BMI unreasonable?
Options
Replies
-
It's impossible to tell without knowing your height, BMI starts becoming a problem if you're either very tall or very muscular. try my body gallery to get a better understanding at how you would look like at a certain weight. Usually people who are extremely overweight and believe I was in that camp, its hard for us to fathom being even thinner when we lose weight, I'm 6'4" when I hit 245 lbs from 318 I thought that would be enough and that I looked gr8 for my height at 225 I thought for sure I wouldn't need to lose, a healthy BMI for me is 207 and I don't think I should stop there, once you start losing weight and adding defenition, you'll start to recognize that yes indeed you can have a smaller BMI0
-
....Why? Just Why?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.
I think this is an over exaggeration.
However, at the same time I have a family member who believes that once your BMI leaves the obese category that your underweight and that getting into the healthy range you need an intervention, because you must have an eating disorder. *shrug*0 -
Soltari675 wrote: »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.
What? 147 is totally realistic for anyone who's 5'4. The range is supposed to be interpreted with your body frame in mind. If it's actually true that you're bigger boned, I doubt anyone medical would suggest you shoot for the lower boundary.
Also you might be surprised by the actual size of your bones vs what you think they are. If you're a sedentary, unmuscled woman especially, you would need to have bones like TREES for something like 160+ to make sense as an "alternate normal" weight.
I almost NEVER say people are making excuses. But I think you're making excuses. You're using criticisms of the BMI that are legitimate for SOME people as a way of justifying your obesity.
And I also almost never believe in being tough on here. But I think if you're looking to legitimate criticism of the BMI for a reason to stay above 180 at 5'4, if you're a 5'4 sedentary woman, that you need to hear some truth, because you're in denial.0 -
Soltari675 wrote: »This is true. I still have a ways. Working on getting below 200 first
16lbs closer though! I'll get there.
In your situation, BMI is a totally reasonable reference range.0 -
I'm 5'11.5 and was hospitalized at a BMI of 19.8 because my body fat had fallen so low I began to experience life threatening issues. I was so thin I had to wear children's clothes. Now my BMI is 21 and I look very slim, if I were to lose any more I'd be incredibly bony, especially around the shoulders.0
-
Nope I think its a useful guide and useful if used for the purpose it was intended. People that moan on about it fail to understand what it is and how it came about. Its a guide for general population averages, but it has weaknesses when applied to some individuals. Some mfpers do have a higher degree of muscle than othes. Body fat % is nicer, but its also more difficult to calculate.
OP if you dont believe in its relevance then dont use it.0 -
Nope I think its a useful guide and useful if used for the purpose it was intended. People that moan on about it fail to understand what it is and how it came about. Its a guide for general population averages, but it has weaknesses when applied to some individuals. Some mfpers do have a higher degree of muscle than othes. Body fat % is nicer, but its also more difficult to calculate.
OP if you dont believe in its relevance then dont use it.
I fully understand the origin and use of the BMI and its inappropriateness for some people. I am saying the OP is using that legitimate criticism to support denial.
Do you think it makes sense for a 5'4 sedentary unmuscled woman to be 180?0 -
Also, at 200 lbs, just losing weight is going to improve body fat percentage. I think bf% is really only a logical benchmark once people are say under 30% body fat. Which I cannot imagine is the case for the OP as of right now.0
-
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.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.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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions