BMI seems like a wrong/bad goal?

AJ_G wrote: »

Disregard BMI, instead use Body Fat Percentage

This, and just watch your progress and measurements, and go with how you look. Sounds like BMI isn't a good tool for you. It's normal for people to fit into the range in different places and for some people to fall outside of the range.

I found a page that explains frame size. I am a large frame for a short body and this page explains it really good. It gave the same calculation that my Dr. came up with. It ends up putting me at the higher side of the healthy BMI range. It is also the same weight that i always felt i was most healthy and not thinnest. I didn't look at anything else on the site, just the frame size part, so the rest could be nonsense for all i know.

http://www.diet-blog.com/12/true-frame-size.php

BMI is a generalization. It does not consider muscle mass or frame type.

Body fat %. You will reduce fat and you will reduce size, not necessarily a lot of weight.

it's good for population measures and has shortcomings with individuals. YMMV with it; but there are more accurate measures for the individual.

rabbitjb wrote: »

JenniDaisy wrote: »

Just because you don't believe in BMI other people will stop beliveing in it, there's a reason the chart is in use.
Be prepared to have your Dr., insurance company, etc. bother you to get down to a healthy BMI.

the reason is at population level, not at individual level

you do know it was invented in the 1800s by a mathematician who explicitly said it shouldn't be used on an individual level - and there is much dispute over its appropriateness. It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body (and the formula tacitly implies sedentary lifestyles and low muscle mass and high relative body fat) . But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI.

it is gradually being replaced with a maximum waist size

Yes I did know that, which is why I said be prepared to to be hassled by medical professionals; who use it to measure a population.
Generally you are more at risk of disease at a higher BMI, so generally you should aim to be in the normal range. It's purely statistical.
Thorough measurements will use a combination of BMI/ Waist size/resting heart rate/blood pressure/lung capacity.

But thank you.

It is true that doctors, insurance, and employers who do not understand the science of all this will badger you to death. In order not to be forced to pay more for insurance etc. it may be necessary to get to the very upper weight of what they call a "healthy" BMI for you. If that isn't feasible, all I can say is best of luck. My husband is built like a Sherman tank and no one will acknowledge the obvious fact, instead harassing hm for being "over." Now it is true that he needs to drop *some* fat, but his lean body mass alone as measured at the nutritionist's office is the weight the doctor and insurance co. think his whole body should weigh, which is about 170 pounds. It's crazy. I wish the tyranny would stop and these people/companies would bother to learn a few simple scientific facts.

sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »

I'm wondering how all of you use/interpret BMI. For my height I should be between 97-128 pounds. I'm 5 feet tall and currently 154 pounds. I have a moderate-heavy muscle mass from working on my family's ranch, and genetically I know I'm predisposition-ed to higher protein needs and larger muscles than average for a woman. My ideal weight range for BMI seems like a bad/wrong goal. How would I adjust for my body type/muscling?

I'm 4'8" and the last time my BMI was normal I was an anorexic high school student. I am also predisposed to gaining muscle, especially in my legs. My BMI is obese at 132lbs and a size 7 with 22% bodyfat.

Disregard BMI.

I think BMI is great, and it's just one measure. So is %body fat. I think we have to be our own dietitian, doctor, detective, etc. and assess these as clues about our health. Personally, I tend to have a skewed body image, so objective measures help.

It is one measuring tool. You can also use weight, measurements, Body Fat %, 1 mile run, number of push ups, etc. Use a collection of measuring tools to track your progress. Find a weight/look/composition that is healthy and that you can happily maintain.

I see a lot of people who claim they are "big boned" or "large framed" as an excuse. I've seen larger looking people turn into a lot smaller than you would have thought they could. Don't set limitations or pre-requisitions on yourself or your body. Do the work and let the results amaze you.

rabbitjb wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

CarrieCans wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

Being out of range (overweight or obese) on the BMI scale regardless of whether it's because of muscle or fat, puts a strain on your heart which is essentially not good.

Being within the healthy range can still have the same consequences. If i am at the heavy end of the healthy area i am still too heavy unless it's muscle. If i am at the light end my Dr will have me admitted to a hospital and i will get a feeding tube. I have never been in the Underweight category but i can tell you that being close to it felt worse than being in the obese category.

That is precisely why it is a guide rather than a rule. Individual results may vary.

No. Being overweight and mostly muscle will still make your heart work harder than it needs to.

I was underweight my whole life and was the healthiest I've ever been. Felt the greatest I've ever felt so that's all individual based. Some people are naturally underweight.

I think you made that up from broscience

Actually, it's a basic medical fact. You clearly have never taken anatomy & physiology.

BMI is a guide. Very rarely is it actually wrong due to muscle mass, but it happens (someone posted a wonderful chart up above). Typically frame size suggests weights in segments within a normal BMI (ie, small frame should be the lowest healthy weight in the BMI, average can be in the middle, and large should be near the top of normal). You should base your life where you feel good, and on a number of health measures (ie, BMI, waist-hip ratio, body fat %, etc).

cwolfman13 wrote: »

sweetteadrinker2 wrote: »

I'm wondering how all of you use/interpret BMI. For my height I should be between 97-128 pounds. I'm 5 feet tall and currently 154 pounds. I have a moderate-heavy muscle mass from working on my family's ranch, and genetically I know I'm predisposition-ed to higher protein needs and larger muscles than average for a woman. My ideal weight range for BMI seems like a bad/wrong goal. How would I adjust for my body type/muscling?

BMI is a range in order to take into account different body types, etc. Someone with a more athletic build would look weird at the lower end of BMI...someone with a petite build will look weird at the higher end.

It's not meant to be something where you just arbitrarily pick some number in that range...that number may not be appropriate for your body type.

I agree with this. BMI is one of many potential tools for information. But, you would base it upon your own body, and gathering information on your own and with your personal doctor about your body type, your goals/lifestyle, your personal history of weight and size, your family genetics, etc. Even kids on a growth chart will consistently be in a certain place. It's about your personal pattern and wild fluctuations that indicate a change of personal gain or loss.