Is BMI really BS?

Saying its completely useless is just as short sighted as saying that its the ultimate metric.

It's one tool and its important to recognize exactly what it tells you. And for what it tells you, and for its intended use, it is pretty good for the general population.

Saying its completely useless is just as short sighted as saying that its the ultimate metric.

It's one tool and its important to recognize exactly what it tells you. And for what it tells you, and for its intended use, it is pretty good for the general population.

And we are back to the general population argument

Am I in the general population? Is my wife?

So we both look at the BMI chart and find we're both on the verge of healthy/overweight

Tell me how it's pretty good for me or my wife based on what you know?

I'm not sure what your point is. There are athletic people, typically those who have years of resistance training experience, for whom the BMI scale may not be reasonable.

There are also those who are in denial about their level of fatness.

I cannot determine the answer to this in your specific example based on the information I currently have.

Do you believe that all calorie estimation calculators are completely useless because there are outliers?

I'm surprised no one posted this yet.

Yea, but more people that are closer aligned to the obese guy use the ripped the guy as their excuse.

It is definitely a tool, but really my BMI went from 25.7 to 25.3, but my body fat percentage dropped by almost 10% in the same time frame (8 months). I lost 13.25 lb of fat and gained 10.25 lb of lean muscle. But I only lost 3 lb on the scale.

So someone is going to tell me I am just a teeny bit healthier than I was before? Granted, I have never had a doctor say that to me ever....but it is an interesting look (when you are measuring things like inches and body fat percentage regularly) and utilizing other methods to track can help to analyze your 'health' in other ways

I'm not sure what your point is. There are athletic people, typically those who have years of resistance training experience, for whom the BMI scale may not be reasonable.

There are also those who are in denial about their level of fatness.

I cannot determine the answer to this in your specific example based on the information I currently have.

Do you believe that all calorie estimation calculators are completely useless because there are outliers?

My point is that by 'General population', what do you mean? Is it me? My wife? You? How do we know?

If I heard that the calorie estimation calculators only worked for 'some' of the population; and that they could give massively inaccurate results in a fairly large number of cases; and that the results of the inaccuracies could have serious implications, AND I could have a pretty damned reasonable guess as to what the calculations were going to tell me just by looking, then yes, they would be useless too

Why does everything in life have to be either A) The absolute truth or Complete BS?

Is BMI the absolute truth? No

Is BMI Complete BS? No

It's one tool/metric one can use. It should not be the only one.

As to the pic above - that would seem to imply that a scale is BS too, as both weigh 250 lbs.

Taking BMI in isolation with no relevant context would be like one of the above people saying they weigh 250 lbs. with no relevant context.

Saying its completely useless is just as short sighted as saying that its the ultimate metric.

It's one tool and its important to recognize exactly what it tells you. And for what it tells you, and for its intended use, it is pretty good for the general population.

And we are back to the general population argument

Am I in the general population? Is my wife?

So we both look at the BMI chart and find we're both on the verge of healthy/overweight

Tell me how it's pretty good for me or my wife based on what you know?

I'm not sure what your point is. There are athletic people, typically those who have years of resistance training experience, for whom the BMI scale may not be reasonable.

There are also those who are in denial about their level of fatness.

I cannot determine the answer to this in your specific example based on the information I currently have.

Do you believe that all calorie estimation calculators are completely useless because there are outliers?

You keep saying outliers. But when there are so many examples of when BMI doesn't work, those aren't outliers. Outliers are rarities that skew the data. Get much more than a couple and it stops being an outlier and is now a trend.

Me, for example, I'm fat. I'm willing to admit that I'm fat. That's why I'm here, I'm not in denial. BMI tells me I'm obese, I've talked to my doctor, I'm not close to carrying enough fat to be considered obese. But now I'm just another outlier. It's not a matter of people denying fatness, it's that BMI is a really poor scale because it doesn't actually take in the numerous other variables. Body fat % is what people ought to be looking at.

Literally all BMI tells you it the relationship between your height and weight. For the 'average' population (whatever that means), it may be able to say whether or not you're 'too' skinny or 'too' fat. You can find that exact same thing out more reliably by way of body fat percentage, so why would you use BMI, which may be skewed based on presence of muscle mass or bone density or body frame?

It doesn't tell you anything about your health, and it's based on old information as to what is 'acceptable' weight wise. It doesn't actually consider what is a healthy weight for different individuals. Two people of the same height both weigh 110 pounds will have the same BMI. However, one may need to gain some fat the other may be very healthy, sitting pretty at that number. It's medically a rather useless index when there's so many other reliable, more scientifically backed means of determining health and wellness and fitness level.

I think the only people on the planet to whom you should listen regarding your weight loss goals are your doctor, and the person in your mirror, but that's just me.

I agree with you!

I'm surprised no one posted this yet.

Yea, but more people that are closer aligned to the obese guy use the ripped the guy as their excuse.

True enough. But the longer you do strength training the less accurate bmi becomes for you. It's only good for basically sedentary people.

Oh I agree. I have a BMI of 24.3 which is the upper side of healthy. I'm 6', 178lbs and have a BF% of 14-15% (est). I am hardly some physical specimen like Adrian Peterson, but I am pretty fit in my opinion and still working on BF%. I am only around 5-6lbs from being classified as overweight. So yea, I get the picture, but I think that the US view on what "Normal" is has become so skewed due to so much of the population being overweight that they use the too much muscle/large framed/naturally bulky excuse when it really doesn't apply to them.

I'm surprised no one posted this yet.

Probably because it's grossly inaccurate. Here's what a lean and fit 6'1, 185 lbs looks like...

Is it complete BS to rely solely on the BMI charts? Yes

As soon as you start to add in other measures such as BF, age, body composition, tape measure info, then you are making BMI completely redundant - hence no point using it in the first place

I'm surprised no one posted this yet.

Probably because it's grossly inaccurate. Here's what a lean and fit 6'1, 185 lbs looks like...

And again, here's what an overweight 167lb 5'8" non-professional athlete looks like.

I'm surprised no one posted this yet.

Probably because it's grossly inaccurate. Here's what a lean and fit 6'1, 185 lbs looks like...

And again, here's what an overweight 167lb 5'8" non-professional athlete looks like.

Just extremes to prove the point, that's all

Those like me who don't (unfortunately) look like Ronaldo, will still find the results skewed

Saying its completely useless is just as short sighted as saying that its the ultimate metric.

It's one tool and its important to recognize exactly what it tells you. And for what it tells you, and for its intended use, it is pretty good for the general population.

And we are back to the general population argument

Am I in the general population? Is my wife?

So we both look at the BMI chart and find we're both on the verge of healthy/overweight

Tell me how it's pretty good for me or my wife based on what you know?

I'm not sure what your point is. There are athletic people, typically those who have years of resistance training experience, for whom the BMI scale may not be reasonable.

There are also those who are in denial about their level of fatness.

I cannot determine the answer to this in your specific example based on the information I currently have.

Do you believe that all calorie estimation calculators are completely useless because there are outliers?

You keep saying outliers. But when there are so many examples of when BMI doesn't work, those aren't outliers. Outliers are rarities that skew the data. Get much more than a couple and it stops being an outlier and is now a trend.

In this case perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology when I say outlier since one definition places outliers distant from the group.

What I mean to say is this: BMI will be accurate for most people and there will also exist some people for whom it will not be accurate for. I believe it will be a reasonable metric for most people, but it is only one piece of information and it should be treated as such.

As an aside, I also believe that there are several people who are in the overweight category who believe BMI is just wrong because they have all kinds of muscle mass or bone density, when the truth is they are just overweight and in denial.

I think you're missing the point

Most aren't saying that the BMI chart is total BS at all.

I was answering the OP's question only...which is whether or not it is BS

Is it complete BS to rely solely on the BMI charts? Yes

FIFY

Except ALOT of people, companies, and even health professionals DO take BMI in isolation without any other context.

And obvsiously I would disagree with that approach...but that's the fault of the person relying solely on one metric with no context, not the metric itself.

^ I agree with all of this.