Do BMI's seem unrealistic to anyone else?

Psalm17v22

BMI is usually only unrealistic for those who are extremely muscular or have a warped perception of what would be good for their body or willingness to put in the effort needed to achieve a normal BMI. The range is so wide of what is a normal BMI that there are very few people who don't fit into normal at a good weight.

I completely agree! I'm in the middle of my healthy BMI and I'm happy with how I look, so is my husband and my doctor says I've done a fantastic job. There are people who tell me I'm too skinny but their perception of what is normal is warped in my opinion and my doctor says I'm not to skinny.

God bless,
Karen

bcattoes

How accurate is the WHR, though?

I have a typical hourglass figure, and my WHR is 0.76.

That's not the full picture, though. My BF% is 27-28. If you looked at just my arms and legs, you'd estimate my BF% at 20 at the most. That's how much of my weight I carry in my midsection, literally almost all of it. So am I at risk because I carry all my weight in my midsection, or am I safe because of the way it's distributed there?

An hourglass shape doesn't carry most weight in the waist. It's carried there the least. The definition of hourglass is bigger on top and bottom with a narrow middle (like an hourglass)

You sound more like an apple shape, and as unfair as it may seem, carrying more weight in your waist raises your risk of disease. Mother Nature isn't very fair.

Mokey41

40 pounds is a lot of weight to lose. For anyone. I am overweight yes. 20 pounds would have me looking really good. I know that. 40 would be too much. I want curves. but that doesn't mean I want to be fat either. Nor do I want to be skinny. I want to look fit. 20 pounds coupled with Insanity will do that for me. Once I am there (hopefully at the end of insanity in 5 weeks) and I can figure out how to post pics I will revisit this.

I'm sure you will be stunning, curvy and everything you've dreamed of. I really would be interested to see your after pictures to see what I'd look like 40 lbs heavier because I already know how many rolls of fat I had at 20 lbs heavier.

holothuroidea

How accurate is the WHR, though?

I have a typical hourglass figure, and my WHR is 0.76.

That's not the full picture, though. My BF% is 27-28. If you looked at just my arms and legs, you'd estimate my BF% at 20 at the most. That's how much of my weight I carry in my midsection, literally almost all of it. So am I at risk because I carry all my weight in my midsection, or am I safe because of the way it's distributed there?

Hun if your BMR, WHR and body fat are all in "bad" ranges... at some point its probably not that all the metrics are off...

My BMI is in the "healthy" range, so is my WHR and so is my BF%.

So what are you talking about, sweetie pie?

BinaryPulsar

I haven't really read all these comments yet. I personally think it depends on a lot of factors, including frame size, as well as body composition. So, I don't think it is a good universal guideline, but it can still serve as one aspect of information for understanding averages and what falls within the healthy range. For example, it can help people to realize how low is too low and not to lose weight past the healthy point. At the low end of the scale it can become useful. But, it is based on averages, so that would inform you that a person is healthy along a wide range and even beyond that (I think it is at least a 35 pound range). But, it is useless for people that have a large frame or are body builders (for example). But, a person can be healthy and fit, all along the spectrum. Just because someone is at the low end of the range does not mean they are unhealthy or unfit, it just means they have a small frame. A person can still have a healthy amount of lean body mass for their size and have a low, but not too low bf% and be at a low weight. It just sometimes seems like people don't know that. The point is that we are all different (all you have to do is look around at people to see that).

holothuroidea

How accurate is the WHR, though?

I have a typical hourglass figure, and my WHR is 0.76.

That's not the full picture, though. My BF% is 27-28. If you looked at just my arms and legs, you'd estimate my BF% at 20 at the most. That's how much of my weight I carry in my midsection, literally almost all of it. So am I at risk because I carry all my weight in my midsection, or am I safe because of the way it's distributed there?

An hourglass shape doesn't carry most weight in the waist. It's carried there the least. The definition of hourglass is bigger on top and bottom with a narrow middle (like an hourglass)

You sound more like an apple shape, and as unfair as it may seem, carrying more weight in your waist raises your risk of disease. Mother Nature isn't very fair.

The definition of an hourglass shape is pretty loose. I've seen it defined as a 10 inch difference between waist and hips, or a WHR between 6.5 and 7.5. I'm definitely not an apple. I'm an hourglass with stick figure arms and legs! But, that's not really the point.

I know carrying more weight in the midsection increases disease risk, that was my point. My WHR says I'm not at risk when I probably am.

I don't think ANY of these numbers give a complete picture.

bcattoes

How accurate is the WHR, though?

I have a typical hourglass figure, and my WHR is 0.76.

That's not the full picture, though. My BF% is 27-28. If you looked at just my arms and legs, you'd estimate my BF% at 20 at the most. That's how much of my weight I carry in my midsection, literally almost all of it. So am I at risk because I carry all my weight in my midsection, or am I safe because of the way it's distributed there?

As for how accurate WHR is, it depends on what you mean. There is no single number or measurement that indicates "healthy". You can have BMI, WHR, BF, lipids, BP, etc. all in the healthy range and still contract disease. Or you could have many of those in the unhealthy range and be disease free.

These are all just things that put you at an increased risk. There are no guarantees.

bcattoes

The definition of an hourglass shape is pretty loose. I've seen it defined as a 10 inch difference between waist and hips, or a WHR between 6.5 and 7.5. I'm definitely not an apple. I'm an hourglass with stick figure arms and legs! But, that's not really the point.

I know carrying more weight in the midsection increases disease risk, that was my point. My WHR says I'm not at risk when I probably am.

WHR has nothing to with hourglass vs pear vs apple shape. But it does have to do with disease risk. Why do you think your midsection is too big if you are an hourglass shape with a healthy WHR?

latichiam

I feel like you know your body. If you feel your goal weight makes you feel good and your stats look good at that weight then your fine. I'm 5'2" my Dr. said I should be about 119, I asked by who's standards? Although i'm short my goal weight is 135-150 pounds. I don't want to be skinny, I like meat on my bones. Reach your goals and feel good about it. :flowerforyou:

CoachReddy

How accurate is the WHR, though?

I have a typical hourglass figure, and my WHR is 0.76.

That's not the full picture, though. My BF% is 27-28. If you looked at just my arms and legs, you'd estimate my BF% at 20 at the most. That's how much of my weight I carry in my midsection, literally almost all of it. So am I at risk because I carry all my weight in my midsection, or am I safe because of the way it's distributed there?

Hun if your BMR, WHR and body fat are all in "bad" ranges... at some point its probably not that all the metrics are off...

My BMI is in the "healthy" range, so is my WHR and so is my BF%.

So what are you talking about, sweetie pie?

Wait waist to hip or waist to height?

bring7

I finally got into the "normal" range. I'm 6'0", male and 43. I have now found that I can't find 31x36 jeans ANYWHERE, so yes, BMI is a joke when they don't make clothes that fit you when you reach what is "normal". I read somewhere Lebron James is considered obese by BMI, so there's that too.

Tricep_A_Tops

I finally got into the "normal" range. I'm 6'0", male and 43. I have now found that I can't find 31x36 jeans ANYWHERE, so yes, BMI is a joke when they don't make clothes that fit you when you reach what is "normal". I read somewhere Lebron James is considered obese by BMI, so there's that too.

I agree 100%

CoachReddy

I finally got into the "normal" range. I'm 6'0", male and 43. I have now found that I can't find 31x36 jeans ANYWHERE, so yes, BMI is a joke when they don't make clothes that fit you when you reach what is "normal". I read somewhere Lebron James is considered obese by BMI, so there's that too.

They make clothes that would fit you here in NYC. Just not in most places in America where there's no reason for the Target to have them in stock.

As for LBJ, read the thread.

breeshabebe

How many obese people actually have a "bigger build" and how many just think they do because they've always been overweight? I ask because im seeing a trend...

I agree with alot of what your saying... but, likewise, you are speaking from your own perspective. You look like a smaller framed guy... so being large framed sounds like an excuse... but there are legit people with large frames- not just overweightness.
I agree that it depends on where you are/who your with as to what "common" opinion. My mom is overweight and got all stressed out looking when I told her that I hoped to fit into her clothes by the end of the year. She said that I would look sickly at her size because of my bone structure.... She weighs about 175lbs lol. I've heard these comments alot, as I have been big my whole life... and it wasn't until I moved to 3rd world country that I realized that my perception was totally wrong.
I, personally, like the BMI calculators that take frame size into consideration.

Mimoki

I feel like you know your body. If you feel your goal weight makes you feel good and your stats look good at that weight then your fine. I'm 5'2" my Dr. said I should be about 119, I asked by who's standards? Although i'm short my goal weight is 135-150 pounds. I don't want to be skinny, I like meat on my bones. Reach your goals and feel good about it. :flowerforyou:

true that I hear you! Everyone's body is built differently and as long as your healthy and happy forget everything else.

darcyrose_texas

How accurate is the WHR, though?

I have a typical hourglass figure, and my WHR is 0.76.

That's not the full picture, though. My BF% is 27-28. If you looked at just my arms and legs, you'd estimate my BF% at 20 at the most. That's how much of my weight I carry in my midsection, literally almost all of it. So am I at risk because I carry all my weight in my midsection, or am I safe because of the way it's distributed there?

Just curious, what are your measurements? I consider myself an "almost" hourglass and I am 38-29-38. Almost ALL of my extra weight goes to my thighs, but not as much to my midsection.

winchestervol63

Seems to me the most obvious problem with BMI is that it entirely ignores the BF% and musculature when classifying people.

It's clearly a questionable for a system to consider the desired male and female weights to be identical for a given height, as an example.

A system that assumes a 6' 180 man and a 6'0 180 lb woman are pretty much exactly the same with respect to body composition and health matters related to it is very much flawed, in my opinion. And it's not just man/woman, but there are also natural variations in musculature among members of each sex that can be very significant as well.

Let's face it, BMI is an extremely simple model and all extremely simple models of complex situations often wind up falling short. It's a guidelines only and it's usefulness is limited by it's extreme simplicity.

biddy81

So, the upshot is, nobody agrees. If the BMI works for you, then you feel people who think it doesn't work are in denial. In the end, it's just another number and you can only let it control you so much, along with all the judgement and condescension from people who know it all. Figure out where you feel good, and don't worry more than that. Life is far too short to aspire to numbers somebody thought up to apply to EVERYONE.

CoachReddy

How many obese people actually have a "bigger build" and how many just think they do because they've always been overweight? I ask because im seeing a trend...

I agree with alot of what your saying... but, likewise, you are speaking from your own perspective. You look like a smaller framed guy... so being large framed sounds like an excuse... but there are legit people with large frames- not just overweightness.
I agree that it depends on where you are/who your with as to what "common" opinion. My mom is overweight and got all stressed out looking when I told her that I hoped to fit into her clothes by the end of the year. She said that I would look sickly at her size because of my bone structure.... She weighs about 175lbs lol. I've heard these comments alot, as I have been big my whole life... and it wasn't until I moved to 3rd world country that I realized that my perception was totally wrong.
I, personally, like the BMI calculators that take frame size into consideration.

Absolutely true on all accounts, and thats a completely valid point, but when every single person that doesnt like BMI says it's because they're big boned, something's gotta give. 67% of Americans don't all simply have large frames... there's more to it.

Mock_Turtle

I didn't realize there were so many weekend Lebron's and Ray Lewis's out there.

You guys must be BEASTS!

I mean obviously the formula has some limitations around the margins but on the whole, when looking at the entire population it is not unreasonable. Especially when you look at the average BMI of a population over time.

As for how many people are at the margins - what, at best 10% of the public lifts weights on a regular basis and/or is a super tall MF'r? And of the 10% that lift, there's still a lot of people who aren't built like tanks.

_noob_

I just think guys who have muscular builds and are still under a BMI of 25 are still just piss ants, but that's me...

LiftAllThePizzas

I think it's mostly that we are now surrounded by a majority of overweight people so if you are smaller you look out of place.

That pretty much sums up the whole thread. Peoples' perceptions are skewed. Their definition of "normal" weight is based on what is "normal" around them, not based on what is actually healthy. Just because it's normal for everyone to be fat doesn't mean it's healthy.

darcyrose_texas

http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus

If anyone is interested, this BMI caculator takes more into account that just height and weight. According to this BMI calculator, I am at the high end of healthy instead of overweight like other ones tell me.

StacieHof

For me being 5'3" tall, my lowest healthy BMI would be 105lbs, and my highest healthy BMI would be 140lbs.

At my lowest weight I was 125lbs and I looked almost skeletal. My husband used to tease me about spaghetti arms, I had some weight in my hips and butt, but just enough to look normal (any less and I'd have been shaped like a tube).

Knowing my body and how it carries weight, and how it has looked as it has changed, I think my goal weight is about 135. Last year I was down to 137 and people kept commenting on how I didn't look like I had anything left to lose and I should be careful not to get "too skinny". I'm not particularly muscular, I have strong leg muscles but my upper body is weak so I'd say it balances out to an average amount of muscle.

So, BMI is generally around the right range, but it is by no means the holy grail of healthy weight. If I were solidly in the middle of my ideal BMI I'd be around 125, and, as I mentioned above, that didn't look so great on me. I'd rather look like a woman and have some curves and fat in the right places, as long as I'm healthy, so I'm shooting for 135.

I'm 5' 3" you can see a picture from Easter I weigh around 119 lbs. I have a 25" waist and 35" hips, I think that is curvy and my husband agrees and prefers me this way. At 130 lbs I am just fat and unhealthy...we all are shaped different so a lower weight does not mean you look less like a woman. At 135 you are in the range of a healthy BMI for our height and respect that you would like to stay there. I do think BMI works for MOST as a general guideline.

BinaryPulsar

http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus

If anyone is interested, this BMI caculator takes more into account that just height and weight. According to this BMI calculator, I am at the high end of healthy instead of overweight like other ones tell me.

Hmm, well I have a 23 inch waist and my pants size is 24, but this calculator only goes as low as 28, so it does not seem to account for people with a very small frame (as usual).

darcyrose_texas

http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus

If anyone is interested, this BMI caculator takes more into account that just height and weight. According to this BMI calculator, I am at the high end of healthy instead of overweight like other ones tell me.

Hmm, well I have a 23 inch waist and my pants size is 24, but this calculator only goes as low as 28, so it does not seem to account for people with a very small frame (as usual).

Really? Huh. When I was looking at it, I thought I saw that the pants sizes went down to 0. (They were in misses sizes versus waist sizes.)

BinaryPulsar

http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus

If anyone is interested, this BMI caculator takes more into account that just height and weight. According to this BMI calculator, I am at the high end of healthy instead of overweight like other ones tell me.

Hmm, well I have a 23 inch waist and my pants size is 24, but this calculator only goes as low as 28, so it does not seem to account for people with a very small frame (as usual).

Really? Huh. When I was looking at it, I thought I saw that the pants sizes went down to 0. (They were in misses sizes versus waist sizes.)

Maybe I clicked male instead of female. LOL. :laugh: I'll try again. Thanks!

Mimoki

where i live, people tend to not be overweight and I still look normal around them...

breeshabebe

http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus

If anyone is interested, this BMI caculator takes more into account that just height and weight. According to this BMI calculator, I am at the high end of healthy instead of overweight like other ones tell me.

Hmm, well I have a 23 inch waist and my pants size is 24, but this calculator only goes as low as 28, so it does not seem to account for people with a very small frame (as usual).

http://www.webcalcsolutions.com/Health-Calculators/Full-Body-Analysis.asp?AcctNum=3

Try this one

holothuroidea

As for how accurate WHR is, it depends on what you mean. There is no single number or measurement that indicates "healthy". You can have BMI, WHR, BF, lipids, BP, etc. all in the healthy range and still contract disease. Or you could have many of those in the unhealthy range and be disease free.

These are all just things that put you at an increased risk. There are no guarantees.

I made that distinction in my first post but you probably missed it, it was a while ago.

WHR has nothing to with hourglass vs pear vs apple shape. But it does have to do with disease risk. Why do you think your midsection is too big if you are an hourglass shape with a healthy WHR?

So, WHR has nothing to do with how you're shaped? Hmm... lol.

My midsection isn't too big, it's just that the fat percentage of my midsection is proportionally large compared to my limbs. There's nothing wrong with that except that it puts me in higher risk categories for cardiovascular disease, etc. I think I am healthy, and my weight is fine. I'm just challenging the usefulness of these numbers based on how they apply to me. I understand that, statistically, they apply to most people.

It was just a random thought I had.

Wait waist to hip or waist to height?

Waist to hip, sugar pumpkin.

Just curious, what are your measurements? I consider myself an "almost" hourglass and I am 38-29-38. Almost ALL of my extra weight goes to my thighs, but not as much to my midsection.

38-31-41, with chicken legs. My thighs are very thin.