Your take on BMI

Well, it was developed between 1830 and 1850 and they still use it. :noway: I think they could come up with something a little more accurate.

Unfortunately, my employer is using it as our insurance premium guideline. Which means for me to get to the best premium, I will need to get to 164 Lbs. The nutritionist I talked to, told me that was an unrealistic goal with my lean mass. I can choose to do a body fat test that will give me an adjusted BMI, but I don't know if it would be worth it for the extra $50 insurance savings. The body fat test would probably cost me about that, so I wouldn't be saving much.

We had a similar requirement until a year ago. Actually, it meant that you couldn't participate in the 80/20 plan though you would still be covered by the 70/30 plan. Now the restriction for the 80/20 plan is that you cannot smoke or use tobacco. But unlike the year before where, if you met the health requirements to have the 80/20 plan provided, you could have it provided at no cost, this year having ihealth insurance for no additional premium cost is ONLY the 70/30 plan.

The BMI threshold for participation was a value of 40 (although I think they were initally consider a value of 35 as the demarcation.

It doesn't take muscle into consideration, just height and weight.....so it's crap...

OMG, I love this!!!

Has anyone already mentioned that it was a created by a psychologist for a specific study, where he himself said, "This shouldn't be used as a measure of health"?

True, but then overweight doesn't mean unhealthy neither. Just because you are over or underweight doesn't mean that you are sick, it just means that the risks are higher, and that you have a higher chance of becoming "unhealthy". It still leaves you being overweight or underweight...or obese. You could be obese and not suffer from any complications...yet. But your chances of getting sick, or unhealthy dramatically increases.

Just like being in the normal BMI scale doesn't mean that you're healthy (for all we know, you could be dying of cancer at a normal BMI)..

Has anyone already mentioned that it was a created by a psychologist for a specific study, where he himself said, "This shouldn't be used as a measure of health"?

True, but then overweight doesn't mean unhealthy neither. Just because you are over or underweight doesn't mean that you are sick, it just means that the risks are higher, and that you have a higher chance of becoming "unhealthy". It still leaves you being overweight or underweight...or obese. You could be obese and not suffer from any complications...yet. But your chances of getting sick, or unhealthy dramatically increases.

Just like being in the normal BMI scale doesn't mean that you're healthy (for all we know, you could be dying of cancer at a normal BMI)..

Oh, I know that; I'm just pointing it out since it's always rather fascinating to note that a psychologist created BMI.

BMI is yet another gubmint "one-size-fits-all "cure" for everything. And we all know how often they are correct.
According to BMI 100% of NFL, NBA, and MLB players are overweight or obese. Only professional marathoners don't fall into being overweight.
Most Army airborne are overweight according to BMI.
At my son's last physical, the nurse didn't wait until he was standing straight to record his 6'4" height and wrote 6'3" instead. That resulted in an "overweight" BMI even though he is thin by any objective standard.
As for me, I know I'm overweight. I have never had a problem seeing myself as overweight or fat. My problem was seeing myself as fat when I weighed 155 pounds at 6' tall.

I don't believe that 100% of MLB baseball players would measure obese. I doubt 100% would even measure overweight. All MLB players are not that muscular or fat. But some NFL, probably some MLB and NBA players are overweight/obese. Those linebackers may be good at what they do, but many have an unhealthy amount of fat on their bodies.

Also, I don't know how "fat" you were at 6 ft tall and 155, but your BMI would not be anywhere near the overweight category. At 6 ft you'd have to weigh 184 lbs to be categorized as overweight (BMI > 25).

Well, it was developed between 1830 and 1850 and they still use it. :noway: I think they could come up with something a little more accurate.

They have, its called a DEXA scan, which measures your body fat %, but you need some expensive gear to measure that accurately. So BMI still ends up being affordable/reliable....and given that its still used nearly 200 years later, proves that it is quite more accurate than some believe.

So what would you say to someone whose measurements are healthy, (a woman with a waist under 30 etc...) but whose BMI is 26? Technically, I'm overweight, but I look a lot better than some of my friends who have a normal BMI...

Stop comparing yourself to the rest of society. Remember, 60% of adults are overweight or obese..and just because your friend told you she has a "healthy" BMI, doesn't mean that she is being truthful... and your waist might be smaller than 30, but what about your hips, and elsewhere? Are you carrying too much weight somewhere else? I'd say, it probably wouldn't hurt to lose 10 lbs. Then you'd KNOW that you're in a healthy weight range.

Check out some women bodybuilders - for example, Jamie Eason, she is 5ft2 and 108lbs.... that is FAR FAR FAR from being near the overweight..and she's lots of muscle! ...so, even bodybuilders (esp of the female kind) fall within the BMI norms.

*shrugs* Hips are forty. But I'm not aware of a health standard for hips so I didn't put it down. I know how much she weighs because we play sports and got physicals at the same time. But fair enough. I'm planning to lose ten more pounds anyway. Def. wouldn't hurt. .

Also, I don't know how "fat" you were at 6 ft tall and 155, but your BMI would not be anywhere near the overweight category. At 6 ft you'd have to weigh 184 lbs to be categorized as overweight (BMI > 25).

My mental image was "fat." Though everyone around me saw someone that looked underweight. Distorted body image was a struggle for most of my life.
I like the steady weight loss I am doing now as opposed to "express loss" because it is giving my brain time to adapt my mental image to my actual size.
My current goal weight is just under what BMI calls overweight. As I get closer to that weight I hope to be able to adjust based on a more realistic body image.
I still have 65# to go. But my wife already said my legs are skinny. I guess I get that from my father. So maybe adding an extra leg day will help in that department. One of my goals has been to get my torso proportional to my arms and legs.

BMI is used by the insurance industry as a measure of overall wellness. However it should not be used as an indicator for: athletes, younger people, older people....athletes should be obvious...Lebron James is 275 and 6'8 and is grotesquely obese according to the indicators and yet is about 6% body fat....younger people change so rapidly they cannot use the height/weight ratio as an indicator so they have to use a percentile rank...above 95percentile you are obese, 85to 95 percentile you are overweight....for kids, you need height, weight, the age and date the measure was taken to get the percentile.... For older people (70+), there is more fat just under the skin for insulation and even the body fat indicators are not a great measure of overall wellness.

lol looks like i'm the only one who obsesses over it
i love referring to the bmi calculator as guidance ! ..but i know that you cant just let a bmi tell you if your overweight.