Do BMI's seem unrealistic to anyone else?
Replies
-
It puts your BMI at 25.1 which by point 1 is technically over weight but by a miniscule amount as Bmi is abroad brush average approach no one using the scale would say you were overweight. The scale is meant to be used with common sense and not the numbers in isolation. It is a good easy to use general guide it is not meant to be a perfect individual assessment but a general guide.<--- 5'9" 170lbs BMI lists me as overweight.0 -
It puts your BMI at 25.1 which by point 1 is technically over weight but by a miniscule amount as Bmi is abroad brush average approach no one using the scale would say you were overweight. The scale is meant to be used with common sense and not the numbers in isolation. It is a good easy to use general guide it is not meant to be a perfect individual assessment but a general guide.<--- 5'9" 170lbs BMI lists me as overweight.
I'm know that BMI is a general scale, I'm simply posting the facts provided to me by the BMI scale in order to display one shouldn't judge their physiology based solely on the BMI scale.0 -
It puts your BMI at 25.1 which by point 1 is technically over weight but by a miniscule amount as Bmi is abroad brush average approach no one using the scale would say you were overweight. The scale is meant to be used with common sense and not the numbers in isolation. It is a good easy to use general guide it is not meant to be a perfect individual assessment but a general guide.<--- 5'9" 170lbs BMI lists me as overweight.
I'm know that BMI is a general scale, I'm simply posting the facts provided to me by the BMI scale in order to display one shouldn't judge their physiology based solely on the BMI scale.
^^ Exactly right.0 -
As noted, the BMI index is a general measure of the population. This is fine and well until all the insurance companies utilize the BMI scale to set rates. Some corporations have been passing the cost onto employees that don't make the grade.
Strong healthy individuals that have a lot of lean muscle mass will be punished with higher rates because they don't fit neatly into the scale. People with an ED that are in extremely poor condition because they are underweight will be rewarded with lower insurance rates because they fit into the BMI index. It strikes me as odd to punish the healthy and reward the unhealthy.0 -
I am using one of those body fat calculators that someone posted, and I need help!
When I stick in my measurements, for my "Hips (at widest)" I plug in the measurement that goes right around my booty, and then it classifies me as obese. However, out of curiosity, I used my hip measurement that is a little higher up (like where jeans button) and with that measurement, I'm classified as Acceptable. The width of both of those measurements are the same, so the only difference is my bottom.
So which of these measurements do I use? I am very confused because one measurement has me at obese, but then I'm acceptable, and that seems like a huge jump to me!0 -
I am using one of those body fat calculators that someone posted, and I need help!
When I stick in my measurements, for my "Hips (at widest)" I plug in the measurement that goes right around my booty, and then it classifies me as obese. However, out of curiosity, I used my hip measurement that is a little higher up (like where jeans button) and with that measurement, I'm classified as Acceptable. The width of both of those measurements are the same, so the only difference is my bottom.
So which of these measurements do I use? I am very confused because one measurement has me at obese, but then I'm acceptable, and that seems like a huge jump to me!
I believe someone above stated that you are supposed to use the measurement that appears the widest from the side, and not the widest from the front, meaning you should go around your buttocks.0 -
I have a healthy BMI, my waist is 34". I wear a size 4/6 and will never have a <31 inch waist. I am just not built that way. The space between my rib cage and hip is about 1/2". You cannot cookie cutter BMI or waist measurements for everyone. There are always exceptions.
If it's not too TMI, what's your height? I'm guessing you must be a lot taller than my 5'4". When I was a size 4, my waist wasn't over 26 inches at the waistband. I'm guessing the taller you are, the sizes measure differently?
5'-5". I have very narrow hips allowing me to wear smaller sizes, not much difference between waist and hip measurements at all. I would love a 26" waist!0 -
I am using one of those body fat calculators that someone posted, and I need help!
When I stick in my measurements, for my "Hips (at widest)" I plug in the measurement that goes right around my booty, and then it classifies me as obese. However, out of curiosity, I used my hip measurement that is a little higher up (like where jeans button) and with that measurement, I'm classified as Acceptable. The width of both of those measurements are the same, so the only difference is my bottom.
So which of these measurements do I use? I am very confused because one measurement has me at obese, but then I'm acceptable, and that seems like a huge jump to me!
Well, clearly your booty is obese and everything else is fine.
Seriously, though, the first measurement you took is the accurate one.
Anyway, it probably overestimated your BF. Do both of them and take an average of the two.
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/cbbf/
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/mbf/0 -
One issue I have with using wrist measurement to determine frame size is that the wrist measurement can change as you lose/gain weight. My wrist is currently 6.75", but I know that isn't its true measurement since I have bracelets I used to wear that don't close around my wrist anymore. To get my true wrist measurement, I'd have to find a watch or bracelet I wore when I weighed 160 pounds, look for the worn-out area where the buckle/clasp used to sit, and measure that for a better approximation.
It's the same for "forearm at the elbow". I can squeeze fat in that area, and based on pictures, I know for a fact that area used to be much smaller. Even my neck has changed quite a bit. I'm wearing a choker I couldn't wear 60 pounds ago because my neck was 3" bigger. So, for me, the Met Life tables and such don't really help when it comes to frame size. I'd have to get an x-ray.
0 -
BMI doesn't figure in cup size either. I read that a woman with D or DD breasts is carrying an extra 8-10 pounds of weight. Since you can't lose weight from your breasts (once they're down to their natural size, of course), worrying about those extra few pounds isn't worth it. The only way to lose that weight would be a surgical reduction. Nobody can blame you for being heavier in the chest.
It's actually 1 lb per cup (total) So if you wear a D that's 4 extra lbs (1/2 lb per breast/cup size).
Whoops! I remembered it as per-breast, not total, so I doubled it by accident.0 -
thisHow 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. I think saying that one would look "unhealthy" at a "normal" BMI is a cop out to stay overweight and feel better about it. FTR: I'm 5'6" and 119 lbs. Low end of BMI.0 -
BMI doesn't figure in cup size either. I read that a woman with D or DD breasts is carrying an extra 8-10 pounds of weight. Since you can't lose weight from your breasts (once they're down to their natural size, of course), worrying about those extra few pounds isn't worth it. The only way to lose that weight would be a surgical reduction. Nobody can blame you for being heavier in the chest.
It's actually 1 lb per cup (total) So if you wear a D that's 4 extra lbs (1/2 lb per breast/cup size).
Whoops! I remembered it as per-breast, not total, so I doubled it by accident.
I've always thought being 5'6 at 150 would be fine if I had a size C or small chest. I'm suppose to be a max of 150lbs to be healthy, but my boobs are DD so I'm comfortable at 160. Which makes sense because that'd be 10lbs total!
0 -
One issue I have with using wrist measurement to determine frame size is that the wrist measurement can change as you lose/gain weight. My wrist is currently 6.75", but I know that isn't its true measurement since I have bracelets I used to wear that don't close around my wrist anymore. To get my true wrist measurement, I'd have to find a watch or bracelet I wore when I weighed 160 pounds, look for the worn-out area where the buckle/clasp used to sit, and measure that for a better approximation.
It's the same for "forearm at the elbow". I can squeeze fat in that area, and based on pictures, I know for a fact that area used to be much smaller. Even my neck has changed quite a bit. I'm wearing a choker I couldn't wear 60 pounds ago because my neck was 3" bigger. So, for me, the Met Life tables and such don't really help when it comes to frame size. I'd have to get an x-ray.
The elbow measurement is taken when you bend your forearm 90 degrees (compared to upper arm) and measure the distance between the two protruding bones. If you can feel the bones (as in not so obese that the bones are completely obscured by fat) I would think it would render an accurate measurement. The wrist thing I can definitely understand because people's wrists can get quite large.0 -
they are realistic unless and only unless you are a body builder with a lot of muscle.0
-
I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.0
-
I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.
You can't be serious.
You are grossly overestimating the upper body strength of the average person.
By your standards I should weigh something like 80 pounds. NOPE0 -
You're grossly underestimating what the human body is supposed to be capable of, and what "healthy" means.I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.
You can't be serious.
You are grossly overestimating the upper body strength of the average person.
By your standards I should weigh something like 80 pounds. NOPE
When's the last time you did a handstand/headstand or even tried? Do you know how much strength it does take?0 -
You're grossly underestimating what the human body is supposed to be capable of, and what "healthy" means.I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.
You can't be serious.
You are grossly overestimating the upper body strength of the average person.
By your standards I should weigh something like 80 pounds. NOPE
When's the last time you did a handstand/headstand or even tried? Do you know how much strength it does take?
LOL I can do a headstand right now! Wahooo I have arrived!0 -
Yes it is unrealistic.
It's ok for a general guideline but I don't put a lot of stock in to it.0 -
Wow, you're only 80 pounds?:laugh:
You're grossly underestimating what the human body is supposed to be capable of, and what "healthy" means.I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.
You can't be serious.
You are grossly overestimating the upper body strength of the average person.
By your standards I should weigh something like 80 pounds. NOPE
When's the last time you did a handstand/headstand or even tried? Do you know how much strength it does take?
LOL I can do a headstand right now! Wahooo I have arrived!0 -
One issue I have with using wrist measurement to determine frame size is that the wrist measurement can change as you lose/gain weight. My wrist is currently 6.75", but I know that isn't its true measurement since I have bracelets I used to wear that don't close around my wrist anymore. To get my true wrist measurement, I'd have to find a watch or bracelet I wore when I weighed 160 pounds, look for the worn-out area where the buckle/clasp used to sit, and measure that for a better approximation.
It's the same for "forearm at the elbow". I can squeeze fat in that area, and based on pictures, I know for a fact that area used to be much smaller. Even my neck has changed quite a bit. I'm wearing a choker I couldn't wear 60 pounds ago because my neck was 3" bigger. So, for me, the Met Life tables and such don't really help when it comes to frame size. I'd have to get an x-ray.
The elbow measurement is taken when you bend your forearm 90 degrees (compared to upper arm) and measure the distance between the two protruding bones. If you can feel the bones (as in not so obese that the bones are completely obscured by fat) I would think it would render an accurate measurement. The wrist thing I can definitely understand because people's wrists can get quite large.
Oh, that makes much more sense. Yes, I can feel the two bones just fine. Thank you. 0 -
You're grossly underestimating what the human body is supposed to be capable of, and what "healthy" means.
When's the last time you did a handstand/headstand or even tried? Do you know how much strength it does take?
Regardless of upper body and core strength, it also requires balance. I could do a headstand just fine when I was overweight because I have really good balance, even at this weight, but my friend still can't even though she's ripped as hell.0 -
You're grossly underestimating what the human body is supposed to be capable of, and what "healthy" means.I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.
You can't be serious.
You are grossly overestimating the upper body strength of the average person.
By your standards I should weigh something like 80 pounds. NOPE
When's the last time you did a handstand/headstand or even tried? Do you know how much strength it does take?
Look, guy, I know I'm capable of a handstand EVENTUALLY because my muscles have the ability to gain in strength. However, my ability to do a hand stand is as much dependent on my upper body strength as my weight. I'm not CURRENTLY strong enough to support even my ideal weight, and I'm not going to magically gain strength just because I loose weight.
I attempted a headstand about three weeks ago. My balance is fine, but my shoulders aren't strong enough and I was experiencing a lot of pressure on my neck because of it. I don't plan on attempting another headstand until I gain more shoulder strength.
A handstand requires enough upper body strength to support your entire weight (except your head, I guess) with your shoulders and lower back. It also requires enough core stability to balance the length of your torso and legs over your shoulders. Headstands are easier to balance because you are essentially tripod, but you should NOT do headstands unless you have the upper body strength for a handstand as well because you risk injuring your neck.
Being able to do a handstand is one of my goals, but using when I get there as a judge for my ideal weight makes exactly zero sense. If I wasn't so intent on increasing my upper body strength, I'd be shooting for 80lbs, like I said.
Not to mention the fact that many obese people have enough strength and balance to do a handstand but are still at risk for a multitude of health problems because of their weight.0 -
BMI is only used because it is easy. No where near a good identifier. Am I overweight? Yep, and I got a few pounds to lose. However every trainer I have encountered and doctor has said that the BMI is going to be off for someone with my build. Hell my trainer is Obese and he has more lean muscle than bulk muscle.
As a easy guideline, yes it works. As a accurate model it leaves much to be desired.
However we cant all afford to get body scans done so we work with what we have.0 -
LOL. I was trying to illustrate a point but I'll admit it was rather subtle.
You're grossly underestimating what the human body is supposed to be capable of, and what "healthy" means.I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.
You can't be serious.
You are grossly overestimating the upper body strength of the average person.
By your standards I should weigh something like 80 pounds. NOPE
When's the last time you did a handstand/headstand or even tried? Do you know how much strength it does take?
Look, guy, I know I'm capable of a handstand EVENTUALLY because my muscles have the ability to gain in strength. However, my ability to do a hand stand is as much dependent on my upper body strength as my weight. I'm not CURRENTLY strong enough to support even my ideal weight, and I'm not going to magically gain strength just because I loose weight.
I attempted a headstand about three weeks ago. My balance is fine, but my shoulders aren't strong enough and I was experiencing a lot of pressure on my neck because of it. I don't plan on attempting another headstand until I gain more shoulder strength.
A handstand requires enough upper body strength to support your entire weight (except your head, I guess) with your shoulders and lower back. It also requires enough core stability to balance the length of your torso and legs over your shoulders. Headstands are easier to balance because you are essentially tripod, but you should NOT do headstands unless you have the upper body strength for a handstand as well because you risk injuring your neck.
Being able to do a handstand is one of my goals, but using when I get there as a judge for my ideal weight makes exactly zero sense. If I wasn't so intent on increasing my upper body strength, I'd be shooting for 80lbs, like I said.
Not to mention the fact that many obese people have enough strength and balance to do a handstand but are still at risk for a multitude of health problems because of their weight.
Fortunately I'm not associated with beachbody so I don't need to fill another 25 pages defending my unfounded ridiculous assertion with a bunch of wishful thinking dressed up in sciency sounding language. :happy:0 -
You're grossly underestimating what the human body is supposed to be capable of, and what "healthy" means.I think a better measurement would be, "if you can't do a handstand or headstand you weigh too much." That would account for "frame size" and might make some people realize that the point of not being fat isn't just a number.
You can't be serious.
You are grossly overestimating the upper body strength of the average person.
By your standards I should weigh something like 80 pounds. NOPE
When's the last time you did a handstand/headstand or even tried? Do you know how much strength it does take?
Look, guy, I know I'm capable of a handstand EVENTUALLY because my muscles have the ability to gain in strength. However, my ability to do a hand stand is as much dependent on my upper body strength as my weight. I'm not CURRENTLY strong enough to support even my ideal weight, and I'm not going to magically gain strength just because I loose weight.
I attempted a headstand about three weeks ago. My balance is fine, but my shoulders aren't strong enough and I was experiencing a lot of pressure on my neck because of it. I don't plan on attempting another headstand until I gain more shoulder strength.
A handstand requires enough upper body strength to support your entire weight (except your head, I guess) with your shoulders and lower back. It also requires enough core stability to balance the length of your torso and legs over your shoulders. Headstands are easier to balance because you are essentially tripod, but you should NOT do headstands unless you have the upper body strength for a handstand as well because you risk injuring your neck.
Being able to do a handstand is one of my goals, but using when I get there as a judge for my ideal weight makes exactly zero sense. If I wasn't so intent on increasing my upper body strength, I'd be shooting for 80lbs, like I said.
Not to mention the fact that many obese people have enough strength and balance to do a handstand but are still at risk for a multitude of health problems because of their weight.
@serp- *snap snap snap* IN YO FACE!0 -
0
-
I've never been able to do a handstand, ever, like even as a kid. The thought of doing one scares me. I'm not a big fan of being upside down.0
-
I go away for a couple of hours and it turns into a gymnastics thread...who wouldve thought it ay0
-
'BMI doesn't figure in cup size either. I read that a woman with D or DD breasts is carrying an extra 8-10 pounds of weight. Since you can't lose weight from your breasts (once they're down to their natural size, of course), worrying about those extra few pounds isn't worth it. The only way to lose that weight would be a surgical reduction. Nobody can blame you for being heavier in the chest.
Whoever told you that you can't lose weight in your breasts once they are natural size was kidding right? All my life, even when I was 14 & skinny as hell I had big boobs. We are talking BIG. Now that I'm down to the same weight I was back then my boobs are way way way smaller than "natural" size for me. I've lost a huge amount from there.
I don't know where some people get BS from. Seriously...boobs are made of fat...once the fat goes unless you have built up the muscle under it......... ummm sorry but your getting smaller.
Well, I lost 75 pounds and half a cup size (bringing me from an 38-40H to a 32-34GG). Breasts are made of more than fat, there are also milk glands and fibrous tissue. Jeeze, I thought we all learned that in middle school. I had a golf ball sized clump of fibrous tissue removed from one breast years ago, then two others a year later. The doctor told me at that point that my breasts had a lot of fibrous tissue and "some people have more than others" which is why I kept developing these lumps of fibrous tissue, not lumps of fat, mind you, lumps of fibrous tissue. Fibroids are very common and some women have more fibrous tissue in their breasts than others.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions