How accurate is BMI
Options
Replies
-
180lbs does sound light for someone your height, but for a few examples, my son who is also 6ft 3 is 13 stone which is 182lbs - but he is really lean and probably his BMI is at the very low end of healthy. My husband is 6ft 1 and looks great at 14 stone which is 196lbs.0
-
I have nothing to add to the comments on the weight issue. But I see you are doing exercises for arthritic knees and I just wanted to say they work really well, but slowly, so do them diligently and keep doing them. My husband is obese and was nearly crippled by arthritic knees 2 years ago. Had to use a walker. He has not lost any weight but has been doing his exercises daily (in the swimming pool to take advantage of the water resistance and do things like squats which would be impossible at full body weight). It has done him the world of good and although he still has to use the walker for any distances his mobility is hugely improved, the pain has reduced and he has been able to reduce the dosage of his anti-inflammatory drugs.2
-
Just what the others have said - BMI is a benchmark (accurate isn't really a word that you can use to describe it). Its a height/weight ratio and gives a healthy range for most of the population. IF you are extremely muscular it doesn't work, but if you are extremely muscular you know that you are and don't need BMI - you'll use body fat percentage or basically just how you look!7
-
SnifterPug wrote: »I have nothing to add to the comments on the weight issue. But I see you are doing exercises for arthritic knees and I just wanted to say they work really well, but slowly, so do them diligently and keep doing them. My husband is obese and was nearly crippled by arthritic knees 2 years ago. Had to use a walker. He has not lost any weight but has been doing his exercises daily (in the swimming pool to take advantage of the water resistance and do things like squats which would be impossible at full body weight). It has done him the world of good and although he still has to use the walker for any distances his mobility is hugely improved, the pain has reduced and he has been able to reduce the dosage of his anti-inflammatory drugs.
Thank you for this. I really appreciate it. I hope that your husband will start to lose weight. Believe me. If i could do it so can he.1 -
Had similar thought process except I was aiming for a carefully accounted 2500.
How much exercise were you able to do? I have mine a bit lower because sometimes with life i end up missing my exercises. And i found that it could wreak havoc with my mind game. I would get thoughts like this week was a waste and start thinking im gonna gain weight ect. I base my calories on still losing weight even with no exercise and view the exercise as a bonus. This helps me to remain positive at all times.
0 -
@yxba
You are welcome to join my MFP Larger Losers Group. It is for people who are starting or did start with 75 or more pounds to lose.
Here is the link:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/133315-larger-losers
6 -
I had a starting weight of 400. I am currently down to 215. I have quite a bit of excess skin and will be doing a skin removal along with some other fixing in areas. I called to schedule a consult with a plastic surgeon in the area in order to get a pricing structure to know how much I needed to save (it is a full cash procedure. Insurance won't cover it at all as it is cosmetic). They wouldn't even schedule a meeting until I was at a "normal" BMI. This is 175 for me. I know I have a lot of weight in skin and if it is removed I would be a lot closer to a healthy weight. This was not a consideration the plastic surgeon would consider. So here I am continuing to work at it everyday until I hit the magic BMI number so that I can have a meeting to see when and how I can have my skin removed. Hope this helps!10
-
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.26 -
Just as a fun set of data points on this question, here are articles about BMI of male and female Olympic medalists, across a wide range of sports, where the majority of both men and women are of normal BMI (trend for men a little less pronounced than for women, as they skew a bit higher in muscle mass):
https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20793992/bmis-of-champions-womens-edition/
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20811275/bmis-of-champions-mens-edition/
I'm thinking they all tend to have quite a bit more muscle mass than most of us, though they're probably also quite lean.
BMI is not intended to be the last word; it's primarily a screener to focus on people who might need a closer look. Most people would be at a healthy weight in the normal BMI range - not the same as saying all would be at an unhealthy weight outside it - and the very few that wouldn't be healthy anywhere in the range don't invalidate it for the rest of us.
From looking around me in my part of the US, I'd guess there are quite a few more people thinking they aren't overweight/obese who actually are, than people who have so much muscle mass they'd be at their best weight above the normal BMI range.
Ask your doctor, not your friends, would be my advice.9 -
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!1 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions