PSA: BMI Categories

etoiles_argentees

This thread took a different turn than I expected. I just got a PM flaming me for writing a post about "that BMI nonsense". :laugh:

I just got one telling me to stop blaming economics for being a "fattie".
Thanks taso!

misskerouac

25.1

So. Damn. Close. I. Can. Taste. It.

25.7 I feel your pain

Brad805

Helpful number for insurance rates, but other than that, pretty much of little importance.

MsDover

I'm 21.5 down from my original high of 35 (that was 10 years ago, but still...). Even with the 21.5 I still have a disproportionately large waist so it isn't as awesome as it sounds.

_chiaroscuro

Well, Mr. Taso, you just caused me to skitter off and recalculate my BMI, only to find it's 29.2 and for the first time in years I'm no longer obese.

So you've basically ruined my life. Ruiner.

CorvusCorax77

This thread took a different turn than I expected. I just got a PM flaming me for writing a post about "that BMI nonsense". :laugh:

Can I flame you for being hilarious as *kitten* and also for having a super sexy back???

nz_deevaa

39.6 down from 48.9

dinosnopro

I'm overweight ...my wii tells me so every Sunday morning...:sad:

mmapags

This thread took a different turn than I expected. I just got a PM flaming me for writing a post about "that BMI nonsense". :laugh:

I just got one telling me to stop blaming economics for being a "fattie".
Thanks taso!

You a fattie?? BWAAAAHHHAAAA!!

VeinsAndBones

18.3 :P I'm not underweight xD I've still got a little tummy to lose!

nz_deevaa

I'm overweight ...my wii tells me so every Sunday morning...:sad:

I've only just moved onto the top of the green wii bar... before it'd hit the top and make a bom-bom noise. Very depressing. LOL

_SABOTEUR_

Poop - I dropped out of the overweight category recently...that is actually annoying. (24)

Because you pooped? :laugh:

_SABOTEUR_

I vary between 24.7 and 25.3. Meh.

amandapye78

23 for me. I am glad to no longer be overweight!

jayliospecky

I know it wasn't the point of this thread (forgive me for the hijack - although I prefer to think of it as a slight tangent.) I thought this was a good summary of the limits/usefulness of the BMI scale.

Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus
by KEITH DEVLIN

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual.

The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.

2. It is scientifically nonsensical.

There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.

3. It is physiologically wrong.

It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.

4. It gets the logic wrong.

The CDC says on its Web site that "the BMI is a reliable indicator of body fatness for people." This is a fundamental error of logic. For example, if I tell you my birthday present is a bicycle, you can conclude that my present has wheels. That's correct logic. But it does not work the other way round. If I tell you my birthday present has wheels, you cannot conclude I got a bicycle. I could have received a car. Because of how Quetelet came up with it, if a person is fat or obese, he or she will have a high BMI. But as with my birthday present, it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight, let alone obese. It could mean the person is fit and healthy, with very little fat.

5. It's bad statistics.

Because the majority of people today (and in Quetelet's time) lead fairly sedentary lives and are not particularly active, the formula tacitly assumes low muscle mass and high relative fat content. It applies moderately well when applied to such people because it was formulated by focusing on them. But it gives exactly the wrong answer for a large and significant section of the population, namely the lean, fit and healthy. Quetelet is also the person who came up with the idea of "the average man." That's a useful concept, but if you try to apply it to any one person, you come up with the absurdity of a person with 2.4 children. Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.

6. It is lying by scientific authority.

Because the BMI is a single number between 1 and 100 (like a percentage) that comes from a mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. But it is mathematical snake oil.

7. It suggests there are distinct categories of underweight, ideal, overweight and obese, with sharp boundaries that hinge on a decimal place.

That's total nonsense.

8. It makes the more cynical members of society suspect that the medical insurance industry lobbies for the continued use of the BMI to keep their profits high.

Insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums for people with a high BMI. Among such people are all those fit individuals with good bone and muscle and little fat, who will live long, healthy lives during which they will have to pay those greater premiums.

9. Continued reliance on the BMI means doctors don't feel the need to use one of the more scientifically sound methods that are available to measure obesity levels.

Those alternatives cost a little bit more, but they give far more reliable results.

10. It embarrasses the U.S.

It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.

Doctorpurple

I'm at 20.7 yey. That's really good. My goal is BMI of 20

MyChocolateDiet

I am at 24.6


Normal but almost overweight.......and damn proud because I wear a size 4 and worked hard for those pounds of muscles

i want to understand this and OP's statement and the other muscle guy who said he's obese. I don't get it. I thought BMI was supposed to be measure that factored in fat or "controlled" for it. or something? doesn anyone know what i mean where my confusion is coming from?

nicoled6842

Thanks for posting. I was a having a hard time finding an index. All the ones I found seemed to contradict each other

taso42

I am at 24.6


Normal but almost overweight.......and damn proud because I wear a size 4 and worked hard for those pounds of muscles

i want to understand this and OP's statement and the other muscle guy who said he's obese. I don't get it. I thought BMI was supposed to be measure that factored in fat or "controlled" for it. or something? doesn anyone know what i mean where my confusion is coming from?

BMI is based just on height and weight. It does not take body fat into account at all. So a big huge bodybuilder type who is super lean might actually be 'obese' by the BMI scale, but obviously not fat.

Sarauk2sf

I am at 24.6


Normal but almost overweight.......and damn proud because I wear a size 4 and worked hard for those pounds of muscles

i want to understand this and OP's statement and the other muscle guy who said he's obese. I don't get it. I thought BMI was supposed to be measure that factored in fat or "controlled" for it. or something? doesn anyone know what i mean where my confusion is coming from?

BMI is based just on height and weight. It does not take body fat into account at all. So a big huge bodybuilder type who is super lean might actually be 'obese' by the BMI scale, but obviously not fat.

^^yep.

Someone with a low BF% and a high BMI will have a high LBM.

I am only a few pounds off of overweight according to the BMI, but have a sub 20% BF% which means my LBM is high..which I like.

MyChocolateDiet

I am at 24.6


Normal but almost overweight.......and damn proud because I wear a size 4 and worked hard for those pounds of muscles

i want to understand this and OP's statement and the other muscle guy who said he's obese. I don't get it. I thought BMI was supposed to be measure that factored in fat or "controlled" for it. or something? doesn anyone know what i mean where my confusion is coming from?

BMI is based just on height and weight. It does not take body fat into account at all. So a big huge bodybuilder type who is super lean might actually be 'obese' by the BMI scale, but obviously not fat.

^^yep.

Someone with a low BF% and a high BMI will have a high LBM.

I am only a few pounds off of overweight according to the BMI, but have a sub 20% BF% which means my LBM is high..which I like.

thank you now i get it. that's REALLY misleading then when you consider how much that term is thrown around.

erickita89

ugh im 32.1 im moderatley obese - now im sad.

sam308lbs

29.6 here meh whatever!

neandermagnon

I know it wasn't the point of this thread (forgive me for the hijack - although I prefer to think of it as a slight tangent.) I thought this was a good summary of the limits/usefulness of the BMI scale.

Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus
by KEITH DEVLIN

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual.

The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.

2. It is scientifically nonsensical.

There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.

3. It is physiologically wrong.

It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.

4. It gets the logic wrong.

The CDC says on its Web site that "the BMI is a reliable indicator of body fatness for people." This is a fundamental error of logic. For example, if I tell you my birthday present is a bicycle, you can conclude that my present has wheels. That's correct logic. But it does not work the other way round. If I tell you my birthday present has wheels, you cannot conclude I got a bicycle. I could have received a car. Because of how Quetelet came up with it, if a person is fat or obese, he or she will have a high BMI. But as with my birthday present, it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight, let alone obese. It could mean the person is fit and healthy, with very little fat.

5. It's bad statistics.

Because the majority of people today (and in Quetelet's time) lead fairly sedentary lives and are not particularly active, the formula tacitly assumes low muscle mass and high relative fat content. It applies moderately well when applied to such people because it was formulated by focusing on them. But it gives exactly the wrong answer for a large and significant section of the population, namely the lean, fit and healthy. Quetelet is also the person who came up with the idea of "the average man." That's a useful concept, but if you try to apply it to any one person, you come up with the absurdity of a person with 2.4 children. Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.

6. It is lying by scientific authority.

Because the BMI is a single number between 1 and 100 (like a percentage) that comes from a mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. But it is mathematical snake oil.

7. It suggests there are distinct categories of underweight, ideal, overweight and obese, with sharp boundaries that hinge on a decimal place.

That's total nonsense.

8. It makes the more cynical members of society suspect that the medical insurance industry lobbies for the continued use of the BMI to keep their profits high.

Insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums for people with a high BMI. Among such people are all those fit individuals with good bone and muscle and little fat, who will live long, healthy lives during which they will have to pay those greater premiums.

9. Continued reliance on the BMI means doctors don't feel the need to use one of the more scientifically sound methods that are available to measure obesity levels.

Those alternatives cost a little bit more, but they give far more reliable results.

10. It embarrasses the U.S.

It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.

A good article, but I think it should have gone beyond ten:

11. some people have what's known as "normal weight obesity" where they are underweight in terms of lean body mass i.e. their bone density is very low and their muscles are wasted, yet they also carry too much body fat, i.e. in the obese range of 30%+ body fat. These two factors together result in a BMI in the normal range, as they are both underweight and overfat at the same time. they also have the health risks of carrying too much fat, and of having weak muscles and bones, e.g. much greater risk of osteoporosis. Yet a BMI chart will tell them they are healthy. People who have this condition are usually very sedentary, and eat an unhealthy diet, and in a lot of cases they are skipping meals or even deliberately starving themselves to not gain weight. The BMI chart basically luls them into a false sense of security, telling them they are healthy, when they actually are setting themselves up for significantly worse health problems than someone who is active and eats a healthy diet, but carries too much fat, but has strong bones and muscles under the fat.

DawnieB1977

26.0......so close! My body fat puts me in normal, healthy range for my age though, although I definitely want to see that BMI below 25! I am not bothered if it is 24.9, so long as it's below 25!

trudijoy

BMI = a crock, its been debunked by nearly everyone whose opinion matters to me, and doesn't take boobs or muscle into account. But if you're using it as a guide, go for it, I personally put no stock in it though

Achrya

BMI = a crock, its been debunked by nearly everyone whose opinion matters to me, and doesn't take boobs or muscle into account. But if you're using it as a guide, go for it, I personally put no stock in it though

I've got no love for the BMI scale myself. I'm busty and...ugh, what's a nice way of saying I've got a huge butt? Well, anyway, that's what I am and that's how I intend to stay; even when I was at my ideal weight and size my doctor told me I was on the very high end of normal and should consider losing weight. A scale that doesn't consider varying body types/shapes just always seemed ineffective to me.

trudijoy

BMI = a crock, its been debunked by nearly everyone whose opinion matters to me, and doesn't take boobs or muscle into account. But if you're using it as a guide, go for it, I personally put no stock in it though

I've got no love for the BMI scale myself. I'm busty and...ugh, what's a nice way of saying I've got a huge butt? Well, anyway, that's what I am and that's how I intend to stay; even when I was at my ideal weight and size my doctor told me I was on the very high end of normal and should consider losing weight. A scale that doesn't consider varying body types/shapes just always seemed ineffective to me.

every time i've done a gym eval they have done a double take at my weight, and reminded me that theres no way that for me that is as bad as it might be for someone else. My GW is ABOVE the top end of 'normal' but my boobs don't drop below an E cup and tbh i look like brunette barbie at 'correct' weight and BMI....

XxfitforeverxX

21.8 normal

brevislux

19? I'm f'ing boring.