Why I think The BMI scale is stupid: I am overweight

I propose we move to the gorilla system.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 go

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.