BMI called into question again - potential revamp?

FunandFitMom

On the other hand....Since BMI is a simple height:weight ratio, if you're very muscular, you could also be labeled obese regardless of your fitness level. Example: my hubby is a firefighter. At 5'10" and 205 with 13% body fat, he is considered obese. My opinion is that the BMI is a ill-fitting measaure of obesity on either end of the spectrum.

Lolli1986

"A fat percentage of 25% or more for men or 30% or more for women is the threshold for obesity."

This is supposedly 30% body fat.

Don't know where this news article got 30% = obese. Last I checked 35% = overweight.

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/body-fat-chart.php

according to this chart obese stats at 32%

Yeah, average or acceptable being 26-31%. Meaning not overweight.

For the record, in that shot I am BMI 24. I can accept that being called overweight - I feel that it is overweight. But obese in the usual BMI 30+ sense? right.

dieseljay74

I'm still listed as overweight

ahubbard134

Blast! I just hit 25, healthy weight. Now i'm obese? At least it'll motivate me now...

korsicash

I think there are many flaws. My BMI has me as overweight, waist to height has me as perfect, waist to hip has me as over weight and finally body fat percentage has me as smack dab in the middle of healthy unless you do the more precise calculations and then it says I am under weight. LOL!

renkath

From the Center for Consumer Freedom: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2006/05/3031-tom-cruise-another-bmi-casualty/

"Tom Cruise: Another BMI Casualty

Maybe super chunk Tom Cruise hit the “Vanilla Sky” ice cream a bit too hard, or perhaps he had more than “A Few Good (Gingerbread) Men.” Either way, according to the federal government’s ridiculous standards, Tom Cruise at 5’7″ and 170 pounds is considered officially fat.

While his on-screen persona in “Mission: Impossible III“, Ethan Hunt, performs daring stunts and does battle to save the world from evil weapons traders, Cruise — who apparently should have starred in “Thighs of Thunder” and “Top Gut” — is the victim of the very same flawed standard fueling the over-hyped “obesity epidemic” today.

This standard, called the Body Mass Index (BMI), is “Far and Away” the worst available measure of obesity since it only takes height and weight — not muscle mass — into consideration. A BMI of 25 or over means you’re technically “overweight” and a BMI over 30 means you’re “obese.” Tom Cruise, with a BMI of 26.6, is officially overweight, but he’s in good company. Celebrities like George Clooney, Will Smith, and Matthew McConaughey are also considered fat according to the misleading standard. Check out how you stack up on our BMI Scale today."

kcragg

Interesting post. I just found this waist to height calculator

http://www.health-calc.com/body-composition/waist-to-height-ratio

kcragg

Bump

castadiva

From the Center for Consumer Freedom: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2006/05/3031-tom-cruise-another-bmi-casualty/

"Tom Cruise: Another BMI Casualty

Maybe super chunk Tom Cruise hit the “Vanilla Sky” ice cream a bit too hard, or perhaps he had more than “A Few Good (Gingerbread) Men.” Either way, according to the federal government’s ridiculous standards, Tom Cruise at 5’7″ and 170 pounds is considered officially fat.

While his on-screen persona in “Mission: Impossible III“, Ethan Hunt, performs daring stunts and does battle to save the world from evil weapons traders, Cruise — who apparently should have starred in “Thighs of Thunder” and “Top Gut” — is the victim of the very same flawed standard fueling the over-hyped “obesity epidemic” today.

This standard, called the Body Mass Index (BMI), is “Far and Away” the worst available measure of obesity since it only takes height and weight — not muscle mass — into consideration. A BMI of 25 or over means you’re technically “overweight” and a BMI over 30 means you’re “obese.” Tom Cruise, with a BMI of 26.6, is officially overweight, but he’s in good company. Celebrities like George Clooney, Will Smith, and Matthew McConaughey are also considered fat according to the misleading standard. Check out how you stack up on our BMI Scale today."

LOL!!! Wonderfully tongue-in-cheek! Re. the next poster's link, I'm not so sure about waist/height ratios as they ignore many of the same things as BMI, especially frame. Someone with a large ribcage and large, wide-set pelvic bones is almost certain to have a higher waist/height ratio than someone of the same height with a petite or average frame... I'm probably particularly conscious of this, as I have an unusually wide and deep ribcage on a generally large frame, and physically couldn't reach the same waist size as my smaller-framed friends without removing a few ribs! It's a great professional advantage, but something of a liability in clothes shopping or a BMI-obsessed doctors' office!

catelabow

BMI is an appallingly misused measurement. However, lowering the cutoff point for 'healthy' will not change anything except the number of people classed as 'obese' - btw, where's 'overweight' gone? - and won't catch the people whose body fat percentage is high, but weight is low, whilst mistakenly classing many whose physique is muscular, body fat percentage is low, and/or frame is large as 'at risk'. Instead of this pointless knee-jerk reaction, how about changing the predominant measurement, and take body fat measurements as an indicator of risk rather than misapplying a tool meant for populations to individuals?


I was going to type something- but why when this ^^ is much more eloquent than what I would have said. A lot less cursing too.

I agree. I have always been way off the charts, and I don't need any more shame piled on for not being a lithe, willowy person. I am a sturdy, muscular build and I'm working on being healthy, but I don't have a snowball's chance of getting within the healthy range on that stupid chart.

sdrawkcabynot

From the Center for Consumer Freedom: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2006/05/3031-tom-cruise-another-bmi-casualty/

"Tom Cruise: Another BMI Casualty

Maybe super chunk Tom Cruise hit the “Vanilla Sky” ice cream a bit too hard, or perhaps he had more than “A Few Good (Gingerbread) Men.” Either way, according to the federal government’s ridiculous standards, Tom Cruise at 5’7″ and 170 pounds is considered officially fat.

While his on-screen persona in “Mission: Impossible III“, Ethan Hunt, performs daring stunts and does battle to save the world from evil weapons traders, Cruise — who apparently should have starred in “Thighs of Thunder” and “Top Gut” — is the victim of the very same flawed standard fueling the over-hyped “obesity epidemic” today.

This standard, called the Body Mass Index (BMI), is “Far and Away” the worst available measure of obesity since it only takes height and weight — not muscle mass — into consideration. A BMI of 25 or over means you’re technically “overweight” and a BMI over 30 means you’re “obese.” Tom Cruise, with a BMI of 26.6, is officially overweight, but he’s in good company. Celebrities like George Clooney, Will Smith, and Matthew McConaughey are also considered fat according to the misleading standard. Check out how you stack up on our BMI Scale today."

This made me giggle... and I had a health screening at work - She said my BMI was technically over 25 but then winked and said "But BMI is dumb and doesn't muscle into consideration..." with a wink. haha.

castadiva

BMI is an appallingly misused measurement. However, lowering the cutoff point for 'healthy' will not change anything except the number of people classed as 'obese' - btw, where's 'overweight' gone? - and won't catch the people whose body fat percentage is high, but weight is low, whilst mistakenly classing many whose physique is muscular, body fat percentage is low, and/or frame is large as 'at risk'. Instead of this pointless knee-jerk reaction, how about changing the predominant measurement, and take body fat measurements as an indicator of risk rather than misapplying a tool meant for populations to individuals?

I was going to type something- but why when this ^^ is much more eloquent than what I would have said. A lot less cursing too.

Thanks for the compliment!

sdrawkcabynot

From the Center for Consumer Freedom: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2006/05/3031-tom-cruise-another-bmi-casualty/

"Tom Cruise: Another BMI Casualty

Maybe super chunk Tom Cruise hit the “Vanilla Sky” ice cream a bit too hard, or perhaps he had more than “A Few Good (Gingerbread) Men.” Either way, according to the federal government’s ridiculous standards, Tom Cruise at 5’7″ and 170 pounds is considered officially fat.

While his on-screen persona in “Mission: Impossible III“, Ethan Hunt, performs daring stunts and does battle to save the world from evil weapons traders, Cruise — who apparently should have starred in “Thighs of Thunder” and “Top Gut” — is the victim of the very same flawed standard fueling the over-hyped “obesity epidemic” today.

This standard, called the Body Mass Index (BMI), is “Far and Away” the worst available measure of obesity since it only takes height and weight — not muscle mass — into consideration. A BMI of 25 or over means you’re technically “overweight” and a BMI over 30 means you’re “obese.” Tom Cruise, with a BMI of 26.6, is officially overweight, but he’s in good company. Celebrities like George Clooney, Will Smith, and Matthew McConaughey are also considered fat according to the misleading standard. Check out how you stack up on our BMI Scale today."

This made me giggle... and I had a health screening at work - She said my BMI was technically over 25 but then winked and said "But BMI is dumb and doesn't muscle into consideration..." haha.

nwg74

I wonder where the overweight category would be? It sounds like it would be from 25 to 27.7 for men.

DQMD

GREAT so what are they going to drop the normal and underweight down to?

MogwaisGrandma

How many people walk up to you and say "you are looking good your BMI must have gone down?"

I take no notice of my BMI and use weight and waist/hip measurement as my every day tools.

This system was developed in the mid 1800 and then when it was pushed again in the early 1970's. According to Wiki the guy who pushed in the 1970's said it was no good for individual measurement but only for populations en mass. BUT still it is pushed on the individual.

MireyGal76

Yeah, I'm female and 6'1", weigh 174... I'm almost "Obese" using the current scale... I agree.. yeah, right...

athensguy

I have often wondered if unnecessary weight, whether fat or muscle, is bad for you. Who's to say that that tiny percentage of the population with muscle pushing them high into the BMI range isn't just at risk for obesity related diseases as someone at the same number due to fat assuming body fat percentage is the only variable that changes? I know it would be hard to test for, but it's just a thought.

treetop57

*roll* ... sure, so it's a crappy method, so let's LOWER the threshold ...

My thought exactly. "We're measuring the wrong thing so let's continue measuring the wrong thing . . . but with a different limit!"

MireyGal76

That is a very interesting thought...

I would think that the risk would be considerably lower for those with higher muscle and lower body fat regardless of whether their BMI is putting them into the 'obese' category...

From the following site: http://www.obesityinamerica.org/understandingObesity/diseases.cfm

"Overweight and obese people have an increased incidence of heart disease, and thus fall victim to heart attack, congestive heart failure, sudden cardiac death, angina, and abnormal heart rhythm more often than those that maintain a healthy body mass index.

Obesity often increases the risk of heart disease because of its negative effect on blood lipid levels, which increase in obese patients and then, in turn, increase triglyceride levels and decrease high-density lipoprotein – which is also known as HDL or “good cholesterol.”

People with an excessive amount of body fat have higher levels of triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein – which is also known as LDL or “bad cholesterol” – as well as lower levels of HDL cholesterol in the blood. This recipe creates optimal conditions for developing heart disease."

I would think all of the above are issues that are prevalent because of the fat content. In order to maintain a low fat content, a fair amount of cardio and exercise is typically required, which in turn typically strengthens the heart, lowering the risk of heart diseases / heart attacks. Plus, diet needs to be controlled, which would lower a person's exposure to the bad fats and crap that give us blocked arteries and bad cholesterol.

Just my uneducated (from a health perspective) thoughts...

treetop57

I have often wondered if unnecessary weight, whether fat or muscle, is bad for you. Who's to say that that tiny percentage of the population with muscle pushing them high into the BMI range isn't just at risk for obesity related diseases as someone at the same number due to fat assuming body fat percentage is the only variable that changes? I know it would be hard to test for, but it's just a thought.

