What do you think of the BMI?

LumpySpacePrincess1
LumpySpacePrincess1 Posts: 388 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Accurate? Horse *kitten*? Coincidentally accurate for everyone else except you?
«1345

Replies

  • init2fitit
    init2fitit Posts: 168 Member
    mostly bs, though it does provide a good starting point for weight ranges.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Accurate? Horse *kitten*? Coincidentally accurate for everyone else except you?

    generally it is ok as a rough guideline....

    however i firmly believe that the actual numbers mean very little whether you're on about weight, BMI, or whatever... its about how you feel! eat some fruit and veg, do some exercise, eat cake occasionally....
  • RoadsterGirlie
    RoadsterGirlie Posts: 1,195 Member
    It's a good rough guideline, and is more accurate than a lot of people on this site make it out to be.
  • Kr1ptonite
    Kr1ptonite Posts: 789 Member
    I don't like it at all. Heck it put me as overweight lol.
  • JamieM8168
    JamieM8168 Posts: 248 Member
    Not a fan.
    It helped me figure out a goal weight though so at least its good for something
  • iechick
    iechick Posts: 352 Member
    It's what I've used as my guideline to chose a goal weight range and it's worked well for me. I started at a bmi of 27.8 and now have a bmi of 19.4 and I'm in maintenance.
  • vayvonne1999
    vayvonne1999 Posts: 14 Member
    My BMI tells me that I am a fat a**. It's pretty accurate because I am a fat a**. To be in my ideal weight range it says I need to be about 120 pounds... which I don't know that I will ever see again because that is how much I weighed as a freshman in high school. I will reassess my opinion on it when I feel like I am in a healthy range it if still tells me I am obese.
  • LumpySpacePrincess1
    LumpySpacePrincess1 Posts: 388 Member
    I don't like it at all. Heck it put me as overweight lol.
    Me too! Boo! Hiss! :explode:
    It also says my ideal weight is essentially underweight. I've been at that weight before and I looked like a bulimic Skeletor.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    BMI is not meant for individual use, it was designed to compare groups of populations. i.e. Generally speaking those that fall in the overweight category of BMI tend to have more health issues than healthy, but any one person can be healthy in the overweight category or unhealthy in the "healthy" category.
  • ewrob
    ewrob Posts: 136 Member
    In a country where 2/3rds of the population are overweight or obese, (thus establishing the norm) it doesn't surprise me that people who see themselves as at a normal weight would view a tool that paints a more objective picture with skepticism.

    I think it is a good tool in general. Consider that it accounts for variations in things like frame size and other individual differences by offering a wide range for a healthy weight.
  • erica2u
    erica2u Posts: 2 Member
    At the very top of what BMI says is healthy, I'm a size 4. I go a little over, size 6 and I'm overweight. At the low end of the BMI healthy scale, I'd likely be anorexic. So it doesn't work for me. My doctor said BMI is accurate for 70% of the population. I'm in the 30% it doesn't work for.
  • midnightisolde
    midnightisolde Posts: 60 Member
    Well I think that the BMI should only be used as a guideline but not as an absolute. For those with more muscle mass, it may put them as overweight and for people with small frames it may put them as underweight even though they may be perfectly healthy. Especially as it was first devised in the 19th century so may no longer be applicable with people being taller etc.

    I found this on Wikipedia (not the most accurate but ok) - ''While the formula previously called the Quetelet Index for BMI dates to the 19th century, the new term "body mass index" for the ratio and its popularity date to a paper published in the July edition of 1972 in the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys, which found the BMI to be the best proxy for body fat percentage among ratios of weight and height;[6][7] the interest in measuring body fat being due to obesity becoming a discernible issue in prosperous Western societies. BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis.''

    The last sentence is the most important to me. BMI is best to make comparison to the general population and averages but I don't think it can be used in individual cases except as a guideline. Then you should look at body fat percentage and frame size. It is after all just a maths equation.
  • LuLuChick78
    LuLuChick78 Posts: 439 Member
    I am nearly considered "overweight" by my BMI. I don't put a lot of stock in it because I know I am NOT nearly overweight. I am quite muscular and assume that is why by BMI is 24.

    Men in the Olympia would likely be considered morbidly obese even though their bf% is low single digits because of their weight/height ratio.

    Take BMI with a grain of salt. It is a good tool to use in some circumstances...but every situation is different.
  • SteveK279
    SteveK279 Posts: 134 Member
    Not a fan as it doesn't take into account height as much as it should or a person's build at all. It's ok for the purposes it was intended as a broad population indicator, but could be improved upon. There was an alternative formula proposed to take into account the fact that people are getting taller generationally and I think that is more accurate.

    BMI = weight Kg / height M ^2
    Alt BMI = 1.3 * weight Kg / height M ^2.5

    It's the same for people around 5ft 6 (1.69 m) and higher or lower depending on your height.

    Unfortunately I don't know of any that would take build into account so people with a narrow & broad frame are perhaps unfairly treated equally by general BMI type formulae
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    It told me I'm too short.
  • LumpySpacePrincess1
    LumpySpacePrincess1 Posts: 388 Member
    Well I think that the BMI should only be used as a guideline but not as an absolute. For those with more muscle mass, it may put them as overweight and for people with small frames it may put them as underweight even though they may be perfectly healthy. Especially as it was first devised in the 19th century so may no longer be applicable with people being taller etc.

    I found this on Wikipedia (not the most accurate but ok) - ''While the formula previously called the Quetelet Index for BMI dates to the 19th century, the new term "body mass index" for the ratio and its popularity date to a paper published in the July edition of 1972 in the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys, which found the BMI to be the best proxy for body fat percentage among ratios of weight and height;[6][7] the interest in measuring body fat being due to obesity becoming a discernible issue in prosperous Western societies. BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis.''

    The last sentence is the most important to me. BMI is best to make comparison to the general population and averages but I don't think it can be used in individual cases except as a guideline. Then you should look at body fat percentage and frame size. It is after all just a maths equation.
    Great answer. I feel smarter already :bigsmile:
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    Its a good starting point unless you're very muscular.
  • angelb1983
    angelb1983 Posts: 160 Member
    Can it possibly be accurate without taking into account muscle weight? There can be really fit people that it considers overweight, but have a very low body fat percentage.
  • LumpySpacePrincess1
    LumpySpacePrincess1 Posts: 388 Member
    It told me I'm too short.
    Have you by chance ever been to Mordor with a lad named Sam?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I think it is the best tool we have for measuring obesity rates within a population. And it's not a bad measurement on an individual level for women and most men.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Unfortunately I don't know of any that would take build into account so people with a narrow & broad frame are perhaps unfairly treated equally by general BMI type formulae

    Isn't that why there is a range?
  • trogalicious
    trogalicious Posts: 4,584 Member
    It told me I'm too short.
    Have you by chance ever been to Mordor with a lad named Sam?
    I have. My axe approves of this response.
  • MickeyBoo
    MickeyBoo Posts: 196 Member
    In a country where 2/3rds of the population are overweight or obese, (thus establishing the norm) it doesn't surprise me that people who see themselves as at a normal weight would view a tool that paints a more objective picture with skepticism.

    I think it is a good tool in general. Consider that it accounts for variations in things like frame size and other individual differences by offering a wide range for a healthy weight.

    ^this.

    It excludes people who have a large overall muscle mass and also some ethnic groups. I generally like it as a guide, I managed to lose weight down to the very top range of a healthy BMI for me years ago and I thought that was just about right for my build.
  • tonybalony01
    tonybalony01 Posts: 613 Member
    It told me I'm too short.

    That's right. I'm not overweight; I'm undertall. :laugh:

    Seriously, it's a general guide.
    Unless you're a professional athlete, I'd say it's a pretty good guide to follow.

    Just for kicks, I looked up the BMI of a local football player who is a similar height and weight to me, and the calculator said he's obese.
    This dude runs a 4.39 40 yard dash, can bench 18 reps of 225 lbs, and has a 36" vertical and looks like this:
    MJD32.jpg
    I don't think he's obese.
  • Lizzy622
    Lizzy622 Posts: 3,705 Member
    It puts my son at overweight but he is solid muscle. It is a tool and not an absolute. I just use it as a guide like weight and measurements.
  • MB_Positif
    MB_Positif Posts: 8,897 Member
    I think it's stupid. According to it I am just barely healthy/slightly overweight, but I am thinner than I was when I was younger and weighed less.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    It has me at overweight.BAH.:angry:
  • LumpySpacePrincess1
    LumpySpacePrincess1 Posts: 388 Member
    It told me I'm too short.

    That's right. I'm not overweight; I'm undertall. :laugh:

    Seriously, it's a general guide.
    Unless you're a professional athlete, I'd say it's a pretty good guide to follow.

    Just for kicks, I looked up the BMI of a local football player who is a similar height and weight to me, and the calculator said he's obese.
    This dude runs a 4.39 40 yard dash, can bench 18 reps of 225 lbs, and has a 36" vertical and looks like this:
    MJD32.jpg
    I don't think he's obese.
    Dat jaw though.
  • Lyerin
    Lyerin Posts: 818 Member
    I think it is a good general guideline and is at least a starting point. Personally, I feel it *is* accurate for me.

    It is not accurate, for example, for my daughter. Her BMI puts her in the high end of the normal range. However, she has very little body fat and a lot of muscle (gymnastics and competitive cheerleading). She looks much tinier than the BMI scale would make it seem, compared to her peers. Her doctor usually checks it and then looks at her and says "yep, still a gymnast." LOL
  • jim9097
    jim9097 Posts: 341 Member
    BMI is a generic measurement used to screw people over. Just wait people under the affordable care act (Obamacare); your health care premiums will be increased due to body Mass Index. That's right its coming. Now for what I think; according to BMI I am Obese; becasue I am 5'8" and weigh 205. However, I am what I would call ultra fit for a 40 something. I spent 3 hours and 36 minutes exercising yesterday. All high intensity. Obese people don't do that. But becasue the department of Health and Human Services released a new regulation tied to Obamacare we will all be punished based on BMI..

Categories