Is BMI really BS?
Options
Replies
-
Overweight according to BMI
Do I still want to lose a few pounds, sure. Am I some sort of extreme athlete, nope, not really. Don't think I'm delusional about how fat I am, but who knows.
ETA: Oh and the calorie calculator on WebMD won't even give me a calorie goal for maintaining at my current weight because I'm unhealthy, it will only give me a goal if I want to lose weight, because even though the EXACT SAME calculator says that I'm healthy according to height and waist ratios, it ONLY uses BMI when generating a calorie goal. Just one more example of how stupidly BMI gets applied.0 -
ok, I have a couple of quick takes on this because it's something that I have thought a lot about in the past, and it's clearly caught a lot of attention on this thread now.
1st take: Is BMI really BS? Wow, this question encapsulates the thought that we live in a binary world where everything is either good or it's bad. Right or wrong, etc. BMI is a calculation using an individual's height and their weight. It's how someone interprets the result that could lead them to the conclusion that the number is "BS" But simply put, the higher the number, the more weight you carry for your height. It's about the most simplistic marker of where a person falls on some over vs. under-weight spectrum that you can get. So while I don't think it's an extremely USEful metric, I won't call it total BS either.
I've also read a few posts on this forum that indicate it's a good metric for evaluating a population's weight to height relationship (I'm paraphrasing here). And while I agree with this, that does not make the metric any more useful to most people. The only people that would use BMI to compare populations would be statisticians or researchers and I'd imagine that most people here don't fall into that category either (speaking of outliers)
2nd take: In addition to BMI there are a lot of other OBJECTIVE ways you can measure yourself and evaluate whether or not your body composition is where you want it to be. You can take simple circumference measurements of your waist, hips, chest, neck, arms, legs, etc. and then compare those over time to see where you're changing. If most of your increases are happening in your waist and hips then there might be a situation you need to take care of.
Alternative you can also have your bodyfat percentage measured, and there are a number of ways this can be done too, each with their own pros and cons and measurement issues, etc. which I won't go into detail about here because so many others have already done so. BUT! If you take multiple measurements of your bodyfat % and track that over time then you can get a pretty good idea if you're making good progress towards having the body composition that you want.
3rd take: Finally there are also SUBJECTIVE ways you can use to determine if you need to do some more work or not. Are your clothes fitting tighter or looser than they used to? Do you get winded doing things like climbing a flight of stairs that you could previously do with ease? Then there's always the eyeball test. Look in the mirror and be honest with yourself. Is that what you want to see looking back at you? And please, don't pick out this one sentence and tell me that my whole post is BS because some people don't see in the mirror what others see due to body dysmorphia or other similar situations. Clearly if someone suffers from that issue then the eyeball test isn't a good one for them.
Final take: I'm fine with using BMI as one measurement that gives you some information about where a person is with regards to their body composition. But when my health insurance company uses that number to tall me that I'm overweight and raises my premium because of it then THAT is when I have an issue. Not with the number, because it's not the number's fault. But with the policy of the insurance company to not look at other metrics to evaluate an individual's real risk of developing any number of health conditions due to carrying too much weight or too much fat. I understand this risk, but BMI alone is not the best way to evaluate this risk objectively and when it takes money out of my pocket I really dislike it even more.0 -
If estimations are correct I am 25% BF....
"Estimating" body fat is as much of a cardinal sin as estimating calories.
But the BMI chart is estimating your BF
Its using an average BF to determine if you are overweight or not - how is that in any way helpful?
Picking a point off of a empirically derived curve is more than just "estimating".
No it's worse! The BMI chart is using data from lots of different people to guess MY bodyfat and tell me if I'M overweight
Let's see, the empirical data curve for people who need glasses says that at 49 years old, I will need them. This rule will work for the majority of people, the majority of the time, therefore just like the BMI chart, it a great guide!
I said estimated due to the fact I have had no dexa scan for BF%...it's based on various sources but because it's not the gold standard I do call it an estimation.
My point is this...BMI should not alone be used to measure if someone is overweight/obese/healthy. BMI does not take into account the difference between LBM (which is not just muscle) and actual fat...and if the fat is viseral etc.
Niether should BF% or scale weight or even "personal opinion" of self.
Could I be lower in weight...sure could...do I want to be mid range BMI hell no...135...just doesn't work for me personally...I am guant thin and sickly looking ...hence why for me BMI alone is not a good measurment...
BMI+weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurment0 -
My point is this...BMI should not alone be used to measure if someone is overweight/obese/healthy. BMI does not take into account the difference between LBM (which is not just muscle) and actual fat...and if the fat is viseral etc.
Niether should BF% or scale weight or even "personal opinion" of self.
Could I be lower in weight...sure could...do I want to be mid range BMI hell no...135...just doesn't work for me personally...I am guant thin and sickly looking ...hence why for me BMI alone is not a good measurment...
BMI+weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurment
Your list would be just as good, if not better if it was:
Weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurement
The BMI chart adds absolutely nothing to that list whatsoever-1 -
My point is this...BMI should not alone be used to measure if someone is overweight/obese/healthy. BMI does not take into account the difference between LBM (which is not just muscle) and actual fat...and if the fat is viseral etc.
Niether should BF% or scale weight or even "personal opinion" of self.
Could I be lower in weight...sure could...do I want to be mid range BMI hell no...135...just doesn't work for me personally...I am guant thin and sickly looking ...hence why for me BMI alone is not a good measurment...
BMI+weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurment
Your list would be just as good, if not better if it was:
Weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurement
The BMI chart adds absolutely nothing to that list whatsoever
Agreed, which is exactly why I don't use it.0 -
I think BMI should only ever be used in conjunction with common sense.
My BMI is 32.6 and I wear a size UK 14 (so about a US 12) someone I know has a BMI of 25.2 and wears a size UK 20/22.
I accept that I am over weight but obese? really? everybody is shocked when I tell them that I am classed as obese.0 -
My point is this...BMI should not alone be used to measure if someone is overweight/obese/healthy. BMI does not take into account the difference between LBM (which is not just muscle) and actual fat...and if the fat is viseral etc.
Niether should BF% or scale weight or even "personal opinion" of self.
Could I be lower in weight...sure could...do I want to be mid range BMI hell no...135...just doesn't work for me personally...I am guant thin and sickly looking ...hence why for me BMI alone is not a good measurment...
BMI+weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurment
Your list would be just as good, if not better if it was:
Weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurement
The BMI chart adds absolutely nothing to that list whatsoever
Agreed, which is exactly why I don't use it.
Can't see why anyone would use the BMI chart over my new guide
Grab hold of stomach and wobble up and down - if it jiggles too much then you are overweight
Look down at your feet, if you can't see them you are obese
Try to put your socks on, if you can't then you're morbidly obese
For Christ sake don't rely on this guide though as even though it will be right for the majority of people, the majority of the time, it might not be for you so you need to see a doctor or find a more accurate way of measuring..... just like the BMI charts-1 -
Here's my problem with BMI. My "healthy" range would start at 7.5%BF for me! I'm 5'-8", 186 @ 17.5%BF as of this mornings weight in. This puts my lean body mass at around 153-154lbs. My "normal" range for BMI is 122-164. I honestly can not imagine 122 considering when I was in HS and skinny as a bean pole I still weighed 145+/-...and that was before I hit that second "puberty" where my shoulders got wider and got my "man strength" in my early 20's. 164 would be my floor not my ceiling for what I would consider normal for me. And before you say "oh well you're just an outlier", maybe I am, but before January of this year I've never lifted weights in my life and I haven't gained muscle mass since then either...I've actually lost about 9-10 lbs of it to go with all the fat weight I've dropped.
BMI is a statistic for statistically analyses of a *population*. It should not be used to assess the health of any one individual. I have no problem with it being used as an indicator, but I believe that it should only be used in conjunction with other metrics (ie. BF%, waist to hip ratio, frame size, family history) Using only BMI is lazy in my opinion. It's easy and you can train a monkey to weigh someone and measure their height.0 -
BMI doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle so it's certainly massively flawed
Pick any muscly athlete and BMI will say they are overweight
eg. Running back Adrian Peterson
Not overweight surely? Well the BMI checker isn't ambiguous in any way: "Adrian Peterson BMI is overweight"
http://www.celebheightandweight.com/adrian-peterson-bmi-848.html
I know that doesn't really help you but quite interesting anyway???
I think my favorite outlier to the BMI scale is Kevin Durant. 6'9" tall, 235 pounds, BMI of 25.2, which is technically overweight.
0 -
I though you might find this useful.
The National Institutes of Heath did a study called: Accuracy of Body Mass Index to Diagnose Obesity In the US Adult Population
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/0 -
I though you might find this useful.
The National Institutes of Heath did a study called: Accuracy of Body Mass Index to Diagnose Obesity In the US Adult Population
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/
Good article
Conclusion: "The diagnostic accuracy of BMI to diagnose obesity is limited, particularly for individuals in the intermediate BMI ranges"
So if you think you are overweight, take a look at the BMI chart. It might or might not be able to tell you, you won't know if it can or not though so for goodness sake don't rely on it for something as important as your flippin health!-1 -
I though you might find this useful.
The National Institutes of Heath did a study called: Accuracy of Body Mass Index to Diagnose Obesity In the US Adult Population
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/
Dear lord those r-squared values, I also find the skew towards the bottom end of the BMI range on women interesting.0 -
My point is this...BMI should not alone be used to measure if someone is overweight/obese/healthy. BMI does not take into account the difference between LBM (which is not just muscle) and actual fat...and if the fat is viseral etc.
Niether should BF% or scale weight or even "personal opinion" of self.
Could I be lower in weight...sure could...do I want to be mid range BMI hell no...135...just doesn't work for me personally...I am guant thin and sickly looking ...hence why for me BMI alone is not a good measurment...
BMI+weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurment
Your list would be just as good, if not better if it was:
Weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurement
The BMI chart adds absolutely nothing to that list whatsoever
LOL... that reminds me of the Pop Tart commercials from when I was a kid... they'd put the Pop Tarts next to some bacon, eggs, toast, and OJ and say 'part of this complete breakfast'... like the Pop Tarts added anything... it could've been a a shot of tequila and the same could be said... great... now I want tequila!
0 -
My point is this...BMI should not alone be used to measure if someone is overweight/obese/healthy. BMI does not take into account the difference between LBM (which is not just muscle) and actual fat...and if the fat is viseral etc.
Niether should BF% or scale weight or even "personal opinion" of self.
Could I be lower in weight...sure could...do I want to be mid range BMI hell no...135...just doesn't work for me personally...I am guant thin and sickly looking ...hence why for me BMI alone is not a good measurment...
BMI+weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurment
Your list would be just as good, if not better if it was:
Weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurement
The BMI chart adds absolutely nothing to that list whatsoever
It does tho...what about those who are underweight per BMI...or those who are actually obese or morbidly obese...it adds another measure for them...it's when you get in the mid range I think it's bogus...the extremes still apply
Your way of measuring eh...you can have a jiggly stomach and not be over weight...just more BF% than you should have, I can jiggly my stomach...am I overweight nope...had a baby and was fat for over 20years...or viseral fat which is worse...
You would be hard pressed to jiggle my butt or legs tho...and forget about finding a lot of fat on my arms/shoulders and back...
and this guy who was not overweight could have jiggled his stomache a bit too..
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/diets/451317/Olympic-gymnast-Louis-Smith-on-losing-weight-using-Tabata-interval-training0 -
not really all bs IMHO, as a general guideline it makes sense to the majority of the population...People constanly use a few "outliers" (no offense to anyone I hope) as counter example...but seriouly...0
-
My point is this...BMI should not alone be used to measure if someone is overweight/obese/healthy. BMI does not take into account the difference between LBM (which is not just muscle) and actual fat...and if the fat is viseral etc.
Niether should BF% or scale weight or even "personal opinion" of self.
Could I be lower in weight...sure could...do I want to be mid range BMI hell no...135...just doesn't work for me personally...I am guant thin and sickly looking ...hence why for me BMI alone is not a good measurment...
BMI+weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurment
Your list would be just as good, if not better if it was:
Weight+tape measurments+BF%+clothing size+health markers(BP etc)+ what I see in the mirror=a good measurement
The BMI chart adds absolutely nothing to that list whatsoever
It does tho...what about those who are underweight per BMI...or those who are actually obese or morbidly obese...it adds another measure for them...it's when you get in the mid range I think it's bogus...the extremes still apply
Your way of measuring eh...you can have a jiggly stomach and not be over weight...just more BF% than you should have, I can jiggly my stomach...am I overweight nope...had a baby and was fat for over 20years...or viseral fat which is worse...
You would be hard pressed to jiggle my butt or legs tho...and forget about finding a lot of fat on my arms/shoulders and back...
and this guy who was not overweight could have jiggled his stomache a bit too..
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/diets/451317/Olympic-gymnast-Louis-Smith-on-losing-weight-using-Tabata-interval-training
Yep, just like BMI charts, my method does not work for everyone
"The extremes still apply" Yes, and if you're in the extremes you already know if you are very underweight or very overweight - again the BMI chart adds nothing-1 -
Do you think I should improve my BMI or is it all BS?
For the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, BMI is a pretty good rule of thumb. That's just reality.
You look great in the profile pic, but you also have room to lean out more, if that's your preference.
It's up to you! :drinker:
this ^^
I feel that sometimes some of us (including myself) can't face the harsh reality that we are over weight...trying to find justifications...1 -
not really all bs IMHO, as a general guideline it makes sense to the majority of the population...People constanly use a few "outliers" (no offense to anyone I hope) as counter example...but seriouly...
But again, you don't know if you are one of the majority of the population for which it works0 -
So 2 months ago I was considered "overweight"...sorry I have to laugh...at 160lbs..in a size 5/6...not overweight...
Clothing sizes is about the worse marker available when determining appropriate weight.
Almost all clothes in the US are vanity sized, and women's clothing has absolutely no regulations or standards. A 5/6 today can be so vanity sized that it was a 10-12, or higher, in decades past. Even men's clothes no longer follow the actual inches printed on the waist sizes. Hell I have two pairs of jeans from the 90s in a size 36 that are smaller than some size 33s today.
The mirror and your health markers are the best standard, clothing size the absolute worse.BMI doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle so it's certainly massively flawed
Pick any muscly athlete and BMI will say they are overweight
eg. Running back Adrian Peterson
And yet how much of the general population has a body built like a professional running back?
Okay, but how am I supposed to know what to follow? My waist to hip ratio is excellent and my waist to height ratio implies I am too thin. So with all the "science" conflicting itself what now?
whatever makes you happy about your body, just follow that.1 -
I guess its good for a guideline but not a " Rule "
I was always self conscious of having a HIGH bmi even when i was teased for being a stick
Women in my family are built erm rather sturdy? lol wide round shoulders, large barrel built chest/rib cages, wide hips and large dense bones and naturally muscular ( gosh it sounds like im trying to sell a horse there :P lol)
I always used to be envious of tiny petite women with their size 0 pants! If I were a skeleton I would be lucky to fit an 8 hehe0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions