Does anyone else follow BMI?

muddyevil

I know BMI is not perfectly accurate, that's fine, but I have certain other issues with it.

I'm a female, and I am currently on the lower end of Obese on the BMI scale. To get to the healthy weight for my height I need to lose about 15kg (33lb) No biggy, I was looking at losing about that much anyway. The issue I have is this - that will put me at the top end of the "healthy" weight range. To get into the middle of it I need to lose 25kg (55lbs).

BUT, I don't think I have that much fat to lose, and I think I will look ridiculously skinny if I do. I have no fat on my shoulders, ribs or hips, so the weight I will be losing will be around my stomach and legs. Does anyone else think this would make me look too skinny, or am I just making excuses not to lose weight?

casparuk

Losing weight to get into a healthy range isn't all about how one looks, it's how you feel... but also to be healthy long-term... and being healthy can also mean being kind to your internals, which you can't see.

Why not try getting into your healthy range and see where you go from there.


Best of luck!

eldamiano

I remember reading an article about a man who drove his car into a ditch/wall because his sat nav told him he had to turn right to get to his destination. Why is this relevant?

Everything is subjective. A lot of people think that BMI is a load of cr@p. I personally think it is pretty good but just as the man should have taken a look out of the window before crashing to his fate, if you think you look too skinny, then dont lose any more. I wouldnt just lose more because 'BMI says I need to'.

I was quite interested in BMI, but then having watched Supersize v Superskinny, which seems to be a big BMI advocate, they also stated the host Dr. Christian Jessen as a healthy BMI of 26, which of course is slightly on the overweight scale. Jessen however is well bulked up so I guessed that BMI for his particular anatomy would vary slightly, and that the BMI scale applies for generally average built people.

Someone else may wish to elaborate on this....

ladyj_sa

I've always followed BMI as a "guide"... My aim is to get to a BMI of 25 (on the top of the healthy range, as you mentioned) and tone from there. I don't think it's something very technical as people tend to differ in build, etc. but I do consider myself to be an "average".

Maybe aim for the top end as your first goal and take it from there?

P.S I started at a BMI of 32 and now at 26

SezxyStef

BMI is an antiquated measurment done in the 1800s to decide how to disperse food during tight times...it is for big populations therefore to apply it to an individual is not a good idea.

is it a good "guide" perhaps but remember it doesn't take into account a lot of factors...it would place most athletes in the overweight category.

jasonheyd

Agreed with the folks above. It's a good guide, but it's not going to be perfectly accurate for almost anyone. Target a healthy range, then go how you feel once you're there and use body measurements & body fat measurements to zero in on where you want to be.

cingle87

Yeah Im agreeing with everyone on here, for all its faults BMI is a nice guide to where you should be roughly, but a guide only. I set my goals using the BMI scale but unlike most I havent set it "normal" range Ive set it to just outside still in the overweight scale. The reason Im doing this it gives me a current goal to aim and when I reach that goal depending on my body I will either carry on if my bf% is still too high or if its good then its time to add some muscle.

Use it as a guide but re evaluate your goals based on yourself not what some chart tells you to be.

WalkingAlong

I think if you prefer your body at the top end of "healthy" BMI, that's fine. When you get there, you might feel differently or you might not. Unless you're very muscular, BMI works well as a guide. It's not saying "you NEED TO be at the weight at the center of 'healthy'", it's saying you're probably at a healthy weight anywhere in that range.

jwdieter

Nearly all accomplished female athletes tend to be "normal" BMI, while male athletes.. also "normal" when world sports are considered. Most male soccer players, runners, tennis players, etc are "normal". But male strength sports (football, hockey, current bball, etc) athletes are mostly over "normal".

Anyhoo, I'm "overweight" with abs and the classifications don't bother me at all. I'm part of the exception that pretty much every BMI site references. In the context of normal untrained people and women, BMI classifications tend to be pretty reasonable imo.

aeromat

According to my BMI, I'm obese but it doesn't take into account many factors (activity levels, muscle mass, etc.)

Physicals and bloodwork show me as being healthy, even healthier than the nurse who gave me the results. Everything is where it should be and I am rarely sick. Even at my lowest weight, I was still considered obese. I'm not sure it's even useful as a guide.

ChrisM8971

BMI is fine if you just use it as another tool in your armoury for tracking your weight/fitness goals. It is pretty accurate, completely inaccurate for others (waiting for the obligatory photo of the body builder with an obese BMI)

Just use it along with other tools such as scales, tape measure and your personal judgment

Blacklance36

BMI is an antiquated measurment done in the 1800s to decide how to disperse food during tight times...it is for big populations therefore to apply it to an individual is not a good idea.

is it a good "guide" perhaps but remember it doesn't take into account a lot of factors...it would place most athletes in the overweight category.

Interesting background on BMI, and that why I think body fat is a much better tool to use. Check your body fat instead. Isn't that more important?

Wilhellmina

A bit as a guide, but I don't stare myself blind on it, because it doesn't tell the difference between fat and muscle. Besides I have been checking more then one BMI calculator and they all gave different results.

RllyGudTweetr

BMI is just a statistical tool; as such, it may not be particularly relevant to your particular body and situation.

Because ChrisM8971 asked for it, I present you with MMA fighter Rhonda Rousey, whose BMI is on the high side:



Remember, the image is of her 'making weight' for a fight, so likely dehydrated. She's likely heavier than this when she enters the Octagon.

BigGuy47

Some insurance companies are using BMI to determine rates.

jwdieter

BMI is just a statistical tool; as such, it may not be particularly relevant to your particular body and situation.

Because ChrisM8971 asked for it, I present you with MMA fighter Rhonda Rousey, whose BMI is on the high side:



Remember, the image is of her 'making weight' for a fight, so likely dehydrated. She's likely heavier than this when she enters the Octagon.

Rousey is "normal" BMI. She's 20 pounds below the top end of the "normal" range when she's making weight.

Put in a Ms Olympia contestant. Some of them can manage getting to "overweight" with visible abs.

RllyGudTweetr

BMI is just a statistical tool; as such, it may not be particularly relevant to your particular body and situation.

Because ChrisM8971 asked for it, I present you with MMA fighter Rhonda Rousey, whose BMI is on the high side:



Remember, the image is of her 'making weight' for a fight, so likely dehydrated. She's likely heavier than this when she enters the Octagon.

Rousey is "normal" BMI. She's 20 pounds below the top end of the "normal" range when she's making weight.

Put in a Ms Olympia contestant. Some of them can manage getting to "overweight" with visible abs.

She started competing at a heavier weight class than she currently does, if memory serves.

edited for quote fail.

jwdieter

Rousey competed heavier in her judo days, where she was at the top end of normal bmi:



She's obviously a capable Olympic athlete at that weight. Looks a lot different though.

maybyn

I really don't get the logic behind posters using Olympians, elite professional athletes and weight lifters as examples whenever the topic of BMI comes up. Why??

None of us here is one of them and the OP certainly isn't otherwise she wouldn't be asking this question in the first place!

There is a correlation of BMI and bf% in general for the normal public so yeah, I would be trying to get into the healthy range of the BMI if I was the OP and then see how she feels from there. However, don't be too obsessed about hitting a "right" number.

As for Dr Christian Jessen, he apparently has muscle dysmorphia so I wouldn't be looking at his BMI either.

twixlepennie

My bmi is in the 19 range and I'm happy with where I'm at now. But, my original goal weight was higher-I reassessed when I hit that and decided to keep going. Nothing wrong with aiming for one goal and then adjusting from there

jonnythan

BMI isn't everything, and it's really not even something to guide an individual. But chances are you do have that much fat to lose.

bcattoes

BMI is a population based measurement based on statistics. It does not take into consideration how one looks or thinks they look. It does not take into consideration that some individuals may be healthy by other standards and still not fall into the healthy BMI range. It based only on data regarding BMI and disease association.

It is uncommon, however, for women to be the healthy range of other measures (such as BF%) and not fall into the healthy range of BMI.

cwolfman13

I know BMI is not perfectly accurate, that's fine, but I have certain other issues with it.

I'm a female, and I am currently on the lower end of Obese on the BMI scale. To get to the healthy weight for my height I need to lose about 15kg (33lb) No biggy, I was looking at losing about that much anyway. The issue I have is this - that will put me at the top end of the "healthy" weight range. To get into the middle of it I need to lose 25kg (55lbs).

BUT, I don't think I have that much fat to lose, and I think I will look ridiculously skinny if I do. I have no fat on my shoulders, ribs or hips, so the weight I will be losing will be around my stomach and legs. Does anyone else think this would make me look too skinny, or am I just making excuses not to lose weight?

You have to take into account your frame, muscle mass, etc. Not everyone is going to be at the low end of BMI which is why it's a stupid measure. It's a decent guideline, particularly if you're overweight and looking to get to a healthy weight...but I see so many people here trying to get to the lower end of BMI and it can be just as unhealthy.

To get to the lower end of BMI for my stats, I'd have to lose about 15 Lbs of muscle in the process...how stupid would that be? I'm actually just slightly above the high end ceiling for my stats but I'm at a perfectly healthy BF%. BF% is a much better guide. I could still drop a couple points in BF as I'm on the high end of healthy...but dropping a couple points would mean dropping about 5-10 Lbs and that would put me comfortably at 15% BF...and I'd still weight 170 Lbs. The low end of BMI for me is 140 Lbs....does it seem even remotely realistic that i could get there without doing substantial damage to myself?

kill3rtofu

i like to reference it to gauge peoples' body weight on a "scale", but i think their categories are for sedentary folk.

Vonwarr

BMI is not a great way to set a goal. It doesn't work for a lot of people. According to BMI I'm "obese". (~32 BMI).

Here's a site which gives a much better way to calculate your ideal weight based off of body fat %. This is a much more accurate indicator of health than BMI: http://www.builtlean.com/2010/05/04/ideal-body-weight-formula-how-to-calculate-your-ideal-weight/

Unknown

This content has been removed.