Why I think The BMI scale is stupid: I am overweight
Replies
-
Op, you look fantastic.
Also, frame size and other factors can matter as well. A person can be at the lower end and still be extremely healthy (and look great, not too thin, and with muscle definition). When evaluating my health my doctor takes into account not just my weight, but how I look, my measurements, other measures of health, my personal history and my family history. She uses all of the tools available, her training, as well as common sense.0 -
Maybe I'm a bit jaded, on here and in my personal life (I'm not just a fitness instructor, that's only my hobby job, I'm a auditor in the corporate world) I'm surrounded by people who are not well represented by the BMI scale. I would say better than 25% of the people I know do not fall into this scale accurately.
There's no place on the template to put bf%, height, weight, bp, hr . . . they only look at basic metrics, and yet this is one of the tools . . . a known flawed tool . . . that insurance companies heavily leverage.
But then again you are obviously well-educated and fitness conscious and likely surrounded by people who fit both those categories. If you drive to a city shopping mall and take a look at the bodies walking around there then you'll find the majority
I think it's ridiculous that insurance companies use such restrictive formula, and that really sucks for you that there is no way around getting listed as 'overweight'! You look fantastic, and any insurance company should be thrilled to have someone as fit as you paying premiums to them0 -
BMI says the most I can weigh and be in "healthy" weight is like 140lbs. :noway: I'm 5'7" tall.
That is weird, since I am 5'6" and it says I can weigh up to 156.
At 5'10 I was told 153lbs to be dead center of a healthy BMI..so I could weigh about 10-15 more than that probably and still be ok..but just seems extreme..
Just looked it up...122 to 169 lbs is considered Appropriate BMI for my height...I could cut glass with my collar bones at 122..LOL
Yes, but there are naturally lean people who would be an appropriate weight at 122 and overfat at 169. The range doesn't mean that everyone your height could be an appropriate level of fatness anywhere within the range.
I agree with this!0 -
You look great. Muscle weighs more than fat. I agree with your trainer. It is your percentage of body fat that is important. I had a scan done and for my age I am in the excellent category. According to BMI I am at 25-26. I feel great at this weight and do not put much stock in the BMI because it does not consider your percentage of excess body fat. What ever you are doing keep it up you look healthy and toned.0
-
Sorry to burst your bubble but you arent overweight. Not even with the BMI scale.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm
At 5'3" and 140 lbs your bmi is 24.8.
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
Overweight = 25–29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Now I on the other hand am wayyyyy fatter than you. Mine is 28.7.
Good Day Maddam
Ooops! I rounded down! when I put it in this morning I put it in as 141 because I've been fluctuating between 140 and 143 for about 8 weeks ("down" from 145). When I created the post I posted at 140, nice catch!
Damn, fat looks good on you . . .
LOL! Thank you!
I hate the BMI too. I think the last time I posted about the BMI I posted a picture of Adrian Peterson (NFL Running Back) and hes is in the Obese Category.
BMI is dumb.
You keep lifting all the weights. You look great!0 -
<<<<< Do I look obese to you?? I think not .....
You don't look obese in terms of body fat percentage but you certainly look like you have a high BMI: two totally different things that unfortunately can often be lumped into one category!0 -
Sorry to burst your bubble but you arent overweight. Not even with the BMI scale.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm
At 5'3" and 140 lbs your bmi is 24.8.
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
Overweight = 25–29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Now I on the other hand am wayyyyy fatter than you. Mine is 28.7.
Good Day Maddam
I call BS on your 28% BF if that's you in the pic. That looks more like 15-17% to me.0 -
BMI says the most I can weigh and be in "healthy" weight is like 140lbs. :noway: I'm 5'7" tall.
That is weird, since I am 5'6" and it says I can weigh up to 156.
At 5'10 I was told 153lbs to be dead center of a healthy BMI..so I could weigh about 10-15 more than that probably and still be ok..but just seems extreme..
Just looked it up...122 to 169 lbs is considered Appropriate BMI for my height...I could cut glass with my collar bones at 122..LOL
Yes, but there are naturally lean people who would be an appropriate weight at 122 and overfat at 169. The range doesn't mean that everyone your height could be an appropriate level of fatness anywhere within the range.
I agree with this!
I agree as well that there are people it works for, and that at my height and weighing 122 look great...BUT I agree with the OP that this should not be the tool the insurance companies use...The healthy they judge me on should be based on my bloodwork and overall health...not what some chart says I should weigh..0 -
Sorry to burst your bubble but you arent overweight. Not even with the BMI scale.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm
At 5'3" and 140 lbs your bmi is 24.8.
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
Overweight = 25–29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Now I on the other hand am wayyyyy fatter than you. Mine is 28.7.
Good Day Maddam
I call BS on your 28% BF if that's you in the pic. That looks more like 15-17% to me.
I'm confused..I didn't think Body Fat and Body Mass Index were the same thing...he says his BMI is 28.7 not his body fat...am I wrong?0 -
Sorry to burst your bubble but you arent overweight. Not even with the BMI scale.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm
At 5'3" and 140 lbs your bmi is 24.8.
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
Overweight = 25–29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Now I on the other hand am wayyyyy fatter than you. Mine is 28.7.
Good Day Maddam
I call BS on your 28% BF if that's you in the pic. That looks more like 15-17% to me.
Ummmmm - the 28.7 is his BMI not BF.0 -
I propose we move to the gorilla system.0
-
Yeah, I totally agree, for my bmi it says I should be about 115-120 pounds, I'm 5' 2" I just don't think I could have the muscle I want and weigh that and be healthy at all but we'll see when I get to my goal body!0
-
BMI was designed as a rough estimate of body fat percentage. It works for the average person. HOWEVER, the more muscular you are, the less accurate it becomes. That's why, as another poster said, it's better to use body fat percentage. Most experts say that scales are the best way to do this at home. They may be a little off at times, but are still a better gauge than BMI.0
-
you look amazing!!0
-
Obviously the power ring is throwing off the calculations!
(But seriously, yeah, BMI is a gross generalization that doesn't take into account a lot of different factors.)0 -
You look amazing. Should totally ignore that scale, you look INCREDIBLY healthy!0
-
BMI says the most I can weigh and be in "healthy" weight is like 140lbs. :noway: I'm 5'7" tall.
This is totally wrong.
The top end of "healthy" BMI for 5'7" is ~160 lbs, not 140.
OP: You are also not "overweight" according to BMI scale. The top end of "healthy BMI" range for someone who is 5'3" is 141 lbs.0 -
BMI: Bogus Misleading Information0
-
My physician wants me to get down to 152 which for a girl that is 5'2" that is still overweight. Due to genetics and muscle structure, if I would go any lower then that, I would look sick. Thing is, BMI has always haunted me, and while I am at 32 :grumble: I want to get down enough body fat wise that is still healthy and not look sickly.
You look amazing and fit. Don't worry about the scale, as many have said, it's for the average person.0 -
I agree as well that there are people it works for, and that at my height and weighing 122 look great...BUT I agree with the OP that this should not be the tool the insurance companies use...The healthy they judge me on should be based on my bloodwork and overall health...not what some chart says I should weigh..
In general I agree. But I don't think that most people should discount BMI without having a body fat test done, or something similar.
I see a lot of people who are still significantly overweight saying "BMI is crap, my bro says so" -- well, for your bro it is, but he has 30 lbs of muscle where you have 30 lbs of fat. It's especially likely to be reasonably accurate if you don't lift.
For me, losing to about 20% bf will put me at the top end of the BMI scale. If I manage to put on muscle afterwards it'll put me back into the overweight category, but before formal weight training it was pretty reasonable.0 -
BMI says the most I can weigh and be in "healthy" weight is like 140lbs. :noway: I'm 5'7" tall.
That is weird, since I am 5'6" and it says I can weigh up to 156.
The info I quoted was from a chart in my doctor's office back in 2002. I remember it vividly bc at the time I was 170lbs and I thought I was in pretty decent shape and he called me obese. I was quite irrate when I left his office and have never been back to see him.
Your doctor was either looking at the wrong line on the chart (it'd be the high end of the BMI range if you were 5 3) or looking at a table which assumed you were a "medium frame" -- for example, for a woman your height with a medium frame, the met life tables (dated) will say 133-147.0 -
I agree the BMi is outdated.. Iam short and guide says I should be very tiny like 112-120.. Last time I was 132 people thought I looked very thin like i looked 115 but I was almost 135 because of my frame it was perfect for me but BMI guide had me near overweight at 132 if I would have actually been 115 I think I would have looked like a Skelton. Frame, stature, body composition all plays a part my wrists are the same size as the hubbies they are not small and petite I should not be compared weight wise to someone who has little bones and wrists it is not a fair comparison. And i am 41 Years old i should not be compared to a 20 year old with a difference of only a couple pounds it's not a realistic chart anymore.0
-
No need to be slightly confrontational. My point is that it's not the end all be all, and neither is the scale, it's important to use tools in perspective. Honestly the best guide is bodyfat%, while mine is probably 5% - 7% higher than I'd like it to be, I'm by no means unhealthy.
Also, while it's important to keep it in perspective, what do you think my insurance company will do with that information . . . after all they are judging me by simple metrics only and the doctor would put down that I am overweight. All of the information they gather regarding group metrics (including those who would rather pay the extra $500 per year instead of getting the annual physical discount) impacts the group rate my company pays, thereby impacting the rate I pay.
Again, while BMI is a tool, it's not the best available and should be used with hesitation.
I agree with you. And I'm also an outlier, and nearly got an eating disorder as a teenager due to my judo coach (who was an idiot, but I was too young and naive at 17 to realise it) telling me that I had to fight in the under 48 or 52kg weight category, when I was already starving and dehydrating myself to make the under 56 weight category and wanted to fight in the under 61kg weight category. He took nothing into account besides the BMI chart and my height, even though I was very lean and had visible upper abs at the time, which would have put my body fat percentage around 18%, i.e. right at the low end of the healthy range. Anyway, I quit judo, due to this and the fact I kept losing tournaments because I was so weak from starving myself to make a weight category I shouldn't have been fighting in (under 56kg). I'm currently about 63kg/140lb after doing stronglifths while eating at a slight surplus, body fat percentage around 23-25%, and 5'1" in height. So anyone who thinks that BMI can't do any harm, well it did for me. Bear in mind I'm talking about when I was 17; I'd realised that I was an outlier after studying human sciences at university, but really it shouldn't take having to do a degree in the field of biological sciences before you realise that BMI shouldn't apply to you.... they should come with a health warning, especially with the instruction to actually *look* at the person. If they look strong and lean, and don't have visible excess body fat, then that should take priority over a chart based on averages every single time.
And it goes the other way too. BMI lulls a lot of people with unhealthy body composition into a false sense of security. There are a lot of sedentary people with poor diets who have normal weight obesity, i.e. their body fat percentage is in the overfat or obese range, but their weight is in the BMI "healthy" range. It's your body composition that makes you healthy or unhealthy, not your weight. Strong, healthy bones and muscles are heavier than weak, wasted bones and muscles, and that is the main reason why BMI is a poor measure of health. It assumes that extra weight = body fat, and ignores the extent to which extra weight can come from having denser, healthier bones and muscles. Someone with normal weight obesity has too much body fat, and at the same time has weak, wasted bones and muscles and is at risk of illness from both the excess body fat AND from the lack of bone density and muscle (e.g. osteoporosis, joint problems) BMI should be scrapped, so people can start to focus on having healthy bones and muscles, not simply focusing 100% on how much body fat they have.0 -
And it goes the other way too. BMI lulls a lot of people with unhealthy body composition into a false sense of security. There are a lot of sedentary people with poor diets who have normal weight obesity, i.e. their body fat percentage is in the overfat or obese range, but their weight is in the BMI "healthy" range. It's your body composition that makes you healthy or unhealthy, not your weight. Strong, healthy bones and muscles are heavier than weak, wasted bones and muscles, and that is the main reason why BMI is a poor measure of health. It assumes that extra weight = body fat, and ignores the extent to which extra weight can come from having denser, healthier bones and muscles. Someone with normal weight obesity has too much body fat, and at the same time has weak, wasted bones and muscles and is at risk of illness from both the excess body fat AND from the lack of bone density and muscle (e.g. osteoporosis, joint problems) BMI should be scrapped, so people can start to focus on having healthy bones and muscles, not simply focusing 100% on how much body fat they have.
Also a very important point. This is why I always stand up for the BMI scale, because I often hear its limitations being quoted by people who are obviously overweight and looking for an excuse not to believe the numbers. There is a lot of discussion in the scientific community about different cutoffs for different ethnicities, based exactly on this issue. For example, people of Asian descent tend to have a higher percentage body fat for a given height, when compared with e.g. the total American population. This means that they can be carrying an unacceptable amount of body fat and still be classified as normal weight with a BMI of 24. Someone of African-American descent has a higher proportion of lean body mass than the total population, and so at a BMI of 26 they may have an acceptable body fat percentage. However these arguments don't even matter when you're talking about someone (not a body builder or sports person) obviously overweight with a BMI of 29, yet these are the people who are so quick to spout off about what a poor measure BMI is.
I'd love there to be an accurate, easy, inexpensive way to measure body composition, and then insurance companies could get accurate information and people in denial of their weight problems could get accurate, useful information.0 -
Yes, but 140 pounds and 5'3" tall I am considered overweight. I'm also a size 2 or four or six depending on vanity sizing or a small to medium generally small. This is me:
Yep. I see it. Totally overweight
my bmi is in the red zone overweight- 4'8", 125lbs.....19%bf. My husband tells me, "you arent fat....you just displace a lot of water. Youre....dense!"
Btw-loving the costume so much!0 -
Sums it up well0
-
My doctor told me that BMI is total BS and most people in the medical community feel the same. If you go by BMI I am still 15-20 pounds over weight so judge for your self. As far as you go , I dont see you being over weight by your pic, I agree with the others who say body fat % is the way to go0
-
Also, while it's important to keep it in perspective, what do you think my insurance company will do with that information . . . after all they are judging me by simple metrics only and the doctor would put down that I am overweight. All of the information they gather regarding group metrics (including those who would rather pay the extra $500 per year instead of getting the annual physical discount) impacts the group rate my company pays, thereby impacting the rate I pay.
see if they offer alternative bmi readings. my company does for people like you who are healthy but still fall in those areas. no harm in checking 0 -
I have a "large frame". Big shoulders, big hips, big head, feet, hands, etc. I also have a decent amount of lean body mass due to literally 15 years of lifting weights off and on (consistently for the last 2 years including a bulk phase). BMI still works for me. I am 5'9" and 160lbs. At my height a health BMI runs from 128lbs to 169lbs. At 169 I would be a little "overweight". At 128 I would probably be underweight (the lowest I've been as an adult is 145 but I didn't look "sick" or anything, I was still about 20% bodyfat) but that's why there is a range.0
-
And for the amount that people say BMI is BS, they tend to take it too seriously when someone is out of the range by a couple of pounds. First of all there is a range, and the range does not apply to one person. Different people will fit into the range in different places. But, the range does not take into account people with very small frames or larger frames. People get upset when I say that because yes, it does account for frame size, but it does not account for the full range (some people are a lot smaller or a lot bigger than so-called "average"). Your rib cage measurement is a good determining factor in understanding this (especially if you have a low body fat percent). For women there are many factors that can contribute to a higher BMI for one person over another person. And if a person falls outside the range by a few pounds, that is not significant. The BMI chart can be useful in some cases as a guideline, but like everyone is saying it is just one piece of information and can't be considered the whole story of goals and health and what to pay attention to.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions