How much do you go by BMI?

f1redshoes

I ignore it because it says I'm ever so slightly underweight. It can't see my ridiculously tiny frame and that I can be a bit lighter safely. It also can't see all of the muscle!

I do agree that it's a reasonable way of measuring most people (who aren't at either end of the scale because of their sport/muscle/training etc), though.

Need2Exerc1se

I just wish I could know I am medically considered a healthy weight. Knowing that, ...I am STILL considered overweight, albeit not by much, is somewhat discouraging mentally. even though I feel great physically. I know I could probably do more to shed those last few pounds but I guess the question is, how important is it really?

This little section right here sums it up for me. BMI is a health marker, and being above the healthy range adds one risk factor for disease. We can argue how it doesn't apply to everyone all we want, but statistically I have the risk factor. Right now, other than things I can't control like family history and age, it is my only negative health risk factor. I don't like that.

I think many of the risk factors I am controlling, such as BP, BF% and blood work, are more important than BMI. But, I still don't like that my BMI is high so I'm working on it.

Liftng4Lis

OLD THREADDDD PEOPLE

Need2Exerc1se

I ignore it because it says I'm ever so slightly underweight. It can't see my ridiculously tiny frame and that I can be a bit lighter safely. It also can't see all of the muscle!

I do agree that it's a reasonable way of measuring most people (who aren't at either end of the scale because of their sport/muscle/training etc), though.

I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.

MelsAuntie

Not at all important to me, personally... I don't know mine and don't care.

f1redshoes

I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.

I would be very underweight if I wasn't in these sports, I've got that sort of stick-insect frame in my genes. The muscle brings me up to a healthier weight!

I was a very strong, healthy athlete at the age of 15, eating vast quantities and training hard - I was 5' 1" and 80lbs and I was basically a machine, but of course those numbers sound terrible if you just hear the numbers. I'm taller and heavier than I was then, but still on the borderline of underweight (a daily fluctuation is enough to put me in "normal BMI").

There's an Olympic gold medalist in one of my sports with the exact same height and weight as me at the time of the Olympics! I'm in sports where being naturally tiny is an advantage and gets you noticed as a kid and then you have to gain the muscle and strength to actually do the sport later

yopeeps025

I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.

I would be very underweight if I wasn't in these sports, I've got that sort of stick-insect frame in my genes. The muscle brings me up to a healthier weight!

I was a very strong, healthy athlete at the age of 15, eating vast quantities and training hard - I was 5' 1" and 80lbs and I was basically a machine, but of course those numbers sound terrible if you just hear the numbers. I'm taller and heavier than I was then, but still on the borderline of underweight (a daily fluctuation is enough to put me in "normal BMI").

There's an Olympic gold medalist in one of my sports with the exact same height and weight as me at the time of the Olympics! I'm in sports where being naturally tiny is an advantage and gets you noticed as a kid and then you have to gain the muscle and strength to actually do the sport later

So you have athlete female body fat % and putting on some LBM to raise the scale up a little.

Need2Exerc1se

I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.

I would be very underweight if I wasn't in these sports, I've got that sort of stick-insect frame in my genes. The muscle brings me up to a healthier weight!

I was a very strong, healthy athlete at the age of 15, eating vast quantities and training hard - I was 5' 1" and 80lbs and I was basically a machine, but of course those numbers sound terrible if you just hear the numbers. I'm taller and heavier than I was then, but still on the borderline of underweight (a daily fluctuation is enough to put me in "normal BMI").

There's an Olympic gold medalist in one of my sports with the exact same height and weight as me at the time of the Olympics! I'm in sports where being naturally tiny is an advantage and gets you noticed as a kid and then you have to gain the muscle and strength to actually do the sport later

You are confusing a "health marker" with actualy individual health resutls. Being in the healthy range of BMI does not guarantee health, just as being outside does not guarantee disease. It's all just odds. And your odds of remaining healthy are better if you are in the healthy range (statistically).

Being strong or an athlete is no guarantee of health either. It' snot uncommon for athletes to sacrifice health for their sport.

But my point was that having more muscle would not be the reason you are underweight. Muscle makes you heavier for your size. Lack of it makes you lighter.

natashavadori

BMI is just a general guideline. It doesn't take into consideration your natural body shape or bone structure. I'd say fat percentage is a far better number to make as a goal.

Shirotora88

From the posts I read I have a different opinion. I use the BMI to see where I should fit in. and as a goal I picked the center of the healthy BMI.. If I cant get that low I will be alright with it as long as I'm fit and healthy

f1redshoes

But my point was that having more muscle would not be the reason you are underweight. Muscle makes you heavier for your size. Lack of it makes you lighter.

I think you might be misunderstanding me. At no point was I saying that I'm lighter because of the muscle - I'm saying that I'd be even lighter without it and that that's what makes me heavier.

paperpudding

My healthy weight range is 42lbs.
Vague nonsense.

Im not sure where you are getting that information but it is not from a BMI chart - no adults healthy weight goal is 42 pounds - that is less than 20 kg or about the size of a healthy 6 year old.

Unless you are a dwarf or a double amputee or something, in which case obviously standard measurement charts would not apply to you and no health professional would see you and not realise that (ie using BMI chart in conjunction with clinical picture, like I said before)

Also healthy BMI is a RANGE, not a single number.
for MOST people, other than athletes/ body builders and the like, who are carrying higher than average muscle mass - and they should know who they are and their health proffesional should be able to see that too - having a BMI somewhere in the healthy RANGE is a good indicator of a healthy weight.

JenniDaisy

You misunderstood, the RANGE is 42lbs, between 8.5st and 11.5st.

baconslave

BMI was developed in the 19th century to assess populations, not individuals. For some people, it's a useful individual measure, but for others, including many if not most weightlifters, it's more or less useless. Health care professionals who focus on BMI alone are idiots – or, more likely, they're following a screening protocol that an idiotic bureaucracy insists be applied to everyone.

It's more important to focus on strength, stamina, and how you feel.

This. It's a ratio pf weight and height. Doesn't take into account variations in build whatsoever. As a screening tool, thumbs up. For individuals, thumbs down. Body fat % is a better indicator.

And again. Who cares about a stupid number? How you feel you look and how strong you feel is most important.

lorib642

I am using the BMI to help me determine a goal weight, but I will re-evaluate when I get closer. There are other things that are more important to me like %body fat and lab results.

Hornsby

It's a guideline and does what it was intended to do.

If you lift, it's much harder to stay in the "acceptable" range obviously, but then again, most people who lift don't care about BMI anyway.

One thing to note though..... The ranges for a 6' male to be "healthy" by BMI standards are 136lbs to 184lbs. Most people seem to think that the middle of that is "more" healthy. That is not the case. The range is there for a reason. By BMI standards, if you are a 6' male, 184 is just as good as 174 or 164....and so on. Pretty goofy.

meridianova

BMI was developed in the 19th century to assess populations, not individuals. For some people, it's a useful individual measure, but for others, including many if not most weightlifters, it's more or less useless. Health care professionals who focus on BMI alone are idiots – or, more likely, they're following a screening protocol that an idiotic bureaucracy insists be applied to everyone.

It's more important to focus on strength, stamina, and how you feel.

This. It's a ratio pf weight and height. Doesn't take into account variations in build whatsoever. As a screening tool, thumbs up. For individuals, thumbs down. Body fat % is a better indicator.

And again. Who cares about a stupid number? How you feel you look and how strong you feel is most important.

unfortunately, too many people (translation: health and insurance professionals) get fixated on those numbers and refuse to really look at the person in front of them.

baconslave

BMI was developed in the 19th century to assess populations, not individuals. For some people, it's a useful individual measure, but for others, including many if not most weightlifters, it's more or less useless. Health care professionals who focus on BMI alone are idiots – or, more likely, they're following a screening protocol that an idiotic bureaucracy insists be applied to everyone.

It's more important to focus on strength, stamina, and how you feel.

This. It's a ratio pf weight and height. Doesn't take into account variations in build whatsoever. As a screening tool, thumbs up. For individuals, thumbs down. Body fat % is a better indicator.

And again. Who cares about a stupid number? How you feel you look and how strong you feel is most important.

unfortunately, too many people (translation: health and insurance professionals) get fixated on those numbers and refuse to really look at the person in front of them.

Sadly, that's the truth.

bokaba

Up until recently my BMI exceeded 40, making me morbidly obese and in the same category as bed-ridden people who have less than 2 years to live. While I was larger than I wanted (and still am) , I was able to lead a normal life and perform the same day to day tasks as people of a normal BMI and was nowhere near death or being home-bound.

paperpudding

You misunderstood, the RANGE is 42lbs, between 8.5st and 11.5st.

oh ok - yes I did misunderstand your post.

But am stil not getting what you are saying - so the range is 42 lb from x to y.

The range covers people of different builds, ages, genders etc - unless you are an elite body builder or have an anomoly body shape (ie are a dwarf or a double amputee or something) how does this range not give a good guide as to what is a healthy weight for you or anyone else?

Other posters are saying BMI doesnt take into account body frame - yes it does, thats why it is a range - if you have a larger frame a higher BMI within the range is going to be right for you.

Nobody is saying anyone must have a BMI of exactly, say, 21 - but for most people a BMI within the healthy range ( ie 19 - 25) is a good guide.