BMI

kay_baybay wrote: »

So just a little curious cause I've been doing research about BMI's.. How much should one rely on that and it base their focus on that? Is that what should determine a "goal weight"?

It's like a screwdriver.

It's a useful tool in your toolbox, but should not be the ONLY tool in your tool box.

As long as you understand that it's based on entire population averages, and that individual data point (ie - you) can and will fluctuate from that 'average', it will give you a rough idea of a good 'goal' weight.

SezxyStef wrote: »

ceoverturf wrote: »

kay_baybay wrote: »

So just a little curious cause I've been doing research about BMI's.. How much should one rely on that and it base their focus on that? Is that what should determine a "goal weight"?

It's like a screwdriver.

It's a useful tool in your toolbox, but should not be the ONLY tool in your tool box.

As long as you understand that it's based on entire population averages, and that individual data point (ie - you) can and will fluctuate from that 'average', it will give you a rough idea of a good 'goal' weight.

This...

Cosigned. Bugs me to no end that my doctor sees the BMI number as hard and fast truth about a person's health. It's a good indicator along with weight and waist size. It's not the end-all be-all of the story.

It's pretty reasonable for about 85% of the population. Unfortunaltely most aren't as "muscular" as they think they are.

ahamm002 wrote: »

About 1/3 of people that BMI classifies as normal are actually overweight. So it's a pretty ridiculous tool. It was never designed for use on individual people.

Not defending the BMI, but "overweight" based on what criteria?

If you are overweight and haven't been at a healthy weight for a long time (or ever), BMI is a good tool to help you set an initial goal to get into a healthy range. Once you get into that range, though, the mirror and simply jiggling around a bit does a better job of showing you what a good maintenance spot will be.

ahamm002 wrote: »

About 1/3 of people that BMI classifies as normal are actually overweight. So it's a pretty ridiculous tool. It was never designed for use on individual people.

And probably about another 1/3rd it classifies as overweight, when they are perfectly fit and at a healthy weight!
For example, see the @TaurianDoll post above.
Not being funny, but the BMI charts do not take into consideration people of different Ethnicities either or Bone density.

ceoverturf wrote: »

kay_baybay wrote: »

So just a little curious cause I've been doing research about BMI's.. How much should one rely on that and it base their focus on that? Is that what should determine a "goal weight"?

It's like a screwdriver.

It's a useful tool in your toolbox, but should not be the ONLY tool in your tool box.

As long as you understand that it's based on entire population averages, and that individual data point (ie - you) can and will fluctuate from that 'average', it will give you a rough idea of a good 'goal' weight.

I would add to this that it is also a range to account for various body types. I see way too many people arbitrarily shooting for very low BMI without acknowledging that maybe they don't have the body type for that.

BMI is a range in order to account for various body frames, etc...you aren't given a range so that you can arbitrarily pick and choose a number within that range.

For most people who have been over fat, BMI is a good place to start, but it's not the be all and end all. I am overweight as per BMI at around 15% BF...at the highest of of BMI for my stats, I'm around 10% BF which is very lean...I couldn't get any lower than that without torching some muscle, and I'm by no means a body builder or anything like that, I just have a fairly athletic build.

BMI was designed to be a hard and fast measurement/comparison tool for working in situations when you have little more than simple measurements to go from (it's pretty easy to get someone's height, weight, age, and gender with very simple tools, even in the middle of nowhere and without electricity, etc). It was originally geared toward research applications like doing epidemiological surveys where you don't have complicated technology like bioelectric impedance or staff that is properly trained in the use of calipers. It can also be used as a hard and fast tool in medical applications to see where a person fits amongst a curve or an average. Does that mean it is accurate for every individual? Nope. It wasn't originally intended to be but it was a useful yardstick to make comparisons and predictions across varied people. This doesn't mean it is inaccurate; for a vast number of people it is quite useful; that's why it was created. Unfortunately, if you are on the fringes of average (very tall, short, muscular, female*) it is less so and should be treated as just one tool of many, as someone above stated.

*The funny aspect of BMI is it is far less sensitive/accurate for women than men when you look at how the mathematical equation is set up. Women are more highly variable, probably due to hormone fluctuations/fat to muscle percentages/life stage changes/etc... The equation tries to pull all those variations into a lineal equation and the result is, well, interesting. If you are female and on the fringe of average it can get even more inaccurate than for men. Making the number ranges for normal, overweight, and obese the same as males limits some of the usefulness as well since women's bodies work a bit differently and they distribute fat in less destructive locations generally. Does that mean it isn't generally accurate for women? Also nope but it is something to keep in mind, especially if you are a fit healthy woman that isn't quite fitting into the BMI box that seems correct.

So, as someone overweight should I use this as a way to figure out a goal weight?

roselin4love wrote: »

Hello
Am Roselin.
I saw your profile here today,
i will like us to be good friends
Please reply me back direct to my personal email address,
(roselinkarume@yahoo.com)
so that i will send you my pictures and details,
there is something important i will like to discuss with you.
thanks and remain blessed.
ROSELIN.

I sooo want to mark this as possible spam, but I've done so much spam flagging lately and don't want to end up in forum jail. ;_;

ManiacalLaugh wrote: »

roselin4love wrote: »

Hello
Am Roselin.
I saw your profile here today,
i will like us to be good friends
Please reply me back direct to my personal email address,
(roselinkarume@yahoo.com)
so that i will send you my pictures and details,
there is something important i will like to discuss with you.
thanks and remain blessed.
ROSELIN.

I sooo want to mark this as possible spam, but I've done so much spam flagging lately and don't want to end up in forum jail. ;_;

I did you won't end up in jail..it's spam

I'm going to use it. But I agree it is only one measure.

This content has been removed.

Probably put about as much focus on it as your doctor and insurance provider/employer does.

My doctor uses BMI as a reference tool, but evidently doesn't put much stock in it since at my last visit he suggested that 170-180lbs would be a good range for me, even though that would put me in the upper overweight range. However, I also live in an area where most people are overweight or obese, and the waiting room is always full of super obese people. So 170 probably seems like a great number to my doctor.

Our insurance/employer doesn't put much stock in it either, presumably, as we don't have "incentives" or wellness plans, etc, to lower our BMI. But some do. And I believe some life insurance policies also puts stock in BMI.

asflatasapancake wrote: »

I'm 6'1", 198lbs and considered overweight.



I don't feel overweight.

Exactly. Someone else said it but for me, I can't rely on BMI completely because of my personal body composition. I can more confidently rely on body fat %.