Do you think BMI is a hoax?

cameronwheeler
cameronwheeler Posts: 89
in Health and Weight Loss
I have a question for everyone, in your opinion, do you feel like the BMI calculator is a hoax? I look healthy, i'm in shape, and I don't look all that fat, i'm not skin and bones, I have some meat and fat on me, but according to the BMI I am obese... what about people who are body builders? most of them would be considered obese also.


Whats your take on it?
«1

Replies

  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    I have a question for everyone, in your opinion, do you feel like the BMI calculator is a hoax? I look healthy, i'm in shape, and I don't look all that fat, i'm not skin and bones, I have some meat and fat on me, but according to the BMI I am obese... what about people who are body builders? most of them would be considered obese also.


    Whats your take on it?

    It is semi accurate for the sedentary person and it is best used for populations not individuals
  • mjrkearney
    mjrkearney Posts: 408 Member
    It's an oversimplified meter for an oversimplified culture.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    Not a hoax. Simply statistics.

    It's based on large samples, and as such will be fairly accurate for most people. But yeah, if you have high levels of lean body mass it's not going to be accurate for you.

    More accurate would be to have your % body fat measured correctly.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    A hoax? No...but it's not always the best measure. Being at a healthy BF% is more important. If you're at an obese BF%, then you're still obese and unhealthy. I'm slightly overweight by BMI standards, but I'm at a healthy BF% which is a better overall indicator of health.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    It dates back to the mid 1800's ...............not terribly relevant now
  • snazzyjazzy21
    snazzyjazzy21 Posts: 1,298 Member
    Inappropriate use of the word hoax. It isn't Area 51, it's a sometimes inaccurate measure of health.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    I think given the general population who is sedentary it can be a pretty accurate measure.
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    It's a ratio of height and weight.

    The labels come with numerous caveats. You can be "normal" and have unhealthy fat levels. You can be "overweight" and have healthy fat levels. You can be "underweight" and be healthy too.

    If you're BMI obese, and wondering about maybe losing weight, you should probably lose weight.

    If you're an NFL running back, you probably aren't going to focus on BMI as a measure of anything.

    Also, you can smoke and not die of cancer. You can have a high body fat percentage and be relatively healthier than someone with a low body fat percentage. There are a million ways to look at the concept of "healthy", and BMI is just one overview.
  • mjrkearney
    mjrkearney Posts: 408 Member
    Area 51 was recently declassified. Not a hoax, just a lot of ideas blown out of proportion.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    antiquated calculation developed too long ago by a mathmetician to aid the government in dispersing aid and resources based on samples of large groups of sedentary people.

    Not relevant for today.
  • ElliottTN
    ElliottTN Posts: 1,614 Member
    I'm apparently overweight according to it. Yeah, I'm trying to lose more but I don't think I'd classify myself as overweight as it shows me. Works well for insurance companies though.
  • bridgie101
    bridgie101 Posts: 817 Member
    Inappropriate use of the word hoax. It isn't Area 51, it's a sometimes inaccurate measure of health.

    but wasn't it a measure created by aliens coming to earth to harvest human meat for their fast food operations????
  • Kimdbro
    Kimdbro Posts: 922 Member
    Yes. I once read that Michael Jordon was clinically obese by BMI standards back when he was on the cover of every sports magazine. Height - weight ratio does not work for athletes and people that carry a great deal of muscle. If you look and feel healthy, chances are that you in fact... are.
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    Yes. I once read that Michael Jordon was clinically obese by BMI standards back when he was on the cover of every sports magazine. Height - weight ratio does not work for athletes and people that carry a great deal of muscle. If you look and feel healthy, chances are that you in fact... are.

    MJ was actually "normal" BMI at his playing weight (218). However, a lot of current NBA players are BMI "overweight" due to increased emphasis on strength training for basketball.
  • manda1978
    manda1978 Posts: 525 Member
    Innaccurate is how I would describe it. My husband is 6'7 and 105kg which makes him obese according to the BMI charts.
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    Innaccurate is how I would describe it. My husband is 6'7 and 105kg which makes him obese according to the BMI charts.

    That would place him at BMI "overweight" (26). A lot closer to "normal" (25) than "obese" (30).
  • keef1972
    keef1972 Posts: 411 Member
    I'm not a believer in it.
    Guys I play hockey with are, 6'0ft, and weigh in about 230lbs.
    You look at them, and they are fit, and almost no body fat.
    BMI does not see to apply to today's athlete's.
  • TheEffort
    TheEffort Posts: 1,028 Member
    BUMP...for the discussion thread.

    I don't think it's a hoax...just a statistical measure.
  • paulh3nry
    paulh3nry Posts: 13 Member
    I don't think it is a hoax. I am pretty sure BMI is a real thing. As for it's usefulness, I think it really depends on the person you apply it to. If it is applied to someone with a lot of lean body mass then it is absolutely useless. If you apply it to your average Joe couch potato it is probably pretty telling. I would say height to waist ratio or body fat percentage are more accurate indicators. Granted I am not a doctor so...
  • SpecialKitty7
    SpecialKitty7 Posts: 678 Member
    i think it's imperfect, but it shouldn't be tossed out. using it in conjuction with common sense is not a bad idea. sure, it doesn't work for athletes, but it does give some guideline for the remaining 85% of us.
  • iplayoutside19
    iplayoutside19 Posts: 2,304 Member
    Not a Hoax, just a mis-used outdated tool.
  • 1brokegal44
    1brokegal44 Posts: 562 Member
    All it is is a height to weight ratio. It doesn't take things like body composition, bone structure, etc into consideration. It should really be thought of as a guideline, not a be-all end-all to health measurements.
  • sarah456s
    sarah456s Posts: 98 Member
    For people like me (most definitely not an athlete), I think it's quite accurate.

    I think part of the problem is that we're so used to seeing overweight and obese people that it's become the new normal. I am overweight according to my BMI and yet I get told over and over that I don't look overweight. I think I DO look overweight. I'm a size 12 - that's not the size I am supposed to be. But it's like people don't see overweight as being overweight, but instead as "normal". And they think obese is overweight, and it's only when people get up into higher levels of obesity that people actually start seeing it.

    For athletes, it's a different story. The vast majority of us are not athletes, though.
  • kiramaniac
    kiramaniac Posts: 800 Member
    It's pretty meaningless. It seems like a measurement that is used to determine if people are obese or overweight should have been based on body fat.
  • seabee78
    seabee78 Posts: 126 Member
    I don't think its a hoax, but certainly not ideal for weight/measurement. Mike Tyson in his prime (5'10", 215lbs) according to BMI would be grossly obese, when we all know he was nowhere near obese.

    Similar to bodyfat % scales. I believe the only "true" ways to measure bodyfat% are calipers when used by a professional and water displacement tanks. But those bodyfat scales can be used to accurately measure fat loss (before and after)
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,904 Member
    I think hoax probably carries some contextual weight with it. I will say that my company has me do a biometric screening every year. There's half a dozen little dials that display a range of results. All my little indicators are decidedly green and happy...except for BMI. I have a big, honking, irritating red OBESE reading.

    I'm 5'9ish and 210 lbs with probably 26-27% BF. Every time I tell someone that I'm obese, they argue with me. Maybe I just carry my fat well, who knows, but that stupid little red OBESE reading ticks me off when every other indicator says I'm healthy.
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    So you take a city with 10,000 people in it. You classify them all based on BMI. Then you split them up into groups according to their classification. The majority of people in each group will fit their BMI classification.
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    sure, it doesn't work for athletes, but it does give some guideline for the remaining 85% of us.

    Most US pro sport athletes value burst power. Those will tend to BMI "overweight", with "obese" being a hit or miss concept (RB is not obese, OL may well be).

    The vast majority of Olympic and popular world sport (soccer, tennis, cycling) athletes are BMI "normal". Endurance and top end speed favor lower mass, so those athletes don't have the enhanced muscularity effects.
  • gigglesinthesun
    gigglesinthesun Posts: 860 Member
    According to the bmi the majority of the western society is overweight and i am not sure that is wrong otherwise mfp would not be as popular as it is. Every time this discussion comes up here people chime in with how such and such is classed obese and how it is outdated. In reality though it is not as outdated as you'd like to think. We as a population group are now less fit then ever before (it was developed before the wide spread use of cars) thus it might even grossly underestimate the problem because it assumes a certain 'average' muscle/ body fat ratio.
  • RoadsterGirlie
    RoadsterGirlie Posts: 1,195 Member
    Honestly the BMI charts have a HUGE range already (30 to 40 lb difference for most heights), and I'm always astounded by these types of posts saying it's inaccurate just because they are over it (and most of the time, do have some fat to lose).

    I'm on the flip side of the coin, and come in right at the bottom of my range or slightly under. I could say that it's inaccurate solely based on myself, but honestly I don't think a BMI of 22 is that unachievable for 95% of the population.

Categories