BMI - how much do you depend on your BMI #

Ignore the BMI, it was never intended to be used by an individual to assess their fitness. It was intended to be used in measuring for a population.

Based on BMI I will be considered overweight until I get down to 10% bodyfat, and I am not particularly muscular!

Bodyfat is a better measure, you could also use waist to height ratio, or just look in the mirror!

This. I'll use it as another reason to hate epidemiology...

My BMI is now ~18, but I'm far from looking like a stick. It did make me stop dieting in my quest for the perfect body and start doing some light sports instead. To me it was an indication that my bf% is too high and I must build some muscle

BMI is only flawed if you have a lot of lean muscle mass (athletes or body builders) or don't want to believe what it tells you. It's based on a weight to height ratio and your risk of health issues because of that. If you're BMI is overweight then you're carrying too much weight somewhere.

We got into this discussion last week. It's not how you perceive that you look, it's based on medical issues. You may think you look great at a higher BMI but you will still present with higher health risks because of your weight.

Sorry but BMI really is useless. As has been said (several times above) it was never intended for individual weight measurements. It was for evaluating populations where differences in frame size and muscularity are averaged out. Whilst I hesitate to use wikipedia as a reference it does cover this quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

nah it's not useless, it's a guideline. does it fit everyone? no. but does it fit most people? yep.

the majority of people who don't like BMI are the people who are considered "obese" by its scale. shocking? not really. just because you don't like the result, doesn't make the test inaccurate.

Your BMI is at the just barely overweight level and you have a little bit of extra fat around the midsection, to me that seems to match up?

No, it really doesn't match up. The BMI is quite flawed - and if you think the OP is overweight, you may want to rethink your standards.

BMI is only flawed if you have a lot of lean muscle mass (athletes or body builders) or don't want to believe what it tells you. It's based on a weight to height ratio and your risk of health issues because of that. If you're BMI is overweight then you're carrying too much weight somewhere.

We got into this discussion last week. It's not how you perceive that you look, it's based on medical issues. You may think you look great at a higher BMI but you will still present with higher health risks because of your weight.

Sorry but BMI really is useless. As has been said (several times above) it was never intended for individual weight measurements. It was for evaluating populations where differences in frame size and muscularity are averaged out. Whilst I hesitate to use wikipedia as a reference it does cover this quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

nah it's not useless, it's a guideline. does it fit everyone? no. but does it fit most people? yep.

the majority of people who don't like BMI are the people who are considered "obese" by its scale. shocking? not really. just because you don't like the result, doesn't make the test inaccurate.

I see we're doomed to have a love hate relationship...

I'm easily dismissed because I fall into the BMI category of obese and I don't agree with how it's being used. But, the statistician who developed the equation intended for population analysis. It doesn't translate well to individual use; it can apply some generalizations, but it's not exact.

It's kind of like using a HRM while lifting weights. The algorithm just wasn't meant to be used that way, and so the calculation is off. You could use it as a rough estimate, but it really just doesn't work well.

Do I still wonder what my BMI is as I lose weight, sure, but I'm not going to let it define me. I'll ask my doctor to run tests if I'm worried about specific diseases I might be at risk for. I don't think it should be used as it is (in schools for example, kids are being labeled as "fat" based on BMI and parents are being sent letters informing them of such with suggested diet plans).

I don't pay attention to that number at all.

BMI is only flawed if you have a lot of lean muscle mass (athletes or body builders) or don't want to believe what it tells you. It's based on a weight to height ratio and your risk of health issues because of that. If you're BMI is overweight then you're carrying too much weight somewhere.

We got into this discussion last week. It's not how you perceive that you look, it's based on medical issues. You may think you look great at a higher BMI but you will still present with higher health risks because of your weight.

Sorry but BMI really is useless. As has been said (several times above) it was never intended for individual weight measurements. It was for evaluating populations where differences in frame size and muscularity are averaged out. Whilst I hesitate to use wikipedia as a reference it does cover this quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index

nah it's not useless, it's a guideline. does it fit everyone? no. but does it fit most people? yep.

the majority of people who don't like BMI are the people who are considered "obese" by its scale. shocking? not really. just because you don't like the result, doesn't make the test inaccurate.

I see we're doomed to have a love hate relationship...

I'm easily dismissed because I fall into the BMI category of obese and I don't agree with how it's being used. But, the statistician who developed the equation intended for population analysis. It doesn't translate well to individual use; it can apply some generalizations, but it's not exact.

It's kind of like using a HRM while lifting weights. The algorithm just wasn't meant to be used that way, and so the calculation is off. You could use it as a rough estimate, but it really just doesn't work well.

Do I still wonder what my BMI is as I lose weight, sure, but I'm not going to let it define me. I'll ask my doctor to run tests if I'm worried about specific diseases I might be at risk for. I don't think it should be used as it is (in schools for example, kids are being labeled as "fat" based on BMI and parents are being sent letters informing them of such with suggested diet plans).

haha nah don't worry, I actually agree with the general idea of what you said here. it's not perfect, it's not exact, and the fact that it's used regarding insurance and the like is a bit ridiculous.

however, it's still a decent GUIDELINE that hasn't been prone to changes in the societal perception of what's "normal". in the 1850's when it was created, people were much thinner on average than they are today. There weren't as many fat people, and there also weren't as many "ripped" people. my argument is this: just because our population has changed due to societal factors, why does that mean that the metric is inherently bad? Can't it just mean that our perceptions of what's "healthy" don't gel with reality?

BMI is crap, get some calipers to be most accurate. My BMI considers me obese, but I actually am at 12% BF and fairly muscular.

calipers are no more accurate than online calculators. most BF% measuring tools are unreliable, but you can give yourself a decent idea by always using the same method and comparing.

It is, and always was intended as a rough method of estimating obesity in populations, but it generally is pretty accurate unless you are very heavily muscled.

I monitor my body fat as well. I can't say that there's an inconsistency. My fat percentage is low although not athlete-low, and, depending on which BMI calculation used (a new one was recently suggested), my BMI is underweight or low normal. I am not underweight. I'm 5'2".

I don't depend on my BMI at all.
My BMI says I'm overweight but my Body Fat % is in the normal range.