got down within a normal BMI and realised her frame was just that, normal.13 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
BMI is a realistic benchmark for 80-90% of the population. It will correlate well with other measures such as bodyfat % and waist measurement (i.e, someone with an overweight/obese BMI will most likely be in the same category on the other measurements) and it easier to determine.
If someone is significantly overweight/obese on BMI, they should talk to their doctor and determine if there are other factors such as a high level of muscularity that mitigates the health threats associated with higher BMI. If one truly has a high level of muscle, and is being honest with themselves they know it (hint, it's not happening without extensive resistance training).
BTW 11-12% BF is fantastic and not what you typically see on your average gym goer and certainly not the average male on the street. Could I ask how you are determining BF%?
BTW - The BMI chart at 6' 3" = 195, not 180.
In the past 12 months my BF% has been measured using 3 different methods. Calipers and measuring at the gym, The gym's InBody Body composition scale, and a $275 exam. All were +/- 1%.
My beef with BMI - I had to renew my life insurance last year. My premium was going to sky rocket, because I was "obese". I had to pay $275 for an independent examination, which concluded I was 16.4% BF @ ~200 lbs. Those results had to go to a randomly subjective panel for approval.
My question is: with all our modern science and medicine, why do we lean on an astonomers equation from 1830?1 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
BMI is a realistic benchmark for 80-90% of the population. It will correlate well with other measures such as bodyfat % and waist measurement (i.e, someone with an overweight/obese BMI will most likely be in the same category on the other measurements) and it easier to determine.
If someone is significantly overweight/obese on BMI, they should talk to their doctor and determine if there are other factors such as a high level of muscularity that mitigates the health threats associated with higher BMI. If one truly has a high level of muscle, and is being honest with themselves they know it (hint, it's not happening without extensive resistance training).
BTW 11-12% BF is fantastic and not what you typically see on your average gym goer and certainly not the average male on the street. Could I ask how you are determining BF%?
BTW - The BMI chart at 6' 3" = 195, not 180.
In the past 12 months my BF% has been measured using 3 different methods. Calipers and measuring at the gym, The gym's InBody Body composition scale, and a $275 exam. All were +/- 1%.
My beef with BMI - I had to renew my life insurance last year. My premium was going to sky rocket, because I was "obese". I had to pay $275 for an independent examination, which concluded I was 16.4% BF @ ~200 lbs. Those results had to go to a randomly subjective panel for approval.
My question is: with all our modern science and medicine, why do we lean on an astonomers equation from 1830?
but that anecdote doesnt show BMI is inaccurate - it shows the people in question did not understand context.
Your beef shouldnt be with BMI but with people using it to draw conclusions without context
13 -
OP: What does BMI have 2do w/your weight loss effort?
BMI was NOT designed to establish specific goals for weight loss or maintenance. It was ONLY designed as an indicator of one's risk for certain diseases, such as diabetes and heart diease, based on an arguably oversimplified correlation between one's weight and height.
Even if you reach a BMI of 22.5 (with a BW of 180 at 6'3"tall), that would only mean that you have reduced your risk for such diseases to "normal" but would be otherwise meaningless to your weight loss effort.
Forget about it!
The OP was formerly over 500 pounds. He was told by a doctor (granted not a surgeon who would be doing the surgery) he needed to get to 180 pounds for surgery to remove excess skin.
That prompted the discussion.2 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
BMI is a realistic benchmark for 80-90% of the population. It will correlate well with other measures such as bodyfat % and waist measurement (i.e, someone with an overweight/obese BMI will most likely be in the same category on the other measurements) and it easier to determine.
If someone is significantly overweight/obese on BMI, they should talk to their doctor and determine if there are other factors such as a high level of muscularity that mitigates the health threats associated with higher BMI. If one truly has a high level of muscle, and is being honest with themselves they know it (hint, it's not happening without extensive resistance training).
BTW 11-12% BF is fantastic and not what you typically see on your average gym goer and certainly not the average male on the street. Could I ask how you are determining BF%?
BTW - The BMI chart at 6' 3" = 195, not 180.
In the past 12 months my BF% has been measured using 3 different methods. Calipers and measuring at the gym, The gym's InBody Body composition scale, and a $275 exam. All were +/- 1%.
My beef with BMI - I had to renew my life insurance last year. My premium was going to sky rocket, because I was "obese". I had to pay $275 for an independent examination, which concluded I was 16.4% BF @ ~200 lbs. Those results had to go to a randomly subjective panel for approval.
My question is: with all our modern science and medicine, why do we lean on an astonomers equation from 1830?
The 180 pounds in the discussion was what the OP was told he had to get to for skin removal surgery (he was 500 pounds).
That sucks on your insurance. If all they did was a DEXA Scan you got hosed, I paid $75 for one a month ago.
With that said, from an objective point of view, don't you think most people in the general population that are overweight/obese on BMI are also over fat when looking at BF%?4 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
Def not 11% with only a 2 pack... my profile pic, with a 6 pack, is me at 10-12% BF%... obviously the method to calculate BF% was not accurate for him4 -
First congrats on the journey this far!
BMI is a concept I abandoned nearly 40 years ago as young military person. Personal anecdotes aside, the BMI concept , created in the 1830s, creates guidelines for healthcare providers but is probably not a valid tool for individual goals. The Trefethen update to the BMI measurement would put the upper end of your healthy weight at 210 I believe. Attempts to quantify and calculate something as complicated as a human being are always going to flawed
0 -
rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
Def not 11% with only a 2 pack... my profile pic, with a 6 pack, is me at 10-12% BF%... obviously the method to calculate BF% was not accurate for him
Yeah but you're flexing like a mad man. He has abs walking.2 -
leopard1978 wrote: »First congrats on the journey this far!
BMI is a concept I abandoned nearly 40 years ago as young military person. Personal anecdotes aside, the BMI concept , created in the 1830s, creates guidelines for healthcare providers but is probably not a valid tool for individual goals. The Trefethen update to the BMI measurement would put the upper end of your healthy weight at 210 I believe. Attempts to quantify and calculate something as complicated as a human being are always going to flawed
And the upper end of healthy BMI developed in the 1830's for someone 6'3" is 199 pounds so about 5% difference vs the update.
Pretty much rounding difference. Again, BMI isn't the end all but directionally correct for most people.5 -
BMI is outdated and isn't an accurate measure of fitness or health.4
-
Chelle8070 wrote: »BMI is outdated and isn't an accurate measure of fitness or health.
Maths doesnt change and the human body hasnt evolved in 150 years.
Sure, there have been some tweaking to BMI recomendations but the basic formula hasnt changed and the overall benifit of it as a marker hasnt changed.
Of course it isnt a measure of fitness or health - it is solely a guide as to healthy weight for your height.
A guide that is still relevant to the vast majority of people.
12 -
I used to rubbish BMI as 'unrealistic'. I'd tell myself that if I did get to that healthy weight range I'd be gaunt and unhealthy. That I was one of those individuals that didn't fit into that neat little BMI pigeon hole.
The truth is I was only saying that because it was easier to cop out and claim 'outlier' status than it was to accept that it was a realistic and achievable goal but deep down I didn't think I was capable of getting there. While I kept telling myself the lie that it was impossible I could never really try and by not trying I couldn't fail.
Then I had a good hard look at myself and accepted the harsh truth. I wasn't a special case. I wasn't an outlier and if I didn't get to a healthy weight it was because I failed to do what needed to be done rather than because it wasn't possible for me.
This was pretty scary but also powerful and liberating at the same time. It was scary in the way that I had to face facts and do away with all the lame excuses I was giving myself. I had to accept the reality that I was responsible for achieving this goal and if I didn't get there that was 100% on me and not because I was the victim of circumstances. But it also put the ball squarely in my court. No longer was powerless to achieve a goal that I convinced myself was impossible. Now by accepting responsibility I also took control and getting to a healthy BMI went from conveniently unattainable to scarily realistic.17 -
Yes, context.
there are some muscular athletic young men who are healthy with a BMI of 28.
However I as a non muscular, not very athletic middle aged woman was not a healthy outlier with a BMI of 28 - I was plain old overweight with excess fat7 -
Congratulations on your weight loss!!! I have no comments on BMI but would like to address the skin surgery from the standpoint of someone who had it done. I lost 100 lbs and had also given birth to 2 very large babies (many, many years ago) so my abdomen was really bad. I had a tummy tuck done a couple years ago. I had a lot of complications but I would still say go for it. However I would suggest waiting at least 6 months after you reach your goal. I know that's not what you want to hear. I didn't want to hear it either. But what I have found is that your skin does settle some for at least 2 years after weight loss. With the amount you have lost that won't ever fix it and I understand that. But what it does do for you is give you some time to get into a routine that will help you maintain and it also gives your body time to recover from the stress of weight loss. I think that was part of my problem. I had necrosis and bled for 3 months after a second repair surgery. This was not fun. Nevertheless I don't regret getting it done. I was sick of the yeast infections I got under my abdomen and that has been cured. Another thing I would suggest is see more than one surgeon for an estimate of what procedure will be done and do your research. I now wish that I'd had a circumferential lift instead of the tummy tuck because while my abdomen is good my buttocks and back have a lot of loose skin still. Frankly I can't afford another procedure nor do I want to do another recovery. As for how many pounds lost from the procedure it ended up for me being zero. After the surgery I was so pumped up with fluid I didn't lose any weight and by the time the fluid was gone I had been sedentary long enough that I probably gained back what the skin weighed. The doc said it was 3.5 pounds he removed. Who knows? I am not the only one on here who has had skin surgery and perhaps some of them will weigh in but I did not have to get down to a BMI of 22.5 I was at the very top of the healthy BMI chart in fact. So no need to worry about that. Good luck on your journey and if there are any questions I can answer feel free to message me.3
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
BMI is a realistic benchmark for 80-90% of the population. It will correlate well with other measures such as bodyfat % and waist measurement (i.e, someone with an overweight/obese BMI will most likely be in the same category on the other measurements) and it easier to determine.
If someone is significantly overweight/obese on BMI, they should talk to their doctor and determine if there are other factors such as a high level of muscularity that mitigates the health threats associated with higher BMI. If one truly has a high level of muscle, and is being honest with themselves they know it (hint, it's not happening without extensive resistance training).
BTW 11-12% BF is fantastic and not what you typically see on your average gym goer and certainly not the average male on the street. Could I ask how you are determining BF%?
...outliers, outliers everywhere!
Really - every time a thread that mentions BMI starts there are always a few folks trying to discredit it by claiming outlier status. Heck, all my lifting buddies are outliers so I know they exist as I see them every day - but I also know that BMI is accurate for the vast majority of the population. Really, even with active "fit" people - how many actually train with the sole purpose of getting massive and yoked? Most just end up settling with being relatively athletically lean and ripped. I recently took a co-worker to the gym with me after he expressed a desire to improve his fitness. He also claimed that although he was a bit fluffy - it was mostly muscle as he was a "big boned" guy and he'd just need to lose a bit of that fluff. Dude couldn't bench a plate - my WIFE can bench more than he could. I don't think that massive turkey boob chest of his was hiding any serious amount of muscle.
I've mentioned this before - outliers against BMI should be mandated to post their stats and a pic of their physique. I'm sure that some of them might even pass the "sniffer test" but in my experience - those that actually do meet outlier status aren't the ones that are so adamant in trying to discredit BMI - as they know exactly how hard and long they had to train to achieve that status.
I agree. Although there is a small percentage of outliers, most are simply in denial that they are either overweight or underweight. They simply are not at that point of accepting the truth. That, or they are so used to seeing overweight that they don't actually know what a normal, healthy weight looks like anymore.
Edited to add that this is from someone who was convinced she had a larger than average frame until she got down within a normal BMI and realised her frame was just that, normal.
Agree with ALL of this. I always told myself I had a large frame, blah blah blah.... well, it's actually SMALL. I am 22.5 BMI at 5'10" and 158-ish pounds, and have visible muscle in my arms, chest, and legs.. and you can see my ribs.
AND I have plenty of body fat to lose in my mid section and booty.
My son is an athletic D1 offensive lineman (not a spare tire big guy, but pretty lean and VERY strong). He has an obese BMI. It is not accurate for him - he carries much more muscle than the general population. He is an outlier, and rare.
BMI is fine, for the vast majority of us. Our perception is what's the problem.8 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »rodnichols69 wrote: »My doctor calls BMI voodoo math. As I read this, the math doesn't add up. Here is my reasoning:
1. Someone 6'3" who works averages more than 180 lbs. of lean mass, so the BMI chart puts you at 0% body fat.
2. My buddy is 6'3" 218 Lbs. and ~ 11% BF. His lean mass is 194 lbs.
3. I am 5'9" and have 158 lbs. of lean mass, which is just above an average build. At 180lbs., I am 12% BF
@rodnichols69 6'3" at 218 and 11% body fat is NFL wide receiver range of bodyfat for that height and weight. If all his measurements are accurate he's jacked/built, not your normal dude at LA Fitness.
He is exactly that size and looks nothing like a NFL receiver other than about a 2 pack of abs. The original question was how accurate is BMI. It is not accurate at all. It does not take lean mass into account or about 10 other factors that should be considered.
I would have to lose 9.5 lbs. of muscle to be at the top tier of the BMI scale for my height and still have some body fat.
BMI is a realistic benchmark for 80-90% of the population. It will correlate well with other measures such as bodyfat % and waist measurement (i.e, someone with an overweight/obese BMI will most likely be in the same category on the other measurements) and it easier to determine.
If someone is significantly overweight/obese on BMI, they should talk to their doctor and determine if there are other factors such as a high level of muscularity that mitigates the health threats associated with higher BMI. If one truly has a high level of muscle, and is being honest with themselves they know it (hint, it's not happening without extensive resistance training).
BTW 11-12% BF is fantastic and not what you typically see on your average gym goer and certainly not the average male on the street. Could I ask how you are determining BF%?
...outliers, outliers everywhere!
Really - every time a thread that mentions BMI starts there are always a few folks trying to discredit it by claiming outlier status. Heck, all my lifting buddies are outliers so I know they exist as I see them every day - but I also know that BMI is accurate for the vast majority of the population. Really, even with active "fit" people - how many actually train with the sole purpose of getting massive and yoked? Most just end up settling with being relatively athletically lean and ripped. I recently took a co-worker to the gym with me after he expressed a desire to improve his fitness. He also claimed that although he was a bit fluffy - it was mostly muscle as he was a "big boned" guy and he'd just need to lose a bit of that fluff. Dude couldn't bench a plate - my WIFE can bench more than he could. I don't think that massive turkey boob chest of his was hiding any serious amount of muscle.
I've mentioned this before - outliers against BMI should be mandated to post their stats and a pic of their physique. I'm sure that some of them might even pass the "sniffer test" but in my experience - those that actually do meet outlier status aren't the ones that are so adamant in trying to discredit BMI - as they know exactly how hard and long they had to train to achieve that status.
I agree. Although there is a small percentage of outliers, most are simply in denial that they are either overweight or underweight. They simply are not at that point of accepting the truth. That, or they are so used to seeing overweight that they don't actually know what a normal, healthy weight looks like anymore.
Edited to add that this is from someone who was convinced she had a larger than average frame until she got down within a normal BMI and realised her frame was just that, normal.
Agree with ALL of this. I always told myself I had a large frame, blah blah blah.... well, it's actually SMALL. I am 22.5 BMI at 5'10" and 158-ish pounds, and have visible muscle in my arms, chest, and legs.. and you can see my ribs.
AND I have plenty of body fat to lose in my mid section and booty.
My son is an athletic D1 offensive lineman (not a spare tire big guy, but pretty lean and VERY strong). He has an obese BMI. It is not accurate for him - he carries much more muscle than the general population. He is an outlier, and rare.
BMI is fine, for the vast majority of us. Our perception is what's the problem.
Yup, also true for me, but kind of back-handedly.
I had been thin for a few minutes in my 20s, so I had a pretty good idea of my underlying body shape. The "frame size calculators" extrapolate from my giant hands/wrists/elbows** to say that I have a large frame, plus I have a big head (yeah, yeah, literally and metaphorically 
), and wide shoulders. But I know I have the pelvic bones of a 14-year-old boy, not a 64-year-old woman; and hips/thighs/waist are where I add fat first, and lose it last. I knew I was obese and over-fat, even when others were skeptical.
I even had one of my health care providers argue with me when I said I was obese, but when I told her to run the BMI calc, she had to admit I was right. I knew then, and am confirmed 100% correct now (doctors agree), that I'm in a good place weight-wise in the lower half of the normal BMI range.
I'm sitting at BMI 22-point-something now, and I'm a little heavy for best appearance (but still healthy). You can see my ribs, but there's ample fat on hips/thighs/waist to lose a little and still be in a healthy spot. I'm not a bodybuilder, but I'm not totally devoid of muscle, either. (MFP profile pic is BMI 20-ish.)
There are more people in denial and telling themselves comforting stories about how BMI ranges don't fit them, IMO, than there are people who truly are optimally healthy outside the normal range. (My reading suggests that for women, especially, BMI is more likely to miss an over-fat but normal-weight condition, than to brand someone as overweight/obese when she isn't. Can happen for men, too, but is somewhat less common.) People who have been overweight life-long may not have a good idea what their skeletal shape really is.
None of that is to say that people who don't want to lose into the normal BMI range, and would be healthy there, need to lose all the way to that point. The statistical health risks from being mildly overweight aren't really that major (as tempered by personal health history and conditions of course); it's certainly worse health-wise to be underweight; and an important factor is figuring out the most healthy personal weight one can actually maintain long-term, because yo-yoing is bad for health, too.
** Ring finger is size 10, even at BMI 20; it's hard to even find non-custom women's rings above size 9, and even that's atypically large. My hat size is usually 7-1/2 to 7-3/4, a decently large size even for men; women's "one size" non-stretchy hats sit way up on top of my head like clown-garb. In the same brands, I can wear small (sometimes extra-small) tank tops, but need at least medium (sometimes large, occasionally XL) equally-stretchy shirts if they have sleeves, because my shoulder-width requires that, plus the arm size.3 -
My husband is 6'3" and would emaciated at 180lbs. BUT he also is very broad. My coworker is also 6'3" and is pretty thin around 190lbs but it looks good on him. That's to say, aiming for 180lbs prior to surgery seems quite a bit low, who told you that?0
-
thats why BMI is a range, not a set number.
Most people are healthy somewhere in the range -or in some cases, slightly out of it.
Im not sure finger size and such has that much bearing on what is ideal BMI for you.
I have smallish narrow feet and narrow fingers - nevertheless I think my weight is good at 62 kg which gives me a BMI of 23.1 -
It was just a walk-in doctor. I live in Canada and my doctor moved out of town so I’m currently between doctors so I had to see a walk-in doctor for his thoughts on this. For now I will just focus on getting my weight down to the 200 range and then I guess I’ll see how much more I can actually lose. Thanks!
As a fellow Canadian I'd suggest finding another dr. So many walk in Drs just want to churn you out. You could probably get a referral to a dietitian and see if they have any advice. Is skin removal covered by your provincial healthcare?
My brother is 6 feet even and weighs over 200lb and has never been told to lose weight. 180 seems really low but then again I'm not a dr so what do I know1 -
Even doctors can read the wrong chart, run out of fingers when doing math, or have the occasional brain fart.
I can see a doctor saying you have to be at a stable weight for six months, and absent medical/ life quality reasons I would even suggest being weight stable longer as the "things redistribute and tighten for a couple of years" experience seems fairly common with MFPeops.
Getting an obese person to the mid point of healthy BMI before taking to them seems presumptuous AND indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of the healthy BMI range.
A particular 6ft 3" individual could be unhealthy for them at BMI 24 and healthy for them at BMI 22 OR THE OPPOSITE. Out of 1,000 6ft 3" individuals, most of them will be healthy somewhere between BMI 18.5 and 25. (And if you are aware of the history and decision making behind the ranges you might amend that closer to 20 to 26/27 depending on age and gender)
The concept of second opinions in medicine exist for a reason.0 -
WholeFoods4Lyfe wrote: »My husband is 6'3" and would emaciated at 180lbs. BUT he also is very broad. My coworker is also 6'3" and is pretty thin around 190lbs but it looks good on him. That's to say, aiming for 180lbs prior to surgery seems quite a bit low, who told you that?
180 is pretty much smack in the middle of a normal BMI range.2
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
- 96.4K 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