BMI Standards Are Too High!

TheDarkAss
TheDarkAss Posts: 20 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Alright, this is my first post, so hi everyone!

Now, I have been dieting and exercising for two weeks now and I lost 10lbs already. I feel pretty good. So anyway, I checked the BMI charts and according to the BMI charts even at my goal weight of 185, I would be classified as overweight.

When I was in the military I was between 175 and 185, and I was never in better shape. I wasn't overweight in the slightest. In fact, any lighter and I would have looked too skinny. I am 5'10 now and about 5'11" whenever I lose weight (for some reason I gain an inch whenever I lose weight... I'm guessing it has to do with stress on the spinal cord).

I find the BMI standards to be a bit absurd. There's no way I would look good at 165, my frame is just too big for that.

Replies

  • purplewench
    purplewench Posts: 5
    BMIs are based on an average amount of muscle, which as we all know, weighs more but takes up less room than fat!

    So a bodybuilder can be classed as overweight according to their BMI when they're obviously not!

    This has been shown recently by an example at a UK school where a child had a letter sent home saying they were overweight, when they were in fact very fit and had a higher than normal % of muscle for a child of their age.

    Does that help?
  • sjohnny
    sjohnny Posts: 56,142 Member
    I don't put any stock in BMI. It doesn't take into account that some people have a whole lot more lean body mass than the average. Years ago I knew a guy who was a Marine Reservist and had less than 8% bodyfat but he was big as sh1t. His height to weight ratio was in the obese range so he would have to send pictures to whatever authority graded that stuff to prove that he wasn't fat.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    BMI is accurate for the vast majority of people. There are exceptions.
  • Ge0rgiana
    Ge0rgiana Posts: 1,649 Member
    BMI does not take into account people who are more muscular. At 5'11", if my boyfriend weighed 165, we would simply not be dating.
  • Espressocycle
    Espressocycle Posts: 2,245 Member
    Body fat percentage makes a lot more sense.
  • Jester522
    Jester522 Posts: 392
    BMI isnt a gold standard method like it used to be otherwise I'm overweight year round.
  • bigknight78
    bigknight78 Posts: 57
    BMI is total rubbish. It's out dated and not relevant anymore. It was created at the turn of the century I think, and people's body composition and diets were drastically different back then.

    According to BMI almost every NFL player is overweight or obese. Do you think guys like Ray Lewis and James Harrison are "overweight"?

    Sorry for the rant, but I get mad that BMI is used still when visitng your GP. I get measured when I go, get told I am overweight (maybe I am carrying a bit too much fat atm but working on it). But even if I had 0% body fat I would be 225lbs, and against my height & age I would be still classed as obese.
  • kristen6022
    kristen6022 Posts: 1,923 Member
    If you are 5'11, the top weight range for BMI is 179. I know this because it was my first goal (Fellow Tall Girl!).

    I found that even at 179 I was too big. At 179 I wear a size 12. I was fat. I had 10 pound goals until I was satisfied with my shape, because my normal before I lose control of my weight was around 170. I'm 145 now and I wear a 6 in dress pants and a 4 in jeans and I still have curves (32DD, 40" hips). I'm more fit and toned that I ever have been and feel amazing, but I still could afford to lose 5-10 more and not look like I need a cheeseburger. I realize that everyone's bodies are made differently, but I'm medium build - no where near a small girl. So, even if you get to 180 and re-evaluate - you might surprise yourself and want to keep going...

    Congrats on the 10 pounds - welcome to MFP forums! I hope you get a lot of great information and insight to help you through your journey.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    BMI is useful from a statistical standpoint (even then it could be skewed if you had a nation of bodybuilders and football players) but of limited use when looking at individuals.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Someone already said it, but at 5'11", you can be 179 and be a "healthy BMI," which is right in your stated range.

    165 at 5'11" is a BMI of 23. 24.9 is the highest recommended.

    Your argument is a bit flawed.
  • chrishgt4
    chrishgt4 Posts: 1,222 Member
    People slate the BMI scale but it is largely at least close for most people.

    Basically, if you are of a body type that you need to check your BMI, then it is probably relevant for you.

    If you have a large proportion of muscle then you probably won't be worried about what your BMI is.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    BMI is useful from a statistical standpoint (even then it could be skewed if you had a nation of bodybuilders and football players) but of limited use when looking at individuals.

    Yup!
  • HypersonicFitNess
    HypersonicFitNess Posts: 1,219 Member
    Uh, my husband is 5'11" and at 175 he's a little on the thin side (waist under 32")....if he was less...let's just say I wouldn't be attracted to him. He's been a body buidler since he was in his 20s and he's just over 50 now. He's very trim and tight and has never had very much body fat....I'd like to keep him that way. He's currently 178 (his BMI is just under by a hair of being overweight...but he's SO not overweight)
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    BMI is fairly useless for athletic/active guys because they tend to have more muscle mass... Try to go by measurements and body fat percentage instead.
  • chrishgt4
    chrishgt4 Posts: 1,222 Member
    If you are 5'11, the top weight range for BMI is 179. I know this because it was my first goal (Fellow Tall Girl!).

    I found that even at 179 I was too big. At 179 I wear a size 12. I was fat. I had 10 pound goals until I was satisfied with my shape, because my normal before I lose control of my weight was around 170. I'm 145 now and I wear a 6 in dress pants and a 4 in jeans and I still have curves (32DD, 40" hips). I'm more fit and toned that I ever have been and feel amazing, but I still could afford to lose 5-10 more and not look like I need a cheeseburger. I realize that everyone's bodies are made differently, but I'm medium build - no where near a small girl. So, even if you get to 180 and re-evaluate - you might surprise yourself and want to keep going...

    Congrats on the 10 pounds - welcome to MFP forums! I hope you get a lot of great information and insight to help you through your journey.

    I agree with this also - it's really difficult to guesstimate what your goal weight should be.
    When you get there you may well find that you need to lose more.

    My friend had to constantly re-evaluate his goal from initially 224lbs to 210 to 196 where he is now comfortable. Also that was 224lbs with a lot less muscle than he now has at 196 so without that muscle he would probably be looking at more like 180lbs.

    His first time round going past 196 he still had excess fat.
  • LeidaPrimal
    LeidaPrimal Posts: 198 Member
    Skip BMI and scale. Proceed to the mirror and/or candid camera snapshots. Use measuring tape in the places that matters to you personally if you want numbers.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    BMI is total rubbish. It's out dated and not relevant anymore. It was created at the turn of the century I think, and people's body composition and diets were drastically different back then.

    According to BMI almost every NFL player is overweight or obese. Do you think guys like Ray Lewis and James Harrison are "overweight"?

    Sorry for the rant, but I get mad that BMI is used still when visitng your GP. I get measured when I go, get told I am overweight (maybe I am carrying a bit too much fat atm but working on it). But even if I had 0% body fat I would be 225lbs, and against my height & age I would be still classed as obese.

    Totally agree. Many medical proffesionals even consider it outdated and inaccurate. It is fairly useless.
  • VFBloch0725
    VFBloch0725 Posts: 37
    I agree that the BMI chart is outdated and rubbish! Even though it can be a good resource as a guide, I think it should be what you are comfortable using.
  • flatblade
    flatblade Posts: 224 Member
    The BMI chart is based on averages. I think it's pretty accurate, but there are exceptions. Look at the pro athletes height and weight and according to the charts, many of them would be overweight or obese including middle infielders and safeties (I mixed my sports there). I recently was evaluated in a "bod pod" which would give a more accurate reading of body fat and I was in line with the chart, so I guess I'll presume the chart is pretty accurate for me.
  • TheDarkAss
    TheDarkAss Posts: 20 Member
    Thank you all for your replies. All of your replies were helpful. I understand now that BMIs are based on averages and that some body frames just don't match up with the standards. I agree that BMIs are a bit outdated, and I'm going to consider replacing the scale with measuring tape.

    To the two ladies who stated they'd be less attracted to their men if they were 165 or below 175: I can totally see why. At 165 I'd just look too skinny.
  • kristen6022
    kristen6022 Posts: 1,923 Member
    But that doesn't mean that at 179 you would. Set your goal to that and see what your BF % is when you get there. My boyfriend is 185 and 6'2 and not the least bit "skinny".

    I don't believe BMI is outdated, it's a good standard to let you know what's healthy and what's not. I get very irritated at people that insist that they'd look too skinny at the top weight in their range. How the heck do you know until you get there?

Categories