BMI reader accuracy???

crunchybubblez

I have an electronic scale that calculates BMI.
It has me at about 40.5%.
My weight being around 226lbs, height is about 5'4".
Last night I had a trainer check me at the gym I just joined.
I thought he was going to use a hand held thing, but
it was an expensive version of what I have.
The wrote on a piece of paper that the scale says I am 227.6lbs and 47.3% BMI.

Question is.... Seriously?!?
Could this be accurate??

WBB55

It probably is accurate-ish. But do you mean BF%? as in Body Fat? BMI is Body Mass Index, which is a different thing. That's just a ratio of your weight to height. Just look at your BF% as your starting place. It's a great number to track. I wish I had tracked it when I was losing most of my weight.

Look at that number as a positive thing. You have something like 120# of lean mass. That's awesome! Work to keep that. No matter what you do, no matter what you eat, make sure you fight like a madwoman to keep that 120# of lean weight.

I'm just a smidge taller than you, weigh 70 lbs less, and my BF% is about 33%. Which means I only have 102# or so of lean mass, even though my legs are extremely strong and fit from roller derby. I would KILL to have 120# of lean mass to help me skate better.

jendraka

Chances are the measurements might have been actually two different things. The number you have of 40.5 likely wouldn't be a % as that would mean body fat percentage, not BMI, and online calculators put your BMI at 38.8 so perhaps, due to scale fluctuations, that number you're looking at is showing you your BMI. Now, the other number, the 47.3%, might very well be your estimated body fat percentage. An entirely different thing from BMI. And considering your weight and height, quite possible for you to have that number for BF%. Shoot, as embarrassing as it may be to say, Pillsbury doughboy as I was, I was 50%BF at 215lbs.

All that said, don't let any of those numbers get discouraging though. It can be a shock to the system to look at the numbers and go "really? really?" though Like I said, I was at 50%BF, I'm at 26% now and still working at getting lower. It can be done

Mokey41

That's your body fat % not your BMI and I'm just slightly shorter than you at 115 lbs and 19% BF so yes you probably are nearly 50% fat. Eye opening!

crunchybubblez

Ok Thanks everyone.
That cleared it up.

And yes, I am naturally built.
I honestly don't think I should get below 150lbs.

jendraka

Ok Thanks everyone.
That cleared it up.

And yes, I am naturally built.
I honestly don't think I should get below 150lbs.

Look up information on "body frame" as well. Most of my life I thought I was a larger frame than I was and that it was normal for me to carry more weight than it really is because of the way most of the women in my family are built. It has to do with skeletal measurements taken easily at places like the wrist and elbow and such. You should be able to figure out just how big your natural skeletal frame is and how much average weight your frame should reasonably carry. 150 may be perfect for your frame, it may still be a bit heavy though if you have a smaller frame.

Brad805

These scales can show a good trend of fat loss, but keep in mind it is doing a lot of calculations in addition to the impedance value it measures. The reason you enter your height, age, and activity level is that they are used to determine the BF level. None of that information makes any difference in a dexascan or bodpod. These scales are quite sensitive to the water on board, so try to use it the same day each week you check and about the same time if you want to get useful data. My scale (Tanta) can be whacky with the numbers, so do not put too much faith in it.

The best way is pictures. Here are some BF pics of both women and men for you to compare to.



Good luck.