New BMI formula. Good news for some..

24

Replies

  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    It doesn't look much different for me, maybe because I'm average height.
  • RipperSB
    RipperSB Posts: 315 Member
    Interesting article, I plugged my numbers in and new BMI calculated at 21.75 from 21.94. Slight change but nice to see some updated thinking on this.
  • spongeh
    spongeh Posts: 152 Member
    YAY on the new one I'm only overweight now.

    I like this, as a stupid measure its better than the old stupid meaasure for me @ 6'3

    Your standard BMI is 30.46 a reading which classifies you as obese
    Your new BMI is 28.65 a reading which classifies you as overweight

    I still thing the healthy weight is a bit wrong using BMI as my lower healthy weight is just over 11stone (158lb), I think I'd look ill if I got down to that weight at my height.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    It only changes it by .56 for me. I'm betting the height of about 5'6" is the even point.
  • annpatricianielsen
    annpatricianielsen Posts: 14
    Thanks a lot for sharing! I love this new formula! :laugh:
  • elenathegreat
    elenathegreat Posts: 3,988 Member
    My BMI went up. This formula sucks! :laugh:

    Yeah! Bull****!
  • ihad
    ihad Posts: 7,463 Member
    Bump
  • IHopie
    IHopie Posts: 14
    Thanks for sharing. The old one is archaic and actually works against those of us who are not of average height.
  • janf15
    janf15 Posts: 242 Member
    Interesting post and interesting responses. More interesting is the information. The use of BMI remain controversial, and it is not a panacea. Some professional athletes are morbidly obese based on the BMI, so that is clearly the wrong tool to use - for those and for some of the folks here, a more appropriate measurement would be body fat percentage.

    If you want to calculate your riskfactors (for disease) you should really measure waist to hip ratio and weight to height ratio. There is a lot of research to support the accuracy of those measures.
  • Mighty_Rabite
    Mighty_Rabite Posts: 581 Member
    Old: 25.69
    New: 25.22

    Meh. lol
  • Howbouto
    Howbouto Posts: 2,121 Member
    Yeah this formula took me from obese to overweight!!!
  • Ruthe8
    Ruthe8 Posts: 423 Member
    This would be interesting if I ever used BMI for any reason, but that's stupid.
  • GingerRunner
    GingerRunner Posts: 69
    It's still just as broken. What a waste of time.

    THIS.

    What if you're rock solid muscle super swole? :D
  • GingerRunner
    GingerRunner Posts: 69
    I think the put-down-the-donut to pick-up-the-heavy-thing ratio should be the only calculations we should worry about.
  • ubermensch13
    ubermensch13 Posts: 824 Member
    It is still junk...just like the old BMI. BMI has been discredited for over a decade as a reliable judgment of if one is overweight or not.
  • tgustafson85
    tgustafson85 Posts: 12 Member
    I think the BMI is just a figurative model, just like the Laffer Curve. These models don’t EXACTLY exist, but they display some kind of inevitable truth to them.
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    I'm 5ft and my BMI went up from 19.88 to 20.94 (#*%*$ *&^@&)!

    Honestly, this should be good news... You are at the BOTTOM of your ideal range.. 21 is healthier really than 19 and change...
  • kdeaux1959
    kdeaux1959 Posts: 2,675 Member
    For my height, this formula seems to reflect a little better what I see in the mirror than the one traditionally used; but as others have alluded BMI does not take many things in consideration... Muscle mass, frame size, age, etc... BMI gets us in the ball park but body fat percentage is a far better indicator of true fitness.
  • gwhizeh
    gwhizeh Posts: 269 Member
    It is still junk...just like the old BMI. BMI has been discredited for over a decade as a reliable judgment of if one is overweight or not.

    It is also not an indicator of health. They have also changed the ranges in the past. Effectively making millions of people overweight with the switch of a number.

    I have also read it was a number picked up by insurance companies as they could quantify health. Nice easy number for them. And they still use it. Costs more to insure an unhealthy person you know.

    As noted already, its an unreliable indicator.

    Besides, I know I am overweight, technically obese according to BMI. But I don't need a number to tell me that.
  • shrinking_me
    shrinking_me Posts: 207 Member
    My BMI went up. This formula sucks! :laugh:

    mine too!!!!
  • vashnic
    vashnic Posts: 93
    19 (old) to 18.8 (new) Yay? I think I am in that average height range that fits both BMI methods. :laugh:
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Oh is this the one with the *mathematician* who has rejigged the formula because he thinks that short people are scaled down versions of tall people? Well my advice to him is:

    STUDY HUMAN BIOLOGY

    short people are not scaled down versions of taller people. Not only do you get short people with large frames (i.e.larger than average ribs, shoulders etc), and tall people with small frames (i.e. smaller than average ribs, shoulders etc), there is actually a general trend in human populations noted by anthropologists that short, large framed people are better suited to cold climates, and tall, small framed people are better suited to hot climates. the variation in human populations tends more towards that, than it does towards small people being scale models of taller people. (but of course you get people of all frame sizes at all heights, what I described is just a general trend, not an absolute rule)

    In any case, the original BMI was a rough rule of thumb designed to compare populations, not to diagnose individuals. this one is even worse, because it was made even worse by a mathematician who doesn't seem to have much knowledge of biology, who's probably never studied anthropology (because the trend I noted is pretty much anthropology 101, it's probably even taught in some high school syllabuses in the UK that cover human evolution in detail (e.g. in A-level biology) )

    Anyway, me, with my cold-adapted body proportions, I'm sure I'll be in the "overweight" category of his new BMI thingy now, seeing as I was borderline between normal and overweight on the "old" BMI, and short people automatically get a higher BMI with his new one, because, you know, we're scaled down versions of tall people *rolls eyes*.... at 22% body fat I'm sure he's right about that SMH
  • x3na1401
    x3na1401 Posts: 277 Member
    Old 21.29
    New 21.06

    I'm 5'8.

    I'm not sure how just your weight and height could give an accurate measurement of anything. Surely boby builders have higher bmi's despite not being fat at all ?
  • MySlimGoals
    MySlimGoals Posts: 754 Member
    Mine went up by a small amount.
  • RunDoozer
    RunDoozer Posts: 1,699 Member
    Mine went from 29.84 to 28.69 over weight.

    Ill never be anything but overweight tho. I have too much muscle and BMI doesnt account for it.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Still not as relevant as BF%
  • coolraul07
    coolraul07 Posts: 1,606 Member
    ...
    Read the rest of the article here:
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/130116.html

    And an associated Oxford U post here:
    http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html

    You can calculate your new and more accurate BMI here:
    http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
    ...
    Whether this new method of calculating BMI goes on to become generally adopted by the World Health Organisation and science in general, its too early to say. But it may be worth reviewing your weight goals?
    Thanks for this.

    My results (old vs. new)
    • 30.43 vs. 28.47
    • obese vs. overweight
    Your new BMI healthy range is 162.4 to 219.5 lbs.

    Old BMI said 246# was overweight/obese border (thus my goal of 240#) and 204# was top border of healthy.
  • MyChocolateDiet
    MyChocolateDiet Posts: 22,281 Member
    Confucius say...wha?
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    As other people stated very eloquently, this new formula also does not work because it assumes all short people have a small frame and all tall people have a large frame. So, for short people with a large frame, this new formula is actually dangerous. And for some tall people that have a small frame, they will now be told they are underweight.

    The new formula works for me because I am short with a small frame (I am scaled down in the way he described), so the new formula says my BMI goes up from my current (somewhere between18.3 to 18.5) to 19. That's fine by me, and my doctor who has said very clearly that taking all factors into account I am not considered to be underweight (she would never have thought I was, I was the one that asked her). But, it does not work for people with larger frames.

    Having a BMI guideline can be one helpful tool for diagnosing underweight. But, there are too many factors for either this way or the current way to be accurate.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    As other people stated very eloquently, this new formula also does not work because it assumes all short people have a small frame and all tall people have a large frame. So, for short people with a large frame, this new formula is actually dangerous. And for some tall people that have a small frame, they will now be told they are underweight.

    The new formula works for me because I am short with a small frame (I am scaled down in the way he described), so the new formula says my BMI goes up from my current (somewhere between18.3 to 18.5) to 19. That's fine by me, and my doctor who has said very clearly that taking all factors into account I am not considered to be underweight (she would never have thought I was, I was the one that asked her). But, it does not work for people with larger frames.

    Having a BMI guideline can be one helpful tool for diagnosing underweight. But, there are too many factors for either this way or the current way to be accurate.

    ^^^^ exactly.

    body fat percentage is so much better, because it's the same regardless of height and frame size. Just that it's easier and cheaper for doctors just to weigh you and measure your height and look at a chart, rather than being trained how to use calipers or booking people in for a DEXA scans to see if they have healthy body composition.

Categories