Do BMI's seem unrealistic to anyone else?

momcrom
momcrom Posts: 5
edited October 27 in Health and Weight Loss
I would have to get down to 140 lbs to have a mid range BMI, that is just not realistic. I would be comfortable at 160-170 but that still puts me at overweight BMI. Are BMI a realistic measuring tool for most people?
«134567…19

Replies

  • mwfaith1971
    mwfaith1971 Posts: 3 Member
    I can tell you that my doctor believes that the BMI is unrealistic...I have to agree with him. If I was to get to the BMI the scale recommends, I'd look decidedly bad.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    BMI only takes into account your height, weight and age. It doesn't take into account BF%, body frame, ect.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    BMI is realistic for most people, especially women. Men who are very muscular will measure overweight but most women won't develop that amount of muscle.

    BMI along with waist-to-height and/or waist-to-hip ratio is a good indicator of health risk.
  • MinimalistShoeAddict
    MinimalistShoeAddict Posts: 1,946 Member
    I agree that BMI has its limitations as pointed out by some of the other posters. Although I prefer to use body fat percentage as a means of tracking my progress, it is more difficult to accurately measure than BMI.

    Unless you are very short or extremely muscular, BMI is a good indicator for most adults which can easily be determined.

    Here is an excellent brief summary (from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute) on how to assess your weight and health risk using BMI:
    http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt/risk.htm
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    It is a VERY, VERY rough estimate. Athletes are usually considered obese. I don't like that there are labels given on a certain weight, without taking into consideration muscle, frame, body fat etc. That being said, again, BMI is a very rough estimate, but does not measure health whatsoever.
  • ahmommy
    ahmommy Posts: 316 Member
    I am tall (5'10") with a very small bone structure. I am most comfortable at the lower end of the BMI range.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    BMI is usually only unrealistic for those who are extremely muscular or have a warped perception of what would be good for their body or willingness to put in the effort needed to achieve a normal BMI. The range is so wide of what is a normal BMI that there are very few people who don't fit into normal at a good weight.
  • CarlKRobbo
    CarlKRobbo Posts: 390 Member
    BMI is an outdated system, that as stated, only take in your height\weight.....

    One of my mates has a waist larger than mine and is overweight, yet I am "Obese", Unfortunately, I have 2 numpties of Doctors who also like to tell me I have to loose weight as I'm "Obese" and I'm in better shape than both of them!! My Next anwser is giong to be That scene in the medical room from Armageddon!!

    Oh, And I agree with the Men vs Women point made in this one - Women don't generally carry the same amount of Muscle mass, so it's probably more reliable for them.
  • supplemama
    supplemama Posts: 1,956 Member
    BMI is usually only unrealistic for those who are extremely muscular or have a warped perception of what would be good for their body or willingness to put in the effort needed to achieve a normal BMI. The range is so wide of what is a normal BMI that there are very few people who don't fit into normal at a good weight.

    ^^^This.
  • supplemama
    supplemama Posts: 1,956 Member
    I would have to get down to 140 lbs to have a mid range BMI, that is just not realistic. I would be comfortable at 160-170 but that still puts me at overweight BMI. Are BMI a realistic measuring tool for most people?

    Why is it unrealistic...why do you want to carry around 20-30 pounds of excess fat?
  • teagirlmedium
    teagirlmedium Posts: 679 Member
    The BMI is realistic for me. I have been in all places on the BMI range. I look healthy when I am in the weight range the BMI says I should be in. For me it works right now, but for some people it does not work.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    It is a VERY, VERY rough estimate. Athletes are usually considered obese. I don't like that there are labels given on a certain weight, without taking into consideration muscle, frame, body fat etc. That being said, again, BMI is a very rough estimate, but does not measure health whatsoever.

    Male athletes are sometimes considered obese, though unless they actually have too much fat on their bodies, they will more likely register as overweight. But few female athletes will have a high BMI. Fit women do not often wiegh too much.

    And then, some athletes really are overweight or obese.
  • BarackMeLikeAHurricane
    BarackMeLikeAHurricane Posts: 3,400 Member
    It can be off in the other direction, too. I'm "underweight" by a few pounds but I'm just built narrow and long. I'm fairly lean, but I'm definitely not unhealthy.
  • jolene_ca
    jolene_ca Posts: 91 Member
    It's realistic for me personally.
  • Dort68
    Dort68 Posts: 36 Member
    When I weighed in the range of my BMI in my college years, I got an intervention from my friends b/c they were concerned about my weight--I was too thin. I am tall with a large frame. For me, it's not realistic.
  • cappri
    cappri Posts: 1,089 Member
    I would have to get down to 140 lbs to have a mid range BMI, that is just not realistic. I would be comfortable at 160-170 but that still puts me at overweight BMI. Are BMI a realistic measuring tool for most people?

    How do you know that the top of your BMI range is unrealistic? Just because you would be "comfortable" at a higher weight that doesn't mean it is healthy for you. What is the top of your BMI range? If 140 is the middle then the top must be close to the body of what you consider comfortable?
  • cherio256
    cherio256 Posts: 219
    I am 5 foot 3 inches and it says I should weigh 111-148. My goal weight is 150. I look good at this weight. I would look nasty at 111! But its the way I am built. I have larger hips, thighs and butt. When I am 150 people always think I weigh less than that. In my opinon its not all about the numbers. Its how you look and feel :)
  • cubbies77
    cubbies77 Posts: 607 Member
    The mid-range? No. The top of the range? Yes. I was eleven pounds over the top of the "healthy" range during high school, and it showed. I wasn't fat, but I definitely had some extra pudge. If I'd lost 11 pounds, I would have looked great. I'm 5'6" with a large frame, and 154 is the top of the range. I don't think that's too thin at all. Mid-range would probably be hard to attain since I have wide hips and a solid build. I might look too thin at that weight. But, we'll see. If I can get down to 154, I'll reassess and figure out if losing a few more pounds would be okay.

    As far as I'm concerned, though, I rely more on body fat percentage. I don't mind being a few pounds "overweight" if my body fat percentage is within an acceptable range. To me, how I look and feel is much more important than how much I weigh.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    a healthy BMI is absolutely realistic and attainable. athletes who qualify as obese are more often linebackers... who... are obese. and yes, there are some people who are outliers, and exceptions - there are always exceptions - but for the majority of people (meaning you and me and most everyone on this board) a healthy BMI is something to which you should aspire.
  • Tricep_A_Tops
    Tricep_A_Tops Posts: 319
    BMI is a joke! According to BMI guidelines I am considered Obese. I am 6"1, 226 lbs and I would have to look like Justin Bieber to be considered to be at a healthy weight.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    BMI is a joke! According to BMI guidelines I am considered Obese.

    what are your stats?
  • Tricep_A_Tops
    Tricep_A_Tops Posts: 319
    ^^^^^ Just added them.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    It really comes down to perception. My daughter in law and I are almost exactly the same size bone structure and height. I'm 115 lbs, she's 240, we're both 5"2" to 3" tall. She keeps telling me that it's not realistic for her to be my weight because she'd be just skin and bones. I ask if I looked like skin and bones, no, she thinks I look good. So why would she be skin and bones and I look fine? Because she's been 240 for so long her head can't get around that she could lose over 100 lbs and not be sickly.

    Everyone should weigh or look they way they want but if you have weight to lose don't dismiss what a healthy weight would be based on your perception now. You don't have to accept that you've always weighed more and would therefore look awful at a lower end of the BMI.
  • rjcelmer
    rjcelmer Posts: 431 Member
    BMI only takes into account your height, weight and age. It doesn't take into account BF%, body frame, ect.

    This.
  • SwimSoccerTaxi
    SwimSoccerTaxi Posts: 98 Member
    My daughter is a high-performance athlete (competitive swimmer) who has a body fat % far below what is recommended for her age however she eats more then I every could (she's only 15). She can swim fly for an hour without issue!!! She was playing on a friends Wii and it "measured" the BMI based on her height and weight and it said she was at the top end of healthy bordering on overweight!!!!! She laughed....so at 15 to know the tool is completely useless should tell everyone something.....putting in two or three numbers to define "health" cannot. It does not account for your activity level, body fat, body frame, etc.

    Measurements, determining your body fat percent and how you feel are the best indicators of "healthy weights"

    Good luck!!!
  • ursus_maritimus
    ursus_maritimus Posts: 19
    I am 5'7". About 10 years ago I weighed in at 195lbs... according to the BMI calculator that made me obese at 30.5BMI. At the time I had a waist size of between 30 and 32 inches. Honestly, I am striving to get back to that point again. My goal is 185 regardless of what some chart says.
  • Sweet_Gurl_Next_Door
    Sweet_Gurl_Next_Door Posts: 735 Member
    according to my height I am to weigh between 111-146 pounds. I put my goal weight at 136 pounds.

    according to my bmi at 175 pounds with my atheletic build I am just now considered overweight. after 2 1/2 years being labeled obese.
  • CTCMom2009
    CTCMom2009 Posts: 263 Member
    BMI is realistic for most people, especially women. Men who are very muscular will measure overweight but most women won't develop that amount of muscle.

    BMI along with waist-to-height and/or waist-to-hip ratio is a good indicator of health risk.

    I personally don't think it's realistic for anyone... I am an athlete (volleyball player/trying to be a gym rat) and carry a lot of muscle in my legs/shoulders and am considered overweight even though my pants are a size 8. BF% is a much better measure as are the waist-to-height and waist-to-hip ratios that you mention.
  • ami5000psu
    ami5000psu Posts: 391 Member
    Chances are your BMI is pretty accurate for you. Like others have said, unless you are very short or extremely muscular, your BMI will be realistic. I've often found that the people who dismiss the BMI as a joke or as unrealistic are the ones whose numbers tell them something they don't want to hear. You might not feel comfortable at the mid range BMI but what about the upper end of the healthy BMI?
  • Sunny_fit4life
    Sunny_fit4life Posts: 157 Member
    I think BMI is a starting point that doesn't tell the whole story.

    Other parts of the story:
    your physical fitness level
    your body fat percentage
    waist-to-hip ratio
    whether or not you have any lifestyle-related illnesses and/or risk factors
    energy levels/how you feel
    etc...

    My healthy range, as a 5'5" female (based on no other information), is 112 lbs - 149 lbs. I think it is realistic for me to shoot for somewhere between 130-149, but anything under that seems like too little since I have a large frame.

    I have asked the same question you have, though... and I feel like I'd be comfortable with 150-160. That's why I don't set any ultimate goal. Right now I'm just working on losing another 40 lbs to get to 160. It may not be optimal but it's better than where I am today. All you can do is start where you are and strive to be better tomorrow :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories