Coming to grips with BMI
KeithBarrows
Posts: 34 Member
I just ran the BMI calculator on the MFP site. Holy hell!
This cannot be right. Most of my adulthood I weighed 195 or more. My 13 years in the Marine Corps I weighed between 196 and 204. Here is a pic at 196ish lbs:
Is the BMI calculator that far off or am I on the freak side of measurements?
This cannot be right. Most of my adulthood I weighed 195 or more. My 13 years in the Marine Corps I weighed between 196 and 204. Here is a pic at 196ish lbs:
Is the BMI calculator that far off or am I on the freak side of measurements?
3
Replies
-
BMI is really not a good indicator of much of anything at the individual level, mostly because it fails to take into account body composition and variation among individuals. The norms were largely developed about a hundred years ago based on a population of well-to-do young white men, so the further a population is from that "standard" (in the biggest quotes you can imagine), the less useful BMI is. You do appear to at least be a white man, so you've got that going for you. But, if you were a Marine, you probably had more muscle than average when you weighed in around 200lb. So on paper you would have been "overweight," but not overfat, and BMI has no way to make that distinction since it's just based on mass and height.
To put it in perspective - if you calculated Arnold Schwarzenegger's BMI when he was in his prime and winning Mr. Universe, he was 6'2" and 260lb. That's a BMI of 33 or so, firmly in the "obese" category, but look up a picture of Ahnold circa 1974 and tell me who would call that an obese man.5 -
OP would you be willing to measure your waist circumference and post it here?3
-
I have no problems posting my measurements. Right now - I know I am over weight. I was looking at the BNI to see what it might suggest as a target weight for weight loss and was flabbergasted by the range it gave.
Yes - I am English/Irish/Scottish ancestry. My Withings scale reports a BMI of 30.1% right now. I am down 7 or 8 lbs from my heaviest ever weight of 262.
Are you looking for today's measurements? When I am in shape measurements? Back in the Marine Corps measurements?Date Pounds Shoulders Waist 3/1/2015 210.10 51.50 36.25 10/24/2021 252.7 54.0 47.0
From the early 2015 time period:
3 -
So you currently weigh 252 pounds, with a BMI of 32.2, and based on a formula that assumes "average" body fat levels for your height and weight, you are considered obese. I don't see what is surprising about that.
I also don't understand how a picture of yourself from six years ago, 40 pounds lighter, is supposed to expose the BMI formula for your current assessment as somehow off the rails?
14 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »I have no problems posting my measurements. Right now - I know I am over weight. I was looking at the BNI to see what it might suggest as a target weight for weight loss and was flabbergasted by the range it gave.
Yes - I am English/Irish/Scottish ancestry. My Withings scale reports a BMI of 30.1% right now. I am down 7 or 8 lbs from my heaviest ever weight of 262.
Are you looking for today's measurements? When I am in shape measurements? Back in the Marine Corps measurements?Date Pounds Shoulders Waist 3/1/2015 210.10 51.50 36.25 10/24/2021 252.7 54.0 47.0
From the early 2015 time period:
So given your change in waist size from 2015 until now from 36 in to 47 in I think it's not offending you to say most of the 42 pound gain is fat.
For someone that is lifting and/or has a very physical manual labor job, generally nothing wrong with being in the overweight category as they are most likely carrying a good bit of muscle. Once one gets into the obese range, chances are one is carrying too much fat (unless you are talking a high level strength athlete). I would say a doctor would not have an issue with your weight in the 2015 picture.
When you say your scale reports a BMI of 30.1%, you are mixing 2 things. BMI is not a percent, its a number derived from a formula using height and weight. Bodyfat is measured in %. If you're 30.1% BF you are in what would be considered the obese range. I'm not familiar with the Withings scale but if it measures BF by electric impedance, these can be fairly inaccurate
Another measurement, waist size. At any weight over 37 inches for a man is considered increased risk for health issues (especially heart related), over 40 is substantially increased risk.
Hope this clears a few things up.6 -
Everyone needs to understand that BMI is just your (weight in kilograms) divided by your (height in meters, squared). Thus, if you were 2 meters in height and 80 kg, you'd have a BMI of exactly 20.
The simplicity of this formula has made it a stand-in for harder-to-measure parameters, such as body fat, to which it correlates. But, correlation doesn't mean it works for every individual.4 -
I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?0 -
I long ago found all the usual metrics for appearance and fitness personally useless, except for the mirror, satisfactory physical strength and endurance, and lack of bodily pains. "Weight" is just an unhelpful proxy for body fat, given that the direct estimators for blubber are inconsistent / inaccurate. I recently came across this page (there are some others) that seems good enough for the ballpark:
https://www.ruled.me/visually-estimate-body-fat-percentage/
1 -
Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. It caught my interest again. I tend to dismiss from memory what is not at all useful so my memory of BMI discussions 10 years ago was hazy at best. In my military career I was never "over weight" (for 6' 2" I think that was marked at 210?).
So, if you want to tag along, I am on my 2nd weight loss/health/fitness lifestyle change...8 -
I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.3 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. .
Ah HAH! Clarity is approaching. For what it's worth, I had my heart attacks 2 years ago and that obviously got me started with a Cardiologist and was the first time I saw "BMI" mentioned. Long story short, I had been bristling with them over the BMI reports, my on-going weight loss, etc etc, and finally took them to task to explain why they were taking such a vague metric so seriously. Their explanation at the time is that it doesn't really matter between fat and/or muscle, its all extra tissue that your heart has to pump blood through, and the more tissue, the more your heart has to work. Which is a thing for heart attack survivors. But as a "statement of health", yeah, generally meaningless.7 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. It caught my interest again. I tend to dismiss from memory what is not at all useful so my memory of BMI discussions 10 years ago was hazy at best. In my military career I was never "over weight" (for 6' 2" I think that was marked at 210?).
So, if you want to tag along, I am on my 2nd weight loss/health/fitness lifestyle change...
As others have said, it's a population metric to *kitten* potential health risk. At the individual level it's a good enough starting point, but isn't the be all and end all gospel of metrics. It's not unusual either for athletic males to fall slightly outside the high end of BMI and still be at healthy BF% levels. My normal maintenance weight is around 180 Lbs at about 15% BF...not super lean, but not fat either. The high end of BMI for my height is 174.6 so I am outside of that range, but at a perfectly healthy BF%. I am also a former Marine and was a competitive athlete for much of my life and I cycle, mountain bike, and lift weights regularly for the past 9 years or so. I'm no bodybuilder, but I have decent muscle mass, particularly in my lower body. I could definitely be leaner and get to that high end BMI number, but there's really no point from a health standpoint...it would be purely aesthetic and I'm 47 and don't care about 6 pack abs. I used to have those and they weren't life changing or anything.3 -
goal06082021 wrote: »BMI is really not a good indicator of much of anything at the individual level, mostly because it fails to take into account body composition and variation among individuals. The norms were largely developed about a hundred years ago based on a population of well-to-do young white men, so the further a population is from that "standard" (in the biggest quotes you can imagine), the less useful BMI is. You do appear to at least be a white man, so you've got that going for you. But, if you were a Marine, you probably had more muscle than average when you weighed in around 200lb. So on paper you would have been "overweight," but not overfat, and BMI has no way to make that distinction since it's just based on mass and height.
To put it in perspective - if you calculated Arnold Schwarzenegger's BMI when he was in his prime and winning Mr. Universe, he was 6'2" and 260lb. That's a BMI of 33 or so, firmly in the "obese" category, but look up a picture of Ahnold circa 1974 and tell me who would call that an obese man.
No one would call 1974 Arnold obese...but there's also no one who looks like 1974 Arnold.
Arnold being an extreme outlier doesn't mean that it's common for normal people to also be extreme outliers.
Is BMI perfect? No, of course not. But as cwolfman13 said, it is a decent starting point for the vast majority of people.
Edit: To clarify, I pretty much agree with everything wolfman said about it. There are certainly outliers (mostly athletic males). But for someone to be such an outlier that they have healthy bodyfat levels but measure as obese like Arnold...very rare.7 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »KeithBarrows wrote: »Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. .
Ah HAH! Clarity is approaching. For what it's worth, I had my heart attacks 2 years ago and that obviously got me started with a Cardiologist and was the first time I saw "BMI" mentioned. Long story short, I had been bristling with them over the BMI reports, my on-going weight loss, etc etc, and finally took them to task to explain why they were taking such a vague metric so seriously. Their explanation at the time is that it doesn't really matter between fat and/or muscle, its all extra tissue that your heart has to pump blood through, and the more tissue, the more your heart has to work. Which is a thing for heart attack survivors. But as a "statement of health", yeah, generally meaningless.
It sounds like you've had multiple heart attacks, and your BMI is in the risk factor category, from what you're telling us?2 -
How tall do I have to be to be considered in the healthy range at 194? lol
At 5' 8", I'm in the overweight range when I crest 165 and obese at 197.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.
Yes, I'm aware that the number doesn't assume anything, but the categorizations of "underweight," "healthy weight," "overweight," and "obese" do have assumptions of averages in terms of body composition built into them since they are based on populational averages.
Which makes the categories less applicable for individuals who deviate heavily from average in terms of body composition for their BMI.
0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.
Yes, I'm aware that the number doesn't assume anything, but the categorizations of "underweight," "healthy weight," "overweight," and "obese" do have assumptions of averages in terms of body composition built into them since they are based on populational averages.
Which makes the categories less applicable for individuals who deviate heavily from average in terms of body composition for their BMI.
True, but by definition, "individuals who deviate heavily from average" are not common.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.
Yes, I'm aware that the number doesn't assume anything, but the categorizations of "underweight," "healthy weight," "overweight," and "obese" do have assumptions of averages in terms of body composition built into them since they are based on populational averages.
Which makes the categories less applicable for individuals who deviate heavily from average in terms of body composition for their BMI.
It doesn't appear a day or 2 ago when I replied to your post that you were aware the number didn't assume anything, hence my response:
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »How tall do I have to be to be considered in the healthy range at 194? lol
At 5' 8", I'm in the overweight range when I crest 165 and obese at 197.
Ever get your bodyfat measured by a reliable method?3 -
If you wanna know if you are overweight, measure your waist. On an individual level it's a very good indicator. Your waist should be less than half your height.
So a 5'9 man shouldn't have a waist that exceed 34.5.10 -
For this purpose, probably one of the so-called "body fat calculators" (often "Navy body fat calculators") is another thing that will give you a screening metric. Is it 'accurate'? No. But it's another thing that's close for most people, and it takes a little different perspective from BMI, waist/height ratio, waist circumference, BIA scale, etc. If the majority of those say you're overweight or obese . . . you're probably overweight or obese. Not guaranteed, but very probable.
There are also "ideal weight calculators" on some sites, but I'm more skeptical of those . . . even though they should suggest I should weigh approximately what I now weigh. 😆2 -
It's been touched on by others here, but beyond the fact that BMI isn't a perfect indicator - society has also kind of lost perspective on what "skinny" or "in shape" looks like. On both ends for that matter. Sure there is the issue of people being told they are fat if they don't have stupid low levels of body fat. However, on the other hand it's equally or even more common for people to think overweight is skinny. Obese is overweight. and morbid obesity is obese. I'm smack dab in the middle of obesity based on my BMI. Do I think that's accurate? Not really. I've been working out for 9ish months now and I think I have a higher muscle mass than someone my size normally does. That said, I'm probably borderline Obese still (just not 30 pounds over the obesity mark like my BMI would suggest). That said, I have people all the time remark that I only have a bit more to lose because I'm now just "chubby/overweight" and they will argue with me when I tell them I'm obese.
tl;dr: People are surprised by what obese actually looks like. I think often when people think of obesity, they are thinking of morbid obesity and their views on "overweight" tend to actually be closer to what obesity really is.9 -
It's been touched on by others here, but beyond the fact that BMI isn't a perfect indicator - society has also kind of lost perspective on what "skinny" or "in shape" looks like. On both ends for that matter. Sure there is the issue of people being told they are fat if they don't have stupid low levels of body fat. However, on the other hand it's equally or even more common for people to think overweight is skinny. Obese is overweight. and morbid obesity is obese. I'm smack dab in the middle of obesity based on my BMI. Do I think that's accurate? Not really. I've been working out for 9ish months now and I think I have a higher muscle mass than someone my size normally does. That said, I'm probably borderline Obese still (just not 30 pounds over the obesity mark like my BMI would suggest). That said, I have people all the time remark that I only have a bit more to lose because I'm now just "chubby/overweight" and they will argue with me when I tell them I'm obese.
tl;dr: People are surprised by what obese actually looks like. I think often when people think of obesity, they are thinking of morbid obesity and their views on "overweight" tend to actually be closer to what obesity really is.
This. I was just barely into the obese range when I started to lose weight and I kind of recoiled HARD from the word, because in my head 'obese' meant 'currently suffering mobility and health complications directly related to their weight'. I was definitely FAT and I didn't have any sort of problem recognizing *that*, but obese to me was 'far outside the range of people I see every day'. Not me. I looked like most other people I am around. I was playing sports, ffs. Clearly I was fine.
Heck, I even remember calculating to see what weights I'd need to be for various BMIs and being like 'there is no way'. Did not compute that I had THAT much weight to lose.
...yeah, yeah there was a way and I had that much weight to lose.
9 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »So you currently weigh 252 pounds, with a BMI of 32.2, and based on a formula that assumes "average" body fat levels for your height and weight, you are considered obese. I don't see what is surprising about that.
I also don't understand how a picture of yourself from six years ago, 40 pounds lighter, is supposed to expose the BMI formula for your current assessment as somehow off the rails?
My assumption was that his point was that he did not consider himself to be overweight at 196, but according to BMI, his would be 25 and so indeed in the Overweight category.5 -
And in that pic from 6 years ago I was 212 pounds - about a 28 BMI - again overweight and heading into obese.
I never claimed that at my current weight and measurement I was not overweight, or not obese. Please don't conflate one piece of info with another.3 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »And in that pic from 6 years ago I was 212 pounds - about a 28 BMI - again overweight and heading into obese.
I never claimed that at my current weight and measurement I was not overweight, or not obese. Please don't conflate one piece of info with another.
What is the point you are trying to make, then? What is your "holy hell" about?3 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »And in that pic from 6 years ago I was 212 pounds - about a 28 BMI - again overweight and heading into obese.
I never claimed that at my current weight and measurement I was not overweight, or not obese. Please don't conflate one piece of info with another.
I'm almost the same height and weight as you in 6 year ago picture you shared (I'm about 5 years older than you). I've been +/- 10 pounds of this weight since freshman year in college and have been doing resistance work a on a regular basis since junior year of HS.
My employer offered annual physicals. They contracted the doctor services so generally had a different doctor every year. BMI has been on the questionnaire for at least the last 20 years. They would discuss every point on the questionnaire and every time when they got to BMI they would say BMI says you're overweight, but looking, you had good muscle mass and your BMI is not an issue.
Just my experience.2 -
@lynn_glenmont - you win. I am not here to argue. If you cannot figure out why I was surprised, that's on you.
@Theoldguy1 - Of all the doctors I've visited not once was my weight or weight to height ratio (BMI) ever brought up. And even though I was technically a 24 BMI starting bootcamp the Navy docs had to confer to see if I should be on an extra calorie diet during bootcamp. I guess this is why I tend to drop BMI from my tracking data. 6 & 7 years ago my wife and I were doing body composition competitions once a quarter. It took us each a year but we both ended up in the top 5 of those who entered. And yes - it was done by picture (posted above) as well as waist/shoulder measurements. Going through my notes from back then the fitness trainer told us both to toss the BMI as we were working out.3 -
@KeithBarrows I am omly commenting because you mentioned talking to a heart doctor - not clear for how serious a concern - and someone above explained that their heart doctor wanted them to get to a lower BMI because after a heart attack, more mass was a problem even if it was lean mass, as the heart had to work harder in either case. Just wondering if you saw that comment because you never responded (you don't have to respond, just making sure you have seen it in case it's relevant).
I am not a doctor, I would just recommend you ask your heart doc why exactly he is interested in BMI and dig in more into that. This whole conversation has been weirdly focused on how people look - but health is more important and your individual health should be discussed with your doctor. The internet's opinion on BMI won't be very relevant...9 -
@Wiseandcurious - My heart doc has so far said nothing about BMI/weight outside of my statement at our first appointment. "I am losing weight and exercising". His response was "Good.". BMI came up in trying to find a PCP in my general area. Some of the general web based intake forms asked if we considered ourselves overweight or not, among other health concerns we might have. One had a box for BMI. Almost all of these docs had a 3-6 month waiting list for the first appointment. I believe they use the answers from these sections to weight how quickly they should see you or if you can go to the bottom of the list.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions