New BMI formula. Good news for some..

Options
124

Replies

  • MrsR0SE
    MrsR0SE Posts: 341 Member
    Options
    Very interesting, thanks :smile:
  • _SABOTEUR_
    _SABOTEUR_ Posts: 6,833 Member
    Options
    24.46 to 22.7

    Doesn't change my bodyfat % though.
  • BondBomb
    BondBomb Posts: 1,781 Member
    Options
    I went from healthy to overweight. Awesome.
  • Crankstr
    Crankstr Posts: 3,958 Member
    Options
    BAH.
  • SakuraRose13
    SakuraRose13 Posts: 621 Member
    Options
    intresting but doesnt account for frame size .So for me not exactly accurate Id say mine went up but no surprise but my goal wieght is at the end of the spectrum for my hieght last time I was 85 lbs I was 10 I think,Im 4ft 10in and 110 is perfect for me ,and 85 Id be anorexic.
  • vanguardfitness
    vanguardfitness Posts: 720 Member
    Options
    i dropped a lot with the new formula
  • CakeFit21
    CakeFit21 Posts: 2,521 Member
    Options
    My BMI went up and it now says that my healthy weight range starts at 90 pounds. At 114 pounds and 16% body fat, I am 8 pounds away from being overweight.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
  • sleepyotter
    sleepyotter Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    My results say I could go down as far as 86 lbs and still be considered healthy. :noway:
  • SmartAlec03211988
    SmartAlec03211988 Posts: 1,896 Member
    Options
    I went from healthy to overweight with this new formula.

    Yay... -_-
  • ApexLeader
    ApexLeader Posts: 580 Member
    Options
    21.77 baby

    down from 22.65
  • JlenniferL
    JlenniferL Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    My BMI weight is 140, I think I would look like a bag of bones. Going for 160-165 lbs which I weighed 21 years ago. I am already at 175.4 lbs. started out at 225 lbs in July 2012.
  • jess6741
    jess6741 Posts: 107 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'1 and it says that my new range is 93 to 126. I have a small frame but I can't imagine being healthy at 93 pounds.
  • nberr
    nberr Posts: 29
    Options
    I went from obese to obese.
  • hbm616
    hbm616 Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    went down a bit, 27.12 to 26.44 so still overweight but I already knew that haha
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Ran the numbers just for fun, since I really couldn't care less about BMI:

    (I'm 6'6"/198 cm)

    Old BMI: 25.65 (Overweight)

    New BMI: 23.69 (Healthy)

    The "healthy" weight target ranges make more sense, at least for my height. Under the old BMI, a "healthy" weight is classified as between 160-216 lbs. I've been through pretty much that entire weight range (been the same height since I was 16 years old) and I know first-hand that even at the top of that range I'm slender - at/near the bottom of that range I'm basically a walking skeleton. The "new" BMI puts the healthy range from 173-234 lbs., which is more realistic - it allows for carrying a little bit of muscle at the top end of the range without being considered "overweight".

    Either way, I agree that BF% and the mirror are still more reliable indicators than BMI.
  • GoMizzou99
    GoMizzou99 Posts: 512 Member
    Options
    Sorry for the engineer-speak. But the new BMI formula is supposed to be based on 3 dimensions (that is how the article leads off) but it raises a value to the 2.5 power. Squared is area, cubed is volume. Raised to the 2.5 power is neither area nor volume. Further, the new equation is likely to be a best fit of the data set (in two dimensions...that's the way it would be plotted)...although the data set plots as a curve, between squared and cubed roots.

    My request to the author:
    Please give me the correlation coefficient (R-squared) and I will determine if the new equation is better than the old one. Are there outliers included in the data? How big is the data set? Hpw many countries? Is it plotted on log/log paper (makes bad data seem OK), semi-log (this is OK), or on a regular arithmatic graph (OK as well)?

    Oops...Never-mind the preceding rantings. Mine went down 0.94 (to 23.34) so this new equation is AWESOME!
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Options
    My results say I could go down as far as 86 lbs and still be considered healthy. :noway:

    Mine say I could be healthy weighing 93 lbs

    My current weight is 130 lb

    My current lean body mass is 100-101 lbs

    My body fat percentage is 22-23%

    It tells me my body mass index is 26 point something and that I'm overweight.

    :laugh:

    Tis a joke, a very not funny joke because other people of my height and frame size might take it seriously and actually try to diet down to that size, which would have devastating health consequences.
  • algebravoodoo
    algebravoodoo Posts: 776 Member
    Options
    BMI has never been regarded as useful for those with lower than average body fat. (Not that I am in that category but I know plenty who do.)

    This new calculation knocked an extra 1.6 pounds off of my "overweight" range. At 5'8", maybe I am not tall enough to see the real benefit.

    Spring needs to come on with its warm weather so I can get outside!
  • kms1320
    kms1320 Posts: 599 Member
    Options
    I always find bmi a bit funny. Mine calculates the old way to about 27, the new way to about 25. Both say I'm overweight.

    However my bodyfat percentage classifies me as "athlete" so I think I like that one better!
  • Spokez70
    Spokez70 Posts: 548 Member
    Options
    Meh- New formula improved me from obese to overweight- but according to a DEXA scan last week I have 190LB of LBM and this tool says I should weigh between 157 and 212. If I ever got to 212 I would be at 10% BF- I don't even want to think about being at 157 at 6'3".

Categories