Do you think BMI is a hoax?

rainbowbow

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Correlation_between_BMI_and_Percent_Body_Fat_for_Men_in_NCHS'_NHANES_1994_Data.PNG


Don't you see men who are fit with a high bmi but low bf% seem to be the exception. Although this chart is from the 90s. I wonder how much it's changed since then.

dreamer12151

I just looked it up. Clay Matthews. #52, Linebacker of the Green Bay Packers. Professional athlete, possibly at the top of his game. He is 27 years old, 6'3" (75 inches tall) and 255 lbs. According to the BMI chart I have, that puts his BMI at 32...which is in the "obese" range. Look at him. THAT'S obese?? Or how about Aaron Rodgers, Quarterback for the Packers? 29 years old, 6'2" (74 inches) and 225 lbs. Puts his BMI @ 29 and that's..."overweight"?!?!?

When I showed my doctor this chart & what my insurance plan was dictating I needed to be at, he just laughed. He said "insurance plans don't see the person, don't see body shapes and frames. I see you. I know that for you, a top weight of 140 will NEVER be attainable or maintainable. I'll be happy to see you down to 175. THAT'S a weight YOUR body can get down to and maintain safely." And 174 is the top weight for my height for the "overweight" category. I think I'll stick with my doctor.

Don't know if "hoax" is the right word, but I think they need to look at more than just "BMI".

snazzyjazzy21

Inappropriate use of the word hoax. It isn't Area 51, it's a sometimes inaccurate measure of health.

but wasn't it a measure created by aliens coming to earth to harvest human meat for their fast food operations????

**** my bad bro, thanks for correcting me! :flowerforyou: You're totally right, the whole organ harvesting thing had slipped my mind when I posted that.

Missjulesdid

BMI is somewhat accurate for most people. When I was heavier than now, my BF% was actually HIGHER than my BMI. Now my BF% is lower. My BMI is 41 and my BF% is 39... I feel like if you're tracking your BF% then your BMI is useless... but if you're not tracking your bf%, and unless you're a bodybuilder, BMI can be a good wakeup call to draw attention to obesity.

BTW, Obese doesn't look like most people think it's going to look like...especially if you're carrying a lot of visceral fat. Heck, I'm MORBIDLY OBESE... and I'm not on death's door riding in an electric cart as most people assume someone in this category would be.

leebesstoad

Hoax? No. But massively oversold and being inappropriately used now? You bet. There are MFP members here who have come on here saying they need to "crash" diet to get below some arbitrary BMI number or their health insurance bill at work will go up. I can envision a scenario where someone will not get a job simply because they don't meet the numbers on the chart, ,regardless of whether they are truly overweight or obese. There is not a single competitive bodybuilder now or in the past who wouldn't be considered obese. At his prime, Arnold Schwarzenegger (6'4") weighed 260 which put his BMI at 31.6. You wanna tell "The Terminator" that he was obese? Go ahead. Be my guess. This week is the Mr. Olympia competition in Las Vegas. Anyone want to get out there and tell all those competitors, with body fat numbers at 3-5% (or less) that THEY are obese?

Take my partner and I. I'm about an inch shorter than he is and about 5-10 pounds heavier. He has a few beers every night and has the beer belly to show it (not bad but noticeable when nekkid, which is how I like him. :blushing: ) My last calculation put my bf% at about 17%. He's in size 34 pants, I'm in size 28. Yet he has a BMI of about 23 (and normal) where I have a BMI in the low 25's (or overweight). You tell that to any of our friends and they'll laugh you out of here. I could lose 40 pounds and still be considered "normal" weight. As it is, I can't count the number of people who tell me to stop losing because I am getting way too thin. And I think I am too.

So to use the BMI in appropriately to "punish" people who really are in good shape, as some employers are starting to do, is simply wrong in my estimation. And in that sense, it is a hoax. At least the implementation is fraudulent.

Duck_Puddle

I think it's one tool of a multitude that is probably fair for the vast majority of the population and horribly wrong for a very small portion of the population. It's not the end all and be all, nothing is. I don't think picking out the possibly hundreds of thousands of people (out of the human population of what 6 billion?) for whom BMI is not an appropriate measurement makes it less appropriate for the other 5.99 billion people in the world.

I will add that my health insurance premium is based on BMI. But not entirely. If you don't meet the BMI cutoff, you can still qualify with waist to height or waist to hip ratios. Like 97% of people, I don't qualify (yet) by any of those measurements. Because my BMI is 26.something and I AM overweight. If I wasn't, I could qualify for reduced premiums through another metric even with an overweight BMI.

Lets add vanity sizing to the mix because I am overweight by every measurement, including my eyes, and I wear a size 6.

Rurouni_Kou

Inappropriate use of the word hoax. It isn't Area 51, it's a sometimes inaccurate measure of health.

And using Hoax for Area 51 is also inappropriate use of the word. Area 51 is real, it's an American Military base used often for top secret new military developments in aviation. (Such as the U2 and the Oxcart.) People often thought there were UFO's but it was usually the U2 or the Oxcart they were seeing, not aliens. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/area-51-its-purpose-declassified-no-ufos-lots-u-2-6C10931555 has some more info.

"the U-2 flight tests created an "unexpected side effect — a tremendous increase in reports of unidentified flying objects." The authors said the spy planes flew at altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet, which was not thought possible at the time. Thus, air traffic controllers began receiving flurries of UFO reports from pilots who saw the planes above them."

Really fascinating stuff. (And often terrifying when you read up on the nuclear bomb testing going on at the Nevada test site and the like... )

jwdieter

There are many competitive bodybuilders who are not BMI obese. Guys gettjng down to sub-7% are often surprisingly light. The heavyweights are not natural and off any evolutionary path. Referencing NFL linebackers and Mr Olympia contestants as examples why BMI is inaccurate for normal people is silly. If you're a 5'4 woman whose doctor recommends trying to get down to 175, BMI is accurate - you're currently obese and should be trying to get out of that category. If you're a guy at 26 BMI and 17% bf, well, you're heading straight into BMI normal with decent abs.

BMI can definitely be misleading for heavily muscled people. It's pretty easy to tell when this is happening. Got some chubs and BMI says mean things? Working as intended. Throws a little red flag up and the doc can say whether there's anything to worry about or not. It's not the final word, it's just a rough estimate that fits a whole lot of people.

x1v16

Measure your body fat percentage, if it's over 22-25% probably would be "healthier" to keep dieting.

That being said, I'm nowhere close to that point and may never be, though I hope to be. You've accomplished a lot on your weight loss journey and should be proud. You are miles healthier now than you were at the beginning of your journey. As far as gaining more confidence, and not be embarassed around people, any man/woman who didn't want to get to know you because you were 220 is so shallow as to not be worth your time. Lots of women like men with a little meat on them. Apparently we are comfier to cuddle with. That's my experience anyway.

lithezebra

No. I think that BMI works for statistical purposes, which is what it is intended for, and that it is reasonably accurate for most people.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

yarwell

How many fit and healthy people have a BMI of 40 ? 45 ?

It's a statistic, which can be abused or misinterpreted.

KANGOOJUMPS

yep

fShaw86

I don't think it's a hoax, but it's a mathematical formula, and not based on science at all. I only realized how lame it was after a muscled friend mentioned his weight, and I did a BMI thing, and was like dude you're fat. He was like dude you're lame, it's all muscle. LOL. BMI doesn't take into consideration muscle mass or fat, just lumps up everything together.

megabyt23

Considering the fact that it doesn't really take into account your muscle vs body fat percentage...I'd say it's pretty useless. They used to "test" our BMI's at school. They told me that I was at risk for being obese. I was 5'4 and 115 pounds at the time. lol

jwdieter

Considering the fact that it doesn't really take into account your muscle vs body fat percentage...I'd say it's pretty useless. They used to "test" our BMI's at school. They told me that I was at risk for being obese. I was 5'4 and 115 pounds at the time. lol

5'4 115 is 19.7 BMI, which is at the lower end of the "normal" category.

anna_toffee

i firmly believe that it is a very inaccurate means of judging health. according to that scale, my ideal weight is approx. 135lbs. as a healthy, 5'8 19-year-old my most comfortable, maintainable weight is closer to 150lbs. the last time i was near 135lbs i was very unhappy and very stressed. i would rather not return to that just because of the BMI scale.

SummerLovesPhil

Hoax? No. But it's a 200-year-old numerical hack designed for distributing public resources, and developed by a mathematician, not a doctor. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

mbz0616

Starting next year, my employer will use BMI as one of the biometrics they look at in order to determine whether we earn cash rewards in our health care reimbursement accounts. If an employee meets certain targets (based upon the American Heart Association guidelines) for BMI, blood pressure, total cholesterol, cholesterol/HDL ratio, glucose, and tobacco use, the employee will receive the reward, The company's rationale is that meeting optimal targets reduces the employee's long-term risk for chronic conditions, which helps reduce health insurance costs.

One more reason to keep going to the gym!

bcattoes

From the CDC:

Why does CDC use BMI to measure overweight and obesity?

Calculating BMI is one of the best methods for population assessment of overweight and obesity. Because calculation requires only height and weight, it is inexpensive and easy to use for clinicians and for the general public. The use of BMI allows people to compare their own weight status to that of the general population.

What are some of the other ways to measure obesity? Why doesn't CDC use those to determine overweight and obesity among the general public?

Other methods to measure body fatness include skinfold thickness measurements (with calipers), underwater weighing, bioelectrical impedance, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and isotope dilution. However, these methods are not always readily available, and they are either expensive or need highly trained personnel. Furthermore, many of these methods can be difficult to standardize across observers or machines, complicating comparisons across studies and time periods.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html#Why

Duck_Puddle

i firmly believe that it is a very inaccurate means of judging health. according to that scale, my ideal weight is approx. 135lbs. as a healthy, 5'8 19-year-old my most comfortable, maintainable weight is closer to 150lbs. the last time i was near 135lbs i was very unhappy and very stressed. i would rather not return to that just because of the BMI scale.

BMI doesn't give anyone a single numeric weight goal, nor is it age specific. As a 5'8" person, BMI says a healthy weight is anywhere from 125 to 163. So your 150 is just fine - and healthy according to BMI. I agree that it's not a unilateral or even the most appropriate measure of health, but your situation fits well within what BMI considers as healthy (and not an outlier example of why it's "bad").

chadraeder3

It dates back to the mid 1800's ...............not terribly relevant now

Yep BMI was created back in the 1800's for 1800's man, in the last 200 years we have made huge advancements and should have a updated the concept of BMI. BMI is a starting point but everyone is a individual and cannot fit in to a rigid model. Some people are healthy at the BMI weight and some will look anorexic at that weight

jwdieter

It dates back to the mid 1800's ...............not terribly relevant now

Yep BMI was created back in the 1800's for 1800's man, in the last 200 years we have made huge advancements and should have a updated the concept of BMI. BMI is a starting point but everyone is a individual and cannot fit in to a rigid model. Some people are healthy at the BMI weight and some will look anorexic at that weight

If you think you'll look "anorexic" at 25 BMI, you probably haven't been 25 BMI in a while. It's difficult to look heavily muscled in regular fit clothing at 25 BMI, but it's not skinny. In areas of rampant obesity, having lean or athletic levels of body fat may appear "too thin", but that's a perception issue.

watfordjc

I wouldn't call it a hoax, although I would say it is being misused.

BMI as an indicator of obesity is like waist measurement as an indicator of visceral fat levels. Correlation in sedentary populations, 60-85% of the planet is sedentary (WHO, 2002), apply it to everyone.

jmoliveson

I do not agree with the BMI and although I am considered overweight by its standards, I don't care. I refuse to be within its range because I am muscular and would rather look and feel strong and healthy. Good question though because it is confusing.