Why You Should NEVER Use BMI
Replies
-
I find it interesting how people have been saying that it's designed for a large group of people, yet it is used on an individual basis...
Than other people are like "well, it's good for everyone , except for body builders and elite athletes!"
I haven't seen a single body builder on here, nor have I seen elite athletes.
So, again, are you calling me "average" and saying that I should be using it, when it's clearly not good for me? I'm sure I'm not the only person in this situation.0 -
I try not to pay too much mind to BMI. When I was 16 I started trying to eat properly and I was already fairly active, and was aiming to me in the mid range of a healthy BMI like my doctor recommended. I made it, with a lot of hard work, and I looked awful. I looked ill, more than anything, and that was massively demotivating. So now my ultimate goal is in the higher end of healthy, if not a little extra. I'd rather not look as if I starved the weight off.
I used the Body Fat % Calculator on that site and I'm a little confused- according to that I'm already in the lower end of the acceptable range. Definitely not where I thought I would be.0 -
I find it interesting how people have been saying that it's designed for a large group of people, yet it is used on an individual basis...
Than other people are like "well, it's good for everyone , except for body builders and elite athletes!"
I haven't seen a single body builder on here, nor have I seen elite athletes.
So, again, are you calling me "average" and saying that I should be using it, when it's clearly not good for me? I'm sure I'm not the only person in this situation.
I'm with you, to be honest, and no one would ever consider me an "elite athlete". For me to be on the very edge of a "healthy" BMI, I would have to weigh 135 pounds because I'm 5'2". However, I'm pretty muscular, always have been. (Built like a brick sh*thouse, as my dad used to say.) Not worth it to me to try to get down to that kind of healthy if it means losing muscle mass.
The BMI is NOT meant for the individual, and the sooner we stop using it as such, the better. Use Lean Muscle Mass. Use waist to hip ratio. Use BF%. But you're wasting your time with the BMI unless you are average in all ways, and who among us is?0 -
I find it interesting how people have been saying that it's designed for a large group of people, yet it is used on an individual basis...
Than other people are like "well, it's good for everyone , except for body builders and elite athletes!"
I haven't seen a single body builder on here, nor have I seen elite athletes.
So, again, are you calling me "average" and saying that I should be using it, when it's clearly not good for me? I'm sure I'm not the only person in this situation.
I can't say with certainty if you are average or not. I would guess not, as most people don't ever know their BF% or strive for a certain BF% and most people with a high BMI also have a high BF%.
Should you use BMI? If you want, but not to the point of being detrimental to your health or goals. No chart or measurement should replace common sense.0 -
BMI is a very crude and often misleading calculation. At my best physical condition, though not an "elite" athlete, when I was a Jazzercise instructor /runner in the latter part of the previous century (i.e. 1994), my "calculated" BMI was 29, borderline "obese". At that same time, I had my body fat tested, both with the infrared bicep method and the gold standard, underwater weighing. These results indicated a BF in the neighborhood of 14%. BMIs utility as an standard for individuals is pretty low, almost to the point of providing incorrect data for a person to assess their own fitness.0
-
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with the person above who said the bmi is not flawed. The bmi came to life in the 1850s as a study in social physics and somehow stuck. The JAMA and AMA are currently in the process of redoing the guidelines for healthy height to weight ratio because the top medical professionals and schools acknowledge how flawed it is. Also, think about the fact that the food pyramid has been modified multiple times over the years SO it stands to reason that the medical advances we've made since 1850 might actually dispel the 1850 bmi guide. If we're going to hold onto outdated medical information we might as well start handing out lead thermometers and lysol douches again.0
-
At one point in my life I had a BMI of 30 and could see the veins in my obliques and lower abs.
Basically I would have had to lose 20 lbs of muscle to be "healthy".
Yet at that weight I'd have to jump thru hoops not to be paying too much for health insurance, life insurance, and to not be harassed by a blanket policy at my job (hypothetical here).
I'm not 210 now, but I'm also not really overweight at 5'10" 238 now (about 18 % body fat). I've set my "goal" at what I estimate will be my weight when I hit 10% body fat, which is fit by almost anyone's standard.0 -
I would recommend BMI to everyone as a "stage one" check - most people know their height and weight, so it's easy to punch that into the calculator. If you're at the 25 or above marker, this'll be your kick in the pants to check your stats a little closer.
So, what if you're thinking "I'm not so sure I'm overweight?" - Go to stage two.
The tape measurement bodyfat calculator would be a "stage two" check - where more of the semi-active to moderately active "overweight" people sit. This'll give you a closer view on how you're doing on a personal basis, and is accurate for a larger portion of the populace.
But there's a small portion of you that even the tape measurement will feel off for some reason. - Stage three for you!
This is calipers and professional analysis. Tape measurement only deals with proportions - hypertrophied muscle mass will skew the numbers. Sumo wrestlers, powerlifters, and other strength athletes tend to fall in here. Since this is taking measurements all around the body, it's taking more of you into consideration, and will give the most accurate reading.
I'll provide myself as an example.
6'3", 360 lbs, 52" waist.
Stage 1 - BMI = 45 - Stage 3 Obesity. Recommends I get professional help immediately.
Stage 2 - Tape Measurement = 34-35% - Still in the danger zone.
Stage 3 - Calipers = 24% - Borderline obese, but not as dangerous as above.
So, based on BMI, I should be dead. With tape measurement, I'm definitely in trouble. But with a more detailed examination, I'm unhealthy, but doing well enough to stay out of the hospital for now.0 -
At one point in my life I had a BMI of 30 and could see the veins in my obliques and lower abs.
Basically I would have had to lose 20 lbs of muscle to be "healthy".
Yet at that weight I'd have to jump thru hoops not to be paying too much for health insurance, life insurance, and to not be harassed by a blanket policy at my job (hypothetical here).
I'm not 210 now, but I'm also not really overweight at 5'10" 238 now (about 18 % body fat). I've set my "goal" at what I estimate will be my weight when I hit 10% body fat, which is fit by almost anyone's standard.
Are you sure you're 18%? Because you can take a look at the link below (note the 20% male) and see if you think you're actually near that range. It's hard to tell in your pic, but my guess is that you're underestimating your BF%.
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages0 -
I judge my UGW based on my current lean mass + a certain BF%. I was going by 15%, but decided that I should slow it down a bit and increased that number for a "One-step-at-a-time" goal. Once I've built up my fitness, then I'll aim for a lower BF%.
So I did the numbers. A healthy, relatively inactive male should have a BF% of 18-25%. 21% is half way in between, so I chose that as my goal.
I got the numbers from here: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/body-fat-chart.php
I currently have a BF% of about 35%. At 223 lbs, that makes my lean mass around 144 lbs. Put on enough fat to make it 21% fat, and my UGW is 179 lbs.
Well, I'm 6' tall. I checked out the BMI scale, and at that weight, I will be hitting 24.27.
"Overweight" is higher than 24.9.
Now, here's the thing: If I put on 2 lbs of muscle before I reach my UGW, I'll be 185 lbs, which is considered "overweight," but it'll be less healthy for me to try to achieve a lower BF% so quickly!
I will ultimately aim for a BF% of 10-15%, but by that time, I'll have put on a lot more muscle, I will probably still be around 180lbs.
So, for those of you who believe that you need to have a low BMI in order to be healthy, or sexy/attractive, you may want to think again. The BMI scale is flawed.
Oh, and I should note: I could make my BMI lower, but I'd have to lose lean mass. For those who aren't in the "know," that would be a very, very bad idea. You want more lean mass, not less. Lean mass being your muscles, bones, and organs.
Edit: Added the link.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are pretty much guaranteed too lose some LBM along with your fat. As you noted, LBM does not just include muscles; it also includes your organs, non-adipose connective tissue, etc. When you gain weight, many of your organs become enlarged (google some images-- e.g. heart of obese vs normal). And when you lose weight, organs will shrink as well. It is also easier to maintain a large amount of LBM when you carry around a lot of extra weight (ever notice an obese person's calf muscles?). Once you get down to 10%, you'll likely find that you'll have to do some bulking & cutting cycles to get your LBM back up to 144. Anyway, even in your example, you'd still fall in the normal BMI range, even if it is on the border. Generally, the more obese a person is, the less likely they will be able to retain all their LBM when they get down to a healthy weight.
That said, I agree with those that said BMI is a decent guideline for non-bodybuilders and non-athletes. The people I see often complaining about BMI do not have a lot of muscle (relative to overall weight) and have unhealthy amounts of BF. BF% can be a better measure than BMI, but the problem is that people cannot easily and accurately measure their BF%. For example, based on online calculators that use waist/hip/other measurements, my BF % is between 21-37%. If I wanted to be in denial, I could go by the 21% figure and claim to be really fit (not true, but I'm definitely not 37% either).
Thought this site was more interesting than many of those calculators:
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages0 -
Why I dont think the bmi machine counter thingy is correct:
Im apparently morbidly obese. I am soooo not. I do admit to being overweight but there's no way Im that obese, if you were able to see me you'd know the calculator thing is wrong.
I blame my legs as I do a lot of running and i think the muscle there is whats making me seem so fat.
But, I do think the bmi calculator is a good way for beginners to see how much they weigh and get an idea of what they have to lose.0 -
You made another error by using such a sensational title.
Why you should NEVER use BMI
Never?
Never ever?
In any circumstance?
Or just you, and your body in your circumstances?
Hello pot, you're black.
This is a SENSATIONAL critique of a title of all things? really?0 -
Saying BMI is flawed is incorrect. It simply isn't meant for your purposes. My vacuum cleaner isn't flawed because it doesn't mop the floors as well, it's just the wrong tool.
That is exactly the point though. People look at that as a guideline of where they should be, when in actuality it varies WIDELY by individual, and the guidelines it gives would be incredibly unhealthy for some people. Anything that considers the majority of body builders to be obese should probably not be used as a guideline when setting individual fitness goals.It isn't flawed; you're using it wrong. BMI is meant to track an average over a large population.
OK, so I made one error in the bottom of my post, stating that it was flawed. the rest of my post is valid. I see a lot of people on here who use it as a guideline on how heavy they should be.
You will be very suprised how much Lean Muscle you lose when you lose weight. It is very hard to drop 30+ lbs and keep all your lean body mass. I would exspect you to drop about 3-5 lbs from that number meaning you might want to readjust you calculations.
I agree. You can't just lose 30 lbs. of fat. As you lose significant weight, everything goes down, even your blood volume. Everything that's not fat is considered 'lean mass'. I think it's common to hit a healthy BMI and still be 35% fat.0 -
Thats a damn good link there.
Personally any male I know whom is slightly more muscular than a string bean is considered obese by the BMI scale. Hardly "elite athletes" by any standard, just in better shape than said string bean.0 -
Lyle McDonald seems mostly respected here (though I can't find his credentials). I recently read something of his and he said BMI was a good tool for all but athletes. I think that was the term he used- "athletes".0
-
You can't just lose 30 lbs. of fat. As you lose significant weight, everything goes down, even your blood volume. Everything that's not fat is considered 'lean mass'. I think it's common to hit a healthy BMI and still be 35% fat.
35% BF would be considered obese. I'm 35% irght now, and I'm pretty darn chubby.
I'm no athlete, and I would BARELY fit into the BMI chart if I were at a healthy BF%.0 -
You can't just lose 30 lbs. of fat. As you lose significant weight, everything goes down, even your blood volume. Everything that's not fat is considered 'lean mass'. I think it's common to hit a healthy BMI and still be 35% fat.
35% BF would be considered obese. I'm 35% irght now, and I'm pretty darn chubby.
I'm no athlete, and I would BARELY fit into the BMI chart if I were at a healthy BF%.
I woman could maybe be at the high end of a healthy BMI and have BF% of 35. But I doubt a man could. A woman would have to have very little muscle to do it.
I ride the upper edge of a healthy BMI (without including waist) and I'm about 27% BF (I am female). I'm nowhere near "athlete" stage, but I have decent muscle tone.0 -
According to the link, 35% BF would still be considered obese, but not by much. 32% is the threshold.0
-
BMI does not take into account any other health variables other than height weight.
I also track progress with bodyfat. Weight is not the whole picture, and the scale can lie as badly as the man in the mirror.
You can check here for free: http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html
I like this method, because it is easy to take and the results are consistent.
The bottom line is that we have something definitive to track progress.
This is it.
Good Luck!0 -
BMI is fine for non-athletes. Most people fit into the range of values, and there's no reason not to use it as a general guideline.0
-
At one point in my life I had a BMI of 30 and could see the veins in my obliques and lower abs.
Basically I would have had to lose 20 lbs of muscle to be "healthy".
Yet at that weight I'd have to jump thru hoops not to be paying too much for health insurance, life insurance, and to not be harassed by a blanket policy at my job (hypothetical here).
I'm not 210 now, but I'm also not really overweight at 5'10" 238 now (about 18 % body fat). I've set my "goal" at what I estimate will be my weight when I hit 10% body fat, which is fit by almost anyone's standard.
Are you sure you're 18%? Because you can take a look at the link below (note the 20% male) and see if you think you're actually near that range. It's hard to tell in your pic, but my guess is that you're underestimating your BF%.
http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages
I was 250 in that picture...And it's not exactly the best in the world for showing what I look like, but it's the only semi-recent one I have.0 -
at 5 ft 5 inches and 150 pounds i am considered overweight. if you look at my pic i am definitely not overweight. i have gained a lot of muscle. even the guy that created it a long time ago said its just a tool of estimation. there are so many factors such as children, athletes, elderly. every person looks different at an exact weight/height. i am happy with my body even though it says im on the cusp of being overweight. also, i wear a size 2/4, so i will never consider myself overweight. i rarely use the scale, i used inches. good luck everybody0
-
BMI is a good guide and in general you can calculate the percentage body fat based on the BMI, but there would be differences for each person. Specifically studies found that Asian population has higher fat % at the same BMI than other populations. For example after losing weight I had a BMI of 22 which is well within the healthy range but stil 30% body fat which is on the slighly higher side of the normal fat percentage range for my age. I got myself a body fat monitor so that I could estimate my body fat percentage without relying on BMI. We can still use BMI as a general guide (which is what it was made for). Just do not an absolute guide, the best way to know if we are healthy is not through numbers but by listening to our body and how it feels.0
-
At one point a few years ago I weighed 147lbs and was 5'4"... making me 'overweight' with a BMI of 25.2. But I was slim enough that the smallest size tops in stores were often baggy on me and had a totally flat stomach. I was also on a novice sports team, exercising several times a week. I guess I'm just naturally heavier or have more muscle mass or something because if that's what I looked like at 25 I think my bones would have been jutting out at 20! My mother had a similar experience; one summer she starved herself until her ribs jutted out and still had a BMI of 27! It's got to be utter crap but unfortunately those who do well on it love to say what a great system it is...0
-
BMI is a good guide and in general you can calculate the percentage body fat based on the BMI, but there would be differences for each person.
Yeah, pretty much.
Unless you are pretty athletic it is a reasonably valid measure of body fat percentage:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20435970 -
I wouldn't say you should NEVER use BMI. For many people, it gives them a good ballpark of where they fall. Is it the end all be all? No. Is it flawed? Yes. But I've consulted it from time to time just as a way of measuring my progress.
Now if you're trying to put on muscle, obviously it's not real great, but for average sized people, it's okay.0 -
bump0
-
BMI is a good guide and in general you can calculate the percentage body fat based on the BMI, but there would be differences for each person.
Yeah, pretty much.
Unless you are pretty athletic it is a reasonably valid measure of body fat percentage:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2043597
LOL
The calculation on there said that I have a BF% of 20%! HAH! That's off by nearly 15%! I have a BF% of 35!0 -
You can't just lose 30 lbs. of fat. As you lose significant weight, everything goes down, even your blood volume. Everything that's not fat is considered 'lean mass'. I think it's common to hit a healthy BMI and still be 35% fat.
35% BF would be considered obese. I'm 35% irght now, and I'm pretty darn chubby.
I'm no athlete, and I would BARELY fit into the BMI chart if I were at a healthy BF%.
I woman could maybe be at the high end of a healthy BMI and have BF% of 35. But I doubt a man could. A woman would have to have very little muscle to do it.
I ride the upper edge of a healthy BMI (without including waist) and I'm about 27% BF (I am female). I'm nowhere near "athlete" stage, but I have decent muscle tone.
Good to know. I had a personal trainer at a gym test me at multiple sites with calipers, while I was on the top of 'healthy' BMI and she said 35%. I said, "No way." I always wondered if they fudge stuff. I didn't look obese or even overweight. A little squishy but fine. I did a lot of exercise.0 -
"While the formula previously called the Quetelet Index for BMI dates to the 19th century, the new term "body mass index" for the ratio and its popularity date to a paper published in the July edition of 1972 in the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys. BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness."
There you have it.....not appropriate for individual diagnosis.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions