BMI unreasonable?
Replies
-
No idea why you are addressing me tomatoey.
Actually I agree with your point though, if I were the OP I would lose the weight first and moan about BMI when I was at a level at which I though BMI made no sense. Agree that complaining before you are there looks like an excuse.0 -
Yeah its still useful, as a loose guide over a large population, which is why we still use it. It is also useful for people who have no idea what reference range is average, which includes many people in this thread. There is no way a 5'4" person is going to have +33lbs of "big bones" added onto 147lbs...it just doesn't happen even in bony overgrowth diseases you wont see that, if you do, you can tell something is very very wrong. Its also unlikely +33lbs is "all muscle and bone" unless you were a powerlifter, in which case you also had extra fat most probably. Which is fine, it is possible to be fit and have extra fat too. But, if you use a weight where you were fit and powerful in the military as a reference range instead of a BMI average range, you are going to have a target weight too high, I'm certain you cannot lift, run and move as fast as you did in the military.
Let's say instead you were a massively successful bodybuilder, I found one of the top ones with a quick google search and her stats are:
Height: 5’4”
Competition Weight: 143 lb
Off-Season Weight: 154 lb
Take a look, none of them match your 180lbs for height even in off season weight: http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/08/09/11-incredibly-muscular-female-competitive-bodybuilders/
So we can conclude unless you were one of these girls in off season that added 10 extra pounds, you were most likely actually not all muscle at 180lbs back then. Remember, "off season" increase in weight is almost all fat too... You were fit I'm certain, but still a little overweight, and thats not a problem really, is it? Why do you have to say the reference range lies instead of maybe you were carrying a little more weight than you had to then? We all do.
Its also complete BS that people in healthy reference range look like "emaciated corpses". Guess what? Those girls are all in BMI reference range in good shape even with all the extra muscle mass, EVEN some of the ones in off season weight! I know many that look very healthy and good, and one who looks...well she looks a bit overweight because she does not exercise ever and very little of it is muscle. I also know some marathon runners who may look a little bony like what you are saying, but just as us fat people don't want to be called a "bloated pig", they probably don't want to be called "emaciated corpses". And yes I'm "obese" by BMI. "Overweight" in reality, if I had your mindset I'd say I was your "military fit", but I know its not true.0 -
Most men I know of are considered either overweight or obese by the BMI measurement. Body fat tells a much more accurate story of one's health. My doctor has given me heat for years over being far too thin because I tend to fall at the very very bottom of normal, sometimes underweight, yet I have a fairly petite build for my height and my body fat percentage is within normal range. BMI measurement is skewed to say the least.0
-
No idea why you are addressing me tomatoey.
Actually I agree with your point though, if I were the OP I would lose the weight first and moan about BMI when I was at a level at which I though BMI made no sense. Agree that complaining before you are there looks like an excuse.
Sorry - total confusion and misreading of what you wrote + disagreeing with your earlier comment re OP & bf%
Sincere apologies!0 -
Soltari675 wrote: »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?
Sorry, not buying it. They have weight standards and 180 lbs is way out of range at the 5'4" being thrown around here.0 -
They are unreasonable and they refuse to negotiate. Ignore it.0
-
No worries tomatoey. Think we are in agreement then.
the point is for the people who are saying its unreasonable is that its a general population measure useful as a general guide. It doesnt claim to be perfect and ofc it has significnat flaws. The point tomatoey made and I saw as well as others is that if you are overweight by any standards then it rings a bit hollow to be arguing about why its rubbish when you could just ve getting on with dealing with your current situation.0 -
I think BMI is good for recognizing if you are overweight / obese or underweight (assuming you aren't like a bodybuilder or anything). But I think the "exactness" of it isn't all that accurate and depends on body type. Apparently I have a BMI of like 18.7 but I definitely do NOT look it (look "heavier") whereas others may look extremely skinny at that BMI. So use it as a guide.
If you are extremely muscular, and have reason to believe that that may account for your weight, then I'd say 180 at 5'4 could be healthy. Otherwise, it is categorized as "obese".0 -
sarahrbraun wrote: »BMI is flawed science for lots of people....
For example: my dear friend is a competitive bodybuilder. He's 6' tall, and around 217lbs. His BMI is 29.8 which makes him overweight. However, his body fat is 9%. I've seen him at his *healthy* BMI at 185 lbs, and he's anorexic skinny.
A guy I used to train with got a call from some clerk at his doctor's office. She informed him that he was "at risk of obesity" due to his BMI. He's a triathlon athlete with bodyfat of like 12%. Definitely NOT overweight.
If your friend is truly 217, 9% bf, 6', then he has a FFMI of 26.9. Above an FFMI of 25 is pretty much a guarantee of being on anabolic steroids.0 -
No worries tomatoey. Think we are in agreement then.
the point is for the people who are saying its unreasonable is that its a general population measure useful as a general guide. It doesnt claim to be perfect and ofc it has significnat flaws. The point tomatoey made and I saw as well as others is that if you are overweight by any standards then it rings a bit hollow to be arguing about why its rubbish when you could just ve getting on with dealing with your current situation.
100% in agreement, and am super embarrassed to have misread you so badly0 -
As others have said BMI is for population averages. Unfortunately some governments and insurance companies don't understand or choose to ignore how statistics work and apply it to individuals for purposes beyond what it was intended for.
To the OP, just get your body fat % calculated and re-assess your situation.0 -
I just have to chime in here, as I've been thinking about this whole BMI thing for almost a month now. I got my body fat tested (by BodPod - much more accurate than calipers or electrical impedence) early this month, and got the following results:
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 388.8 lbs
Body fat: 40% (I've got some work to do)
Lean mass: 232 lbs
Fat mass: 156 lbs
This gives me a BMI of 50, and if I go down to a 20% bodyfat (losing 80 lbs of fat, and estimating an 8 lbs of muscle loss with that), that'll put me at 300 lbs with a BMI of almost 40! Even if you stripped off all the fat, a lean mass of 232 lbs is still a BMI of 30. So I wouldn't put more than a nickel's investment into BMI numbers. As everyone else said, it's more geared towards populations as a whole, and not for individuals - you're always going to find outliers!
Today is the first time I've heard of FFMI, though. Based on those calculations, I've got an FFMI of 30 (I double checked). I'm a big guy, but I'm still all natural - I'm interested in finding whoever ran that study.0 -
KiltFuPanda wrote: »I just have to chime in here, as I've been thinking about this whole BMI thing for almost a month now. I got my body fat tested (by BodPod - much more accurate than calipers or electrical impedence) early this month, and got the following results:
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 388.8 lbs
Body fat: 40% (I've got some work to do)
Lean mass: 232 lbs
Fat mass: 156 lbs
This gives me a BMI of 50, and if I go down to a 20% bodyfat (losing 80 lbs of fat, and estimating an 8 lbs of muscle loss with that), that'll put me at 300 lbs with a BMI of almost 40! Even if you stripped off all the fat, a lean mass of 232 lbs is still a BMI of 30. So I wouldn't put more than a nickel's investment into BMI numbers. As everyone else said, it's more geared towards populations as a whole, and not for individuals - you're always going to find outliers!
Today is the first time I've heard of FFMI, though. Based on those calculations, I've got an FFMI of 30 (I double checked). I'm a big guy, but I'm still all natural - I'm interested in finding whoever ran that study.
Double check your math. If you drop to 300 lbs at 20% bodyfat, you'd have to gain 8 lbs of muscle and lose 96 lbs of fat. I'm assuming that you're already weightlifting, so it's not likely that you're going to add muscle mass while eating at a deficit. If 20% bodyfat is your goal and you're able to get there without losing a single ounce of your existing 232 lb lean body mass, your new target weight would be 290, not 300 lbs. And you'd have to lose 98 lbs of fat, not 80 lbs.
You're on the right track, though. Bodyfat percent is a much better benchmark than BMI.0 -
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!
I cannot imagine how this would be possible, I suspect your perception of what "normal" looks like is flawed, as is the case for many overweight people. I can see how someone very muscular could be at the overweight category by BMI, but still this person would look solid and muscular, not lean and not all bones as you claim. There is no way a woman at your height does not have a lot of body fat at 180 lbs. No matter how much muscle she has. I do not care if you were the world's heavy weight champion in olympic lifts and the most muscular woman to walk this planet ever, there would still be body fat, and a lot of it.
0 -
I cannot imagine a female who is 5'3" where 147 would be unreasonably thin. I always considered myself a larger frame. I am 5'4" and even with all the loose skin from losing 100lbs I still sit pretty comfortably at 123lbs now. I am largely muscle too. I work out 2hrs a day 5 days a week and its a combo lifting and cardio so I am solid. That being said I also could not imagine myself at anything lower than 150 back when I was 220. I was pretty convinced that I would look like bones below that weight but it turns out the 120s are a good spot for me.0
-
sarahrbraun wrote: »BMI is flawed science for lots of people....
For example: my dear friend is a competitive bodybuilder. He's 6' tall, and around 217lbs. His BMI is 29.8 which makes him overweight. However, his body fat is 9%. I've seen him at his *healthy* BMI at 185 lbs, and he's anorexic skinny.
A guy I used to train with got a call from some clerk at his doctor's office. She informed him that he was "at risk of obesity" due to his BMI. He's a triathlon athlete with bodyfat of like 12%. Definitely NOT overweight.
If your friend is truly 217, 9% bf, 6', then he has a FFMI of 26.9. Above an FFMI of 25 is pretty much a guarantee of being on anabolic steroids.
I thought it, you wrote it.
0 -
BMI gives us a range for healthy weight, and usually we should fall into that range. It's not perfect.Soltari675 wrote: »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?
0 -
-
KiltFuPanda wrote: »I just have to chime in here, as I've been thinking about this whole BMI thing for almost a month now. I got my body fat tested (by BodPod - much more accurate than calipers or electrical impedence) early this month, and got the following results:
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 388.8 lbs
Body fat: 40% (I've got some work to do)
Lean mass: 232 lbs
Fat mass: 156 lbs
This gives me a BMI of 50, and if I go down to a 20% bodyfat (losing 80 lbs of fat, and estimating an 8 lbs of muscle loss with that), that'll put me at 300 lbs with a BMI of almost 40! Even if you stripped off all the fat, a lean mass of 232 lbs is still a BMI of 30. So I wouldn't put more than a nickel's investment into BMI numbers. As everyone else said, it's more geared towards populations as a whole, and not for individuals - you're always going to find outliers!
Today is the first time I've heard of FFMI, though. Based on those calculations, I've got an FFMI of 30 (I double checked). I'm a big guy, but I'm still all natural - I'm interested in finding whoever ran that study.
Double check your math. If you drop to 300 lbs at 20% bodyfat, you'd have to gain 8 lbs of muscle and lose 96 lbs of fat. I'm assuming that you're already weightlifting, so it's not likely that you're going to add muscle mass while eating at a deficit. If 20% bodyfat is your goal and you're able to get there without losing a single ounce of your existing 232 lb lean body mass, your new target weight would be 290, not 300 lbs. And you'd have to lose 98 lbs of fat, not 80 lbs.
You're on the right track, though. Bodyfat percent is a much better benchmark than BMI.
It's been a long day. I was calculating half of the existing fat instead of recalculating based on ending weight. And I'm not really looking to gain muscle, but if it happens, it happens. I just started doing some serious arm workouts (I've been a squat and leg guy for the most part), so I may gain some size there, but otherwise I think I'm as big as I need to be.
0 -
Yeah, I looked at your profile and you look like a pretty strong guy. Bigger than you need to be, but with a lot of muscle on your frame.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions