I'm not overweight afterall?

Options
2

Replies

  • williams969
    williams969 Posts: 2,528 Member
    Options
    That calculator says I'm underweight by around 10 lbs. I have a BMI of 22, body fat of 24%, have a decent amount of lean mass, and yes, I'm lean. But nowhere underweight (by standard chart, or by visual).

    On the other hand, my MFP starting weight (I definitely had too much excess fat mass on me) is in the "ideal" range. Nope, that was not ideal by any means, both by looks and particularly the health conditions I had developed (elevated blood cholesterol, high BP, etc.).
  • katya_be
    katya_be Posts: 227 Member
    Options
    I think this calculator seems to over estimate everyone's ideal weight. The same as clothing sizes that are now all vanity sizes! Making us feel good.
  • kaotik26
    kaotik26 Posts: 590 Member
    Options
    Katherine I totally understand, I'm 5'7 and was told I should be 130. I suggested this to people I know and they said I would look sickly like that. I am about 180 and my profile pic is recent.
  • SergeantSausage
    SergeantSausage Posts: 1,673 Member
    Options
    Ideal weight range is 168 - 184.8 lbs. (76.4 - 84 kg.).
    You are underweight.

    (NOTE: height = 6' 0", current weight = 156, BMI = 21.2 ==> nowhere near "underweight" (18.5))

    "Your ideal weight range-- 168 - 184.8 lbs. (76.4 - 84 kg.). --is based on a formula that calculates what a healthy weight is for most people of your height (72 inches) and frame size (Small)."

    **

    Apparently, "vanity" weight calculators are en vogue now, right?
  • lbride
    lbride Posts: 248 Member
    Options
    This put the low end for 5'6, medium frame, at 142. While 142 is great, I think that 130-135 would be fine for 5'6?
  • KHaverstick
    KHaverstick Posts: 308 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Yeah...that one seems a little "off" to me. It said my upper limit for healthy weight should be 105 lbs. No. I tried a different one (one on the CDC website), and it said my healthy range was 96 to 128. That's much more reasonable.
  • bametels
    bametels Posts: 950 Member
    Options
    Wrapping your fingers around your wrist to assess body frame is worthless. Some people have short fingers; others (like me) have very long fingers so accuracy using this method is not likely to be high. That said, I know that I have a very small frame. My results were that I am 1.8 pounds overweight (I am currently a few pounds under the maximum healthy BMI for my height). The upper end of a healthy BMI is too high for me because my frame is so small. While the range they set for my height and small frame is a reasonable weight for me, it should probably be shifted down by at least five pounds on each end of the range for a healthy weight.
  • I_Will_End_You
    I_Will_End_You Posts: 4,397 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    This says I'm underweight by 24lbs. LOL! I'm not underweight, and if I was the weight this thing said I should be, I'd be bigger than my highest weight by 7lbs. No thanks. Their BMI calculator tells me I'm within a healthy BMI. If I put in the highest weight they tell me I should be, BMI comes back overweight. Something here is off!
  • TheVirgoddess
    TheVirgoddess Posts: 4,535 Member
    Options
    SergeantSausage wrote: »
    Ideal weight range is 168 - 184.8 lbs. (76.4 - 84 kg.).
    You are underweight.

    (NOTE: height = 6' 0", current weight = 156, BMI = 21.2 ==> nowhere near "underweight" (18.5))

    "Your ideal weight range-- 168 - 184.8 lbs. (76.4 - 84 kg.). --is based on a formula that calculates what a healthy weight is for most people of your height (72 inches) and frame size (Small)."

    **

    Apparently, "vanity" weight calculators are en vogue now, right?

    It certainly isn't vanity for me. It tells me I need to be below my goal (which is the higher end of the "healthy") on the BMI scale. In fact, it's 12 pounds lower.

    I'll stick with my original plan.
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    Options
    Tim_CNY wrote: »
    When I was 100 lbs heavier, my fingers didn't touch around my wrist. When I was 50 lbs heavier, my fingers barely touched. Now my fingers overlap. What's my frame size?

    Same here. I used frame size as an excuse when I was obese and see others do it all the time. I'm "big boned" or "curvy" so I'll never get into the healthy weight range of BMI. You'd be surprised how your body changes as you lose the weight...
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    vanity calculator!
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    MinnieInMaine wrote: »
    Tim_CNY wrote: »
    When I was 100 lbs heavier, my fingers didn't touch around my wrist. When I was 50 lbs heavier, my fingers barely touched. Now my fingers overlap. What's my frame size?

    Same here. I used frame size as an excuse when I was obese and see others do it all the time. I'm "big boned" or "curvy" so I'll never get into the healthy weight range of BMI. You'd be surprised how your body changes as you lose the weight...

    Mine still don't overlap and my measurement is still over 6.5" and I'm very close to goal ..but I sure am happier having lost that 44lbs and getting fit ...even if I am less voluptuously curvy *sigh*
  • Azexas
    Azexas Posts: 4,334 Member
    Options
    I'm not sure how accurate going by your wrist size is... I've always though of myself as a medium frame but I have the wrists of an infant... which according to this puts me in the small frame. Idk, maybe it's just me.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    Options
    That link is totally ridiculous. Wrist width isn't a good indicator of your frame size at all. You'd have to check elbow too, maybe waist, and it's not something you can do when you are overweight anyway (ok the elbow maybe).

    Plus what if you have long fingers?

    So it's pretty much total BS (plus it says I'm underweight, which is laughable).
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I'm surprised how many low BMI people hang out in the Weight Loss forum. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
  • MissHolidayGolightly
    MissHolidayGolightly Posts: 857 Member
    Options
    It seems to take the upper range of a normal BMI for a small frame ideal weight then starts to move into the overweight BMI for medium and large frames. Definitely aims high.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,509 Member
    Options
    It said I'm overweight by 50lbs. I'd say, I'm a bit overweight right now, but 50lbs? If I wanted to be in single digit body fat numbers for life (which would be cool but hard to sustain) then yeah.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • leggup
    leggup Posts: 2,942 Member
    Options
    SergeantSausage wrote: »
    Apparently, "vanity" weight calculators are en vogue now, right?

    Yuuup. Every frame size calculator seems underestimate weight problems. BMI and Body Fat % are the best standards to start with for goal setting. I only add BF% because BMI is inaccurate when BF% is low. Most people can use BMI on its own.

  • ketorach
    ketorach Posts: 430 Member
    Options
    Haha, I'm still 32 pounds overweight! :smiley:
  • abatonfan
    abatonfan Posts: 1,123 Member
    Options
    It says I'm at an ideal weight (5'6, 143 pounds, small frame), and my next goal is at the lower end of that ideal weight spectrum (135 pounds). I always thought that I had big bones, but I guess that is a lie now. :lol:

Categories