Is BMI really BS?

smittybuilt19

Looking at numbers can be a great way to gauge progress to a certain extent.

If I went with how I feel, I'd be feeling like having a box of donuts right about now.

aneary1980

So someone who doesn't exercise just aquires lots of lean muscle??

If he did work out and had lots of lean muscle he'd be even heavier.

You don't have to work out in order to acquire a lot of lean mass. That is a myth.

Many people genetically carry a large amount of muscle mass. I was a fat kid who didn't work out much, yet I genetically carried a high level of muscle mass in the legs. I broke the leg press record in my middle school by a huge margin the very first time I ever touched it. My legs look muscular and ripped when I have a low body fat, without even having to work them.

There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it.

He does not have a nice amount of visable muscle!!!!!!!!!!!

veggiebuckeye

Yes it's BS no need for verbosity.

rml_16

So, everyone around me has been telling me not to look at numbers but instead how I feel. I don't like that I am on the heavier side of "healthy" and I'm close to being "overweight":brokenheart: . I've lost ten pounds and I want to lose another ten because it will put me at a much healthier looking BMI. Is this a good idea?
It's difficult because I don't dislike my body (that much) and I know some of my weight is muscle. Not a lot of it but I certainly have some tone in my legs. My mums telling me to keep loosing weight but my friends think it's unnecessary.
Do you think I should improve my BMI or is it all BS?

My personal opinion is that for 90% of the population, BMI is not BS and is a good guide. But you have to be looking at the right scale. The BMI scale (the correct one) gives about a 40-pound range of "healthy weight" based on height. I'm 5'3" and my BMI scale is anywhere from 104-141 pounds.

Unless you are very large-framed with a LOT of lean muscle, it's unlikely you're a healthy weight at more than 141 pounds at my height.

mkemmc6009

Something to keep in mind is that when I go shopping now I can wear a size 6, however the size 10 skirts hanging in my closet from 20 years ago still do not fit me, way too tight. The clothing industry has altered the size of clothes to make us feel better about ourselves. Not saying that a size 5/6 is overweight by any means, just saying it isn't what it used to be.

Iwishyouwell

My point is that by promoting BMI as being "okay for most people so no-one should complain about it" you're putting people like myself in danger of trying to diet down to weights that are unhealthy for their frame size....

I'm truly sorry that you were put under some pretty intense psychological pressures, but saying that the BMI is suited for most people isn't wrong.

You're an outlier. Unfortunately outliers always have to make up their own rules.

It's like the anti-smoking campaign. Most people who smoke regularly are at an increase of developing cancer. It doesn't mean all people are. Some people live well into their elderly years smoking a pack a day, and feeling fine. However saying that "most" people aren't going to be able to do that isn't suggesting that ALL people will get cancer.

BMI as a general indicator of healthy, non-fat weight range shouldn't be discarded because a minority portion of the population isn't suited for it.

I actually think dismissing the already wide BMI ranges, which is becoming more common as we get fatter, is having FAR more damage than trying to cater to the minority. Lots of people look at the BMI range and just think "meh, it's wrong, I don't need to pay attention". When in all actuality most people, when they're at a healthy, non-fat weight, will fall within the BMI.

I've seen this with my own eyes. Plenty of people are walking around too fat and totally antagonistic toward the idea that their healthy weight is actually more akin to what our weights were a few decades ago, when very few people were arguing about BMI since most fell within a totally healthy range.

We haven't evolved. We've just gotten fatter and are working overtime to justify it. That's having far more dire implications than the BMI outliers are facing by falling healthily outside of the range.

Iwishyouwell

So someone who doesn't exercise just aquires lots of lean muscle??

If he did work out and had lots of lean muscle he'd be even heavier.

You don't have to work out in order to acquire a lot of lean mass. That is a myth.

Many people genetically carry a large amount of muscle mass. I was a fat kid who didn't work out much, yet I genetically carried a high level of muscle mass in the legs. I broke the leg press record in my middle school by a huge margin the very first time I ever touched it. My legs look muscular and ripped when I have a low body fat, without even having to work them.

There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it.

He does not have a nice amount of visable muscle!!!!!!!!!!!

And neither did I.

Yet it was still there. Underneath the fat. Dense and well packed.

carfanman

I think the only people on the planet to whom you should listen regarding your weight loss goals are your doctor, and the person in your mirror, but that's just me.

This!

aneary1980

So someone who doesn't exercise just aquires lots of lean muscle??

If he did work out and had lots of lean muscle he'd be even heavier.

You don't have to work out in order to acquire a lot of lean mass. That is a myth.

Many people genetically carry a large amount of muscle mass. I was a fat kid who didn't work out much, yet I genetically carried a high level of muscle mass in the legs. I broke the leg press record in my middle school by a huge margin the very first time I ever touched it. My legs look muscular and ripped when I have a low body fat, without even having to work them.

There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it.

He does not have a nice amount of visable muscle!!!!!!!!!!!

And neither did I.

Yet it was still there. Underneath the fat. Dense and well packed.

So why did you say 'There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it'???? Why was this relevant?

Iwishyouwell

Seriously, no-ones disputing your point about populations and averages...

So what is at dispute here, exactly?

Since I, from my initial posts in this thread pages ago, already stated that BMI was a fine indicator for "most people", but is useless for the outliers who have higher than typical LBM?

My entire point was, and is, that the already wide BMI scale is a fine measurement for "most" people, but ultimately the mirror and your health markers should be the most important measurements. I never said BMI was a perfect indicator, never said that it applied to all people. I simply don't believe it's bunk or that off for most people.

What are you arguing?

asdowe13

Well the BMI tells me I am obese with a BMI of 30.9

A healthy range for me is 160-180.

At 6 feet tall and currently 228 - I would be terribly unhealthy imo at 160 lbs.

I guess i will always live in the overweight category since i will probably maintain my weight in the 190-200 lb range.


For me BMI is BS

TJ_Rugger

Yes and no. There are a good number of professional athletes are considered obese. I read a report how most running backs in the NFL are considered "OBESE" by the BMI standard because they pack on so much muscle for their height.

From my understanding, the only real accurate way to test BMI is skin-fold tests (I have also heard about water/density tests, however not practical). The scaled that send the electric signals through your body are for guidelines.. and they will give you a number.... but there are too many factors that those scales to do take into account.

If you want to really judge your BMI you need to consult a doctor and probably have skin-fold tests done. These are where they pinch your skin in various parts of your body (back, shoulders, stomach, back of arms, ect) and calculate how much fat is there. This test will also tell you what a good weight is for you and how much weight you should SAFELY loose. When I wrestled in HS we had to take these test to prevent wrestlers from trying to drop too much weight to get into a lower weight class.

SezxyStef

Something to keep in mind is that when I go shopping now I can wear a size 6, however the size 10 skirts hanging in my closet from 20 years ago still do not fit me, way too tight. The clothing industry has altered the size of clothes to make us feel better about ourselves. Not saying that a size 5/6 is overweight by any means, just saying it isn't what it used to be.

I get that hence why I mentioned my size 8 prom dress from over 20 years ago...24 actually...it fits like a glove...I was 135lbs when I graduated...I was 165 when I put it on in Feb...

My point with that is this...at 135 I was mid range BMI...size 8 (non vanity sized) fit like a glove...at 165 BMI overweight it fit like a glove.

ChriJMitch

BMI is a great in theory, but its so hard to accurately measure. Skin calipers and electrical impedance type testing are accurate enough for people above 15% BF, but after that they are junk. You need a water displacement test done (which is difficult to find) or a body scan done (which is both difficult to find and expensive).

Weight, in my opinion, is even MORE useless that BMI measurements. Honestly just use the mirror, how you feel, and the increases you see in your strength and endurance in your exercise log as your scale.

Iwishyouwell

So someone who doesn't exercise just aquires lots of lean muscle??

If he did work out and had lots of lean muscle he'd be even heavier.

You don't have to work out in order to acquire a lot of lean mass. That is a myth.

Many people genetically carry a large amount of muscle mass. I was a fat kid who didn't work out much, yet I genetically carried a high level of muscle mass in the legs. I broke the leg press record in my middle school by a huge margin the very first time I ever touched it. My legs look muscular and ripped when I have a low body fat, without even having to work them.

There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it.

He does not have a nice amount of visable muscle!!!!!!!!!!!

And neither did I.

Yet it was still there. Underneath the fat. Dense and well packed.

So why did you say 'There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it'???? Why was this relevant?

Because you stated that people would need to work out to have a high LBM.

And I was simply informing you of the fact that some of the people you see walking around with a visually high muscle mass didn't necessarily work hard to achieve it. Some people just genetically come that way.

Regardless, some people have more LBM than you can tell visually, particularly if they're got a lot of fat.

Again, what in the world do you think your dad's "huge torso" is comprised off? Extra large organs?

Wonderob

My personal opinion is that for 90% of the population, BMI is not BS and is a good guide.

This is my point

How do we know if we are in the 90% or the 10%?

If you need to research, calculate, check, ask, work out or otherwise ascertain whether you are in the 90% for whom BMI chart works, then what's the point of the BMI chart!???

aneary1980

So someone who doesn't exercise just aquires lots of lean muscle??

If he did work out and had lots of lean muscle he'd be even heavier.

You don't have to work out in order to acquire a lot of lean mass. That is a myth.

Many people genetically carry a large amount of muscle mass. I was a fat kid who didn't work out much, yet I genetically carried a high level of muscle mass in the legs. I broke the leg press record in my middle school by a huge margin the very first time I ever touched it. My legs look muscular and ripped when I have a low body fat, without even having to work them.

There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it.

He does not have a nice amount of visable muscle!!!!!!!!!!!

And neither did I.

Yet it was still there. Underneath the fat. Dense and well packed.

So why did you say 'There are people walking around with a nice amount of visible muscle who did not do a lot to achieve it'???? Why was this relevant?

Because you stated that people would need to work out to have a high LBM.

And I was simply informing you of the fact that some of the people you see walking around with a visually high muscle mass didn't necessarily work hard to achieve it. Some people just genetically come that way.

Regardless, some people have more LBM than you can tell visually, particularly if they're got a lot of fat.

Again, what in the world do you think your dad's "huge torso" is comprised off? Extra large organs?

I would say most of the weight is due to his rib cage and shoulders which define and make his torso so big!!! and please do not say that doesn't weight alot!!

karmcl

"BMI is not always BS but it can be. Like one of the poster says, "look at Adrian Peterson". Having a lot of muscle will skew the BMI #s."

LMAO...how many people here look like Adrian Peterson? BMI is a GREAT guide for people who don't look like him or bodybuild. IMHO, the people who don't agree with BMI are the people who are considered overweight. I'm 5'5". My healthy range is 111 lbs to 149 lbs. I think I'd consider myself overweight if I was 150...not OBESE..but overweight. I agree with everything Iwishyouwell said. I'm actually about to friend that person because he made so much sense.

Scott_2025

bump. I think the BMI is total BS. For a guy my size I need to weigh between 127 and 167 to be normal. If I weighed 167 I know people would think I was dying.

Iwishyouwell

Well the BMI tells me I am obese with a BMI of 30.9

A healthy range for me is 160-180.

At 6 feet tall and currently 228 - I would be terribly unhealthy imo at 160 lbs.

I guess i will always live in the overweight category since i will probably maintain my weight in the 190-200 lb range.


For me BMI is BS

So your healthy range is 160-180 lbs...

Yet your decide to maintain weight in the "overweight category"...

Yet BMI is BS?

This is what I'm talking about. When people are large, and want to stay large, then the BMI becomes BS.

Despite the fact that most 6 foot tall men would NOT look unhealthy even in their 160s. One of my closest friends is 6 foot tall, medium framed, and 168 lbs. And he's got a 30 inch waist, broad shoulders, and muscular legs and arms. The kind of body that people double take at if he wears a close fitting shirt.

This is what's becoming very common. Weights that were absolutely typical, normal, and appropriate for even men of this height just a few years ago, are more and more being looked at as "unhealthy" or too skinny.

rml_16

bump. I think the BMI is total BS. For a guy my size I need to weigh between 127 and 167 to be normal. If I weighed 167 I know people would think I was dying.

That range cannot be correct. The range (18.5 at the lowest and 24.9 at the highest) is never that small. It should be at least a 40-pound range. I don't know where these tiny, restrictive ranges are coming from.

rml_16

My personal opinion is that for 90% of the population, BMI is not BS and is a good guide.

This is my point

How do we know if we are in the 90% or the 10%?

If you need to research, calculate, check, ask, work out or otherwise ascertain whether you are in the 90% for whom BMI chart works, then what's the point of the BMI chart!???

I don't think it's that complicated. If you have a lot of visible muscle and little body fat and are over the BMI scale, then you clearly are in the 10%.

I am 100% certain I am in the 90%. It isn't difficult to know simply by looking in a mirror.

QueenBishOTUniverse

I am a woman who is 5'8" and currently 167 pounds with a bf of 25% and a 31 inch waist. By every other measure, I am perfectly healthy. I can run for miles and pick up heavy things, but according to BMI I am overweight. I know, and have known for a very long time that I am an outlier, so I tend to ignore BMI. My goal weight is 160 which would put me *barely* in to the healthy weight range, but I will likely go from there in to a bulk so that won't be for very long.

If every other indicator tells you that you are healthy, then yes, I would recommend that you not pay attention to BMI. I agree some people scapegoat BMI, but there are enough of us out there that classify as outliers to make it reasonable to tell people to not use BMI as their only metric for determining health.

liekewheeless

I think BMI is a great starting point. If your BMI doesn't match how you feel about your self or how you think you look measure your waist.

A healthy waist for a man is below 40" and for a woman below 35". You measure it at the top of your hip across your belly button. (you may want to look this up for your self) Where you carry your weight is important for your health. This also catches the "big boned" people, and the "muscular" people. If your BMI is high and your waist to large,.. you are over weight,..but.. if your BMI is high and your waist is healthy you probably don't have much to worry about.

DanielleH1213

No, it's not BS. BMI is a generalization that will work for generally most people. It's become very common these days to attack BMI due to the outliers who have a higher than typical muscle mass, and thus for whom BMI is of little use. However the vast majority of people aren't rocking the amount of additional lean mass needed to skew the BMI radically.

The heart of the matter, for many, is that they hate that BMI tells them they're still too fat. A lot of people have come to loathe the old height/weight chart ranges and BMI because they point to the fact that we've, on the whole, lost perspective of just how small most people need to be in order to not be overweight. Especially here in the US we've become very, very skewed about appropriate weight and BMI.

As far as your own personal goals, are your health markers good? When looking in the mirror do you have excess fat that you're unhappy with? When you say you "dislike" your body, what exactly do you dislike? That there is still too much fat mass or are you talking about other parts that are unchangeable (naturally speaking)?

speaking as an outlier... I was told as an adolescent that I had to "be careful" because I was "almost overweight" by a well meaning adult, and told by another adult who should have known better, that I need to lose 10kg (22lb) based on BMI alone... I had visible upper abs at the time, my body fat percentage would have been around 18-20%.... very dangerous advice, both in terms of my physical and mental health.

the problem is, while you're correct when BMI is applied to the average person, people who are outliers may not know that they are outliers, and most really don't know the difference between someone who has a high body fat percentage and someone who has a healthy body fat percentage and a high lean body mass for their height. It took my studying human sciences at degree level to understand that I'm an outlier and should take BMI with a pinch of salt, unfortunately I'd already suffered several years of disordered eating due to thinking I was too fat when I wasn't at all. And outliers are more common than people think, because most people don't really understand much about statistics and human variation.

Really posts like the OP's rings alarm bells for me, because if she is like me, then she should absolutely NOT feel that she should have a lower BMI just to be more average... to attempt that could result in her harming her health rather than helping it. Yes outliers are rarer and statistically speaking it's *more likely* that she's not an outlier... but we do exist and are not all that rare, and someone on an internet forum can't tell the difference.

OP: get your body fat percentage measured in a reliable way. If that's in the healthy range, then forget this idea of losing extra weight just to be in a certain place on a BMI chart. Body fat percentage is a direct measure of how much fat there is in your body. If it's in the healthy range, you don't have too much fat and your health is not at risk, regardless of what your BMI is (BMI is just a very crude way to estimate whether someone has too much body fat - body fat percentage actually measures how much fat you have). If your BF% is above 28% then losing more fat until it's in the healthy range (18-28%) is a good idea. Losing a little fat to be a lower number within the healthy range is fine too, but it's a purely cosmetic adjustment which won't affect your health either way. Some people like how their bodies look better at a particular percentage rather than another... I think I look best at around 23% body fat. But in terms of health, if it's in the healthy range then you have the right amount of body fat for good health.

