What do you think of the BMI?
Replies
-
I wonder how many people on this site who state that the BMI calculator doesn't apply to them are indeed professional body builders or olympic athletes.
I am neither a professional body builder or olympic athlete. However, I believe BMI does not apply to me very well at all. Though I still struggle to see myself that way, I have had friends who have actually said things like, "You are so dainty," but my BMI is right at the top end for my height. How can I be dainty if I am so overweight. Personally when I see myself I see a small pitbull.0 -
Me too! :laugh:0
-
I wonder how many people on this site who state that the BMI calculator doesn't apply to them are indeed professional body builders or olympic athletes.
I am neither a professional body builder or olympic athlete. However, I believe BMI does not apply to me very well at all. Though I still struggle to see myself that way, I have had friends who have actually said things like, "You are so dainty," but my BMI is right at the top end for my height. How can I be dainty if I am so overweight. Personally when I see myself I see a small pitbull.
When I was at my goal weight it had me as underweight, but I really wasn't.
I was a size 4 (I'm now a 6-8), and the fittest I've ever been! So yeah, a guideline is good, but I don't think people should worry if they don't fit it exactly. As long as you're not too far from the range they give.0 -
I wonder how many people on this site who state that the BMI calculator doesn't apply to them are indeed professional body builders or olympic athletes.
I am neither a professional body builder or olympic athlete. However, I believe BMI does not apply to me very well at all. Though I still struggle to see myself that way, I have had friends who have actually said things like, "You are so dainty," but my BMI is right at the top end for my height. How can I be dainty if I am so overweight. Personally when I see myself I see a small pitbull.
When I was at my goal weight it had me as underweight, but I really wasn't.
I was a size 4 (I'm now a 6-8), and the fittest I've ever been! So yeah, a guideline is good, but I don't think people should worry if they don't fit it exactly. As long as you're not too far from the range they give.
Yeah, I am definitely not worried about it at all!
0 -
BMI is a fun topic. Always interesting to see people trotting out the football player examples. If you're a densely-muscled guy with big legs, you won't fit the normal range. But if you're lean, you're extremely likely to be within the BMI normal range. If you work out and are close to lean, you're probably right around 24-26. If you're not close to lean, well maybe the category actually fits. Plenty of people look "small" these days simply because they aren't carrying around an extra 50+ pounds of fat.0
-
BMI is so flawed it's not even funny. There are lots of things it doesn't take in account like body types. I have no real use for it.
What are you even basing that on? By your own reporting you have over 100 pounds to lose. I've lost over 100 pounds and I can tell you it's hard to predict what your body will actually be like after that weight loss.
Also, several people, (myself included) have pointed out that a range is provided for BMI precisely to account for differences in body types and other individual variances.
It sounds to me like you just don't like what your BMI # tells you.0 -
An the BMI, preventing us from all just getting along since the 1800's
0 -
I find it pretty darn accurate.0
-
I see BMI like the check engine light on a car... it could be something serious, or it could be that the gas cap is too lose.
When I was not active, my BMI put me in the Obese category. It wasn't a mistake, and I got off my butt and worked hard. Once I lost weight and got in shape, BMI still had me overweight, but close to the top of the range, so I checked my BF%, which was in the healthy range. So I kept doing what I was doing and didn't worry about BMI.0 -
BMI is so flawed it's not even funny. There are lots of things it doesn't take in account like body types. I have no real use for it.
What are you even basing that on? By your own reporting you have over 100 pounds to lose. I've lost over 100 pounds and I can tell you it's hard to predict what your body will actually be like after that weight loss.
Also, several people, (myself included) have pointed out that a range is provided for BMI precisely to account for differences in body types and other individual variances.
It sounds to me like you just don't like what your BMI # tells you.
No just no...
My BMI says 26.5 that's fine it says I am overweight...I am, I get that and not saying I am not overweight at this time...
I still don't like BMI and don't agree with it even as a guideline.
I am 5 ft 7 the "healthy" range for me is 121-140. At my best, healthiest and lowest BF% I was 20 years old, in the military (combat arms) and solid muscle...bf% appx 18%..I weighed 158lbs did 7 chin ups easy and ran a 6min mile, that weight puts me at overweight...I was not overweight. At an "appropriate" BMI I was 133lbs and soft as a stuffed animal...bf% appx 30%...that is not healthy.
There are plenty of people here in that boat now...fit, low bf% and strong...and BMI puts them at overweight...WTH. :grumble:
BMI is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive)populations, with an average body composition not individuals who are active, fit and strong that is why it is a BS measurment or even a guideline for those of us who are active or individuals regardless of who says it "fits" them individually...
in short BMI is to measure inactive groups...not active groups or active/sedentay individuals.0 -
A good rough outline, more or less. You do have some outliers, but I think for the vast majority of folks, it is a relevant tool.
People will say, "oh, by the BMI method, most body builders and athletes would be obese!"
The point there however is that unless you have a really low body fat %, this will likely not happen to you. I'm obese by the BMI and, lo and behold, I am overweight, so, it works.0 -
BMI is not meant for individual use, it was designed to compare groups of populations. i.e. Generally speaking those that fall in the overweight category of BMI tend to have more health issues than healthy, but any one person can be healthy in the overweight category or unhealthy in the "healthy" category.
^^ This. I'm only 5 pounds from being in the "overweight" categorty. Psssht, whatever. :laugh:0 -
It's a tool used for large scale population generalizations. It is not a conclusion of individual health or fitness.0
-
I have. My axe approves of this response.
Have you by chance ever been to Mordor with a lad named Sam?It told me I'm too short.
"Throw me..... just don't tell the elf"0 -
complete horse****.
according to BMI I am "morbidly obese".
do I look morbidly obese to you??
I would agree that I am overweight. but no way that I am in the category that BMI puts me in!
in addition, BMI says that I am supposed to be between 95-110lbs. At my smallest (120) I had 10% body fat -- which is very underweight! but according to BMI, I was still overweight.
I prefer to use BFP -- with BFP I am 5% over a healthy, normal weight.0 -
complete horse****.
according to BMI I am "morbidly obese".
do I look morbidly obese to you??
I would agree that I am overweight. but no way that I am in the category that BMI puts me in!
in addition, BMI says that I am supposed to be between 95-110lbs. At my smallest (120) I had 10% body fat -- which is very underweight! but according to BMI, I was still overweight.
I prefer to use BFP -- with BFP I am 5% over a healthy, normal weight.
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion here. To get an upper bound of 110, you'd be under 4'8. If you're that size and 190, you're carrying around relatively a whole lot of fat.
Also, you weren't 10% body fat.0 -
Accurate? Horse *kitten*? Coincidentally accurate for everyone else except you?
If you're not an athlete, it's probably "roughly" accurate. The more muscular you become, the less accurate it is.
A lot of overweight people like to say it's highly inaccurate, "I could never be the weight it suggests", but they've never been close enough to their correct bmi to have any accurate idea of the truth of that statement.0 -
I don't. It takes too little into consideration and it is relied on too much.
I talked to my dietician yesterday and she said that according to my BMI that my target would put me at 181 lbs. I weighted 181 lbs. my junior year in high school when I was thin, ran 3 miles daily and lifted weights twice a day. It just is not practical to assume that at 41 years old that this is something for me to attain.0 -
If you're not an athlete, it's probably "roughly" accurate. The more muscular you become, the less accurate it is.
Not disagreeing, but there are a LOT of athletes at normal BMI. Especially female athletes. Not a lot of football players, but nearly every soccer player or track athlete, male or female, is normal BMI. Basically most lean athletes are "normal", with the guys who need to be exceptionally jacked for their sport as the exception.0 -
complete horse****.
according to BMI I am "morbidly obese".
do I look morbidly obese to you??
I would agree that I am overweight. but no way that I am in the category that BMI puts me in!
in addition, BMI says that I am supposed to be between 95-110lbs. At my smallest (120) I had 10% body fat -- which is very underweight! but according to BMI, I was still overweight.
I prefer to use BFP -- with BFP I am 5% over a healthy, normal weight.
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion here. To get an upper bound of 110, you'd be under 4'8. If you're that size and 190, you're carrying around relatively a whole lot of fat.
Also, you weren't 10% body fat.
my bad -- between 95 and 120, not 110
also, how do you know what body fat I was -- my doctors and specialists would have definitely disagreed with you.0 -
Says I am overweight with <10% BF%0
-
When I joined the military some 20 odd years ago, they went with the BMI.
Today it's all about waist size. If you have a waist over 36" you are considered overweight for a female. I'm unsure of what the waist size of a male was.0 -
complete horse****.
according to BMI I am "morbidly obese".
do I look morbidly obese to you??
I would agree that I am overweight. but no way that I am in the category that BMI puts me in!
in addition, BMI says that I am supposed to be between 95-110lbs. At my smallest (120) I had 10% body fat -- which is very underweight! but according to BMI, I was still overweight.
I prefer to use BFP -- with BFP I am 5% over a healthy, normal weight.
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion here. To get an upper bound of 110, you'd be under 4'8. If you're that size and 190, you're carrying around relatively a whole lot of fat.
Also, you weren't 10% body fat.
my bad -- between 95 and 120, not 110
also, how do you know what body fat I was -- my doctors and specialists would have definitely disagreed with you.
Well, if you're 4'9 (upper bound 120 for 26 bmi), and you were 120, then you were not 10% body fat. You're describing a nonsensical situation for a woman. As in, if you look at female gymnast medalists (small women/girls with very low body fat and muscular), none approach that height/weight combination. It might be possible with a huge tumor I suppose. If you're actually more like 5'6 and looking at some f'd up BMI scale where you're trying to be under 20 bmi, that's a different issue.0 -
When I joined the military some 20 odd years ago, they went with the BMI.
Today it's all about waist size. If you have a waist over 36" you are considered overweight for a female. I'm unsure of what the waist size of a male was.
When I joined the Marines in 1983 I was about 190 lbs at 5'10, BMI said I was overweight. I was not fat - I was heavily muscled and they could easily see that so they gave me an exception, wasn't even listed as a diet private in boot.
Now I weigh about 195 (after 25 lbs lost in 3 months) and the BMI is correct this time in calling me overweight as I do have fat that I need to lose and not packed with muscle as I was in 1983. BMI puts my upper healthy weight at about 175, which I can't really disagree with (considering my current BF%) and where my cutting goal is.
So I'd say if you are a fatty (like me right now) than the BMI can be pretty accurate, for lean muscled up people -- forget about the BMI0 -
You are right, but the US Government is going to use it as a measure of health and fitness. This is where the problems come in. This isn't even bro-science, this is vodoo!It's a tool used for large scale population generalizations. It is not a conclusion of individual health or fitness.0 -
Since I could be 110 pounds and still be considered "Healthy" (I'm a 45 y.o. man), I don't put too much weight (pun intended) in the BMI.0
-
complete horse****.
according to BMI I am "morbidly obese".
do I look morbidly obese to you??
I would agree that I am overweight. but no way that I am in the category that BMI puts me in!
in addition, BMI says that I am supposed to be between 95-110lbs. At my smallest (120) I had 10% body fat -- which is very underweight! but according to BMI, I was still overweight.
I prefer to use BFP -- with BFP I am 5% over a healthy, normal weight.
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion here. To get an upper bound of 110, you'd be under 4'8. If you're that size and 190, you're carrying around relatively a whole lot of fat.
Also, you weren't 10% body fat.
my bad -- between 95 and 120, not 110
also, how do you know what body fat I was -- my doctors and specialists would have definitely disagreed with you.
Well, if you're 4'9 (upper bound 120 for 26 bmi), and you were 120, then you were not 10% body fat. You're describing a nonsensical situation for a woman. As in, if you look at female gymnast medalists (small women/girls with very low body fat and muscular), none approach that height/weight combination. It might be possible with a huge tumor I suppose. If you're actually more like 5'6 and looking at some f'd up BMI scale where you're trying to be under 20 bmi, that's a different issue.
I want to know what BMI scale you are looking at that places 120 at 4'9" -- i'm 4'11" and every one that I've ever seen puts me with a "healthy" range of 95-120.
you are also taking the thought that each person is built the exact same way -- so clearly there is no sense in even attempting to disagree with you -- since you clearly know more than ED specialists and doctors in recovery units.
I follow what my doctor's say -- and he wants me to have my BF% to be between 25% and 30%, seeing as how I am at 35% now, I've got 5% to get to the healthy range that he wants me -- which is going to be well over 120lbs.0 -
When I joined the military some 20 odd years ago, they went with the BMI.
Today it's all about waist size. If you have a waist over 36" you are considered overweight for a female. I'm unsure of what the waist size of a male was.
When I joined the Marines in 1983 I was about 190 lbs at 5'10, BMI said I was overweight. I was not fat - I was heavily muscled and they could easily see that so they gave me an exception, wasn't even listed as a diet private in boot.
Now I weigh about 195 (after 25 lbs lost in 3 months) and the BMI is correct this time in calling me overweight as I do have fat that I need to lose and not packed with muscle as I was in 1983. BMI puts my upper healthy weight at about 175, which I can't really disagree with (considering my current BF%) and where my cutting goal is.
So I'd say if you are a fatty (like me right now) than the BMI can be pretty accurate, for lean muscled up people -- forget about the BMI
While I was in and I retired in 2008, they used the average circumference as the authoritative measurement system. Waist minus neck for men, and neck, waist, hip, for women. Dumb!! That is as accurate a measurement as BMI.0 -
A lot of overweight people like to say it's highly inaccurate, "I could never be the weight it suggests", but they've never been close enough to their correct bmi to have any accurate idea of the truth of that statement.
this.
I actually had to lose the weight first before my special-snowflake image of myself crumbled.0 -
BMI is so flawed it's not even funny. There are lots of things it doesn't take in account like body types. I have no real use for it.
What are you even basing that on? By your own reporting you have over 100 pounds to lose. I've lost over 100 pounds and I can tell you it's hard to predict what your body will actually be like after that weight loss.
Also, several people, (myself included) have pointed out that a range is provided for BMI precisely to account for differences in body types and other individual variances.
It sounds to me like you just don't like what your BMI # tells you.
No just no...
My BMI says 26.5 that's fine it says I am overweight...I am, I get that and not saying I am not overweight at this time...
I still don't like BMI and don't agree with it even as a guideline.
I am 5 ft 7 the "healthy" range for me is 121-140. At my best, healthiest and lowest BF% I was 20 years old, in the military (combat arms) and solid muscle...bf% appx 18%..I weighed 158lbs did 7 chin ups easy and ran a 6min mile, that weight puts me at overweight...I was not overweight. At an "appropriate" BMI I was 133lbs and soft as a stuffed animal...bf% appx 30%...that is not healthy.
There are plenty of people here in that boat now...fit, low bf% and strong...and BMI puts them at overweight...WTH. :grumble:
BMI is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive)populations, with an average body composition not individuals who are active, fit and strong that is why it is a BS measurment or even a guideline for those of us who are active or individuals regardless of who says it "fits" them individually...
in short BMI is to measure inactive groups...not active groups or active/sedentay individuals.
I was responding to someone who has over 100 pounds to lose. You are speaking from your own experience being in the military and presumably very active with physical training that most people do not do. Those are two very different situations, and I think it is well known and acknowledged in this thread that BMI will not accurately account for those who have exceptional muscle mass. I don't believe that applies to most people, or even most of the people disregarding BMI in this thread.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions