Do BMI's seem unrealistic to anyone else?
Replies
-
To me it is all about the way I look. I hate being classified as obese on paper. It is making it hard for me to get insurance at a reasonable rate. While people who 'look' worse than me but have better numbers (bmi) aren't going to pay the same price. Side by side an insurance agent would classify me as in better health(shape) than say some of my friends. But on paper that same agent would rate me higher, therefore causing me to pay more. My issue is that insurance companies are using bmi to determine fitness and it is not true in all cases. I am overweight. Butmy blood work is really good and my numbers are where they should be. I agree. I'm going to stop beating this dead horse. This is purely financial for me. I'll bow out now.
Insurance companies assess risk, pure and simple. Your BMI puts you at-risk for certain conditions; it doesn't matter what you look like.
For example, a 20-year old male driver might be the best driver on the road. He does the speed limit, uses his turn signal, wears his seat belt, and doesn't drive recklessly. However, since he is a young male, his insurance will still be higher than a 40-year old male who speeds on occasion.
Why?
Because of risk. 20-year old males are *more likely* to get into an accident than a 40-year old male with years of experience. Therefore, because your BMI means you are *more likely* to have health issues in the future, your insurance company charges you accordingly. Just like it doesn't matter that 20-year old John uses his turn signal and doesn't speed, it doesn't matter that you look better than your co-workers who are within an ideal weight range.0 -
Basically this thread has taught me that if you're shredded you think BMI's are realistic and if you have some chub you think BMI's aren't.
:laugh:0 -
BMI doesn't care how you think you look. BMI doesn't care how you feel about the word 'obese'. It simply means that you're at a higher risk for health issues than someone with a lower BMI. You don't have to like it or agree, but that doesn't change it...
For example, professional football players - how many live to be 80, 90 or older? Very, very few. Sure they were incredibly athletic at one time, but that doesn't mean they weren't also at higher risk for disease because of their larger size, which, over time, is more taxing on the heart than a smaller person.
Really? One of the most violent sports with known significant risks of head injury is your example?
I do understand the basis of what you're saying, but using professional football players are a terrible test subject.
haha ok fair enough. it was just my example based on athletes who are huge... but you could do the same with pretty much any athletes outside of maybe tennis, soccer... and other endurance based sports.
it's a big misconception but athletic =/= healthy
I will totally agree with that and also point out that there is a huge misconception that endurance athletes =/= healthy.
that's true too, since they also put a huge strain on their cardiovascular system and do so for long periods of time.
frankly the healthiest people (Okinawans for instance) aren't professional athletes, they're just naturally athletic and engage in daily activities that keep them fit, without needing to train at an olympic level (which is actually quite damaging to the body long-term)0 -
I am only looking to move from obese to overweight on the BMI chart and then I will be happy, my "ideal" weight will be way to low for me
^ what all obese people think.0 -
BMI is an OK guide, but it has some serious drawbacks. I prefer Waist to Height ratio.
-BMI is a way more complicated formula than Waist/Height.
-BMI is not as good of a predictor for health outcomes as Waist/Height.
-Different ethnicities have different health risks at the same BMI
-Skinny" people can have a good BMI, but have too much fat - usually the waist is out of balance though.
-Muscly people can have a bad BMI, but be healthy - usually the waist is OK though.
-BMI has worse relationship with health outcomes for taller people.
My goals have shifted over time to focus on gettting to a point where my waist circumference is less than half my height, instead of a poundage number.
More info: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/bmi-drawbacks-and-other-measurements
ETA: I'm fat either way it's measured, and I'd guess that when I reach a healthy waist/height ratio, I'll be in "normal" BMI range - though probably towards the top. I will also state for the record that I acknowledge that a "normal" BMI is slightly more highly correlated with healthful outcomes than an "overweight" BMI.0 -
BMI is an OK guide, but it has some serious drawbacks. I prefer Waist to Height ratio.
- BMI is a way more complicated formula than Waist/Height.
- BMI is not as good of a predictor for health outcomes as Waist/Height.
- Different ethnicities have different health risks at the same BMI
- "Skinny" people can have a good BMI, but have too much fat - usually the waist is out of balance though.
- Muscly people can have a bad BMI, but be healthy - usually the waist is OK though.
My goals have shifted over time to focus on gettting to a point where my waist circumference is less than half my height, instead of a poundage number.
More info: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/bmi-drawbacks-and-other-measurements
Maybe it's just my body shape, but I really wonder how true this is.
At my highest weight, obese by both body fat and BMI and a month post-partum, my waist-height ratio would still have told me I was "healthy."0 -
I am only looking to move from obese to overweight on the BMI chart and then I will be happy, my "ideal" weight will be way to low for me
^ what all obese people think.
When I finish month 2 of insanity and lose the 20 pounds I hope to lose and post a pic will you concede that bmi isn't always correct? I ask because at 20 pounds lighter I will still be in very high end of overweight bordering on obese. And since we aren't supposed to go by how we look only at the numbers I should be unfit and at risk of future health issues. Sound fair, since you think most of us are in denial..
0 -
Yes 5"2!! Not 5"5-5"8!!
I was considered overweight according to BMI in this pic.. BMI is not only a joke but dangerous!! I have seen countless teenage girls on here posting about trying to get under 110-115 lbs because thats where BMI says they should be and they dont have another once of fat to lose looking at their pics.Chances are your BMI is pretty accurate for you. Like others have said, unless you are very short or extremely muscular, your BMI will be realistic. I've often found that the people who dismiss the BMI as a joke or as unrealistic are the ones whose numbers tell them something they don't want to hear. You might not feel comfortable at the mid range BMI but what about the upper end of the healthy BMI?
many teenage girls SHOULD be 110-115 or below... my girlfriend is 5'2, 27 years old, and still around 110. and that's healthy for her
I'm way late to this party but I just got here and needed to point out the obvious. I'm 5'7 and when I was in high school, I played intense levels of hockey, ate like a beast and weighed 123 pounds. That put my BMI at 19 so people 5'5-5'8 aren't trying to get below 110-115 to get in a healthy BMI range, that's just ridiculous.0 -
I am only looking to move from obese to overweight on the BMI chart and then I will be happy, my "ideal" weight will be way to low for me
^ what all obese people think.
When I finish month 2 of insanity and lose the 20 pounds I hope to lose and post a pic will you concede that bmi isn't always correct? I ask because at 20 pounds lighter I will still be in very high end of overweight bordering on obese. And since we aren't supposed to go by how we look only at the numbers I should be unfit and at risk of future health issues. Sound fair, since you think most of us are in denial..
..... yeah... you'll still be at higher risk for future health issues than someone who is not overweight... correct.0 -
Yes 5"2!! Not 5"5-5"8!!
I was considered overweight according to BMI in this pic.. BMI is not only a joke but dangerous!! I have seen countless teenage girls on here posting about trying to get under 110-115 lbs because thats where BMI says they should be and they dont have another once of fat to lose looking at their pics.Chances are your BMI is pretty accurate for you. Like others have said, unless you are very short or extremely muscular, your BMI will be realistic. I've often found that the people who dismiss the BMI as a joke or as unrealistic are the ones whose numbers tell them something they don't want to hear. You might not feel comfortable at the mid range BMI but what about the upper end of the healthy BMI?
many teenage girls SHOULD be 110-115 or below... my girlfriend is 5'2, 27 years old, and still around 110. and that's healthy for her
I'm way late to this party but I just got here and needed to point out the obvious. I'm 5'7 and when I was in high school, I played intense levels of hockey, ate like a beast and weighed 123 pounds. That put my BMI at 19 so people 5'5-5'8 aren't trying to get below 110-115 to get in a healthy BMI range, that's just ridiculous.
no one said 5'5-5'8 till the poster responding to me.
i also said 'many' - not 'all'
and also there's a huge difference between, say, 13 and 19.0 -
Likewise. I could gain fifty or sixty pounds and be considered in the healthy weight range.I am tall (5'10") with a very small bone structure. I am most comfortable at the lower end of the BMI range.0 -
BMI doesn't care how you think you look. BMI doesn't care how you feel about the word 'obese'.
BMI can't be bargained with. BMI can't be reasoned with. BMI doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.0 -
BMI doesn't care how you think you look. BMI doesn't care how you feel about the word 'obese'.
BMI can't be bargained with. BMI can't be reasoned with. BMI doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
:laugh: :laugh:0 -
Yes 5"2!! Not 5"5-5"8!!
I was considered overweight according to BMI in this pic.. BMI is not only a joke but dangerous!! I have seen countless teenage girls on here posting about trying to get under 110-115 lbs because thats where BMI says they should be and they dont have another once of fat to lose looking at their pics.Chances are your BMI is pretty accurate for you. Like others have said, unless you are very short or extremely muscular, your BMI will be realistic. I've often found that the people who dismiss the BMI as a joke or as unrealistic are the ones whose numbers tell them something they don't want to hear. You might not feel comfortable at the mid range BMI but what about the upper end of the healthy BMI?
many teenage girls SHOULD be 110-115 or below... my girlfriend is 5'2, 27 years old, and still around 110. and that's healthy for her
I'm way late to this party but I just got here and needed to point out the obvious. I'm 5'7 and when I was in high school, I played intense levels of hockey, ate like a beast and weighed 123 pounds. That put my BMI at 19 so people 5'5-5'8 aren't trying to get below 110-115 to get in a healthy BMI range, that's just ridiculous.
no one said 5'5-5'8 till the poster responding to me.
i also said 'many' - not 'all'
and also there's a huge difference between, say, 13 and 19.
Yup, I was mostly addressing the poster that said 5'5-5'8. I don't see where i disagreed with anything you said!
As for the difference between 13-19 years old - obviously :P The BMI scale is for adults and as far as I know there is a separate one for children which takes age into account, where the 13 year olds would be classified.
You had used your 27-year-old girlfriend as your example of somebody 5'2 in that weight range and they had claimed to see teenagers in the 5'5-5'8 range striving for the same weight. I was providing my personal experience in that height category along with where that actually put my BMI as a teen (I stayed the same height and weight from 15-20) to show that 110-115lbs is not even in the healthy BMI range for that height.0 -
I would have to get down to 140 lbs to have a mid range BMI, that is just not realistic. I would be comfortable at 160-170 but that still puts me at overweight BMI. Are BMI a realistic measuring tool for most people?
Every proffesional Rugby player in the world is morbidly obese on their BMI. Muscle weighs more then fat! so even the most athletic and finally tuned athletes are above the recommendation!0 -
Maybe it's just my body shape, but I really wonder how true this is.
At my highest weight, obese by both body fat and BMI and a month post-partum, my waist-height ratio would still have told me I was "healthy."
No, it wouldn't. It may have told you that you have lower risk of developing obesity related disease, but waist to height ratio doesn't measure "healthy".
Healthy is an extraordinary word that can mean many things, but being the healthy range on a chart does not guarantee good health.0 -
Yes 5"2!! Not 5"5-5"8!!
I was considered overweight according to BMI in this pic.. BMI is not only a joke but dangerous!! I have seen countless teenage girls on here posting about trying to get under 110-115 lbs because thats where BMI says they should be and they dont have another once of fat to lose looking at their pics.Chances are your BMI is pretty accurate for you. Like others have said, unless you are very short or extremely muscular, your BMI will be realistic. I've often found that the people who dismiss the BMI as a joke or as unrealistic are the ones whose numbers tell them something they don't want to hear. You might not feel comfortable at the mid range BMI but what about the upper end of the healthy BMI?
many teenage girls SHOULD be 110-115 or below... my girlfriend is 5'2, 27 years old, and still around 110. and that's healthy for her
I'm way late to this party but I just got here and needed to point out the obvious. I'm 5'7 and when I was in high school, I played intense levels of hockey, ate like a beast and weighed 123 pounds. That put my BMI at 19 so people 5'5-5'8 aren't trying to get below 110-115 to get in a healthy BMI range, that's just ridiculous.
no one said 5'5-5'8 till the poster responding to me.
i also said 'many' - not 'all'
and also there's a huge difference between, say, 13 and 19.
Yup, I was mostly addressing the poster that said 5'5-5'8. I don't see where i disagreed with anything you said!
As for the difference between 13-19 years old - obviously :P The BMI scale is for adults and as far as I know there is a separate one for children which takes age into account, where the 13 year olds would be classified.
You had used your 27-year-old girlfriend as your example of somebody 5'2 in that weight range and they had claimed to see teenagers in the 5'5-5'8 range striving for the same weight. I was providing my personal experience in that height category along with where that actually put my BMI as a teen (I stayed the same height and weight from 15-20) to show that 110-115lbs is not even in the healthy BMI range for that height.
haha sorry 'bout that. totally misread what you wrote. whoops. 0 -
I think Coach Reddy is just having a difficult time understanding this because he's a small guy. BMI probably is very accurate for him, he has a small frame and even though he has muscle definition, they're not big muscles. Some people are built differently than others, two people can be the same height and one can be thicker than the other, not fat, just with larger muscle and bone structure. People are built differently, that's just a fact.
BMI calculates numbers, it doesn't take into account your build and that is the fatal flaw in it. Not everyone is going to look good in the target BMI range, some people will be too thin, some will be too fat. It's just a general guideline.0 -
I think it's realistic for me. The top of the normal category is 160's. I think yes I may be control at a higher weight but it wouldn't be healthy per say and I would still have extra load of my frame. That being said my goal weight is get in the 160's and when I get closer to that weight I may change it if I see fit.0
-
I think Coach Reddy is just having a difficult time understanding this because he's a small guy. BMI probably is very accurate for him, he has a small frame and even though he has muscle definition, they're not big muscles. Some people are built differently than others, two people can be the same height and one can be thicker than the other, not fat, just with larger muscle and bone structure. People are built differently, that's just a fact.
BMI calculates numbers, it doesn't take into account your build and that is the fatal flaw in it. Not everyone is going to look good in the target BMI range, some people will be too thin, some will be too fat. It's just a general guideline.
and you don't seem to understand that BMI has nothing to do with how you look. nothing. at all.
(additionally, it seems like you're under the impression that there were no big guys back in the 1850s when this metric was created... is that what you believe?)0 -
YESSSSSS my first roll!0
-
0 -
BMI wasn't even meant to determine a person's ideal weight anyway. It was created to be used to study a large group of people and find the average standard proportion. Then insurance companies adopted it and now it's used for something it's creator never intended.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/07/beyond_bmi.html
It's much better to go by your body fat percentage to determine your actual lean body mass and use that to calculate an appropriate weight.0 -
BMI is an OK guide, but it has some serious drawbacks. I prefer Waist to Height ratio.
- BMI is a way more complicated formula than Waist/Height.
- BMI is not as good of a predictor for health outcomes as Waist/Height.
- Different ethnicities have different health risks at the same BMI
- "Skinny" people can have a good BMI, but have too much fat - usually the waist is out of balance though.
- Muscly people can have a bad BMI, but be healthy - usually the waist is OK though.
My goals have shifted over time to focus on gettting to a point where my waist circumference is less than half my height, instead of a poundage number.
More info: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/bmi-drawbacks-and-other-measurements
Maybe it's just my body shape, but I really wonder how true this is.
At my highest weight, obese by both body fat and BMI and a month post-partum, my waist-height ratio would still have told me I was "healthy."
It does have its share of problems. I currently have a BMI of 19.3 and my waist-height ratio borders on unhealthy for an adult female. I have a relatively short back for my height and a shorter than average gap between my ribs and hip bones, so there isn't room for much for a well defined waist. Still, I think the waist-height ratio is a better health guide for me than BMI when I'm heavy. Any excess fat goes mostly to my midsection, where it's at its most dangerous, and the waist-height ratio raises a red flag long before BMI does. At my highest weight I had a 38.5" waist, sleep apnea and assorted other problems associated with obesity, and didn't qualify as obese by the BMI standard.0 -
study at Michigan State University looked at BMI as a predictor of percentage fat in college athletes and nonathletes and found that two-thirds of male athletes and one-third of female athletes fell into the category for overweight. They concluded that "BMI should be used cautiously when classifying fatness in college athletes and nonathletes."
Another study looked at gold medal winners from the 2004 Olympics in Athens, and determined that based on published height and weight at least 15 athletes would be classified as overweight or even obese.
Others looked at professional athletes. LeBron James, 2009 NBA MVP, would be considered overweight based on the BMI scale. Peyton Manning, ten times selected to the Pro Bowl and MVP of Superbowl XLI would also be considered overweight. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that "highly trained athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness0 -
study at Michigan State University looked at BMI as a predictor of percentage fat in college athletes and nonathletes and found that two-thirds of male athletes and one-third of female athletes fell into the category for overweight. They concluded that "BMI should be used cautiously when classifying fatness in college athletes and nonathletes."
Another study looked at gold medal winners from the 2004 Olympics in Athens, and determined that based on published height and weight at least 15 athletes would be classified as overweight or even obese.
Others looked at professional athletes. LeBron James, 2009 NBA MVP, would be considered overweight based on the BMI scale. Peyton Manning, ten times selected to the Pro Bowl and MVP of Superbowl XLI would also be considered overweight. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that "highly trained athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness
/facepalm0 -
BMI alone cannot determine risk for anything. The only thing a high BMI can determine is that a person has a high BMI.
Do insurance companies use BMI in calculating risk? Yes, but NOT alone, ever. They use many factors in addition to BMI such as complete measurements of height, weight, waist/chest/hip circumference, lifestyle, exercise, education, medical history and more.
They KNOW from all research that BMI alone cannot determine risk, and insurance companies do their best to be very competitive. If they relied solely on BMI for risk determination they'd quickly go bankrupt because nobody would buy their policies.
As an example, I'm a 47 year old diagnosed diabetic with a family history of heart disease and a BMI (today) of 29.4 which is the very high-end of obese. Last week I was classified obese by BMI. Yet at 6'3" tall and basically 'obese' by BMI standards I have a waist of 36", and it will go down to 34-35" when I finish this diet phase.
If BMI and my diabetes diagnosis alone determined my risk, my life insurance policy would be damned expensive. Yet I have a fairly substantial policy (I'm the major breadwinner in a family of 5 with a 5 bedroom home, need a decent policy) that's dirt-cheap BECAUSE of my actual risk.
My risk is exceptionally low (and thus a major policy 'dirt-cheap' because my BMI, diabetes diagnosis and family history means practically nothing when risk is calculated based on my waist circumference, true bodyfat %, fitness level, blood work (my glucose is not only controlled, but better than many people NOT diagnosed with diabetes and my cholesterol ratio and HDL:Trig ratio is superior to 95% of the population), and other lifestyle factors.
From a cardiology standpoint - not insurance, we KNOW that both BMI and waist-circumference combined are a better indicator of risk than BMI alone and the recommendations published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reflect this. In fact, the recommendations are based on research that tells us using BMI alone misses a massive subset of at-risk patients - those with normal BMI who are still (in bodyfat percentages) obese.
"If all we do is the BMI measurement, we may be missing a subset of patients who have a low BMI but are centrally obese, and we'd be neglecting the opportunity to identify and counsel and treat these patients who would be at increased risk of dying,"
Regardless of in medical/health-care fields or the insurance business, BMI is simply NOT used as a determination of health or risk, period. Any belief it would be is based in ignorance.0 -
Wow, what an extremely scientific, highly-researched and logically presented rebuttal./facepalm0 -
Wow, what an extremely scientific, highly-researched and logically presented rebuttal./facepalm
i'm getting a little tired of you0 -
Why, because I post well-researched, accurate statements? Perhaps you should learn to admit when you're wrong, and accept it.i'm getting a little tired of you
If, however, I'm misinterpreting what you say - then I do apologize.
If you're saying, however, that BMI alone is an indicator of being medically overweight - I stand firm in the fact that it is not.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