Is there a better measuring stick than BMI?

Elizabeth_C34

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

The truth of it is that people who are generally considered overweight or obese are at higher risk for disease and other serious health concerns. That does not mean that YOU are. Just that, on average, people who fall into that group are.

Pretty sure you just proved why people are saying these generic tests aren't good for individual assessment and why I'm complaining, personally, about them. I'm "unhealthy" when I type my stats into these calculators, but I'm actually not. Doctor/blood work proven.

I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote so I will try to rephrase it more carefully.

You may not be the average case. This is exactly my point. The average person who is overweight or obese is not active. They do not eat a well balanced nutritious diet They are at higher risk for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and all sorts of other conditions. Obviously, you're not the average though you fit into the same category.

Furthermore, the risk for serious disease is a long-term risk, not a short term one. So while your bloodwork may be just fine now (and will likely remain so since you are active and eat well), for the average person who is not active and doesn't eat well who may have ideal bloodwork at 20 years old, statistically, they most likely will not be at 45 or 50 years old. People often use the "my bloodwork is just fine" at age 20-30 as another excuse for ignoring their obesity. I did the same. I was 220 lbs with perfect bloodwork. I was not healthy. If I had maintained that weight and sedentary lifestyle another 10 years, I would have put my body at serious risk for all sorts of nasty and potentially life-ending diseases. The human body is capable of acclimating to almost any hardship for a short period of time, but eventually it catches up to you.

My point in saying that the BMI is not necessarily a bad measure is that we need some kind of rough estimate for where you stand. There are exceptions, but ON AVERAGE, people will fit the mold. That's the definition of "average"

AthenaErr

OK so BMI is a population measure so of course it doesnt work on those individuals at either extreme. Thing is because its an average it will actually work for most people. For anyone who thinks it doesnt work for them think hard are you really at a population extreme? Or are you just using those rose tinted spectacles as you look down on your 'muscle'...

iplayoutside19

Don't use sticks, they don't bend very well.

Instead use a measuring tape to measure yourself, and keep track that way.

castadiva

I understand your perspective, but the flip side of that is that we need some kind of standard measure of one's "overweightness" (not sure what word to use for that). I'm saying that the BMI measure is a good ROUGH guide to your body weight/height ratio if you are an average build (not an athlete, bodybuilder, etc.). There's wiggle room on the boundaries for sure based on size, your frame, and more importantly, your quantities of muscle and lean mass/fat ratio.

Far too many people use "BMI is a bad measurement" as an excuse to live in obesity. This is the problem with arguments like the one you're making.

But it IS a bad measurement for an individual, and there are much more accurate and effective alternatives that could be used as your 'rough guide'. That BMI is the industry-standard, so to speak, is worrisome and frankly unhelpful. The way it's applied in the UK under the NHS provides none of the 'wiggle room' you refer to, and people, very healthy people, are regularly denied treatment because they fall outside these notional, and flawed, guidelines that were never meant to be applied to individuals.

While I understand the statistic is meant to used for the population as a whole, with few exceptions, it does apply to individuals by definition who are in that average build category which is most people.

I also think that the excuse of ignoring BMI goes to further distort our view of what is "healthy" weight in society. America is fat. Very very fat. It's not unusual for women to be 35%+ body fat and still think they're "healthy" or "just a little overweight." Average Americans now are overweight, and in some parts of the country obese. That's the AVERAGE.

Unfortunately, again I have to disagree. A 'healthy' BMI does not necessarily constitute a healthy weight for an individual - health is more complex than simply what the numbers on the scale say in proportion to height. I'm not disputing that the US, in common with much of the rest of the Western world has an issue with body weight at both extremes. However, once again, consider the scale you are measuring with. If the average American, often with Northern or Eastern-European or Celtic descent is being measured against a scale that has been down-shifted several times to encompass the average population of typically-smaller races, chances are they're going to come up on the higher side of that scale,. because the average for that population is genetically higher. That's not to say that there isn't a problem, just that it's probably not as big as we are being told, because we are using an inappropriate scale to measure it by.

Elizabeth_C34

I understand your perspective, but the flip side of that is that we need some kind of standard measure of one's "overweightness" (not sure what word to use for that). I'm saying that the BMI measure is a good ROUGH guide to your body weight/height ratio if you are an average build (not an athlete, bodybuilder, etc.). There's wiggle room on the boundaries for sure based on size, your frame, and more importantly, your quantities of muscle and lean mass/fat ratio.

Far too many people use "BMI is a bad measurement" as an excuse to live in obesity. This is the problem with arguments like the one you're making.

But it IS a bad measurement for an individual, and there are much more accurate and effective alternatives that could be used as your 'rough guide'. That BMI is the industry-standard, so to speak, is worrisome and frankly unhelpful. The way it's applied in the UK under the NHS provides none of the 'wiggle room' you refer to, and people, very healthy people, are regularly denied treatment because they fall outside these notional, and flawed, guidelines that were never meant to be applied to individuals.

While I understand the statistic is meant to used for the population as a whole, with few exceptions, it does apply to individuals by definition who are in that average build category which is most people.

I also think that the excuse of ignoring BMI goes to further distort our view of what is "healthy" weight in society. America is fat. Very very fat. It's not unusual for women to be 35%+ body fat and still think they're "healthy" or "just a little overweight." Average Americans now are overweight, and in some parts of the country obese. That's the AVERAGE.

Unfortunately, again I have to disagree. A 'healthy' BMI does not necessarily constitute a healthy weight for an individual - health is more complex than simply what the numbers on the scale say in proportion to height.

Please read my response above (a couple posts up) that addresses your second point.

To your first point, I agree that BMI should not be the only measure for whether you get certain healthcare benefits or not. We have the same problem here in the US. Insurance rates go up with BMI, nothing else, which is very unfortunate for people like us who are still considered "overweight" but live active healthy lifestyles.

There are plenty of people who fall into the "normal" weight range that aren't active or healthy either. However, statistically, they still have lower risk of disease, cancer, and diabetes. This is because excess body fat is linked to many of these diseases. That's why insurance companies in the US use BMI. Your aggregate risk of disease goes up with body size.

In a fair and just world, people like us should get benefits to being active and eating well beyond what our BMI shows, but that's just not going to happen for a while. Some doctors have started doing waist measurements and body fat estimates to go with BMI, but this is still an uncommon practice.

I'm saying, again, that ON AVERAGE, most people who are overweight or obese are not what you or I would call "healthy." They are not active. They do not eat well. They are carrying excess body fat. This is the norm. You, the previous poster, and I and most of us on MFP who have been here a while are the exception, not the rule.

Mdlea

Don't use sticks, they don't bend very well.

Instead use a measuring tape to measure yourself, and keep track that way.

Awesome! I will definitely use a tape.

heidiberr

Anything is better than BMI.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%. That's absurd. I would have to be anorexic to be in the athletic range. When I went to the doctor and had blood work done, I was well within athletic range for all of my tests.

BMI sucks. Another thing that really pisses me off is that I'm considered at risk for heart disease because of my hip to waist ratio. 33 and 27, respectively. I'm not sure what else I can do to make myself be "healthy" on these ridiculous generic tests. And, again, all of my tests came back WELL WITHIN the athletic range. Some are almost so low that they dipping into too low. The doctors praised me...highly.

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I lift and do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

You are well within the healthy BMI range at that weight--I am 5'2" and at 136.7--you have a healthy BMI--so I'm not sure why you are knocking it so much. My GOAL is to get to the top of my range.

Elizabeth_C34

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

TK266

I feel the BMI is a good baseline for most people. but even site that calculate your BMI say that is is not the end all to be all, and that many factors play into a "healthy weight". If some one is in good shape, exercises and eats well the BMI has less meaning.

For the OP, I would say get your body fat tested. according to US Army standards at 40 years old 6'3 your max weight should be 220 lbs or your body fat percentage should be 26% or less. Again, not a perfect standard, but one that gives your a rough estimate of a range to be in.

bcattoes

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

The truth of it is that people who are generally considered overweight or obese are at higher risk for disease and other serious health concerns. That does not mean that YOU are. Just that, on average, people who fall into that group are.

Pretty sure you just proved why people are saying these generic tests aren't good for individual assessment and why I'm complaining, personally, about them. I'm "unhealthy" when I type my stats into these calculators, but I'm actually not. Doctor/blood work proven.

BMI was never meant to determine health, other than to perhaps help assess a risk factor of obesity. BMI just measures weight/height into some general categories. It's possible to be overweight by all standards (BF, BMI, waist-height, waist-hip, etc.) and still be heatlhy.

cynthiaj777

Anything is better than BMI.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%. That's absurd. I would have to be anorexic to be in the athletic range. When I went to the doctor and had blood work done, I was well within athletic range for all of my tests.

BMI sucks. Another thing that really pisses me off is that I'm considered at risk for heart disease because of my hip to waist ratio. 33 and 27, respectively. I'm not sure what else I can do to make myself be "healthy" on these ridiculous generic tests. And, again, all of my tests came back WELL WITHIN the athletic range. Some are almost so low that they dipping into too low. The doctors praised me...highly.

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I lift and do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

You are well within the healthy BMI range at that weight--I am 5'2" and at 136.7--you have a healthy BMI--so I'm not sure why you are knocking it so much. My GOAL is to get to the top of my range.

I'm more knocking the other calculators like hip to waist because it puts me in the increased risk for heart disease range.

Neliel

That's really shocking actually... Looking at it in terms of body fat percentage rather than the ol' BMI, it says I should be no lower than 138lb. But on the BMI scale that would make me borderline Overweight. How very ****ed up the BMI is!

cynthiaj777

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

The truth of it is that people who are generally considered overweight or obese are at higher risk for disease and other serious health concerns. That does not mean that YOU are. Just that, on average, people who fall into that group are.

Pretty sure you just proved why people are saying these generic tests aren't good for individual assessment and why I'm complaining, personally, about them. I'm "unhealthy" when I type my stats into these calculators, but I'm actually not. Doctor/blood work proven.

I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote so I will try to rephrase it more carefully.

You may not be the average case. This is exactly my point. The average person who is overweight or obese is not active. They do not eat a well balanced nutritious diet They are at higher risk for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and all sorts of other conditions. Obviously, you're not the average though you fit into the same category.

Furthermore, the risk for serious disease is a long-term risk, not a short term one. So while your bloodwork may be just fine now (and will likely remain so since you are active and eat well), for the average person who is not active and doesn't eat well who may have ideal bloodwork at 20 years old, statistically, they most likely will not be at 45 or 50 years old. People often use the "my bloodwork is just fine" at age 20-30 as another excuse for ignoring their obesity. I did the same. I was 220 lbs with perfect bloodwork. I was not healthy. If I had maintained that weight and sedentary lifestyle another 10 years, I would have put my body at serious risk for all sorts of nasty and potentially life-ending diseases. The human body is capable of acclimating to almost any hardship for a short period of time, but eventually it catches up to you.

My point in saying that the BMI is not necessarily a bad measure is that we need some kind of rough estimate for where you stand. There are exceptions, but ON AVERAGE, people will fit the mold. That's the definition of "average"

Nope...didn't misunderstand. Thanks though.

bcattoes

Anything is better than BMI.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%. That's absurd. I would have to be anorexic to be in the athletic range. When I went to the doctor and had blood work done, I was well within athletic range for all of my tests.

BMI sucks. Another thing that really pisses me off is that I'm considered at risk for heart disease because of my hip to waist ratio. 33 and 27, respectively. I'm not sure what else I can do to make myself be "healthy" on these ridiculous generic tests. And, again, all of my tests came back WELL WITHIN the athletic range. Some are almost so low that they dipping into too low. The doctors praised me...highly.

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I lift and do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

You are well within the healthy BMI range at that weight--I am 5'2" and at 136.7--you have a healthy BMI--so I'm not sure why you are knocking it so much. My GOAL is to get to the top of my range.

I'm more knocking the other calculators like hip to waist because it puts me in the increased risk for heart disease range.

Hip to waist is a better indicator of heart disease risk than BMI. But it's not a guarantee of heart disease. It's just one risk factor.

cynthiaj777

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

Ahhh...because MFP is the sole holder of BMI calculators! GOT IT! Thanks!

And I meant under "overweight." Not obese. My apologizes for not being PRECISE on a MFP thread.

castadiva

There are plenty of people who fall into the "normal" weight range that aren't active or healthy either. However, statistically, they still have lower risk of disease, cancer, and diabetes. This is because excess body fat is linked to many of these diseases. That's why insurance companies in the US use BMI. Your aggregate risk of disease goes up with body size.

So, because I am built like a tank, am genetically predisposed to be muscular, and consequently wear a UK size 16-18, rather than a 10-12 or 8-10, I am more predisposed to disease than someone who has a "normal" weight, but is fine boned and carries a higher percentage of fat? Or, the 300lb NFL football player has the same risk factors as the 300lb, non-professional-sportsperson of the same height who has 45-50% body fat? It doesn't work like that, and this is exactly why BMI should not be applied to individuals.

I'm saying, again, that ON AVERAGE, most people who are overweight or obese are not what you or I would call "healthy." They are not active. They do not eat well. They are carrying excess body fat. This is the norm. You, the previous poster, and I and most of us on MFP who have been here a while are the exception, not the rule.

When it comes to BMI, I'm not so sure that we are. There are many, many people whose BMIs do not equate to 'healthy', who are nonetheless healthy individuals. The common application of the scale is fundamentally flawed. 'Overweight' and even, in some cases, 'obese' on the BMI scale, tell us very little except where that person's weight-height ratio sits on the continuum of the population covered by the WHO. The misapplication of BMI, and the continued use of it as a scale of health by governments, insurance companies etc is, to my mind, a worrying thing. Particularly as the population ages and the 'obesity epidemic' grows, I suspect we will see more, rather than fewer, examples of rationing-by-BMI, particularly of health services. For someone like me, for whom a 'healthy' BMI would represent a very unhealthy weight - skin, bones, and not much more - this is a worrying trend.

CMmrsfloyd

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

Ahhh...because MFP is the sole holder of BMI calculators! GOT IT! Thanks!

BMI should be exactly the same no matter where you calculate it assuming you're putting the same height and weight into different calculators. It's a standard comparison between height and weight, there is no room for BMI calculators in different locations to actually give different results unless one is programmed incorrectly. Body fat, on the other hand, is estimated in different ways using different formulas and different measurements and therefore you can get different results from different calculators, b/c it is an estimate and there are several different ways to estimate it.

chrishgt4

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

Ahhh...because MFP is the sole holder of BMI calculators! GOT IT! Thanks!

And I meant under "overweight." Not obese. My apologizes for not being PRECISE on a MFP thread.

I think someone has had too much caffeine today....seriously dude, chill!

cynthiaj777

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

Ahhh...because MFP is the sole holder of BMI calculators! GOT IT! Thanks!

And I meant under "overweight." Not obese. My apologizes for not being PRECISE on a MFP thread.

I think someone has had too much caffeine today....seriously dude, chill!

Who me?!?!?! :grumble: :grumble: :grumble:

Everyone is picking apart every little ****ing word I've said. GEEZZZZZZZZZ it is MFP. It isn't that serious!

yoovie

lol