BMI - how much do you depend on your BMI #
Replies
-
BMI is crap, get some calipers to be most accurate. My BMI considers me obese, but I actually am at 12% BF and fairly muscular.0
-
I don't pay attention to that number at all.0
-
Do you think the BMI is a good indication of a healthy weight? I know I have a muffin - top I'm working on it, but what do you think about the standards for the BMI?
I think the standards for BMI are good when used as they were meant to be used, which is a population based evaluator. On an individual level it is valuable as an easy and quick way check for a weight related red flag. But to really determine if weight is an issue on the individual level other factors need to be considered.
It is unfortunate that a number of insurance companies and clinicians have begun using it alone as an indicator of health for individuals.0 -
BMI is only flawed if you have a lot of lean muscle mass (athletes or body builders) or don't want to believe what it tells you. It's based on a weight to height ratio and your risk of health issues because of that. If you're BMI is overweight then you're carrying too much weight somewhere.
We got into this discussion last week. It's not how you perceive that you look, it's based on medical issues. You may think you look great at a higher BMI but you will still present with higher health risks because of your weight.
Sorry but BMI really is useless. As has been said (several times above) it was never intended for individual weight measurements. It was for evaluating populations where differences in frame size and muscularity are averaged out. Whilst I hesitate to use wikipedia as a reference it does cover this quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
nah it's not useless, it's a guideline. does it fit everyone? no. but does it fit most people? yep.
the majority of people who don't like BMI are the people who are considered "obese" by its scale. shocking? not really. just because you don't like the result, doesn't make the test inaccurate.
I see we're doomed to have a love hate relationship...
I'm easily dismissed because I fall into the BMI category of obese and I don't agree with how it's being used. But, the statistician who developed the equation intended for population analysis. It doesn't translate well to individual use; it can apply some generalizations, but it's not exact.
It's kind of like using a HRM while lifting weights. The algorithm just wasn't meant to be used that way, and so the calculation is off. You could use it as a rough estimate, but it really just doesn't work well.
Do I still wonder what my BMI is as I lose weight, sure, but I'm not going to let it define me. I'll ask my doctor to run tests if I'm worried about specific diseases I might be at risk for. I don't think it should be used as it is (in schools for example, kids are being labeled as "fat" based on BMI and parents are being sent letters informing them of such with suggested diet plans).
haha nah don't worry, I actually agree with the general idea of what you said here. it's not perfect, it's not exact, and the fact that it's used regarding insurance and the like is a bit ridiculous.
however, it's still a decent GUIDELINE that hasn't been prone to changes in the societal perception of what's "normal". in the 1850's when it was created, people were much thinner on average than they are today. There weren't as many fat people, and there also weren't as many "ripped" people. my argument is this: just because our population has changed due to societal factors, why does that mean that the metric is inherently bad? Can't it just mean that our perceptions of what's "healthy" don't gel with reality?0 -
You look amazing! I'd say the BMI guideline doesn't apply to you. According to BMI my ideal weight is about 126 pounds, but 130 - 135 is better for me. So you see, it isn't always right
0 -
BMI is crap, get some calipers to be most accurate. My BMI considers me obese, but I actually am at 12% BF and fairly muscular.
calipers are no more accurate than online calculators. most BF% measuring tools are unreliable, but you can give yourself a decent idea by always using the same method and comparing.0 -
Um, is anyone else seeing the picture I am seeing? Love handles? Where? That stomach looks toned.
I had a BMI of almost overweight when I started my journey and my stomach looked nowhere near that good.
BMI is too general and generic to base your individual goals on....0 -
It is, and always was intended as a rough method of estimating obesity in populations, but it generally is pretty accurate unless you are very heavily muscled.
I monitor my body fat as well. I can't say that there's an inconsistency. My fat percentage is low although not athlete-low, and, depending on which BMI calculation used (a new one was recently suggested), my BMI is underweight or low normal. I am not underweight. I'm 5'2".0 -
I don't even look at it anymore. I'm about 3 lbs from being "overweight" according to BMI charts. I wear a size 6 or 8 in most pants.0
-
I don't depend on my BMI at all.
My BMI says I'm overweight but my Body Fat % is in the normal range.0 -
BMI is flawed, it doesn't take into account the amount of lean muscle mass you have. A better measurement to look at would be your body fat %.
YES AND YES -- buy a caliper!0 -
I use calipers, visual, measurements, an Omron thingy and BodPod. They all give different numbers, but are consistent when used correctly and can be very good for tracking trends. I have found the right way to get my Omron to read correctly for ME (might not work for everyone). But I can get it to read anywhere from 16% to 22% by varying when, where and how I use it. I just hold it in my lap with my arms relaxed and that gets it to read what the BodPod has said twice.
I was surprised at how accurate this site has been:
http://www.foodcomputer.com/ComputeBodyFat.aspx
Darn thing nailed my last data set from the BodPod.
So, I ran a bunch of tests before I went to the BodPod tonight to guess what my BF% might be. Here are the results:
Visual: 15-18% (hard to tell because I have skin flaps where my gut used to be)
Calipers, single point: 18.78%
FoodComputer.com: 17.29%
Navy measurements: 19.49%
Omron arms out parallel: 19.3%
Omron arms in lap, relaxed: 16.9%
BodPod: 16.8%
So the data varies from 16.8% - 19.49%. But having tracked all these for 7 months, they are all trending down and the variations are very low week to week.0 -
I was surprised at how accurate this site has been:
http://www.foodcomputer.com/ComputeBodyFat.aspx
Darn thing nailed my last data set from the BodPod.
I tried that site and it measured a little lower than most readings I've had. It gave 23.33%, most readings give me 24-25%. But I also noticed that it said I was male. Thought I had checked the wrong box so tried it again, but even if I mark female, it always says male on the results. Don't know if the glitch is in the formula or just the text of the results.
I did like that it had more options for activity that most I've used though.0 -
nah it's not useless, it's a guideline. does it fit everyone? no. but does it fit most people? yep.
the majority of people who don't like BMI are the people who are considered "obese" by its scale. shocking? not really. just because you don't like the result, doesn't make the test inaccurate.
First, let's start by noting that my doctor congratulated me two weeks ago for being in the healthy range for BMI. So, I'm not one of the people who doesn't like it because I'm considered obese per BMI.
Having said that, I will say that BMI is absolutely useless for individuals. It will take a clearly fit person who happens to have large amounts of lean body mass and categorize them as overweight and/or obese. Why? Simple. As many folks have noted, BMI was created for statistically measuring large populations of people, not individuals. It has no means to adjust for differences at an individual level. All that BMI does is compare height to weight based on a statistical mean ideal derived from studying large populations. If you have taken any sort of university level statistics courses, you know just how meaningless something like that is at the individual level, rather than the population level.
I never use BMI because it's the wrong tool for measuring your individual levels of fitness and health.
Mostly, CoachReddy, you and I agree .... but not on this one.
If you want (the OP) want a good basis for judging your fitness and health levels, including obesity, etc. then I highly recommend using the Army's Physical Fitness Standards. If you meet their standards for your age group for height/weight, body fat, push-ups, sit-ups and two mile run, then I would say you can feel comfortable about your fitness.
http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards0 -
My doctors support BMI and it has been an excellent tool for me.
My goal weight is based on BMI recommendations.0 -
Your BMI is at the just barely overweight level and you have a little bit of extra fat around the midsection, to me that seems to match up?
No, it really doesn't match up. The BMI is quite flawed - and if you think the OP is overweight, you may want to rethink your standards.
good lord everyone's gonna get all pissy about a completely benign comment. the OP put her picture up and even SAID she has a muffin top she's trying to lose, yet we jump no this poster for restating what the OP already said?
she has more weight to lose by her own admission, and she's BARELY in the overweight category. makes sense to me!
this fake outrage that people are prone to these days is ridiculous. grow a thicker skin.
No -- the initial comment actually points to why the BMI IS problematic. People really do assume that, if they are in the "healthy" range they aren't going to have a lot of "fat". Thus you have all these people reaching their goal weight but not looking anywhere close to what they want to look like -- welcome to the phenomenon known as skinny fat. I had higher bf% at a lower weight that I do now at a higher weight -- you are seriously going to tell me I was better off at the lower weight? Body composition matters.
OPs abs are more toned and defined than A LOT of women's in the healthy range. If she thinks she has a muffin top whatever, but the outrage expressed at that comment has to do with people having unrealistic expectations as to what bodies in a healthy range (without paying any attention to bf%) will look like. OP could very easily shed whatever she sees as her muffin top and not lose an ounce or even gain a pound or two.0 -
Your BMI is at the just barely overweight level and you have a little bit of extra fat around the midsection, to me that seems to match up?
No, it really doesn't match up. The BMI is quite flawed - and if you think the OP is overweight, you may want to rethink your standards.
good lord everyone's gonna get all pissy about a completely benign comment. the OP put her picture up and even SAID she has a muffin top she's trying to lose, yet we jump no this poster for restating what the OP already said?
she has more weight to lose by her own admission, and she's BARELY in the overweight category. makes sense to me!
this fake outrage that people are prone to these days is ridiculous. grow a thicker skin.
I do have some 'fluff' I need to work on. I don't know how to ask the question - or if it's even a question or just something I can't stop thinking about.
Last summer I was losing weight at a rapid speed - 3-4# a week. I was probably not as fit as I am now, even at 128# I was 'thicker' than I am now, but my BMI was in the healthy range. So now I have more muscle and probably way more fit than I was last year, but yet, 'overweight'. So I maybe my question WAS/Is - are there 'ifs' to the BMI charts - and I think it's been answered when the body fat % comes into play. At 128# I was thinner but not as fit - if that makes sense. I think it's what they call, "Skinnyfat'?0 -
If you want to know if your BMI is a health risk factor, this is good site to tell you how to assess your risks.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt/risk.htm0 -
BMI is a guideline that works on most people. For my length (5'10) there's a _50 lbs_ range of a healthy weight. Let me repeat a 50 lbs range of healthy numbers my scale could show. Yes, there are some small exceptions. But if you're a body builder that's been working for probably years to build up that muscle you'll know not to look at BMI. For everyone out there that's not BMI is a nice guideline to follow.0
-
I don't even look at it anymore. I'm about 3 lbs from being "overweight" according to BMI charts. I wear a size 6 or 8 in most pants.
Why do you think because you can get yourself into a certain size it makes you not fit a category. I'm 5'2" and I wear a 4 or 6 with a BMI around 21. My daughter is 5'11" and wears a size 12 with a 21 BMI. My friend is my height and 50 lbs heavier but somehow manages to squash herself into size 8 jeans with a BMI of 30. No relevance to clothing size whatsoever.0 -
nah it's not useless, it's a guideline. does it fit everyone? no. but does it fit most people? yep.
the majority of people who don't like BMI are the people who are considered "obese" by its scale. shocking? not really. just because you don't like the result, doesn't make the test inaccurate.
First, let's start by noting that my doctor congratulated me two weeks ago for being in the healthy range for BMI. So, I'm not one of the people who doesn't like it because I'm considered obese per BMI.
Having said that, I will say that BMI is absolutely useless for individuals. It will take a clearly fit person who happens to have large amounts of lean body mass and categorize them as overweight and/or obese. Why? Simple. As many folks have noted, BMI was created for statistically measuring large populations of people, not individuals. It has no means to adjust for differences at an individual level. All that BMI does is compare height to weight based on a statistical mean ideal derived from studying large populations. If you have taken any sort of university level statistics courses, you know just how meaningless something like that is at the individual level, rather than the population level.
I never use BMI because it's the wrong tool for measuring your individual levels of fitness and health.
Mostly, CoachReddy, you and I agree .... but not on this one.
If you want (the OP) want a good basis for judging your fitness and health levels, including obesity, etc. then I highly recommend using the Army's Physical Fitness Standards. If you meet their standards for your age group for height/weight, body fat, push-ups, sit-ups and two mile run, then I would say you can feel comfortable about your fitness.
http://usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards
Totally hear you and respect where you're coming from - my argument has been this: even people with large amounts of lean muscle mass can be at higher risk for disease BECAUSE of that. this is what BMI projects - risk of illness - and a body builder with 2% body fat can absolutely have the same risk of disease as someone with 30% body fat if they fall into the same range on the BMI scale. Disease isn't caused by fat - it's caused by the heart (or other organs) having to WORK HARDER for longer periods of time than they should to keep you system operating. And my hypothesis is that BMI is an excellent prognosticator on that front. The bigger you are, the harder it has to work, the more risk there is for complications.
keep in mind, I don't know that I'm right about this, it just makes sense when you put the pieces together.
Who lives the longest? Trim, fit people like Japanese, Okinawans, etc who are neither fat NOR ripped0 -
Your BMI is at the just barely overweight level and you have a little bit of extra fat around the midsection, to me that seems to match up?
No, it really doesn't match up. The BMI is quite flawed - and if you think the OP is overweight, you may want to rethink your standards.
good lord everyone's gonna get all pissy about a completely benign comment. the OP put her picture up and even SAID she has a muffin top she's trying to lose, yet we jump no this poster for restating what the OP already said?
she has more weight to lose by her own admission, and she's BARELY in the overweight category. makes sense to me!
this fake outrage that people are prone to these days is ridiculous. grow a thicker skin.
No -- the initial comment actually points to why the BMI IS problematic. People really do assume that, if they are in the "healthy" range they aren't going to have a lot of "fat". Thus you have all these people reaching their goal weight but not looking anywhere close to what they want to look like -- welcome to the phenomenon known as skinny fat. I had higher bf% at a lower weight that I do now at a higher weight -- you are seriously going to tell me I was better off at the lower weight? Body composition matters.
OPs abs are more toned and defined than A LOT of women's in the healthy range. If she thinks she has a muffin top whatever, but the outrage expressed at that comment has to do with people having unrealistic expectations as to what bodies in a healthy range (without paying any attention to bf%) will look like. OP could very easily shed whatever she sees as her muffin top and not lose an ounce or even gain a pound or two.
I'm aware that body comp matters. you can have a good body comp AND be in the healthy range. I'm 9% body fat and smack in the middle of my healthy BMI range, though I'm looking to go a little higher.0 -
My BMI at 5'2" is 25.29 putting me at 'overweight'. I wear a size 0-4 jeans depending on the brand.
My picture from this morning-
Do you think the BMI is a good indication of a healthy weight? I know I have a muffin - top I'm working on it, but what do you think about the standards for the BMI?
BMI is one of the worst POS tools for figuring out fitness and obesity. there are so many factors that aren't considered.0 -
BMI is flawed, it doesn't take into account the amount of lean muscle mass you have. A better measurement to look at would be your body fat %.
Is there a calculator to figure out body fat % ?
There are ways to get it measured that are accurate. However, they cost. You can get some less accurate measurements taken fairly easily.
You can use these simple calculators and they are pretty good but not near as good as getting it measured:
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/cbbf/
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/mbf/0 -
I don't depend on it AT ALL. I do weigh myself once a month, but monitor my body fat and measure myself twice a month. I have 26% body fat and a 28 inch waist (36 chest, 36 hips) -- I am 5'3, 150 pounds making me overweight, but I am in perfect health and wear an 8-10, which is fine with me.
If you look at the BMI, all that tells you is I need to lose 13 pounds. When I was younger and not ever working out, I weighed 140 pounds -- I wore the same size pants as I do not and my waist was only half an inch smaller -- my body fat was 31%. I was only 3 pounds over the healthy BMI range -- I can tell you for certain I look 100% better now than then.
I am definitely NOT saying I gained 10 pounds of muscle or anything (I had a baby and that gave me some bigger boobs) -- but my whole body is tighter and I do see definition in my legs, chest, and shoulders when I couldn't previously. I am much better physical shape now in terms of appearance AND fitness.
How YOU doin?0 -
[this fake outrage that people are prone to these days is ridiculous. grow a thicker skin.
Who says it is fake?0 -
Your BMI is at the just barely overweight level and you have a little bit of extra fat around the midsection, to me that seems to match up?
No, it really doesn't match up. The BMI is quite flawed - and if you think the OP is overweight, you may want to rethink your standards.
Are you and the poster above you siblings? You look familial.0 -
My BMI at 5'2" is 25.29 putting me at 'overweight'. I wear a size 0-4 jeans depending on the brand.
My picture from this morning-
Do you think the BMI is a good indication of a healthy weight? I know I have a muffin - top I'm working on it, but what do you think about the standards for the BMI?
BMI is one of the worst POS tools for figuring out fitness and obesity. there are so many factors that aren't considered.
Such as?0 -
BMI is only flawed if you have a lot of lean muscle mass (athletes or body builders) or don't want to believe what it tells you. It's based on a weight to height ratio and your risk of health issues because of that. If you're BMI is overweight then you're carrying too much weight somewhere.
We got into this discussion last week. It's not how you perceive that you look, it's based on medical issues. You may think you look great at a higher BMI but you will still present with higher health risks because of your weight.
Sorry but BMI really is useless. As has been said (several times above) it was never intended for individual weight measurements. It was for evaluating populations where differences in frame size and muscularity are averaged out. Whilst I hesitate to use wikipedia as a reference it does cover this quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
nah it's not useless, it's a guideline. does it fit everyone? no. but does it fit most people? yep.
the majority of people who don't like BMI are the people who are considered "obese" by its scale. shocking? not really. just because you don't like the result, doesn't make the test inaccurate.
I see we're doomed to have a love hate relationship...
I'm easily dismissed because I fall into the BMI category of obese and I don't agree with how it's being used. But, the statistician who developed the equation intended for population analysis. It doesn't translate well to individual use; it can apply some generalizations, but it's not exact.
It's kind of like using a HRM while lifting weights. The algorithm just wasn't meant to be used that way, and so the calculation is off. You could use it as a rough estimate, but it really just doesn't work well.
Do I still wonder what my BMI is as I lose weight, sure, but I'm not going to let it define me. I'll ask my doctor to run tests if I'm worried about specific diseases I might be at risk for. I don't think it should be used as it is (in schools for example, kids are being labeled as "fat" based on BMI and parents are being sent letters informing them of such with suggested diet plans).
haha nah don't worry, I actually agree with the general idea of what you said here. it's not perfect, it's not exact, and the fact that it's used regarding insurance and the like is a bit ridiculous.
however, it's still a decent GUIDELINE that hasn't been prone to changes in the societal perception of what's "normal". in the 1850's when it was created, people were much thinner on average than they are today. There weren't as many fat people, and there also weren't as many "ripped" people. my argument is this: just because our population has changed due to societal factors, why does that mean that the metric is inherently bad? Can't it just mean that our perceptions of what's "healthy" don't gel with reality?
I dont' think you and the people you are arguin with are speaking the same language. You are arguing about the health effects of the categories. Everyone else is mostly taking issue with the labels. Someone who is ripped and cut is not a morbidly obese person if they are hanging at the 12% bf level.
Obesity has to do with excessive body fat, and not ratios of height and weight. Therefore, the scale is not accurate for an individual because there are so many other factors involved that are not considered.
You are correct, to a point, that some of the health effects may not be eliminated because there are other issues that lead to disease. However, there are some that are fat dependent such as diabetes, and liver disease. Those are correlated with fat deposits, and even wiht how the fat is distributed. People who are apple shaped and carry their fat around their midsection are at a much greater risk of developing diabetes. Additionally, people who have a high % of abdominal fat (internal around the abdominal organs) have a higher risk of diabetes and of having a fatty liver which leads to liver disease. Generally, you will not find either of these in someone who is sitting at an 11%bf, whether or not they are classified as obese or overweight, or morbidly obese by BMI.0 -
Your BMI is at the just barely overweight level and you have a little bit of extra fat around the midsection, to me that seems to match up?
No, it really doesn't match up. The BMI is quite flawed - and if you think the OP is overweight, you may want to rethink your standards.
good lord everyone's gonna get all pissy about a completely benign comment. the OP put her picture up and even SAID she has a muffin top she's trying to lose, yet we jump no this poster for restating what the OP already said?
she has more weight to lose by her own admission, and she's BARELY in the overweight category. makes sense to me!
this fake outrage that people are prone to these days is ridiculous. grow a thicker skin.
No -- the initial comment actually points to why the BMI IS problematic. People really do assume that, if they are in the "healthy" range they aren't going to have a lot of "fat". Thus you have all these people reaching their goal weight but not looking anywhere close to what they want to look like -- welcome to the phenomenon known as skinny fat. I had higher bf% at a lower weight that I do now at a higher weight -- you are seriously going to tell me I was better off at the lower weight? Body composition matters.
OPs abs are more toned and defined than A LOT of women's in the healthy range. If she thinks she has a muffin top whatever, but the outrage expressed at that comment has to do with people having unrealistic expectations as to what bodies in a healthy range (without paying any attention to bf%) will look like. OP could very easily shed whatever she sees as her muffin top and not lose an ounce or even gain a pound or two.
I'm aware that body comp matters. you can have a good body comp AND be in the healthy range. I'm 9% body fat and smack in the middle of my healthy BMI range, though I'm looking to go a little higher.
Actually, scientifically speaking that doesn't seem to be true. One of the major criticisms of the recent study that showed people in the overweight range outlived people in the normal range (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137) was that the study itself didn't take into consideration of body composition (it didn't because duh, BMI doesn't). If nothing else, that study shows that focusing on weight alone isn't an effective tool to determine health/longevity. My point is: if your studies are showing that "overweight" people are outliving "normal" weighted people, the standard by which you are determining "overweight" is likely too narrow. Thereby making it ineffective tool.
If you are basing you assertions on a reputable, scientific study -- would love to read it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions