What do you think of the BMI?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Yep, they just go from one dumb standard to another, the only one that would make sense to me is to go with body fat %.0 -
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.
Yes I was aware of that...but BMI is not a measure for individuals...period. It is a measure of groups of sedentary groups of the population per the definition.
I believe that BMI for most individuals should be ignore period. It is an antiquated calculation that is skewed for even "normal" people and if they aim for those weights (being uneducated) they aim for the low range not taking into account their muscle mass, their frame size etc.
And a lot of people I know on this site are the "exception" as well along with a lot I am not familiar with.
Even if they need to lose 100lbs...
As for my personal exp BMI puts me at 140 high end...Yup I could do that and not have any muscle to speak of..no thanks and that applies to any woman like me and trust me I am not the exception to the rule.0 -
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.
Yes I was aware of that...but BMI is not a measure for individuals...period. It is a measure of groups of sedentary groups of the population per the definition.
I believe that BMI for most individuals should be ignore period. It is an antiquated calculation that is skewed for even "normal" people and if they aim for those weights (being uneducated) they aim for the low range not taking into account their muscle mass, their frame size etc.
And a lot of people I know on this site are the "exception" as well along with a lot I am not familiar with.
Even if they need to lose 100lbs...
As for my personal exp BMI puts me at 140 high end...Yup I could do that and not have any muscle to speak of..no thanks and that applies to any woman like me and trust me I am not the exception to the rule.
At 5'7, 140 would give you a 21.9 BMI. You can be 159 and still register as "normal" BMI at 5'7. At your most muscular in the military, you say you were 158. That's still "normal".
This is using MFP, CDC, and NIH calculators for BMI. Not sure what BMI calculator you're looking at that provides such a low target weight.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.
Agreed.0 -
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.
Yes I was aware of that...but BMI is not a measure for individuals...period. It is a measure of groups of sedentary groups of the population per the definition.
I believe that BMI for most individuals should be ignore period. It is an antiquated calculation that is skewed for even "normal" people and if they aim for those weights (being uneducated) they aim for the low range not taking into account their muscle mass, their frame size etc.
And a lot of people I know on this site are the "exception" as well along with a lot I am not familiar with.
Even if they need to lose 100lbs...
As for my personal exp BMI puts me at 140 high end...Yup I could do that and not have any muscle to speak of..no thanks and that applies to any woman like me and trust me I am not the exception to the rule.
Declaring something as true automatically makes it so... period.
As others have said, we aren't all special snowflakes. Some of us are much more overweight than we realize, or are comfortable with admitting. BMI is a helpful general tool to give us an objective picture of whether we are overweight and roughly how far into that category we are. Measuring body fat percentage is probably more effective, but harder to do. A lot of the posters here are simply in denial, especially the ones who are as yet nowhere near a healthy weight. How do you know?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.
Agreed. I can only speak from my experience but BMI has always been a pretty accurate reflection of how I see myself. I've never been morbidly obese, but I have had a few pounds to lose and at those times my BMI reflected that.
I think for the most part unless you are a professional athlete, BMI is pretty accurate. And the people who get so upset with it seem to be the ones who dont like what that BMI is telling them.0 -
this is a trick question if I ever saw one...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 -
I think for the most part unless you are a professional athlete, BMI is pretty accurate. And the people who get so upset with it seem to be the ones who dont like what that BMI is telling them.
There's a difference with guys. Sure there are plenty of guys who don't have a 6-pack who object to being in the "overweight" category, but guys don't have to be pro athletes to be both lean and 26+.
A few women have posted BMI expectations that appear to be aiming at 22 BMI, rather than the standard 25. That may be a cause for big time confusion with this issue.0 -
I think for the most part unless you are a professional athlete, BMI is pretty accurate. And the people who get so upset with it seem to be the ones who dont like what that BMI is telling them.
There's a difference with guys. Sure there are plenty of guys who don't have a 6-pack who object to being in the "overweight" category, but guys don't have to be pro athletes to be both lean and 26+.
A few women have posted BMI expectations that appear to be aiming at 22 BMI, rather than the standard 25. That may be a cause for big time confusion with this issue.
Perhaps. My BMI is 22.4 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" range. I wouldn't say I'm underweight by a long shot. I still have pounds to lose. The BMI spectrum is pretty broad from what I see and I dont think confusion is the issue as much as denial.0 -
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.
Yes I was aware of that...but BMI is not a measure for individuals...period. It is a measure of groups of sedentary groups of the population per the definition.
I believe that BMI for most individuals should be ignore period. It is an antiquated calculation that is skewed for even "normal" people and if they aim for those weights (being uneducated) they aim for the low range not taking into account their muscle mass, their frame size etc.
And a lot of people I know on this site are the "exception" as well along with a lot I am not familiar with.
Even if they need to lose 100lbs...
As for my personal exp BMI puts me at 140 high end...Yup I could do that and not have any muscle to speak of..no thanks and that applies to any woman like me and trust me I am not the exception to the rule.
Declaring something as true automatically makes it so... period.
As others have said, we aren't all special snowflakes. Some of us are much more overweight than we realize, or are comfortable with admitting. BMI is a helpful general tool to give us an objective picture of whether we are overweight and roughly how far into that category we are. Measuring body fat percentage is probably more effective, but harder to do. A lot of the posters here are simply in denial, especially the ones who are as yet nowhere near a healthy weight. How do you know?
Exactly! When I was overweight, I would have sworn up and down I was big boned.
Now that I can actually see my frame, I know that I am fine boned, which is why I ended up at the bottom of my BMI range. I'm sure there are truly big boned people out there, but they are rarer than this thread suggests.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions