Who figures this BMI crap anyway?

Options
2

Replies

  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    Anyway.. going to try and get back on the wagon and get back to a healthy weight. Now, for work they want my BMI under 25,..so to hit that I have to get under 174 I think. (I’m 5’11’’) OH sure..that should be no problem.. I was that when I was SEVENTEEN!! Who figures this BMI crap anyway?

    I'm the same height as you and my lean weight range is 150-160 lbs, on a medium bordering on small frame.

    Which is about 100 lbs less than when I was 17.

    What's your complaint again?
    Please use a bit of common sense and then BMI is fine. It is clearly not a one size fits all model. If you are a matchstick with a BMI of say 26, then common sense would say dont lose anymore. Similarly if you are very well built with lots of muscle.

    I have a BMI of around 23.5. If I tried to lose another 2-3kg to hit my ideal BMI, I would look too thin for my liking.

    However, various people of average build - no point being picky about this; it is quite reasonable to assume what is an average build (someone who doesnt work out 6 times a week, perhaps) - think they arent overweight when they actually are. Besides what is wrong with a tool that reasonably encourages people to lose weight. Is there really an epidemic of vast people being treated for eating disorders because of what BMI has got them into?

    All of this.
  • mschicagocubs
    mschicagocubs Posts: 774 Member
    Options
    BMI is fine. Why the complaint? Are you saying you have grown in height since you were 17?

    It's really not.
    It doesn't take into account body composition. A lot of athletes are considered obese according to BMI because they've got so much muscle. It doesn't even work well on the average person because there's no such thing as the average person.

    ^^ BMI is silly. It's a decent starting point to see how you are health wise, but don't use it as a bible.
  • osothefinn
    osothefinn Posts: 163 Member
    Options
    It's really not.
    It doesn't take into account body composition. A lot of athletes are considered obese according to BMI because they've got so much muscle. It doesn't even work well on the average person because there's no such thing as the average person.

    For the sub 1% of the population this applies to, sure. Most everyone else fits in the numbers fine. But muh thin privilege!!
  • osothefinn
    osothefinn Posts: 163 Member
    Options
    My company has BMI under 32 as a criteria to qualify for a lower medical premium. I think we're getting ready to lower that to 28. But 25? I guess they want to make sure you're in the 'normal' range. Makes since, but BMI is such an out dated measure of health. But, it's a quantifiable number, so it's used often.

    If someone is a rare physical specimen outlier, they should ask for a body fat test instead. Most people don't have that problem however.
  • osothefinn
    osothefinn Posts: 163 Member
    Options

    Between monitoring your BMI, your body fat percentage, and even things like how you FEEL and how healthy your body is overall (maybe through labs and what not)...all of that will help you decide what a good weight is for YOU. :)

    I felt pretty good at 485 pounds, but I'm preeeeeety sure that wasn't a good weight for me. Lo and behold over 100 pounds later I feel even better, and I'm still going.

    Using good bloodwork numbers alone as an indicator of health sucks too. My blood sugar and cholesterol were fine for a long time (over 20 years), until one day they weren't anymore. Guess what? One hundred pounds lighter they're fine again without medication. Funny how that works.

    People can scream fat is healthy from the rooftops until they pass out, but it's not going to make it true.
  • 2crows4
    2crows4 Posts: 1
    Options
    I actually read a really informative post about BMI a short while ago. It's really not a good measure for individuals. In fact Ancel Keys, the guy who popularized BMI in its current general use, says that it's only appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. I'll sum up the points the post post made about BMI (as the full article is about more than BMI), but you can find the full post here: http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/female-bodies-a-weighty-issue/. It has links to sources and such for the points made below.

    1. It doesn't take into account the fact that muscle is denser than fat.

    2. It doesn't take height or bodytype into account. Taller individuals will always have a higher BMI regardless of their actual weight, because of the way the measurement is constructed, while shorter people will always have a lower one. Having been originally developed in Europe, using European physical norms, in the 1800s, neither does it factor in ethnicity or metabolism.

    3. Although women are both shorter on average than men while naturally carrying more fat, the BMI calculation doesn't take this into account, but uses the same measurement for both men and women. In fact, it was originally formulated based on studies of white male populations only.

    4. It doesn't account for age, or any change in height that occurs with age. A teenager who hasn't yet achieved their full growth or settled into their normal, adult weight is held to the same standards as someone old enough to have begun losing height.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    BMI - IMO - is a garbage stat as it does not adequately account for muscle mass..

    My BMI is "obese" but i am 12% body fat …go figure….
  • Loz220662
    Loz220662 Posts: 58 Member
    Options
    Hi, BMI? back in January there was a horizon TV program on BMI. Basically the researcher found out that in the 50s in USA the insurance companies were spending lots of money on peoples health. So to save money a statistician (not a doctor) worked out the average age of all the healthy people on their books, this gave rise to the BMI formula. It meant that if you were outside the healthy BMI range for your height the insurance companies would charge you more insurance.
    Now the other problem with this is the average person in the 50's was a lot thinner due to lower sugar, fats & salt, eating healthy homemade food, meat & 3 three veg a day. So the medical groups jumped on this as an easy (lazy) way to decide weather you were healthy, but then they also used to prescribe speed to help with weight loss. This has been bugging me since I saw this program , as my BMI means I will need to weight the same as I was when I was 14 years old (184lbs) I'm 6ft tall built like a brick out house. There are so many factors that also should be taken into account. Keep up the good work.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    BMI is to compare statistics of populations, not personal health and fitness.
  • CrusaderSam
    CrusaderSam Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    BMI is fine even for bodybuilders.

    If you look at most natural 5'11" bodybuilders their stage weight is 165 or under and off season is about 180 and that puts them at about a 25 BMI when they are bulking. Now if you go to a gym and you see the same guys there all the time, you can see right off when a guy starts a drug cycle, they will put on about 20# of muscle in no time, like 6 weeks. Now that will take them way out of the BMI ranges. So if you dont take drugs BMI works fine, even for bodybuilders.
  • SomeNights246
    SomeNights246 Posts: 807 Member
    Options
    BMI is fine. Why the complaint? Are you saying you have grown in height since you were 17?

    It's really not.
    It doesn't take into account body composition. A lot of athletes are considered obese according to BMI because they've got so much muscle. It doesn't even work well on the average person because there's no such thing as the average person.

    Please use a bit of common sense and then BMI is fine. It is clearly not a one size fits all model. If you are a matchstick with a BMI of say 26, then common sense would say dont lose anymore. Similarly if you are very well built with lots of muscle.

    I have a BMI of around 23.5. If I tried to lose another 2-3kg to hit my ideal BMI, I would look too thin for my liking.

    However, various people of average build - no point being picky about this; it is quite reasonable to assume what is an average build (someone who doesnt work out 6 times a week, perhaps) - think they arent overweight when they actually are. Besides what is wrong with a tool that reasonably encourages people to lose weight. Is there really an epidemic of vast people being treated for eating disorders because of what BMI has got them into?

    No, but there are a lot of people being rejecting for eating disorder treatment because their BMI is 'too high' to be considered sickly thin. Although, at a BMI of 20, some people ARE sickly thin.
  • NRBreit
    NRBreit Posts: 319 Member
    Options
    Calling BS on BMI should not be used as a valid rational to be overweight. If you fall above normal BMI, then get your BF% checked. If you have healthy BF% while being above a normal BMI, then applaud yourself for being a fine specimen. You will find this is more the exception than the rule.
  • jpulley03
    jpulley03 Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    Bodyfat% is much more important than BMI.
  • albertabeefy
    albertabeefy Posts: 1,169 Member
    Options
    It's really not.
    It doesn't take into account body composition. A lot of athletes are considered obese according to BMI because they've got so much muscle. It doesn't even work well on the average person because there's no such thing as the average person.

    For the sub 1% of the population this applies to, sure. Most everyone else fits in the numbers fine. But muh thin privilege!!
    It's absolutely incorrect to assume that BMI applies to over 99% of the population. BMI more appropriately represents a Bell Curve in it's application to people as a whole. It might be accurate for the small majority of people only.

    BMI alone simply is NOT a good predictor of overall health / fitness levels. Especially not fitness levels.

    images taken from this page ... http://paleozonenutrition.com/2012/04/25/what-does-your-body-look-like-on-the-inside-more-reasons-to-lift-weights/

    Same person, same BMI - after some diet/training:
    155-lbs-before-and-after.jpg

    Same person, higher BMI - again after diet/training:
    fat-vs-muscle.jpg

    Again, same person - same BMI but a massive difference in body composition:
    160lbs.jpg

    Same person, higher in BMI, and a comparison between fat/muscle of the same weight:
    fat-muscle.jpg
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    BMI is fine. Why the complaint? Are you saying you have grown in height since you were 17?

    It's really not.
    It doesn't take into account body composition. A lot of athletes are considered obese according to BMI because they've got so much muscle. It doesn't even work well on the average person because there's no such thing as the average person.
    People say this a lot, but it really isn't true. Most professional athletes are actually in a healthy BMI range. Are their outliers? Yes. Are they the norm? No, they are exceptions. For every Shaq (who lets face it, was fat, and obese on BMI) there's a Magic Johnson (BMI of 23.) Some NFL players have higher BMIs but most basketball and baseball players are right in the BMI ranges. The average Major League Baseball player is 6'2 and 190 pounds, which is a BMI of 24.

    Sure there will always be outliers where the BMI doesn't apply (just like with every kind of population metric,) but those are exceptions, and don't really invalidate the entire concept.
  • kennethmgreen
    kennethmgreen Posts: 1,759 Member
    Options
    The hardest part about BMI is getting the pronunciation correct.
  • anirishdad
    anirishdad Posts: 80
    Options
    I'm the same height as you and my lean weight range is 150-160 lbs, on a medium bordering on small frame.

    Which is about 100 lbs less than when I was 17.

    What's your complaint again?



    Well .. my point was I would think that at 175, I would be pretty skinny. So in essence, as I would assume most people don’t want to lose muscle, I would have to lose 30 pounds of fat..and fat only. I just find it hard to believe that would be realistic . But who knows. It was just a rant.
  • anirishdad
    anirishdad Posts: 80
    Options
    They are big into health here at my work..saves on insurance premiums and all. Hence the 18-25 B.M.I. thing. Thanks for all the responses.
  • gigglesinthesun
    gigglesinthesun Posts: 860 Member
    Options
    BMI - IMO - is a garbage stat as it does not adequately account for muscle mass..

    My BMI is "obese" but i am 12% body fat …go figure….

    your doctors frequently tell you to lose weight, because your BMI is pointing to obesity ???

    Most medical professionals do apply some common sense with these sort of things and like it or not, if they have an obese individual sitting in front of them, pointing to the persons BMI to illustrate their weight problem is a reasonable thing to do, because 'feeling great' at 400lbs doesn't mean anything in terms of long term health.
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,650 Member
    Options
    It's really not.
    It doesn't take into account body composition. A lot of athletes are considered obese according to BMI because they've got so much muscle. It doesn't even work well on the average person because there's no such thing as the average person.

    For the sub 1% of the population this applies to, sure. Most everyone else fits in the numbers fine. But muh thin privilege!!
    It's absolutely incorrect to assume that BMI applies to over 99% of the population. BMI more appropriately represents a Bell Curve in it's application to people as a whole. It might be accurate for the small majority of people only.

    BMI alone simply is NOT a good predictor of overall health / fitness levels. Especially not fitness levels.

    images taken from this page ... http://paleozonenutrition.com/2012/04/25/what-does-your-body-look-like-on-the-inside-more-reasons-to-lift-weights/



    Same person, higher in BMI, and a comparison between fat/muscle of the same weight:
    fat-muscle.jpg

    Ok, yeah I have seen people make some pretty impressive transformations from lifting, but I have to call foul on the last girl's body. The first 2 pics look like the same person, but that third pic is either a different person, or the pic has been "stretched", because that pic has a definite longer waist than the first 2. Losing weight and lifting canNOT make your waist longer.

Categories