I also was told by my doctor as a adolescent that based on the charts I was considered overweight and close to obese. I was a competitive figure skater. That doctor's appointment forever skewed my thoughts about my weight and set me on the track that I have been on ever since. I was 5'5" and 150 lbs. But I had super muscular thighs. And after that doctor's appointment I felt fat compared to most of my friends. It wasn't until recently that I measured my body fat percentage for the first time. According to that I am in the "Acceptable" range. Still not where I want to be but a much more realistic scale for me. I still have a ton of muscle in my legs. And yes it is covered by a layer of fat. But as that fat comes off I am seeing that my thighs will still always be bigger than most women that I know. The only way to change that would be to lose muscle and I'm not ok with that!

So I recommend taking multiple types of measurements and looking at them all. And not just focusing on one measurement that is very generic.

agrafina

bump. I think the BMI is total BS. For a guy my size I need to weigh between 127 and 167 to be normal. If I weighed 167 I know people would think I was dying.

That range cannot be correct. The range (18.5 at the lowest and 24.9 at the highest) is never that small. It should be at least a 40-pound range. I don't know where these tiny, restrictive ranges are coming from.

That is a 40 pound range.

Eh, I think BMI is one useful tool, since most of us are not outliers. I do think there are better measures of disease risk, such as waist to hip ratio.

I also agree that we are upsizing healthy body sizes, and that isn't a good thing.

rml_16

bump. I think the BMI is total BS. For a guy my size I need to weigh between 127 and 167 to be normal. If I weighed 167 I know people would think I was dying.

That range cannot be correct. The range (18.5 at the lowest and 24.9 at the highest) is never that small. It should be at least a 40-pound range. I don't know where these tiny, restrictive ranges are coming from.

That is a 40 pound range.

Eh, I think BMI is one useful tool, since most of us are not outliers. I do think there are better measures of disease risk, such as waist to hip ratio.

I also agree that we are upsizing healthy body sizes, and that isn't a good thing.

Oh ugh. You're right. lol

I'm coming off of a 5-day migraine and been swamped at work. My brain is not functioning this morning and numbers have never been my strong suit. :-)

Iwishyouwell

bump. I think the BMI is total BS. For a guy my size I need to weigh between 127 and 167 to be normal. If I weighed 167 I know people would think I was dying.

If you were never fat, and everyone you know met you at 167 lbs, nobody would think you were "dying".

Wonderob

"BMI is not always BS but it can be. Like one of the poster says, "look at Adrian Peterson". Having a lot of muscle will skew the BMI #s."

LMAO...how many people here look like Adrian Peterson? BMI is a GREAT guide for people who don't look like him or bodybuild. IMHO, the people who don't agree with BMI are the people who are considered overweight. I'm 5'5". My healthy range is 111 lbs to 149 lbs. I think I'd consider myself overweight if I was 150...not OBESE..but overweight. I agree with everything Iwishyouwell said. I'm actually about to friend that person because he made so much sense.

Really? Is it a great guide for me? I don't look like Adrian Peterson, I don't bodybuild. I'm not overweight, yet when I was 25.5 BMI I was deemed 'Overweight' how is that a great guide?

In fact I would go further. I would say it's pretty useless

It works some of the time, for some people and works best when the results are obvious. i.e you sit in the middle of the various scales. i.e right in the middle of the normal range or right in the middle of the overweight range. There's a problem though when you're on the edges - which is pretty much the only time when you need it!

If you're in the middle of the normal range then look in the mirror - you already know you are not overweight
If you're in the middle of the overweight range then look in the mirror - you already know you're overweight
If you're on the edges of the normal/overweight range then look in the mirror - you might be able to tell, might not..... exactly the same as the BMI chart!

Give me one example where the BMI chart works when a mirror doesn't

Iwishyouwell

"BMI is not always BS but it can be. Like one of the poster says, "look at Adrian Peterson". Having a lot of muscle will skew the BMI #s."

LMAO...how many people here look like Adrian Peterson? BMI is a GREAT guide for people who don't look like him or bodybuild. IMHO, the people who don't agree with BMI are the people who are considered overweight. I'm 5'5". My healthy range is 111 lbs to 149 lbs. I think I'd consider myself overweight if I was 150...not OBESE..but overweight. I agree with everything Iwishyouwell said. I'm actually about to friend that person because he made so much sense.

Yep, it's almost always people who are overweight or obese according to the BMI chart that have these vehement reactions to it.

And unfortunately for them, most of them are not muscular outliers. They're just fat and can't conceive how low their weight would need to go in order to no longer be fat.