I have no knowledge, but that won't stop me from theorizing! I would think it would come down to whether the negative impact comes from difference in body composition (fat vs. muscle) or simple weight.

For Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, my understanding is that the problem is that fat tissue is much worse at processing sugar, so being more muscular helps. So having a high BMI due to extra muscle is going to make these problem less likely, not more likely than a person with a BMI in the "healthy" range.

For problems like weight-induced stress on joints, I would think that body doesn't care whether the weight pressing on the joint is fat or muscle. But then a more muscle person probably has stronger stabilizing muscles which may even mean that their joints are healthier despite the extra weight.

Those are my opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them!

larkiedeek

So my BMI went from about 30 to 24.8-24.9 over the last 3 months. I thought I was doing good.

The BBC (who in the UK are one of the most dishonest broadcasters) now report this should be 24?

I think that is a HUGE difference.

castadiva

I have often wondered if unnecessary weight, whether fat or muscle, is bad for you. Who's to say that that tiny percentage of the population with muscle pushing them high into the BMI range isn't just at risk for obesity related diseases as someone at the same number due to fat assuming body fat percentage is the only variable that changes? I know it would be hard to test for, but it's just a thought.

I have no knowledge, but that won't stop me from theorizing! I would think it would come down to whether the negative impact comes from difference in body composition (fat vs. muscle) or simple weight.

For Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, my understanding is that the problem is that fat tissue is much worse at processing sugar, so being more muscular helps. So having a high BMI due to extra muscle is going to make these problem less likely, not more likely than a person with a BMI in the "healthy" range.

For problems like weight-induced stress on joints, I would think that body doesn't care whether the weight pressing on the joint is fat or muscle. But then a more muscle person probably has stronger stabilizing muscles which may even mean that their joints are healthier despite the extra weight.

Those are my opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them!

I think you're essentially right. My understanding is that excess fat causes/increases the risk of/contributes to hormonal and biochemical imbalances which can increase the risk of certain illnesses, whereas muscle does not, and may even be positively helpful in processing some potential problem-substances. Ergo, someone with a muscle-related high BMI is less likely to be at risk of obesity-related disease than someone whose BMI is high because of a high Body Fat Percentage. Re. joints - what you said. The actual joints are more likely to be protected by increased involvement of the musculature in someone with a high Lean Body Mass than put under excessive strain.

castadiva

The BBC (who in the UK are one of the most dishonest broadcasters) now report this should be 24?

Er, how do you figure that? Most people hold up 'Auntie' as a thoroughly reputable and reliable broadcaster, and certainly superior to the comparatively few, often single-issue-driven/privately-owned alternatives...

mrseelmerfudd

bmi is such an unreliable method, using bmi, a weightlifter or someone who has quite a lot of muscles will come out as obese. take bmi with a pinch of salt. if you really want to get your body fat checked etc, go to your doctors and ask to be measured using calipers.

mrseelmerfudd

The BBC (who in the UK are one of the most dishonest broadcasters) now report this should be 24?

How do you figure the BBC to be dishonest? A bit of irrelevant and unjust comment.

knowkeys

Another method now being used is the hip to waist ratio measurement.

You are at risk (apple shape) if this ratio W/H >0.95 Men or 0.85 for Woman.

My BMI is 35.0, My Body Fat is 36.9% but my Waist to Hip Ratio is 1.02.

OK this is not below 0.95, but indicates that I am in better shape than the weight to Height Ratio (BMI) alone.


I am obese according to BMI, most of the weight is around my stomach. However my resting heart rate is 57 beats / min and I can run a half marathon in 2.5 hours. So go figure!

You have to take everything with a "pinch of salt"! - Sorry need to reduce that as well. ;-)

It is how you feel within yourself that counts.

The improvement is the goal, not the measurement.

All the best