Is BMI BS?

mcdonl

So, how do you do a real measurement of a healthy weight?

BMI Says I need to lose about 80 more pounds and I only weight 247 now... but I wear a size 34/36 pant, XL T-Shirt... I am not huge but I could never get down to 170 something and still be healthy and strong.

I am wider at the shoulders and chest than I am on the waist.

Is BMI BS or am I in denial?

erickirb

So, how do you do a real measurement of a healthy weight?
...
I am wider at the shoulders and chest than I am on the waist.

Is BMI BS or am I in denial?

Body fat % and how you feel and look is a much better indication of healthy weight, no need to look at a number on the scale, ever.

I think most people, over weight or not (maybe not obese individuals though) are usually larger in the chest and shoulders than they are at the waist.

Yes and no. Yes if you are comparing yourself to the BMI chart. BMI was created to compare groups of populations vs. other groups of populations, not individuals. BMI does ignore body fat %, so if you have a lot of muscle you should not even be looking at this chart.

springtrio

I'd say yes.

Once I hit the low 150's like I am in right now (it's the higher end of "healthy" for my large body frame)...I find it hard to dip into the 140's. Even the BMI chart says that at 140 I'm on the high end but when I'm that small, I look around 120 because of my muscle mass. I try by all means to ignore it. I really don't think it's a healthy thing to go by. It serves a purpose...yes, but I have a clean bill of health so I'm not too concerned.

hannahlbur

I think BMI has a use as a very general guide to weight for the average person. But as it is just based on weight and height alone people who are of a stockier build or bodybuilders will show as being in the overweight or obese category when actually they have low body fat and are just heavy!
Can you measure your body fat %? I think tracking weight, body fat % and your measurements is a good way to go?

Athena413

I personally think BMI is BS. It only considers you height and weight - no other factors like muscle mass, bone mass, etc...just because you weigh more doesn't necessarily mean you're unhealthy.

SeanMurphy

BMI was invented to measure the health of populations, not individuals. Since the bulk of individuals, by definition, are "average" in stature and body composition, it allows for a fairly precise indication of the health of a population. However, since many individuals are, often enough, messy outliers on one side of a bell curve or another, it's a very poor indication of what you should weigh unless you are average in most physical respects.

jumperchick

my bfs doctor told him he was overweight based on BMI and he needs to lose 50lbs. he is 6ft and weighs 190 and is skinny, but he has a ton of muscle on him, which it doesnt take into account. there is no way in heck he could get down to 140, just not possible !

erickirb

my bfs doctor told him he was overweight based on BMI and he needs to lose 50lbs. he is 6ft and weighs 190 and is skinny, but he has a ton of muscle on him, which it doesnt take into account. there is no way in heck he could get down to 140, just not possible !

check the BMI chart 140 would be the bottom of the healthy range at that height, it looks like the top end is around 175ish. But I still don't agree with the chart.

dbredenberg

Definitely BS. When I was working out the hardest (lifting and cardio), I was at 8% body fat and my BMI indicated I was obese. That is not a helpful stat. Let's say you weigh 200, you hit the gym, you gain 15 lbs of muscle and lose 10 lbs of fat. Your BMI just went up. Duh, not a useful stat.

NotGoddess

Try this chart: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/ibw/

It uses your current weight, body fat % and goal bf % to give you a good goal weight. There's also a chart to let you know healthy BF % for your gender/age. I used top level healthy BMI as a rough goal. Once I'm close I'm using body fat to finish.

mcdonl

my bfs doctor told him he was overweight based on BMI and he needs to lose 50lbs. he is 6ft and weighs 190 and is skinny, but he has a ton of muscle on him, which it doesnt take into account. there is no way in heck he could get down to 140, just not possible !

Jumperchick, this highlites an even bigger problem. Once I turned 40, I have to take a fitness test every year to stay on the Fire/EMS department.

My last physical, with the exception of flexibility I score in the upper percentile, but the doctor pulled out the stupid BMI scale and told me I need to lose 70-80 pounds!!

At this time, I was lifting a lot and was very strong. It is one thing for a piece of paper to say you are obese due to the BMI scale but for a Doctore who looks like a 12 year old girl standing next to me to read off that same paper ticked me off.

yanicka

<----this picture of me is with a BMI of 26.....so overweight.

BMI is more an idea then anything else. That being said I would go by % body fat.

fatkidlovescake

BMI is definately not accurate but I think you will be surprised at how close you will be able to get to the BMI healthy range as a lot of fat carried cannot be seen in body shape. Visceral fat is carried around the organs, my sister lost 30lbs from 250lbs (6'1" wearing uk size 18) without really showing it, now she has lost that initial "internal fat" it is looking more realistic that she could be within the BMI healthy range. (She also carries a lot of muscle.)

nsimportant

BMI is fine for general population. If You are an athlete or a body builder You don't concern yourself about body mass index You know You look good. It sets a decent weight goal for You but if you want to measure anything measure Your body fat and go from there.

mcdonl

Yanicka... your hot...

thanks everyone, I will get as close as I can but I will not lose sleep over it.

mamax5

Try this chart: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/ibw/

It uses your current weight, body fat % and goal bf % to give you a good goal weight. There's also a chart to let you know healthy BF % for your gender/age. I used top level healthy BMI as a rough goal. Once I'm close I'm using body fat to finish.

That thing told me I should weigh 212lbs!!!! I've been 180 before, I've been 160 before and I was still chubby at 160. What's up with that!?

NotGoddess

Try this chart: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/ibw/

It uses your current weight, body fat % and goal bf % to give you a good goal weight. There's also a chart to let you know healthy BF % for your gender/age. I used top level healthy BMI as a rough goal. Once I'm close I'm using body fat to finish.

That thing told me I should weigh 212lbs!!!! I've been 180 before, I've been 160 before and I was still chubby at 160. What's up with that!?

What did you put in as your weight, starting and ending bf? I put in 144lb, current bf 34.4 desired ending bf of 25 and get 125. 25 is right in the middle of the range for my age. Might try lower once I get there but I'm nowhere close now.

M155AUS

I think it's an indicator, but I don't think it's perfect. My mate is 'obese' by BMI calculations, but is at the gym 5 x week and is very fit and does not carry any excess weight. The problem is, it doesn't take into account his muscle mass. My other mate got told by her doctor that her BMI says she is extremely underweight and although she is very skinny, she isn't underweight, just very small. She eats like a horse as well.

I don't think it's something to live by, just gives people an indication of their weight, particularly if they are extremely overweight.

smcandee

I think it is bs.. it doesnt take genetics into account. I am big boned and i know alot of overweight individuals use that phrase but this isnt an excuse. All of the women in my family at varying weights have big boobs and thick thighs. According to my BMI 120 is healthy. ummm i dont think so. i Believe that i would feel healthy at the 170ish range.

And my doctor had said something to me which i found to be interesting. That overweight ppl are typically healthier than normal (according to their bmi) but i can believe that.

Richard170

I think BMI is fine when used as intended.

"Body Mass Index (BMI) is a number calculated from a person's weight and height. BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems." Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

If you are in the "normal" category, then all is likely good. If you "screen" as underweight, overweight or obese, then your doctor might want to take the time to evaluate your health considering your weight. Two groups of people, both heavily represented on MFP, tend to be rather critical of BMI, those who are heavily muscled and those that are obese. I think BMI to be a useful tool when used as intended and that a lot of criticism arises from observational bias.

Some years ago, more than I care to admit, I was looking at pictures in an old history text book and there was a photo of a crowd outside the court house at the Scopes Trial (The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes - 1925). This demographically diverse crowd of people was rather thin by our contemporary standards and I would speculate that 80% to 90% of the people in the photo would screen into the "normal" BMI category. Today, we have become so accustomed to the norm of the population being overweight and obese that those in the "normal" category are often considered to be thin or even emaciated. Just something to think about.

Yori1

bump

jjs22

I would say that BMI is *NOT* BS. It just isn't the best tool out there, by a long shot.

The advantage of BMI, which I'm sure is the only reason for anyone every suggesting it, is that the data is a) extremely simple to collect, and b) has already been collected for huge populations. Suppose you wanted to look at the relation of "overweightness" to heart disease for a population of 100,000 subjects, some in modern western cities, some in traditional societies. Are you going to do full immersion body fat measurements in the Kalahari ? Suppose you want to compare a current-day population to populations from 1950, 1900, 1850. Are you going to travel back in time ?

So for researchers who want to ask these kinds of questions, there are clear advantages to having a simple number that can be calculated from data that is universally available. Then, the problem is, any conclusions of such a study can only make claims about health that are expressed in terms of BMI. There's no way to "translate" the results into a different, better indicator. That's why your doctor has no real choice but to use BMI, even though he/she probably realizes how primitive it is. Their job is to stay current with recommendations made by public health "experts" and pass them on to their patients. And BMI is the coin of the realm among the "experts".

For an individual who wants to be fit and healthy, BMI is pretty silly. Do you plan to change your height ? Probably not. Since any changes in BMI are going to be due to weight alone, just ditch BMI and use weight.

And, as we all know, there's good weight (muscle) and bad weight (excess fat). So what do you do ? Measure the fat ! But some people store more fat on the surface, some store more on the inside, around their organs. So if you take one more simple measurement (skin pinch, say), what do you do with it ? Well, you can compare it to a statistical distribution of a whole lot of other people and see where you fall. (That is, you can use a formula and "convert" it into percent body fat.) That can be useful for getting a general idea, but again it still doesn't say anything precise about you.

So what to do ? Go ahead and make the measurements. Weight for sure, and maybe waistline, skin pinch, whatever else you want. Watch the trend as your diet and exercise progress. Pick a goal if you want. But unless you have to "make weight" like a wrestler or boxer, or unless you *have* to meet a certain BMI due to someone else's braindead policy, just think of them as numbers.

yanicka

Yanicka... your hot...

thanks everyone, I will get as close as I can but I will not lose sleep over it.

Blush!!!! Well thank you