How much do you go by BMI?

2

Replies

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,242 Member
    With my current physique I am considered overweight according to BMI (27.1). The last 2 years at my employee health screening I lost points due to being "overweight". I get so pissed. Last year as the lady was giving me the mandatory talk about weight loss counseling, I started laughing at her. I was indeed in much better shape then she was but her bmi was probably "normal". Anyone who is muscular, or even has a larger frame runs the risk of being overweight according to BMI even if they have normal (or in my case low) body fat percentage. BMI is decent for the general population but worthless for athletes. BMI should not be the end all be all indicator of healthy lifestyle but one of many numbers used to assess it. I would put things like body fat %, height to waist ratio, blood lipid panel, blood pressure, etc all above BMI when assessing one's "health".

    I think BMI is a good guide when taken in context and with other clinical information. If a person had a BMI of 27 it is usually obvious by visual assessment ( ie looking at the patient) whether that is because they have higher than average muscle mass or whether they have excessive fat.
    I had a BMI of 27 - I knew and I'm sure any health professional looking at me knew, my BMI did not reflect a higher than average muscle mass, it reflected me being overweight.
    A health professional assessing quoted poster should be able to look at him and know the reverse.

    Of course, blood test results, waist measurements etc are also important in assessing overall health status.
    BMI is useful but is not a stand alone assessment.
  • independant2406
    independant2406 Posts: 447 Member
    BMI is not an accurate measurement of health or healthy body composition at all in my opinion. I only pay attention to BMI when it comes time to renew health insurance plans. :P
  • zenalasca
    zenalasca Posts: 563 Member
    Now if somebody could come up with a cheap and easy way to reliably check my body fat percentage, I'd appreciate it! XD

    There are tools online you can use to check your body fat% using a tape measure
  • bradsbaby1996
    bradsbaby1996 Posts: 154 Member
    I just wanted to add that you can lose weight by adding strength training! I was stuck at 154-156 for almost 2 solid months.. I got serious about lifting and running around the middle of August. First I went up a couple to 158. Now I am down to 153 for 3 consistent days! I know that is not a lot but I was already below my goal.. Now I have decided to lose a few more.. Plus my body composition is changing so much for the better! My stomach is getting tons smaller and my legs and arms are beginning to look good..
  • icrushit
    icrushit Posts: 773 Member
    BMI is always a pointless number to me, as my larger frame, strong bone structure and a higher than average level of muscularity (not massive, just higher than average), ensures that any weight I ever thought was reasonable either fell into the overweight area of BMI or else verged on it. Also when I look at the lower range of acceptable weights for my BMI range, I simply cannot ever imagine being healthy *and* being anywhere near those weights.

    I think some sources/ calculators out there factor in frame size and level of muscularity, then give you a modified BMI, taking into account those factors, but BMI as it stands, is useless, imo. Plus it was simply calculated by averaging the weights of large groups of people, from what I know, and let's face it, what is average, and who is deciding what is underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese.

    So, if the BMI makes sense to an individual, I would say use it, otherwise disregard it :)
  • icrushit
    icrushit Posts: 773 Member
    If you're eating over 1500 cal per day, it's no wonder you're hovering at 150 lb.
    If you want to weigh 140, eat no more than 1400 cal per day, & ignore "net" or exercise calories completely. That's what my doctor told me to do. (10 x healthy goal weight in order to lose weight to get there, as well as ignoring exercise calories)

    I'm sorry, doctor or no doctor, that is a terrible and ill-advised piece of advice.

    Just doing the math for the above example, you are recommending the OP eat about 37/ 38% less than their TDEE *without* exercise. Adding in exercise (and not allowing any additional calories for that exercise, as per your above advice), increases that deficit even further!

    Given TDEE -20% is usually recommended as a safe (yet still aggressive) upper limit for weight loss, advice to approximately double that is highly wreckless.
  • kjarvo
    kjarvo Posts: 236 Member
    I think it is a good indication. I have 0.5 pounds to go until I am in the healthy zone and I think I could still lose a stone. I need to lose 2 stone to be right in the middle of it. However, the range is massive and saying that it doesn't apply for bodybuilders is stupid, they are more likely to know their body fat percentage than the average person. The BMI is one of the reasons why I started to lose weight. I thought mine was 26 or 27, and infact it was 29ish, nearly obese. I didn't want to cross that threshold. It is a good indication for the average person.
  • kjarvo
    kjarvo Posts: 236 Member
    With my current physique I am considered overweight according to BMI (27.1). The last 2 years at my employee health screening I lost points due to being "overweight". I get so pissed. Last year as the lady was giving me the mandatory talk about weight loss counseling, I started laughing at her. I was indeed in much better shape then she was but her bmi was probably "normal". Anyone who is muscular, or even has a larger frame runs the risk of being overweight according to BMI even if they have normal (or in my case low) body fat percentage. BMI is decent for the general population but worthless for athletes. BMI should not be the end all be all indicator of healthy lifestyle but one of many numbers used to assess it. I would put things like body fat %, height to waist ratio, blood lipid panel, blood pressure, etc all above BMI when assessing one's "health".

    I agree that it shouldn't be the be all and end all when it comes to making important decisions. If you have to take it into consideration for your health insurance (I don't know) or other things in the US there should be other tests you they consider too. It's still a good guide for the average person though, and people who are muscly tend to know they aren't overweight. Like I said it shouldn't be used to prove anything without any other tests though.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Throw away BMI. It is inaccurate once you start weight training.
  • JenniDaisy
    JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
    My healthy weight range is 42lbs.
    Vague nonsense.
  • f1redshoes
    f1redshoes Posts: 79
    I ignore it because it says I'm ever so slightly underweight. It can't see my ridiculously tiny frame and that I can be a bit lighter safely. It also can't see all of the muscle!

    I do agree that it's a reasonable way of measuring most people (who aren't at either end of the scale because of their sport/muscle/training etc), though.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I just wish I could know I am medically considered a healthy weight. Knowing that, ...I am STILL considered overweight, albeit not by much, is somewhat discouraging mentally. even though I feel great physically. I know I could probably do more to shed those last few pounds but I guess the question is, how important is it really?

    This little section right here sums it up for me. BMI is a health marker, and being above the healthy range adds one risk factor for disease. We can argue how it doesn't apply to everyone all we want, but statistically I have the risk factor. Right now, other than things I can't control like family history and age, it is my only negative health risk factor. I don't like that.

    I think many of the risk factors I am controlling, such as BP, BF% and blood work, are more important than BMI. But, I still don't like that my BMI is high so I'm working on it.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    OLD THREADDDD PEOPLE
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I ignore it because it says I'm ever so slightly underweight. It can't see my ridiculously tiny frame and that I can be a bit lighter safely. It also can't see all of the muscle!

    I do agree that it's a reasonable way of measuring most people (who aren't at either end of the scale because of their sport/muscle/training etc), though.

    I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.
  • MelsAuntie
    MelsAuntie Posts: 2,833 Member
    Not at all important to me, personally... I don't know mine and don't care.
  • f1redshoes
    f1redshoes Posts: 79
    I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.
    I would be very underweight if I wasn't in these sports, I've got that sort of stick-insect frame in my genes. The muscle brings me up to a healthier weight!

    I was a very strong, healthy athlete at the age of 15, eating vast quantities and training hard - I was 5' 1" and 80lbs and I was basically a machine, but of course those numbers sound terrible if you just hear the numbers. I'm taller and heavier than I was then, but still on the borderline of underweight (a daily fluctuation is enough to put me in "normal BMI").

    There's an Olympic gold medalist in one of my sports with the exact same height and weight as me at the time of the Olympics! I'm in sports where being naturally tiny is an advantage and gets you noticed as a kid and then you have to gain the muscle and strength to actually do the sport later ;)
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.
    I would be very underweight if I wasn't in these sports, I've got that sort of stick-insect frame in my genes. The muscle brings me up to a healthier weight!

    I was a very strong, healthy athlete at the age of 15, eating vast quantities and training hard - I was 5' 1" and 80lbs and I was basically a machine, but of course those numbers sound terrible if you just hear the numbers. I'm taller and heavier than I was then, but still on the borderline of underweight (a daily fluctuation is enough to put me in "normal BMI").

    There's an Olympic gold medalist in one of my sports with the exact same height and weight as me at the time of the Olympics! I'm in sports where being naturally tiny is an advantage and gets you noticed as a kid and then you have to gain the muscle and strength to actually do the sport later ;)

    So you have athlete female body fat % and putting on some LBM to raise the scale up a little.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I don't understand. BMI takes height into consideration and has a wide weight range for each height to account for frame size. Also, having more muscle would make you heavier than someone of the same size with less muscle, not lighter.
    I would be very underweight if I wasn't in these sports, I've got that sort of stick-insect frame in my genes. The muscle brings me up to a healthier weight!

    I was a very strong, healthy athlete at the age of 15, eating vast quantities and training hard - I was 5' 1" and 80lbs and I was basically a machine, but of course those numbers sound terrible if you just hear the numbers. I'm taller and heavier than I was then, but still on the borderline of underweight (a daily fluctuation is enough to put me in "normal BMI").

    There's an Olympic gold medalist in one of my sports with the exact same height and weight as me at the time of the Olympics! I'm in sports where being naturally tiny is an advantage and gets you noticed as a kid and then you have to gain the muscle and strength to actually do the sport later ;)

    You are confusing a "health marker" with actualy individual health resutls. Being in the healthy range of BMI does not guarantee health, just as being outside does not guarantee disease. It's all just odds. And your odds of remaining healthy are better if you are in the healthy range (statistically).

    Being strong or an athlete is no guarantee of health either. It' snot uncommon for athletes to sacrifice health for their sport.

    But my point was that having more muscle would not be the reason you are underweight. Muscle makes you heavier for your size. Lack of it makes you lighter.
  • natashavadori
    natashavadori Posts: 1 Member
    BMI is just a general guideline. It doesn't take into consideration your natural body shape or bone structure. I'd say fat percentage is a far better number to make as a goal.
  • Shirotora88
    Shirotora88 Posts: 121
    From the posts I read I have a different opinion. I use the BMI to see where I should fit in. and as a goal I picked the center of the healthy BMI.. If I cant get that low I will be alright with it as long as I'm fit and healthy
  • f1redshoes
    f1redshoes Posts: 79
    But my point was that having more muscle would not be the reason you are underweight. Muscle makes you heavier for your size. Lack of it makes you lighter.
    I think you might be misunderstanding me. At no point was I saying that I'm lighter because of the muscle - I'm saying that I'd be even lighter without it and that that's what makes me heavier.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,242 Member
    My healthy weight range is 42lbs.
    Vague nonsense.

    Im not sure where you are getting that information but it is not from a BMI chart - no adults healthy weight goal is 42 pounds - that is less than 20 kg or about the size of a healthy 6 year old.

    Unless you are a dwarf or a double amputee or something, in which case obviously standard measurement charts would not apply to you and no health professional would see you and not realise that (ie using BMI chart in conjunction with clinical picture, like I said before)

    Also healthy BMI is a RANGE, not a single number.
    for MOST people, other than athletes/ body builders and the like, who are carrying higher than average muscle mass - and they should know who they are and their health proffesional should be able to see that too - having a BMI somewhere in the healthy RANGE is a good indicator of a healthy weight.
  • JenniDaisy
    JenniDaisy Posts: 526 Member
    You misunderstood, the RANGE is 42lbs, between 8.5st and 11.5st.
  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 7,016 Member
    BMI was developed in the 19th century to assess populations, not individuals. For some people, it's a useful individual measure, but for others, including many if not most weightlifters, it's more or less useless. Health care professionals who focus on BMI alone are idiots – or, more likely, they're following a screening protocol that an idiotic bureaucracy insists be applied to everyone.

    It's more important to focus on strength, stamina, and how you feel.

    This. It's a ratio pf weight and height. Doesn't take into account variations in build whatsoever. As a screening tool, thumbs up. For individuals, thumbs down. Body fat % is a better indicator.

    And again. Who cares about a stupid number? How you feel you look and how strong you feel is most important.
  • lorib642
    lorib642 Posts: 1,942 Member
    I am using the BMI to help me determine a goal weight, but I will re-evaluate when I get closer. There are other things that are more important to me like %body fat and lab results.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    It's a guideline and does what it was intended to do.

    If you lift, it's much harder to stay in the "acceptable" range obviously, but then again, most people who lift don't care about BMI anyway.

    One thing to note though..... The ranges for a 6' male to be "healthy" by BMI standards are 136lbs to 184lbs. Most people seem to think that the middle of that is "more" healthy. That is not the case. The range is there for a reason. By BMI standards, if you are a 6' male, 184 is just as good as 174 or 164....and so on. Pretty goofy.
  • meridianova
    meridianova Posts: 438 Member
    BMI was developed in the 19th century to assess populations, not individuals. For some people, it's a useful individual measure, but for others, including many if not most weightlifters, it's more or less useless. Health care professionals who focus on BMI alone are idiots – or, more likely, they're following a screening protocol that an idiotic bureaucracy insists be applied to everyone.

    It's more important to focus on strength, stamina, and how you feel.

    This. It's a ratio pf weight and height. Doesn't take into account variations in build whatsoever. As a screening tool, thumbs up. For individuals, thumbs down. Body fat % is a better indicator.

    And again. Who cares about a stupid number? How you feel you look and how strong you feel is most important.
    unfortunately, too many people (translation: health and insurance professionals) get fixated on those numbers and refuse to really look at the person in front of them.
  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 7,016 Member
    BMI was developed in the 19th century to assess populations, not individuals. For some people, it's a useful individual measure, but for others, including many if not most weightlifters, it's more or less useless. Health care professionals who focus on BMI alone are idiots – or, more likely, they're following a screening protocol that an idiotic bureaucracy insists be applied to everyone.

    It's more important to focus on strength, stamina, and how you feel.

    This. It's a ratio pf weight and height. Doesn't take into account variations in build whatsoever. As a screening tool, thumbs up. For individuals, thumbs down. Body fat % is a better indicator.

    And again. Who cares about a stupid number? How you feel you look and how strong you feel is most important.
    unfortunately, too many people (translation: health and insurance professionals) get fixated on those numbers and refuse to really look at the person in front of them.

    Sadly, that's the truth.
  • bokaba
    bokaba Posts: 171 Member
    Up until recently my BMI exceeded 40, making me morbidly obese and in the same category as bed-ridden people who have less than 2 years to live. While I was larger than I wanted (and still am) , I was able to lead a normal life and perform the same day to day tasks as people of a normal BMI and was nowhere near death or being home-bound.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,242 Member
    You misunderstood, the RANGE is 42lbs, between 8.5st and 11.5st.

    oh ok - yes I did misunderstand your post.

    But am stil not getting what you are saying - so the range is 42 lb from x to y.

    The range covers people of different builds, ages, genders etc - unless you are an elite body builder or have an anomoly body shape (ie are a dwarf or a double amputee or something) how does this range not give a good guide as to what is a healthy weight for you or anyone else?

    Other posters are saying BMI doesnt take into account body frame - yes it does, thats why it is a range - if you have a larger frame a higher BMI within the range is going to be right for you.

    Nobody is saying anyone must have a BMI of exactly, say, 21 - but for most people a BMI within the healthy range ( ie 19 - 25) is a good guide.

Categories