BMI unreasonable?

Soltari675

Anyone else feel the BMI calculators out there are just unreasonable? I looked at a few today that said my target weight should be around 107lbs. That is like celebrity anorexic for me! When I was in the military, after basic training I weighed 180 lbs. I was a good healthy weight and size, felt great and all. If I went to 107 I would be all bones. I love my bones but other people don't need to see them all. I have a stocky frame, even for a woman. Apparently even the 180 comes in a grossly overweight. I hate to say it, I was not over weight after basic. I was nothing but lean muscle.

Anyone else find the BMI calculators very unreasonable?

wookiemouse

There's actually a movement to get rid of them completely - body fat percentage is much, much more reliable. BMI becomes grossly inaccurate in anyone who has a muscular build - if you went with BMI, then Michael Jordan was considered obese in his prime!

aamberrr

Anyone else feel the BMI calculators out there are just unreasonable? I looked at a few today that said my target weight should be around 107lbs. That is like celebrity anorexic for me! When I was in the military, after basic training I weighed 180 lbs. I was a good healthy weight and size, felt great and all. If I went to 107 I would be all bones. I love my bones but other people don't need to see them all. I have a stocky frame, even for a woman. Apparently even the 180 comes in a grossly overweight. I hate to say it, I was not over weight after basic. I was nothing but lean muscle.

Anyone else find the BMI calculators very unreasonable?

Absolutely. Anybody with a lot of muscle mass is going to have a high BMI. Body fat measurement is more accurate. My BMI says I am "grossly overweight" as well, and while I definitely have some fat I can lose, I definitely cannot see myself weighing any less than like 150-160. I'm short but have a broad frame... broad shoulders, broad hips, etc., and very muscular legs. If I weighed less than that I'd start looking sick, I believe. I say ignore the BMI and just make sure you feel good and your clothes fit.

CoderGal

Bmi- ok for your average sedentary adult.

invictus8

BMI is horribly inaccurate. It is only useful when averaging over hundreds or thousands of people. For your own fitness tracking body fat percentage is good, but body fat distribution is the best indicator by far. Research shows that stomach and visceral fat is the most harmful for health, so reducing that as much as possible is the goal most closely related to optimal health. For people who tend to store fat in the thighs or buttocks, they will invariably have a higher body fat percentage than people who tend to store fat in the stomach area. Men tend to gain fat in the stomach area while women in the thighs or buttocks, which is why men tend to have lower body fat percentages than women (and lower optimal body fat percentages).

susannamarie

Wait a minute ...

BMI will give you a *range*. In order for 107 to be the top of the range, you'd have to be 4 feet 7.

107 is the very bottom of the range for someone who's 5 feet 3 or 5 feet 4 (depending on whether you use 18.5 or 19 as the boundary). You are NOT supposed to be the smallest number in the range! If you're taller than that, then something was wrong with the settings you used.

Now, if you're muscular/large framed, it still might be low, but not THAT low.

Soltari675

Wait a minute ...

BMI will give you a *range*. In order for 107 to be the top of the range, you'd have to be 4 feet 7.

107 is the very bottom of the range for someone who's 5 feet 3 or 5 feet 4 (depending on whether you use 18.5 or 19 as the boundary). You are NOT supposed to be the smallest number in the range! If you're taller than that, then something was wrong with the settings you used.

Now, if you're muscular/large framed, it still might be low, but not THAT low.

My range was something like 107 to 147. But even at 147 I'd still be a lot of bones. I'm glad to hear everyone else agrees though. Makes me feel better. I'll start looking at the body fat percentage thing instead. Thanks!

drgndancer

BMI is an average. It's very definetely not accurate for everyone and people with a very muscular build are certainly likely to be "overweight" by BMI. It's a pretty reasonable target for most people, but can be very wrong for some. That said, it's rarely so far off that you can weigh 175% of "healthy" and still be... Well, healthy. OP how tall are you? I just looked at the BMI chart to refresh my memory and even someone 5ft tall can weight as much as 125 pounds without going over "healthy". The charts don't go down any lower, but to make 107 pounds your minimum healthy weight by BMI you'd have to be like 4'6". If you were 4'6" and 180 pounds I'd say there's no way you graduated basic training (I mean literally no way, you'd never pass the weigh-in or tape out.)

Soltari675

BMI is an average. It's very definetely not accurate for everyone and people with a very muscular build are certainly likely to be "overweight" by BMI. It's a pretty reasonable target for most people, but can be very wrong for some. That said, it's rarely so far off that you can weigh 175% of "healthy" and still be... Well, healthy. OP how tall are you? I just looked at the BMI chart to refresh my memory and even someone 5ft tall can weight as much as 125 pounds without going over "healthy". The charts don't go down any lower, but to make 107 pounds your minimum healthy weight by BMI you'd have to be like 4'6". If you were 4'6" and 180 pounds I'd say there's no way you graduated basic training (I mean literally no way, you'd never pass the weigh-in or tape out.)

I'm 5'4"

Soltari675

Even at 180 it says obese. And I most certainly wasn't. I felt great, was all muscle, and well, looked good! lol I was skinny, but not so much you could see all my bones. You could see all the muscles though. I did look at the body fat percentage thing and using measurements and I like those goals a whole lot better. They are much closer to reality.

scottb81

I used to think BMI was unreasonable until I got mine down to 23. Now that it's there I've never felt better in my life.

Jynus

Anyone else feel the BMI calculators out there are just unreasonable? I looked at a few today that said my target weight should be around 107lbs. That is like celebrity anorexic for me! When I was in the military, after basic training I weighed 180 lbs. I was a good healthy weight and size, felt great and all. If I went to 107 I would be all bones. I love my bones but other people don't need to see them all. I have a stocky frame, even for a woman. Apparently even the 180 comes in a grossly overweight. I hate to say it, I was not over weight after basic. I was nothing but lean muscle.

Anyone else find the BMI calculators very unreasonable?

BMI is GREAT for what it was intended for. Tracking weight fluctuations of a population over time.

It's utterly USELESS when used on an individual basis due to in shape people with lean mass also having high BMI. The problem is people, even doctors, are too ****ing stupid to understand this, and actually still use it on indivuals.

susannamarie

My range was something like 107 to 147. But even at 147 I'd still be a lot of bones. I'm glad to hear everyone else agrees though. Makes me feel better. I'll start looking at the body fat percentage thing instead. Thanks!

Yes, I definitely do recommend checking body fat instead. My goal is over the top of the BMI chart for me (by about 7 lbs, but still), but I should look pretty good then unless my body fat calculations are way off.

The 107 means that someone who's your height but has a small-boned and slender build could be down to 107 before they're considered 'unhealthy'. Someone who's your height and built 'slender' could be overweight at 145 and still have a 'normal' BMI, whereas you (judging by your self-description) would be seriously emaciated if you DID make it down there alive. I'm the same way -- my lean body mass is higher than the low end of the charts for me :P

BMI is a useful starting point for many individuals, but people who are outside the normal range and feel otherwise healthy and fit should get a second check using something else. BMI says I'm still overweight, but waist-to-height ratio and body fat percentage say I'm at the high end of healthy.

That being said -- you've still got a ways to go before your first goal, right? Why not get there and then re-evaluate? That's my plan -- it's not like I'm going to diet much differently if my aim is 190 or 180 or 170, I'll just stop sooner if I feel I'm good there.

Soltari675

This is true. I still have a ways. Working on getting below 200 first 16lbs closer though! I'll get there.

Nataliaho

I agree with those who say it is useless and disagree with those who say it is a good average, starting point or range. It isn't. It is very inaccurate, as in one study I read it misclassified almost half the people in the study. That's way too inaccurate to be useful, you could get similar results by flipping a coin.

I actually don't think the real problem is that it classifies super-fit people as being overweight or obese, while its frustrating people know if they're fit and healthy. It is actually more inaccurate at underclassifying people as "healthy" who have an unhealthy amount of bodyfat, but really low LBM. So you have people who have the double problem of too much fat and not much muscle being told they're healthy.

ferrytrip

I use the BMI as a guide but even if I get down to my goal of 200 lbs I will still be obese. The BMI says I should be 147 lbs, I wasn't 147 lbs even in college when I was skinny.

NoxDineen

Wow, how tall are you and where was the calculator that said 107 lbs? I'm 5'8" and 118 lbs, most BMI calculators sneaks me in as just a teeeeeeny bit underweight and tell me I could weigh up to 150/160. It sounds like somebody either made up their own formula or screwed up the programming on the one you used.

I wouldn't use a BMI calculator to pick a goal weight, but it's (usually) not a bad place to get a general sense of your progress.

AidaLott

I only know 2 people with a BMI in the "healthy" range. They both look like emaciated corpses with one foot in the grave. Hope that helps.

ScubaSteve1962

wookiemouse wrote: »

There's actually a movement to get rid of them completely - body fat percentage is much, much more reliable. BMI becomes grossly inaccurate in anyone who has a muscular build - if you went with BMI, then Michael Jordan was considered obese in his prime!

don't need a movement, just don't pay any attention to them.

yesimpson

I do think BMI is a reasonable tool for most people to look at - not the be all and end all of health/looking good/being fit, but as something to consider. By height, a BMI calculator will provide a healthy range that will work for the majority of people. Not athletes carrying a lot of muscle, true; but most of us are not outliers.

jim180155

Soltari675 wrote: »

Wait a minute ...

BMI will give you a *range*. In order for 107 to be the top of the range, you'd have to be 4 feet 7.

107 is the very bottom of the range for someone who's 5 feet 3 or 5 feet 4 (depending on whether you use 18.5 or 19 as the boundary). You are NOT supposed to be the smallest number in the range! If you're taller than that, then something was wrong with the settings you used.

Now, if you're muscular/large framed, it still might be low, but not THAT low.

My range was something like 107 to 147. But even at 147 I'd still be a lot of bones. I'm glad to hear everyone else agrees though. Makes me feel better. I'll start looking at the body fat percentage thing instead. Thanks!

BMI is good for people who don't know their body fat percentage and are not about to have it measured. BMI at least gives them some indication on where they fall in comparison to others of the same height.

No doubt that measuring body fat is more meaningful. The problem is that only people who are doing something about changing their body composition are likely to ever have their fat percentage measured. For the rest of the population, the majority of people, BMI can be a wake up call.