Your take on BMI
Replies
-
Don't hate me, but I think a lot of people sell themselves short when it comes to achieving the normal BMI range if they are over weight.
If you would have asked me what kind of frame I had at 215, I definitely would have said large. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to get to the weight I am now, at all. I just took it one day at a time, tracking my food and eating more fruits and veggies, and less processed carbs.
So ask me now at 125, and I would tell I have a small frame.
When it comes to goal weight, I just took mine one day at a time. Had I plateau'd at 150, I would have been okay with it, knowing where i had come from - that would have put me smack dab in the middle of mine.
I maintain on 2000 calories a day on average, and am 5'9". This is just where my body wants to be.0 -
I think BF% is a much better tool. BMI doesn't account for your frame either. I have a small frame and a BMI of 17.2 but I don't think I'm underweight.0
-
BMI = TBS (total bull *kitten*)
Not really BS - it's a simple tool to measure height/weight ratio. That it get mis-used by being applied to individuals instead of populations isn't really the fault of the tool.
It's like using a hammer to drive in a screw instead of using a screwdriver. A tool being used for something it wasn't designed for.
Insurance companies use it (mis-use it) so they can charge more money. So it works for them!!
I totally agree, but given that its misuse is so institutionalised now I maintain my stance. If the only thing a hammer was ever used for was driving in a screw, then I'd say it was a useless tool....
One of my biggest pet peeves about the BMI has been illustrated by a few people in this thread. There is an underlying acceptance that the BMI is always an indicator of underlying health issues, IT ISN"T. There is also an assumption, despite all credible, logical and historical evidence to the contrary, that people who don't like the BMI are just fatties making excuses. It is not just 'Arnies' who are incorrectly classified by the BMI. The more worrying issue is that it notoriously misclassifies small people with little msucle as being 'normal' or 'healthy' who actually have an unhealthy amount of fat.
.... what ?
What to which part?0 -
How is everyone who is touting body fat percentage as the best measurement measuring their body fat accurately? I've tried the army body fat calculator, calipers, and a body fat scale, and I'm STILL not sure what my exact body fat measurement is. I've gotten measurements everywhere from 12% to 19%, with the average around 17%... How is that useful?0
-
BMI is only useful for population studies. It's not a measure of heath.0
-
I'm overweight by my lean body mass alone. It doesn't apply to me...0
-
BMI is a total crock! There is a gentleman where I work who just had his biometric screenings completed for our health insurance. This individual is 6'7" tall and thin as a rail. He was told his BMI put him in the morbidly obese category when nothing could be further from the truth. Most times, we all want to feed him double cheeseburgers so he'll have enough weight on him to keep him warm in the winter months. So yes...in my opinion BMI is bull!0
-
It doesn't take muscle into consideration, just height and weight.....so it's crap...
Exactly!0 -
How is everyone who is touting body fat percentage as the best measurement measuring their body fat accurately? I've tried the army body fat calculator, calipers, and a body fat scale, and I'm STILL not sure what my exact body fat measurement is. I've gotten measurements everywhere from 12% to 19%, with the average around 17%... How is that useful?
I'd like to see a reply to this as well. I used 2 calulations and one said 26% and the other said 30% (and the one that said 26% said that 30% and over was obese but the other said 30% was average for my age - 46 and weight 143 height just shy of 5'7" - also i wear a size 6 so i'm not overweight).0 -
How is everyone who is touting body fat percentage as the best measurement measuring their body fat accurately? I've tried the army body fat calculator, calipers, and a body fat scale, and I'm STILL not sure what my exact body fat measurement is. I've gotten measurements everywhere from 12% to 19%, with the average around 17%... How is that useful?
I have hydrostatic tests usually, plus the odd DEXA, plus eyeballing. It does not matter what your exact BF% tbh is as long as it is a good approximation as none will be totally accurate.0 -
How is everyone who is touting body fat percentage as the best measurement measuring their body fat accurately? I've tried the army body fat calculator, calipers, and a body fat scale, and I'm STILL not sure what my exact body fat measurement is. I've gotten measurements everywhere from 12% to 19%, with the average around 17%... How is that useful?
I've used a DXA scan in the past... accurate but cost prohibitive.0 -
I use it as a guideline only. I just want it to say im a normal weight. I just moved from obese to overweight and felt great about it. However it varies individually. I knew an older woman who was very healthy looking...maybe even on the underweight side...but her BMI actually said she was overweight!! Same with my uncle. I say go ahead and use it as a guide, but dont get hung up on it. Its not completely accurate for everyone.0
-
It doesn't take muscle into consideration, just height and weight.....so it's crap...
Arni is 6'2" and was 235 and you know what, he took a lot of roids. To get like that body builder, someone would have to take a lot of roids too, so many you would think it would kill them but it doesn't. If BMI is crap, that pic is even more crap.0 -
Based on statistics alone, the applicability of BMI is normal distributed. This means it is within its range of accuracy for 95% of people. I think our perceptions are off if we think anything else.
the 5% of people for whom BMI does not apply are extremely ectomorph body types (very hard to gain fat OR muscle, the "thin as a rail" type) and muscled people (LBM puts them above a normal BMI). Most people do not fall into either of these categories.
BMI alone is not a sufficient gauge of health. It has to be used in conjunction with other tools, such as heart-rate tests under stress, distribution of body fat, strength compared to body weight etc (yes, BF% too, but that one is hard to measure) for accuracy.0 -
How is everyone who is touting body fat percentage as the best measurement measuring their body fat accurately? I've tried the army body fat calculator, calipers, and a body fat scale, and I'm STILL not sure what my exact body fat measurement is. I've gotten measurements everywhere from 12% to 19%, with the average around 17%... How is that useful?
I've used a DXA scan in the past... accurate but cost prohibitive.
I think calipers, used by someone who knows what they are doing, who can take measurements in multiple places on your body, can be fairly accurate. My nutritionist took my measurements with calipers on body fat percentage and she checked 4 different places on my body - a lot more accurate than the "machine" -- where you hold it between your hands she said could have a 4 point/percent variation.
That being said, I think it's hard to use any one number as the end-all be-all standard for your health... there are certain visual cues like how your clothes feel/fit etc that have to be considered.
I know both my BMI and BFP went down with a good exercise and nutrition plan over six months of time - in the end the "number" IMO can only be meaningful within the context of your goals and as part of a bigger picture.0 -
It can be used as one of many tools, but I don't like it. As others said, it can be good when you're bigger. According to it, I'm in the overweight section. I do body fat and measurements as a more accurate measure. I don't even take much notice of what the scales say anymore either.
Mel
What she said. I'm classified as overweight, but my body fat % is in the ideal range. And since I have higher than average muscle mass, most people would guess my weight is lower than what it is. In fact, just today someone thought I weighed 15-20 lb less than I do (so she thought my PR lift was way more badass than it actually was lol)
That said, at my goal body fat %, I should be out of the overweight range, so it's not like its an impossible task... I just have to get a lot leaner than someone with less muscle to get the same BMI.0 -
BMI changed from 65 to 54 in 2012! Yay!!!0
-
At current, if I were to drop to 0% bodyfat I'd weigh about 200lbs. At 5'9", this is borderline obese.
It's fine for the average deskjockey who does no exercise. For anyone active, it is pretty worthless.0 -
My BMI is what got me to start losing. The place I work had one of those remote control looking BMI checkers and when I grabbed it, it said I was morbidly obese, and that hurt.
It is what got me started, I don't pay any attention to it now, I am 14% bf and still in the obese range for BMI.0 -
bmi is stupid because it doesnt take into account bone density, muscle, or bf%0
-
A few people have mentioned that BMI is not good for the "Arnie" types. While accurate, it doesn't tell the whole story either. You don't have to be a body builder for BMI to be out of whack. I am 5'9 and weight 174 which puts my BMI at 25.7, on the low end of overweight. I will probably end up being on the high end of healthy or low end of overweight no matter what I do. I work out 5 days a week and play 3-4 soccer games per week, run 5ks to warm up and run half marathons and obstacle runs several times per year. I am not really worried about my BMI and I am by no means an "Arnie" type.0
-
0
-
BMI is not the whole story, but I do find it useful for setting initial targets for my weight. Having a BMI > 30 (obese) was one of my big motivators to get on MFP and drop that weight permanently. I was in denial for a long time about how big I had gotten.
If you want a whole picture, you should look at BMI, BF%, and waist circumference.
All of that should then be looked at in context of how active the person is and their dietary intake also.0 -
lol agreed- BMI = Crap when it comes to individual purposes. It's useful for large groups of statistical data... and nothing beyond that.
Example:
I have a friend who is tall and extremely fit- like, 5% body fat or less kinda fit, and very muscular.
According to BMI, he's "obease". We laugh about it all the time.0 -
BMI is good for an average idea of how overweight or underweight a person is. But it doesn't include any special exceptions, so it isn't helpful for a lot of people.0
-
I really couldn't give a crap about people using the BMI as a tool to manage their personal goals. I have issues with people, particularly medical professionals using it as the sole indicator of someone's health. Personally it sh!ts me to tears that despite having a completely normal pregnancy, having perfect results on absolutely every test I've been given, despite being fitter and stronger than most people I know, I have to have a separate individual assessment on my ability to birth my baby in the low-risk hospital of my choosing... based on BMI alone. When I ask, can you check BF%? The answer is a flat no. Similarly when I hear stories of 3 year olds being referred to a dietician, based on BMI alone, without any other health factors, without looking at diet or lifestyle, heck without even opening their eyes and looking at the girl and seeing she's tall and broad... that sh!ts me...
It also sh!ts me whe nmy work pays for a 'health assessment' of staff which pretty much involves calculating BMI. Then based on that tells a colleague who is 28, smokes and has already had a heart attack that he is "healthy" and I am not...
Having a higher than 'normal' BMI is a loose indicator that maybe something might be wrong. It's not a diagnosis...0 -
I found it very helpful for me. It was a scqre at firat to see what i was but now im in the healthy range0
-
It says I'm healthy even though I'm large framed, and I think I have a slightly more lean mass than average.0
-
I'm overweight by my lean body mass alone. It doesn't apply to me...
I hate you. I hate you so much I want to be like you.
As far as BMI goes, it only seems relevant to your joints - at least in the individual sense. But, realistically, people that have been building muscle have likely/hopefully been slowly strengthening their entire bodies. Thus, it's only minimally relevant even in that regard.
Back when I was overweight, all my numbers (BP, cholesterol, and the like) were good, if not perfect. I asked my doctor, and he said that, as long as all my numbers were as good as they were, he didn't see the need for me to lose weight. I did so because of me.0 -
I like BMI threads, everyone is a massive bodybuilder0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions