Is BMI an accurate measure or total B.S.?
gapeach1279
Posts: 37 Member
Just had an angioscreen this morning and one of the the things they "measured" was my BMI (based solely on what I wrote down as my height and weight). I was told a normal BMI for me is between 18.5 and 24.9. My results were 24.32. Automatically, my mnd said, "If my BMI was 0.6 higher, I would be considered overwight, which I know I'm not. It's funny, because the rational side of my brain says, "Let it go, you know you're not overweight.", but the emotional side of my mind says, "You better start running 5 miles a day!"
0
Replies
-
BMI is not an accurate indicator for people who are bodybuilding or heavy exercisers. You would be better off with a clamp test or "skin fold" or a body fat % test based on the navy/army calculation.
I mean some of the guys who are in amazing shape would be considered obese under the standard BMI calcuation.
I think body fat % is far better...esp if your trying to figure out your lean muscle mass.0 -
I call BMI BS. I agree with klaff411, BF% is a better measure of whether or not someone is "obese". Problem is that measuring BF% accurately is not a real exact science at this point. Someone came up with the BMI and, even though many fit military people are being told they have to lose weight or risk being discharged, no one seems to see that it doesn't work for determining anything about a person's fitness. It may correlate with some health markers, but I doubt it is anything that has been fully explored and investigated.
If you aren't running 5 miles a day now, I wouldn't start based on that0 -
BMI isn't totally BS. it is/was used by insurance companies to help determine risk of illness and death. It has the benefit of being quick and easy (and cheap) to determine, unlike BF %. Disadvantage is that it doesn't take into account BF% so doesn't apply to very fit people. Overall, I think it's a good starting point.0
-
BMI is a guide or health marker - it is not a bad tool but needs to be taken in context of clinical observation.
A person with a BMI of 35 may be healthy if they are an elite body builder with very high muscle ratio - or they may be unhealthy and obese. Is usually obvious which of these applies when seeing the patient.
Waist measurement is another good indicator and this does not significantly increase with body builder levels of muscle the way it does with excess fat.0 -
IMO it's more for sedentary/less active people0
-
BMI is mostly useless on the individual level. For making observations across large populations, though, it's really handy, and exceptionally easy to use.
Let's face it: most people with a BMI that registers "Obese" are not elite bodybuilders.
I agree with most others - a much better test of where you are as an individual is a body fat % test of some sort.0 -
BMI is BS, I hope they stop using that crap. My life insurance quote went up because they told me I am border line overweight because of BMI. I had to fight a long battle for them to consider BF%. I rather weigh 180 lbs with 12% BF than 170 lbs with 20% BF.0
-
for anybody who exercises regularly and has a reasonable amount of muscle on their body, BMI is total crap. The BMI scale was written to fit people who have little to no extra muscle on their bodies and as such should not be applied to the general population.
As a perfect example of how flawed the BMI scale is, Michael Jordon - one of the greatest basketball players ever who played with a BF% way below 10 - was obese at the height of his playing career according to the numbers in the BMI charts. Obese is an indication that he was 30% over ideal body weight according to the charts... you draw your own conclusions from that...
The other problem with the BMI charts is that they were 'down-sized' a few years back because to many people were fitting into the non-overweight categories and the people who make a living from the 'fat farms' were in danger of losing a TON of money because people were no longer getting hysterical about the epidemic of obesity in this country.
Now, don't get me wrong - we do have a serious problem with obesity in this country, but this little 'tool' that the govt developed is flawed at it's very basis and should be completely revamped...0 -
IMO it's more for sedentary/less active people
It also depends on the build of a body. People can be sedentary and have low BF%.0 -
Thank you all so much for your feedback!0
-
BMI is okay for trending in large populations but at the individual level it is BS. Body composition is where it is at if you work out.0
-
<<<< Obese by BMI.0
-
BMI is the world scale of obesity but its not THE measurement for obseity. Everybody's physical makeup ranges completely and one scale cannot accurately scale for every person. Per the scale i will be obese for the rest of my life but look at my pics and im sure you will disagree with everyone else lol
I use it just to see what my possible BMI is until i can get some tape measurements.
- James0 -
BMI is a start. Another good measure for health (not fitness) is waist to height ratio. That one actually gives an idea of how much body fat is being stored in the torso, which is an indicator for a number of health concerns.0
-
According to BMI, I'm ever so slightly underweight. It doesn't take into account that I have a ridiculously tiny frame! Thankfully, any doctors I run into for various things seem quite happy to actually LOOK at me and take all that muscle into account, rather than judge based on BMI.
Non-medical people can be a bit harsh, if they ever find out my weight, but I just whip out an arm and all that muscle soon shuts them up!
0 -
<
Yup. Im obese too. To be at a "normal" weight for my height I'd need to lose another 50 - 55 lbs....
Last week, my BMI calculator told me I was heavier than 83% of all people my height/age/gender.... I think this was supposed to scare me... but it didn't. I kinda dig bein heavy!0 -
This is just an observation:
BMI is a general guideline that is going to be reasonable for most people.
It will likely be off for bodybuilders and possibly other athletes.
The part I find interesting is that the population that it's less accurate in, is the population that doesn't need to worry about it to begin with.
I recall thinking it was crap when I first started lifting. The truth is that I was also overweight and overfat and it was accurate for me. I just didn't want to accept it.0 -
I'm in the population where it's not very applicable to me. I'm about 12% body fat at "obese" according to BMI.0
-
This is just an observation:
BMI is a general guideline that is going to be reasonable for most people.
It will likely be off for bodybuilders and possibly other athletes.
The part I find interesting is that the population that it's less accurate in, is the population that doesn't need to worry about it to begin with.
I recall thinking it was crap when I first started lifting. The truth is that I was also overweight and overfat and it was accurate for me. I just didn't want to accept it.
:flowerforyou:0 -
This is just an observation:
BMI is a general guideline that is going to be reasonable for most people.
It will likely be off for bodybuilders and possibly other athletes.
The part I find interesting is that the population that it's less accurate in, is the population that doesn't need to worry about it to begin with.
I recall thinking it was crap when I first started lifting. The truth is that I was also overweight and overfat and it was accurate for me. I just didn't want to accept it.
Looking at your photos, I wouldn't say you look on the border of overweight. However, SideSteel has a point- usually the people saying "it's crap! I'm not overweight!" are not bodybuilders and athletes. Those that ARE bodybuilders and serious athletes are correct in that they are heavily muscled and have a great, healthy body fat percentage that BMI doesn't reflect (like a couple of posters on this thread.) However, most of the people I personally have seen on MFP squawking about BMI being nonsense are people who also insist they are "big-boned"...and quite honestly, I do think that it's an excuse a lot of the time.
This isn't directed at you or even at any one in particular on this thread. It's just a general trend I personally have noticed. But if you're worried, get your body fat % tested and go by that instead.0 -
For overweight populations, BMI is not a good indicator.
For underweight populations, BMI has more merit.0 -
For overweight populations, BMI is not a good indicator.
For underweight populations, BMI has more merit.
Aside from well trained athletes, why do you think BMI is not a good indicator? Additionally, indicator of what?
I'm typing from my phone so this may come across blunt--not trying to bust your balls. I would like to hear your explanation though.0 -
Go off of Body Fat Percentage... Not BMI,
A couple of years ago I had a trainer do a body fat percentage thing... Even if I lost every single ounce of fat on my body, which is impossible, I would still be considered in the overweight/obese category according to BMI. Since I have a lot of muscle... I also unfortunately have a layer of fat covering up my pretty muscles
0 -
No it's not BS. However it isn't accurate unless you are of the median body composition on which it is based. Which percentage wise, the majority are.
However, it's not accurate for particularly tall/short/muscly people. BF is better to go by.0 -
This is just an observation:
BMI is a general guideline that is going to be reasonable for most people.
It will likely be off for bodybuilders and possibly other athletes.
The part I find interesting is that the population that it's less accurate in, is the population that doesn't need to worry about it to begin with.
I recall thinking it was crap when I first started lifting. The truth is that I was also overweight and overfat and it was accurate for me. I just didn't want to accept it.
Looking at your photos, I wouldn't say you look on the border of overweight. However, SideSteel has a point- usually the people saying "it's crap! I'm not overweight!" are not bodybuilders and athletes. Those that ARE bodybuilders and serious athletes are correct in that they are heavily muscled and have a great, healthy body fat percentage that BMI doesn't reflect (like a couple of posters on this thread.) However, most of the people I personally have seen on MFP squawking about BMI being nonsense are people who also insist they are "big-boned"...and quite honestly, I do think that it's an excuse a lot of the time.
This isn't directed at you or even at any one in particular on this thread. It's just a general trend I personally have noticed. But if you're worried, get your body fat % tested and go by that instead.
In my lean-ish pics I believe I was still considered overweight by BMI standards. However in my original statement I was referring to my starting point 3.5 years ago. I was 5'11 and 200lbs and I believed that I wasn't all that overweight. Having lost 20lbs but also gaining a reasonable amount of muscle in that time (which means my total fat loss was likely higher than 20lbs) it puts perspective on things.0 -
I have several friends who body-build and their BMI measurements are going to place them in the over-weight category. So no, I feel that measuring body fat percentage is a better indicator. Body composition is important here. A pound of fat and a pound of muscle is still a pound, but look at how different they are visually.0
-
Even at my goal weight because of my frame size I will still be obese by BMI standards. I call total BS.0
-
It is actually not that inaccurate of an indicator unless you have a high muscle mass - and even then its not that wildly off for women. It can be more inaccurate for men as they can carry proportionately more muscle mass than women.
If you are a female and well into the overweight category, you probably are overweight to some degree. I doubt you would find (m)any women in the obese category who are not at least overweight.
However, BF% is a better indicator as t takes into account muscle mass. That being said, most BF% estimation tools are not that accurate.0 -
It's off base for me. But I guess I am closer to the athlete level and therefore low body fat and higher weight confuse it. Plus I find my 6' height throws it off too...
I did this for sh!ts and giggles...
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MireyGal76/view/body-fat-and-bmi-not-accurate-6247260 -
BMI is a measurement tool that is so cheap and easy; and that is why I don't see it going away any time soon. Measuring body fat % is so much more accurate! I really do wish they would classify more people based up their body fat percentage. But think about this........ how many people would be classified as "obese" if "they" did.......I wonder if the # would go up or down..?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