BMI Insanity!!!

It bugs me to no end that the government and some doctors see the BMI as the end-all-be-all of measuring health. The scale of it is off, meaning that it's less forgiving of tall people than short people. It doesn't account for people who have more muscle mass, too. And I hate that my medical insurance company keeps calling me because my BMI is two whole points above where they'd like it. (I've decreased my BMI by 15 points, but that's apparently inconsequential to them.)

That being said, it's a good tool in a vast toolbox of scales that will help you determine where you stand. I don't want to knock it entirely. I just think there should be other considerations made before they so casually categorize people into one of three columns for overall health.

You mention muscle mass. Have you lifted on a regular basis and/or do physical labor as a job? If so there could be some muscle mass playing in and 152 would be too light for you. If neither of these is the case might want to rethink body composition.

Would suggest getting closer to your goal weight and then take another assessment

Best of luck.

BMI is a useful tool to get a rough idea of things, but it's not the be all end all. I'm actually in the opposite boat, I'm now smack dab in the middle of "healthy" for my height, but still have a higher body fat percentage than I consider to be healthy. After you've been losing weight and training for a while numbers like BMI kind of lose personal significance and at least in my case I end up paying more attention to the mirror and body fat percentage than the scale or BMI charts.

Also, not to make assumptions or anything but I think as you approach that goal weight it is possible you will begin to see lower BMIs as a valid option for you.

I think it can be off depending on body composition and such. It's probably off for quite a few people.
My husband started at 260 lbs/6ft. He thought the normal range of BMI would be to light and as such he set a goal of 200 (he thought he had more muscle on him then he actually does). He is in the 180's now and is aiming for the middle of the normal BMI range for his height. When he got to 200, he realized he didn't have as much muscle as he thought and still had a lot of fat so he adjusted his goal.

For me, I know that I need to be closer to mid range of the BMI and there is even a possibility of closer to the lower end. But I spent most of my life in the normal range and only landed in the obese range (BMI 44) after a few years of marriage and a pregnancy. At the top end of healthy, I don't look bad, but I could definitely stand to lose a few pounds. I've never really been at the low end, usually hover in the middle. I'm a few pounds away from having a BMI of 22 (literally 2.3lbs away), but I'm debating between starting recomp or seeing what I look like at a BMI of 20.6 (122lbs). However, I'm also watching my estimated BF%, measurements, etc. While I'm considered healthy by BMI standards, I can tell that I still have a few lbs of fat that I could get rid of and yes my plan is to move to recomp; I just can't decide when I want to do it.


I guess the point is, I use it as a general guide, but there are other things that I take into consideration as well.

dietstokes wrote: »

I think the BMI is mostly a good tool (except for a select few, and the select few is a very small number: however with that being said, many people seem to think they are outliers on this. They would be wrong). We are so used to seeing people overweight or obese (let alone morbidly obese) that that is now what appears "normal" in our eyes and "normal" looks sickly. Take a look at pictures of people from the 30's and 40's. Most would be considered very slight by our standards today.

For now, why don't you aim for the upper end of your BMI? When I plugged your numbers in, I got a slightly different weight than you did. I got 22.8 BMI for 159. So upper end for someone 5'10" would be 173.

I agree with you. We are so used to seeing morbidly obese people everywhere that we think of obese people as being merely "overweight" and overweight people as "normal" or "skinny".

I think most people for whom BMI doesn't work (more men than women, and probably fewer of both than those who think it doesn't work for them) likely are going to be aware of it.

But ultimately I think body fat percentage is much more significant and BMI may not be at all, depending on the person. It's hard to get an accurate BF% number without paying for it (DEXA or some such), but if you honestly can judge when looking in the mirror that's likely good enough.

BMI works fine for me.

I think a lot of obese people who have been active do have quite a bit of muscle mass from carrying around all that weight. You will lose some no matter what, but if you manage to maintain most of it maybe you won't need to be light. I agree that it's premature to worry about it, though.

I think it's a good tool. You can aim for the high end of your BMI range. Or, heck, even slightly above it. It would still be better than a very high number, right?

Yes I also think we get use to seeing most of society as overweight. When I first started my diet I was shooting for 160 pounds at 5'5" because I would be thrilled to be that skinny. I haven't been that skinny in 15 years. But then I stopped to think about it. When I was in college I was roughly 130 pounds, I was in great shape and I looked fantastic. So why wouldn't I shoot for that? I think we would just be happy to weigh less that we settle for weighing more that we really should.

You can always find out your approximate body fat % and then calculate out your lean body mass to find out if you actually do carry around a lot of muscle. I track that instead of bmi as I find its more pertinent to MY INDIVIDUAL BODY. Even the guy who made the bmi system said it should never be used by health practitioners and is for statistics only.

Also keeping up with the changes in your lean body mass eliminates the "maybe I just put on a lot of muscle?" question when you see the numbers going up on the scale. You can actually see if it was or not.