Does anyone else follow BMI?

BMI is an antiquated measurment done in the 1800s to decide how to disperse food during tight times...it is for big populations therefore to apply it to an individual is not a good idea.

is it a good "guide" perhaps but remember it doesn't take into account a lot of factors...it would place most athletes in the overweight category.

Yeah Im agreeing with everyone on here, for all its faults BMI is a nice guide to where you should be roughly, but a guide only. I set my goals using the BMI scale but unlike most I havent set it "normal" range Ive set it to just outside still in the overweight scale. The reason Im doing this it gives me a current goal to aim and when I reach that goal depending on my body I will either carry on if my bf% is still too high or if its good then its time to add some muscle.

Use it as a guide but re evaluate your goals based on yourself not what some chart tells you to be.

Nearly all accomplished female athletes tend to be "normal" BMI, while male athletes.. also "normal" when world sports are considered. Most male soccer players, runners, tennis players, etc are "normal". But male strength sports (football, hockey, current bball, etc) athletes are mostly over "normal".

Anyhoo, I'm "overweight" with abs and the classifications don't bother me at all. I'm part of the exception that pretty much every BMI site references. In the context of normal untrained people and women, BMI classifications tend to be pretty reasonable imo.

BMI is fine if you just use it as another tool in your armoury for tracking your weight/fitness goals. It is pretty accurate, completely inaccurate for others (waiting for the obligatory photo of the body builder with an obese BMI)

Just use it along with other tools such as scales, tape measure and your personal judgment

A bit as a guide, but I don't stare myself blind on it, because it doesn't tell the difference between fat and muscle. Besides I have been checking more then one BMI calculator and they all gave different results.

Some insurance companies are using BMI to determine rates.

BMI is just a statistical tool; as such, it may not be particularly relevant to your particular body and situation.

Because ChrisM8971 asked for it, I present you with MMA fighter Rhonda Rousey, whose BMI is on the high side:



Remember, the image is of her 'making weight' for a fight, so likely dehydrated. She's likely heavier than this when she enters the Octagon.

Rousey is "normal" BMI. She's 20 pounds below the top end of the "normal" range when she's making weight.

Put in a Ms Olympia contestant. Some of them can manage getting to "overweight" with visible abs.

She started competing at a heavier weight class than she currently does, if memory serves.

edited for quote fail.

I really don't get the logic behind posters using Olympians, elite professional athletes and weight lifters as examples whenever the topic of BMI comes up. Why??

None of us here is one of them and the OP certainly isn't otherwise she wouldn't be asking this question in the first place!

There is a correlation of BMI and bf% in general for the normal public so yeah, I would be trying to get into the healthy range of the BMI if I was the OP and then see how she feels from there. However, don't be too obsessed about hitting a "right" number.

As for Dr Christian Jessen, he apparently has muscle dysmorphia so I wouldn't be looking at his BMI either.

BMI isn't everything, and it's really not even something to guide an individual. But chances are you do have that much fat to lose.

I know BMI is not perfectly accurate, that's fine, but I have certain other issues with it.

I'm a female, and I am currently on the lower end of Obese on the BMI scale. To get to the healthy weight for my height I need to lose about 15kg (33lb) No biggy, I was looking at losing about that much anyway. The issue I have is this - that will put me at the top end of the "healthy" weight range. To get into the middle of it I need to lose 25kg (55lbs).

BUT, I don't think I have that much fat to lose, and I think I will look ridiculously skinny if I do. I have no fat on my shoulders, ribs or hips, so the weight I will be losing will be around my stomach and legs. Does anyone else think this would make me look too skinny, or am I just making excuses not to lose weight?

You have to take into account your frame, muscle mass, etc. Not everyone is going to be at the low end of BMI which is why it's a stupid measure. It's a decent guideline, particularly if you're overweight and looking to get to a healthy weight...but I see so many people here trying to get to the lower end of BMI and it can be just as unhealthy.

To get to the lower end of BMI for my stats, I'd have to lose about 15 Lbs of muscle in the process...how stupid would that be? I'm actually just slightly above the high end ceiling for my stats but I'm at a perfectly healthy BF%. BF% is a much better guide. I could still drop a couple points in BF as I'm on the high end of healthy...but dropping a couple points would mean dropping about 5-10 Lbs and that would put me comfortably at 15% BF...and I'd still weight 170 Lbs. The low end of BMI for me is 140 Lbs....does it seem even remotely realistic that i could get there without doing substantial damage to myself?

BMI is not a great way to set a goal. It doesn't work for a lot of people. According to BMI I'm "obese". (~32 BMI).

Here's a site which gives a much better way to calculate your ideal weight based off of body fat %. This is a much more accurate indicator of health than BMI: http://www.builtlean.com/2010/05/04/ideal-body-weight-formula-how-to-calculate-your-ideal-weight/