Is BMI really BS?
Replies
-
"BMI is not always BS but it can be. Like one of the poster says, "look at Adrian Peterson". Having a lot of muscle will skew the BMI #s."
LMAO...how many people here look like Adrian Peterson? BMI is a GREAT guide for people who don't look like him or bodybuild. IMHO, the people who don't agree with BMI are the people who are considered overweight. I'm 5'5". My healthy range is 111 lbs to 149 lbs. I think I'd consider myself overweight if I was 150...not OBESE..but overweight. I agree with everything Iwishyouwell said. I'm actually about to friend that person because he made so much sense.
Yep, it's almost always people who are overweight or obese according to the BMI chart that have these vehement reactions to it.
And unfortunately for them, most of them are not muscular outliers. They're just fat and can't conceive how low their weight would need to go in order to no longer be fat.
Really? Because most of the people I've seen here disagreeing with you have given body stats that say otherwise, but clearly we're all just delusional about how fat we are.
Oh yes, the majority of the people here calling the BMI BS and disagreeing with me are special snowflake BMI outliers who are overweight to obese on the BMI scale, yet ripped to shreds in real life.
Next up: the legions of MFPers who can't lose weight on 1200 calories a day.
Following: meet the MFP smokers who are immune to cancer and believe the anti-smoking campaign got it all wrong.4 -
That's great. I'm not calling you fat. I don't know you, your body fat percentage, your LBM, or anything.
But check this. You, as an above average muscular woman who lifts heavy weights, still fall within a healthy BMI. For a woman you are a worldwide outlier, and still the BMI range stretches to fit you.
So you've actually supported my point.
For all the moaning and complaining about BMI, the range is still quite wide and still able to fit even some outliers such as yourself.
It also proved the point that it's far too simplistic
The OP didn't just want to be 'in the healthy range' according to the BMI charts, she wondered if she needs to move from the 'heavier side of healthy'
Should she lose more weight as she is approaching 'overweight on the BMI scale'?
I don't know, and nor do you, all depends on how much muscle she has etc. Hence in her case, BMI is at best, useless, at worst, very misleading
I actually completely disagree with this statement. Actually, for her, it's totally fine. I haven't read to the end of this thread yet, but there doesn't appear to have been much said about the fact that the OP is at a healthy weight. Higher/lower end of healthy is a bit of a nonsense because that is why there's a range, to begin to account for individual variation. That's why healthy is18.5-25 and not just 22.0 -
What is that trying to prove?
I think I am lost.
Not everyone who claims to be an outlier on BMI is delusional about their weight. Yes, a lot of people use it as an excuse for why they are overweight, but there are plenty of people, including several who have posted to this thread and the OP, that classify as near/overweight according to BMI, that are perfectly healthy by EVERY other indicator. To imply that outliers only exist in cases of extreme athletes and body builders is simply not true.0 -
Thing is, like wonderob said... most people don't know if they fall into the majority that it does work for, or if they're an outlier that it's potentially dangerous for. And that's where the major issue is with BMI.... the damage is often done before the person learns that they're an outlier that it shouldn't apply to.
Which is by far eclipsed by the danger of people who throw out the generalizations of BMI, that fit most people, based off the minority outliers.
It's becoming downright epidemic for people who could be guided quite well by the THIRTY or so pound range on the BMI "healthy scale" to throw out the baby with the bathwater based off a few outliers that have nothing to do with them.
The growing vehemence against the BMI and standard height/weight charts is a direct result of a fatter growing nation. The weight range of, again, about THIRTY pounds is now being seen by many as too restrictive. Suddenly so many are now quoting outlier info as if it applies to the majority, which it does not. But that's not stopping them from getting pissed at their BMI and saying "oh, I can't possible be that skinny".
The range of the BMI is more and more being looked at as unrealistic, too skinny, and unhealthy.
Even by the huge volume of people for whom it absolutely is not.Body fat percentage, measured reliably, is a much better metric... it differs only by age and gender (i.e. it's the same regardless of height and frame size) and people know how old they are and what gender they are. If you're going to exclude people from BMI based on their lean body mass... well by the time you measure people's lean body mass in order to tell of BMI is right for them, then you may as well just calculate their body fat percentage and forget about BMI. BMI is a way to get a very approximate idea of someone's body fat percentage, which only works if you're average in your frame size... while body fat percentage measures how much actual body fat you're carrying.
(and BF% needs to be done reliably, e.g. dexa, body density measures, skinfold calipers used by someone who knows what they're doing - and even better if it's backed up by visual estimates, and 2 or 3 methods are used to eliminate error)
BF% is the superior test.
But considering how expensive, and generally inaccessible, the more reliable tests are, it'll never become the prevailing test. And that is unfortunate.2 -
The athlete with 12% body fat who wants to lose 2 pounds to make himself a bit sharper before the season starts - is he 'overweight'?
Your pic is not 12% body fat.1 -
Can't keep track of who's arguing for what - that pic definitely shows an overweight, pudgy individual. Was that the point you were trying to make?And again, here's what an overweight 167lb 5'8" non-professional athlete looks like.
0 -
Is there really anyone at all on here that can honestly say that the BMI chart was helpful to them? That they were right in the middle of the healthy or overweight category... but didn't even realise it???
Umm, me!
When I first lost weight and hit what I was told in general was a "great" weight for me, in the upper 180s, on a 5' 11" frame, with a decent amount of LBM, I was alarmed to discover how much fat I still had on me. How could that be? I was always regarded as a "big boned" guy, with a large frame. People thought I looked great in the 180s, but that was with clothes on. Hell the weight I was has now become the male "ideal" weight in the US, even for men shorter than me.
Because I was fat for most of my childhood, it just seemed so natural that all the "big boned" comments were right, and that I was perfect in the upper 180s. I too had discarded all the height/weight and BMI charts because they all seemed ridiculously skinny and nobody I knew was recommending men of my height get down as low as the 150s to get truly lean.
It was then that I discovered I wasn't some special snowflake. That I was slimmer by US standards, but overweight by general world standards, and that I actually fit squarely in the ranges the BMI and height/weight charts were recommending.
I also discovered that I was actually a medium framed guy, but that even if I was a larger framed guy the upper 180s was pushing it even then. I lined up perfectly with the charts. When I started telling people that I was built more like my dad, who was slim with a non vanity sized 32 back in the 50s and 60s, even my family said "No! You're just a naturally bigger guy, you can't get that small".
Nonsense. And it's a common story. Lots of people think they are some "big boned", extra large framed outlier who defy the BMI. They can't even imagine getting down to even the middle range of the BMI, and some buck even the larger end of the range.
But lots of people are very wrong.
If everyone in this country woke up, men between 10-15% bodyfat, and women between 18%-24%, and then stepped on a scale, the majority would be shocked at how low their scale weight is.
Or rather, shocked that they actually fit in perfectly with their grandparents', and perhaps parents', generation.4 -
Can't keep track of who's arguing for what - that pic definitely shows an overweight, pudgy individual. Was that the point you were trying to make?And again, here's what an overweight 167lb 5'8" non-professional athlete looks like.
Exactly.
0 -
Good work in here Iwishyouwell. I agree with everything you've said, and I'm a muscular BMI "overweight". It doesn't bother me at all, because I obviously fit the caveat that appears with almost every BMI calculator out there. I've put on muscle to get here. And the average person does not look like I do.3
-
The athlete with 12% body fat who wants to lose 2 pounds to make himself a bit sharper before the season starts - is he 'overweight'?
Your pic is not 12% body fat.
No and I'm not - probably about 15% there. I'm about that now as well0 -
BMI has me in the obese category - in no way does the mirror show an obese person when i look in it!
Overweight - yes but not my much.
Are the pictures in your profile recent? If so you look like an obese individual.Overweight according to BMI
And the person in this picture looks overweight. Again, another point for the BMI.
Unfortunately this is what most of the supposed "outlier" cases look like. Overweight and obese individuals who are so skewed at what a lean human body looks like that they can't fathom they're in the right category, according to BMI, when it says "overweight" and "obese".
Most outliers don't look like a running back. They look like still quite fat people who just don't think they look still quite fat.2 -
Is there really anyone at all on here that can honestly say that the BMI chart was helpful to them? That they were right in the middle of the healthy or overweight category... but didn't even realise it???
Umm, me!
When I first lost weight and hit what I was told in general was a "great" weight for me, in the upper 180s, on a 5' 11" frame, with a decent amount of LBM, I was alarmed to discover how much fat I still had on me. How could that be? I was always regarded as a "big boned" guy, with a large frame. People thought I looked great in the 180s, but that was with clothes on. Hell the weight I was has now become the male "ideal" weight in the US, even for men shorter than me.
Because I was fat for most of my childhood, it just seemed so natural that all the "big boned" comments were right, and that I was perfect in the upper 180s. I too had discarded all the height/weight and BMI charts because they all seemed ridiculously skinny and nobody I knew was recommending men of my height get down as low as the 150s to get truly lean.
It was then that I discovered I wasn't some special snowflake. That I was slimmer by US standards, but overweight by general world standards, and that I actually fit squarely in the ranges the BMI and height/weight charts were recommending.
I also discovered that I was actually a medium framed guy, but that even if I was a larger framed guy the upper 180s was pushing it even then. I lined up perfectly with the charts. When I started telling people that I was built more like my dad, who was slim with a non vanity sized 32 back in the 50s and 60s, even my family said "No! You're just a naturally bigger guy, you can't get that small".
Nonsense. And it's a common story. Lots of people think they are some "big boned", extra large framed outlier who defy the BMI. They can't even imagine getting down to even the middle range of the BMI, and some buck even the larger end of the range.
But lots of people are very wrong.
If everyone in this country woke up, men between 10-15% bodyfat, and women between 18%-24%, and then stepped on a scale, the majority would be shocked at how low their scale weight is.
Or rather, shocked that they actually fit in perfectly with their grandparents', and perhaps parents', generation.
How did the BFI chart tell you how much fat you had on you? How did it tell you that you were a medium framed guy?
Most of your post and especially the last sentence just extolled the virtues of the BF indicator rather than the BMI chart-1 -
BMI has me in the obese category - in no way does the mirror show an obese person when i look in it!
Overweight - yes but not my much.
Are the pictures in your profile recent? If so you look like an obese individual.Overweight according to BMI
And the person in this picture looks overweight. Again, another point for the BMI.
Unfortunately this is what most of the supposed "outlier" cases look like. Overweight and obese individuals who are so skewed at what a lean human body looks like that they can't fathom they're in the right category, according to BMI, when it says "overweight" and "obese".
Most outliers don't look like a running back. They look like still quite fat people who just don't think they look still quite fat.
You're racking up points for BMi based on compete and utter guesswork and speculation
You have absolutely no idea how many quite fat people just don't think they are fat!-1 -
I am going to go ahead and call it BS. I think % BF is far more accurate. BMI is basically just a typical mass to height ratio and does not count fat/muscle.
Based on BMI I was obese at 5'11 225lbs.-1 -
My health insurance makes everyone go in and take a bunch of tests and we have to get weighed. If we are in the healthy range, we get a chunk of cash to pay for things that we usually have to pay for (like things below the deductible) If we are overweight we get slightly less money. If we are obese, we get nothing. I am morbidly obese and my husband is on the high end of normal. We got nothing this year thanks to me.
I know so many people who are anti BMI and tell me not to care about it. But losing that cash incentive DOES matter to me. I hope within two years we get the full amount because I'll be a normal BMI. It may be a silly or shallow reason to want to lose weight, but it is an incentive. I follow the BMI and I intend to celebrate when I am out of the morbidly obese range.0 -
<---- this is a pic of me, I carry a decent amount of muscle for my frame and fall squarely in the "normal" BMI ranges with a BMI of 22.8... at the end of my last cut I was about 9% bf with a BMI of 21.6, and at my heaviest I was about 15% BF with a BMI of 24.7, near the top of normal, and I thought yes I need to cut some fat.
I would suggest before you say BMI doesn't apply to you that if you are a man get below 15-17% BF%, and for a woman get below 25-27%... if at those % you are still above the healthy BMI range, then maybe it doesn't apply to you, but if you BF% is higher, can you really tell if it does or doesn't apply?0 -
Err You were (well only just BMI 31) I do love that people just want to ignore it because it does not fit in with their perception of what they think they are. Part of the reason why a lot have people have ended up on MFP is their constant denial of of the reality of their weight, health and fitness and this thread demonstrates a lot of people still have a way to go in admitting it to themselves. BF% in someways is an even more inaccurate way to measure as the only accurate way is by DEXA scan. All other methods have such a huge margin for error to make them pretty worthless.Based on BMI I was obese at 5'11 225lbs.0 -
It isn't total BS - it's just a general guideline. A large population wide study actually found people slightly over their BMI "normal weight" category lived the longest, and the pro-obesity people went wild with that - but they ignored the "slightly over" part of the study. We're talking five pounds over, not 50 or 100.
So yes, if the BMI scale says your top weight should be, say, 140 and you weigh 145 and are in pretty good shape, it's probably not a good deal. If you're using it to excuse a 20 pound spare tire - problem.0 -
BMI is BS! According to the calculator I am 31.7 or Obese. I am 5' 9" and my weight is 215lbs. I haven't been Obese for over a year now. The calculator can give a general figure, but it does not take into account body composition. At 190 the calculator has me at being overweight and at 28.1. I have to be 169 lbs to be considered in the normal range. My lean body mass is 179 lbs. Not going to happen.0
-
-
15% bf is pretty much an average amount and by no means too high except for you personally. If your BMI says at a normal amount of bf% that you're almost overweight then your muscles shifted your bmi pretty far to the higher end.<---- this is a pic of me, I carry a decent amount of muscle for my frame and fall squarely in the "normal" BMI ranges with a BMI of 22.8... at the end of my last cut I was about 9% bf with a BMI of 21.6, and at my heaviest I was about 15% BF with a BMI of 24.7, near the top of normal, and I thought yes I need to cut some fat.
I would suggest before you say BMI doesn't apply to you that if you are a man get below 15% BF%, and for a woman get below 25%... if at those % you are still above the healthy BMI range, then maybe it doesn't apply to you, but if you BF% is higher, can you really tell if it does or doesn't apply?0 -
How did the BFI chart tell you how much fat you had on you? How did it tell you that you were a medium framed guy?
Most of your post and especially the last sentence just extolled the virtues of the BF indicator rather than the BMI chart
Trying to sell me on the merits of BF% is myopic, at best. Because my argument was never BF vs BMI. You've turned it into that. Find someone who is arguing that ACCURATE body fat testing isn't the gold standard and take this argument to their doorstep.
My argument is, and remains, that for the majority of people the world over, the BMI ranges are accurate enough as to give people a general idea of what their healthy weight range likely is.I think BMI should only ever be used in conjunction with common sense.
My BMI is 32.6 and I wear a size UK 14 (so about a US 12) someone I know has a BMI of 25.2 and wears a size UK 20/22.
I accept that I am over weight but obese? really? everybody is shocked when I tell them that I am classed as obese.
It doesn't matter whether people are "shocked" that you are classified as obese. People were "shocked" that I was too. Heck many people would be "shocked" that I'm still classified as "overweight", because I carry my weight "well".
People have different images in their head of what "fat" people look like. Even though, here in the States, over 1/3 of us are now clinically obese, many, many of the people in that category don't fit the huge, sloppy image of "obese" that still collectively prevails.
Which is why you have people who don't look anything like their image of "obese" swearing left and right that they must be a special snowflake outlier. After All, nobody in their life would ever imagine they could be "obese". Chubby, pudgy, big boned, and more to love, sure, but "obese"? Never.1 -
BMI has me in the obese category - in no way does the mirror show an obese person when i look in it!
Overweight - yes but not my much.
Are the pictures in your profile recent? If so you look like an obese individual.Overweight according to BMI
And the person in this picture looks overweight. Again, another point for the BMI.
Unfortunately this is what most of the supposed "outlier" cases look like. Overweight and obese individuals who are so skewed at what a lean human body looks like that they can't fathom they're in the right category, according to BMI, when it says "overweight" and "obese".
Most outliers don't look like a running back. They look like still quite fat people who just don't think they look still quite fat.
So, according to hip/waist ratio - not overweight
according to Bf% (which by the way, for a woman my age ideal is 22% to 26%) - not overweight
according to cardio and strength test - excellent condition
according to blood panels - excellent condition
but sure I should ignore every other metric and take your word for it that I'm overweight. 0 -
i am obese according to my BMI
my pants size is 36
And many of today's size 36 pants actually measure 40, and above, at the waist. Thanks vanity sizing.
I have a pair of 36 Calvin Klein jeans made in the late 90s. They are smaller on me than some of the size 33/34 I can wear today. And even in the late 90s, as a teenager, I was still carrying too much weight in those old 36s.
Clothing size is a horrible measure today. Lots of obese guys are rocking size 36. Size 36 fits, for most guys, at least an overweight body. It's no surprise that an obese man could wear a 36 just fine.0 -
BMI is BS! According to the calculator I am 31.7 or Obese. I am 5' 9" and my weight is 215lbs. I haven't been Obese for over a year now. The calculator can give a general figure, but it does not take into account body composition. At 190 the calculator has me at being overweight and at 28.1. I have to be 169 lbs to be considered in the normal range. My lean body mass is 179 lbs. Not going to happen.
If you stick around and lose weight effectively, you'll be surprised. You're carrying around a lot of "lean" water and connective tissue with the 36 pounds of fat. And that's assuming the bf analysis was spot on.0 -
BMI has me in the obese category - in no way does the mirror show an obese person when i look in it!
Overweight - yes but not my much.
Are the pictures in your profile recent? If so you look like an obese individual.Overweight according to BMI
And the person in this picture looks overweight. Again, another point for the BMI.
Unfortunately this is what most of the supposed "outlier" cases look like. Overweight and obese individuals who are so skewed at what a lean human body looks like that they can't fathom they're in the right category, according to BMI, when it says "overweight" and "obese".
Most outliers don't look like a running back. They look like still quite fat people who just don't think they look still quite fat.
So, according to hip/waist ratio - not overweight
according to Bf% (which by the way, for a woman my age ideal is 22% to 26%) - not overweight
according to cardio and strength test - excellent condition
according to blood panels - excellent condition
but sure I should ignore every other metric and take your word for it that I'm overweight.
Not to be rude, but that pic on the left def looks over 26% bf%. If you had a dexa scan, pod pod test, or hydrostatic weighing I would take your word, maybe just retaining a bunch of water.
Hip to waist ratio can be bogus too, as someone obese with an hour glass shape would have the ideal ratio... that should also be done in conjunction with the actual size of your waist as well, as someone with a 38" waist still might have a "healthy" ratio, if they had 50" hips, just saying.
the cardio and strength tests have nothing to do with overweight, look at NFL linemen, they are all overweight but fit, same goes for blood work.
I would go with BF%; Waist size, not ratio; mirror; then BMI... If the first three scream "normal" or "healthy" and BMI says over weight, then I would ignore BMI.0 -
My health insurance makes everyone go in and take a bunch of tests and we have to get weighed. If we are in the healthy range, we get a chunk of cash to pay for things that we usually have to pay for (like things below the deductible) If we are overweight we get slightly less money. If we are obese, we get nothing. I am morbidly obese and my husband is on the high end of normal. We got nothing this year thanks to me.
I know so many people who are anti BMI and tell me not to care about it. But losing that cash incentive DOES matter to me. I hope within two years we get the full amount because I'll be a normal BMI. It may be a silly or shallow reason to want to lose weight, but it is an incentive. I follow the BMI and I intend to celebrate when I am out of the morbidly obese range.
This is *exactly* why the BMI as applied to INDIVIDUALS is a crock!
At my current height (74 inches) and LBM (171 LBS) my 'healthy' BMI range allows for BF% of between -15.5% to 11.3%... that's right NEGATIVE 15.5% BF - not to mention that I would still be considered overweight at 11.4% BF... but my company also structures insurance contributions based on BMI - seems legit. :eyeroll:0 -
This is *exactly* why the BMI as applied to INDIVIDUALS is a crock!
At my current height (74 inches) and LBM (171 LBS) my 'healthy' BMI range allows for BF% of between -15.5% to 11.3%... that's right NEGATIVE 15.5% BF - not to mention that I would still be considered overweight at 11.4% BF... but my company also structures insurance contributions based on BMI - seems legit. :eyeroll:
I'd say viewing lean mass as a static figure when significantly overweight is a bigger problem than BMI.0 -
BMI has me in the obese category - in no way does the mirror show an obese person when i look in it!
Overweight - yes but not my much.
Are the pictures in your profile recent? If so you look like an obese individual.Overweight according to BMI
And the person in this picture looks overweight. Again, another point for the BMI.
Unfortunately this is what most of the supposed "outlier" cases look like. Overweight and obese individuals who are so skewed at what a lean human body looks like that they can't fathom they're in the right category, according to BMI, when it says "overweight" and "obese".
Most outliers don't look like a running back. They look like still quite fat people who just don't think they look still quite fat.
So, according to hip/waist ratio - not overweight
according to Bf% (which by the way, for a woman my age ideal is 22% to 26%) - not overweight
according to cardio and strength test - excellent condition
according to blood panels - excellent condition
but sure I should ignore every other metric and take your word for it that I'm overweight.
Not to be rude, but that pic on the left def looks over 26% bf%. If you had a dexa scan, pod pod test, or hydrostatic weighing I would take your word, maybe just retaining a bunch of water.
Hip to waist ratio can be bogus too, as someone obese with an hour glass shape would have the ideal ratio... that should also be done in conjunction with the actual size of your waist as well, as someone with a 38" waist still might have a "healthy" ratio, if they had 50" hips, just saying.
I won't argue the BF%, every measurement I have used puts me in a healthy range and I've used several, but trying to find a bod pod in my area is a joke so, oh well.
My waist measurement is 31 inches so no matter what scale we're using it's still healthy at 5'8"0 -
This is *exactly* why the BMI as applied to INDIVIDUALS is a crock!
At my current height (74 inches) and LBM (171 LBS) my 'healthy' BMI range allows for BF% of between -15.5% to 11.3%... that's right NEGATIVE 15.5% BF - not to mention that I would still be considered overweight at 11.4% BF... but my company also structures insurance contributions based on BMI - seems legit. :eyeroll:
I'd say viewing lean mass as a static figure when significantly overweight is a bigger problem than BMI.
This. as you lose weight most likely 10-30% of your loss will come from LBM, maybe more... will depend on diet (macros, size of deficit), strength training program, amount of cardio, genetics, etc.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 424 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