Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How do we judge a healthy weight range? BMI is no longer valid?
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Return2Fit wrote: »BMI is a fine place to start when you're first setting weight goals. Usually, a weight outside of BMI is too fat.
Today's culture of obesity makes BMI seem unrealistic, but no, it's a great indicator of healthy weight in proportion to height. You can calculate yours here: http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/
Too often people engage self-delusion and lower the bar to rationalize underachievement. I'm not saying there are not a few rare individuals who'd fall outside BMI, but that's not us but freaky roided up bodybuilders, fat power lifters or rotund sumo wrestlers. With us this journey should be about achieving a healthy weight.
BMI is fine...
The fat powerlifters aren't outliers either. They're still fat. It's hilarious to me that some guy thinks a 1200 lbs. squat is impressive, when he weighs almost 600 lbs. Yeah no, relative strength wise, he's a joke...a really fat joke.
There's a reason Wendler gave up on the "absolute strength" garbage, and finally decided to go from being a pile of fat, to having a decent relative strength. According to the man himself, about all he was good for at his heaviest, was waddling up to the bar, moving a weight once, and being completely gassed out.
Who is this purported 600 lb powerlifter you are referring to? Only a handful of lifters have achieved a 1200 lb squat and none of them weighed anything close to that.
IIRC the largest of them was Mike Miller (1220 @ 375lb bw)
You don't consider over 3x bodyweight impressive?
You haven't heard of Jeff Lewis' fat *kitten*, because no one cares about Yokozuna sized powerlifters anymore, even if they squat over 1200 lbs.
http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/1562 -
BMI does account for different body types, which is why there is not one set Healthy Weight for every height. It's not as though they are saying that all individuals standing 5'3" tall should weigh 120 pounds...no more, no less. For most of the population the variance in frame size and muscularity is resolved by the fact that a healthy BMI range is pretty broad. For a 5'3" person, a healthy BMI is between 105 and 140 pounds. That's quite a bit of leeway. Being small of frame, I feel and look my best at the lowest end of the range...but I could gain a good 30+ pounds and still be considered healthy...even if I might not feel as comfortable in a swimsuit.
I do agree that with the rise in obesity, our view of what overweight or obese looks like may have shifted. I have a friend who had bariatric surgery a year and a half ago. He recently announced that his BMI had dipped below 30 for the first time in his adult life. To see him walking down the street, I would describe him as "average size" ...but in reality he is just below an obese BMI. I think many of us have come to see overweight bodies as the new normal. It may not be what we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines, but it's most of what we see every day in the real world.4 -
BMI does account for different body types, which is why there is not one set Healthy Weight for every height. It's not as though they are saying that all individuals standing 5'3" tall should weigh 120 pounds...no more, no less. For most of the population the variance in frame size and muscularity is resolved by the fact that a healthy BMI range is pretty broad. For a 5'3" person, a healthy BMI is between 105 and 140 pounds. That's quite a bit of leeway. Being small of frame, I feel and look my best at the lowest end of the range...but I could gain a good 30+ pounds and still be considered healthy...even if I might not feel as comfortable in a swimsuit.
I do agree that with the rise in obesity, our view of what overweight or obese looks like may have shifted. I have a friend who had bariatric surgery a year and a half ago. He recently announced that his BMI had dipped below 30 for the first time in his adult life. To see him walking down the street, I would describe him as "average size" ...but in reality he is just below an obese BMI. I think many of us have come to see overweight bodies as the new normal. It may not be what we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines, but it's most of what we see every day in the real world.
I would like to point out that while you, with a small frame, could gain 40+ lbs and be considered "healthy", I have to work very, very hard with a large frame to be at the very top of the"healthy" range. For us bigger people, the penalties of any weight at all kick in much faster (like the 30% surcharge on my health insurance if I'm 1 lb over a BMI of 25)0 -
BMI does account for different body types, which is why there is not one set Healthy Weight for every height. It's not as though they are saying that all individuals standing 5'3" tall should weigh 120 pounds...no more, no less. For most of the population the variance in frame size and muscularity is resolved by the fact that a healthy BMI range is pretty broad. For a 5'3" person, a healthy BMI is between 105 and 140 pounds. That's quite a bit of leeway. Being small of frame, I feel and look my best at the lowest end of the range...but I could gain a good 30+ pounds and still be considered healthy...even if I might not feel as comfortable in a swimsuit.
I do agree that with the rise in obesity, our view of what overweight or obese looks like may have shifted. I have a friend who had bariatric surgery a year and a half ago. He recently announced that his BMI had dipped below 30 for the first time in his adult life. To see him walking down the street, I would describe him as "average size" ...but in reality he is just below an obese BMI. I think many of us have come to see overweight bodies as the new normal. It may not be what we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines, but it's most of what we see every day in the real world.
I would like to point out that while you, with a small frame, could gain 40+ lbs and be considered "healthy", I have to work very, very hard with a large frame to be at the very top of the"healthy" range. For us bigger people, the penalties of any weight at all kick in much faster (like the 30% surcharge on my health insurance if I'm 1 lb over a BMI of 25)
That surcharge on your health insurance must be hard to deal with!
As a short person with a medium frame, I'd like to address the range issue because that's where BMI falls short and body fat comes in. You can be considered "healthy" in a broad sense, but you aren't fooling your body if you still have a high body fat percentage riding the high end of the healthy BMI range for your height if you have a small frame.
BMI's are useful for epidemiology, but on a practical, personal level, most of us should at least frankly compare ourselves to the online images of body fat percentage to get an idea if we're on track to a healthy body fat percentage when we're deciding where within our BMI range we'd like our goal weight to settle.2 -
I still have a hard time believing that with a range that goes over 40 and more pounds, out of two people at the same height, one could be at the upper end and consider themselves skin and bones while the person at the lower end wouldn't, even with considering frame size.6
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »BMI does account for different body types, which is why there is not one set Healthy Weight for every height. It's not as though they are saying that all individuals standing 5'3" tall should weigh 120 pounds...no more, no less. For most of the population the variance in frame size and muscularity is resolved by the fact that a healthy BMI range is pretty broad. For a 5'3" person, a healthy BMI is between 105 and 140 pounds. That's quite a bit of leeway. Being small of frame, I feel and look my best at the lowest end of the range...but I could gain a good 30+ pounds and still be considered healthy...even if I might not feel as comfortable in a swimsuit.
I do agree that with the rise in obesity, our view of what overweight or obese looks like may have shifted. I have a friend who had bariatric surgery a year and a half ago. He recently announced that his BMI had dipped below 30 for the first time in his adult life. To see him walking down the street, I would describe him as "average size" ...but in reality he is just below an obese BMI. I think many of us have come to see overweight bodies as the new normal. It may not be what we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines, but it's most of what we see every day in the real world.
I would like to point out that while you, with a small frame, could gain 40+ lbs and be considered "healthy", I have to work very, very hard with a large frame to be at the very top of the"healthy" range. For us bigger people, the penalties of any weight at all kick in much faster (like the 30% surcharge on my health insurance if I'm 1 lb over a BMI of 25)
That surcharge on your health insurance must be hard to deal with!
As a short person with a medium frame, I'd like to address the range issue because that's where BMI falls short and body fat comes in. You can be considered "healthy" in a broad sense, but you aren't fooling your body if you still have a high body fat percentage riding the high end of the healthy BMI range for your height if you have a small frame.
BMI's are useful for epidemiology, but on a practical, personal level, most of us should at least frankly compare ourselves to the online images of body fat percentage to get an idea if we're on track to a healthy body fat percentage when we're deciding where within our BMI range we'd like our goal weight to settle.
And I would be pretty sure if people do the comparison and are honest with themselves 80-90% of the people would realize if they are overweight on the BMI scale they are also overfat using a body fat % measure.4 -
BMI is a valid measure for the vast majority of the population. Unless you're a competitive runner, dancer, etc. (in which case you will likely be underweight by BMI and yet healthy) or have a significant amount of muscle mass (in which case you'll be overweight by BMI and yet healthy).3
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »The weight ranges were determined 240 years ago in France, which was in the midst of the Maunder Minimum famine. With that little historical semi-accurate nugget stated, I'll share that my Dr asked my loss target and I told her it was the middle of the healthy BMI for my height, which is about 160. She suggested that I should go no lower than the top of the healthy BMI for my height, which is about 180. My brother is my height and he's always looked good at about 170.
Your doctor is like no doctor I've ever met and has given you bad information on BMI2 -
I have come to the not immovable conclusion that I am somewhat of an outlier. 10 years of competitive gymnastics and 3 years of full-time dance training (whilst overweight so working harder than if I was leaner) has left me with a reasonable amount of lean mass for a female. At 5'5, 168lbs, I have a 28-29" waist. If I had to guess at BF% I'd say somewhere between 25-30 (quite a large range but I've lost self perspective a little at this point!). My current dress size is US6-8/UK10-12. There are women my height and 20-30lbs lighter with a larger waist. BUT, I am not so much of an outlier that BMI is inappropriate for me. Before I started, I had the idea that a UK10 was pretty darn small. Now that I am essentially there (booty and boobs allowing, I'm an hourglass), it doesn't feel very small at all. I am still carrying a good amount of body fat.
And there's the rub. Vanity sizing and a shift in what we consider to be "normal" has changed vastly. I can easily and healthily lose another 20-25lbs to get me into a healthy BMI range and I fully intend to do that too. This would also make my dress size somewhere around a UK6/US2. When I've mentioned this theory to friends they think it's ridiculously small. But it's really not.
Now of course I may lose that 20lbs (and I've lost 52 or so so far) and find that actually, I could stand to lose a bit more and I'm not an outlier at all. Which would only compound my theory that BMI is just fine for most people and shouldn't be dismissed.
So if I, a heavier than your average female, can happily aim to be within the healthy BMI range, there's no reason that the vast majority of other people can too. I don't think it's helpful to try and dismiss BMI as total bunk, it's a well known metric for people to get going with, especially if they're completely green to anything health and fitness related.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »BMI does account for different body types, which is why there is not one set Healthy Weight for every height. It's not as though they are saying that all individuals standing 5'3" tall should weigh 120 pounds...no more, no less. For most of the population the variance in frame size and muscularity is resolved by the fact that a healthy BMI range is pretty broad. For a 5'3" person, a healthy BMI is between 105 and 140 pounds. That's quite a bit of leeway. Being small of frame, I feel and look my best at the lowest end of the range...but I could gain a good 30+ pounds and still be considered healthy...even if I might not feel as comfortable in a swimsuit.
I do agree that with the rise in obesity, our view of what overweight or obese looks like may have shifted. I have a friend who had bariatric surgery a year and a half ago. He recently announced that his BMI had dipped below 30 for the first time in his adult life. To see him walking down the street, I would describe him as "average size" ...but in reality he is just below an obese BMI. I think many of us have come to see overweight bodies as the new normal. It may not be what we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines, but it's most of what we see every day in the real world.
I would like to point out that while you, with a small frame, could gain 40+ lbs and be considered "healthy", I have to work very, very hard with a large frame to be at the very top of the"healthy" range. For us bigger people, the penalties of any weight at all kick in much faster (like the 30% surcharge on my health insurance if I'm 1 lb over a BMI of 25)
That surcharge on your health insurance must be hard to deal with!
As a short person with a medium frame, I'd like to address the range issue because that's where BMI falls short and body fat comes in. You can be considered "healthy" in a broad sense, but you aren't fooling your body if you still have a high body fat percentage riding the high end of the healthy BMI range for your height if you have a small frame.
BMI's are useful for epidemiology, but on a practical, personal level, most of us should at least frankly compare ourselves to the online images of body fat percentage to get an idea if we're on track to a healthy body fat percentage when we're deciding where within our BMI range we'd like our goal weight to settle.
And I would be pretty sure if people do the comparison and are honest with themselves 80-90% of the people would realize if they are overweight on the BMI scale they are also overfat using a body fat % measure.
Well, it depends on which group of "most" people you're talking about. Most people in the general population, or most people here who have lost weight?
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »BMI does account for different body types, which is why there is not one set Healthy Weight for every height. It's not as though they are saying that all individuals standing 5'3" tall should weigh 120 pounds...no more, no less. For most of the population the variance in frame size and muscularity is resolved by the fact that a healthy BMI range is pretty broad. For a 5'3" person, a healthy BMI is between 105 and 140 pounds. That's quite a bit of leeway. Being small of frame, I feel and look my best at the lowest end of the range...but I could gain a good 30+ pounds and still be considered healthy...even if I might not feel as comfortable in a swimsuit.
I do agree that with the rise in obesity, our view of what overweight or obese looks like may have shifted. I have a friend who had bariatric surgery a year and a half ago. He recently announced that his BMI had dipped below 30 for the first time in his adult life. To see him walking down the street, I would describe him as "average size" ...but in reality he is just below an obese BMI. I think many of us have come to see overweight bodies as the new normal. It may not be what we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines, but it's most of what we see every day in the real world.
I would like to point out that while you, with a small frame, could gain 40+ lbs and be considered "healthy", I have to work very, very hard with a large frame to be at the very top of the"healthy" range. For us bigger people, the penalties of any weight at all kick in much faster (like the 30% surcharge on my health insurance if I'm 1 lb over a BMI of 25)
That surcharge on your health insurance must be hard to deal with!
As a short person with a medium frame, I'd like to address the range issue because that's where BMI falls short and body fat comes in. You can be considered "healthy" in a broad sense, but you aren't fooling your body if you still have a high body fat percentage riding the high end of the healthy BMI range for your height if you have a small frame.
BMI's are useful for epidemiology, but on a practical, personal level, most of us should at least frankly compare ourselves to the online images of body fat percentage to get an idea if we're on track to a healthy body fat percentage when we're deciding where within our BMI range we'd like our goal weight to settle.
And I would be pretty sure if people do the comparison and are honest with themselves 80-90% of the people would realize if they are overweight on the BMI scale they are also overfat using a body fat % measure.
Well, it depends on which group of "most" people you're talking about. Most people in the general population, or most people here who have lost weight?
I would consider my statement true for both groups.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »BMI does account for different body types, which is why there is not one set Healthy Weight for every height. It's not as though they are saying that all individuals standing 5'3" tall should weigh 120 pounds...no more, no less. For most of the population the variance in frame size and muscularity is resolved by the fact that a healthy BMI range is pretty broad. For a 5'3" person, a healthy BMI is between 105 and 140 pounds. That's quite a bit of leeway. Being small of frame, I feel and look my best at the lowest end of the range...but I could gain a good 30+ pounds and still be considered healthy...even if I might not feel as comfortable in a swimsuit.
I do agree that with the rise in obesity, our view of what overweight or obese looks like may have shifted. I have a friend who had bariatric surgery a year and a half ago. He recently announced that his BMI had dipped below 30 for the first time in his adult life. To see him walking down the street, I would describe him as "average size" ...but in reality he is just below an obese BMI. I think many of us have come to see overweight bodies as the new normal. It may not be what we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines, but it's most of what we see every day in the real world.
I would like to point out that while you, with a small frame, could gain 40+ lbs and be considered "healthy", I have to work very, very hard with a large frame to be at the very top of the"healthy" range. For us bigger people, the penalties of any weight at all kick in much faster (like the 30% surcharge on my health insurance if I'm 1 lb over a BMI of 25)
That surcharge on your health insurance must be hard to deal with!
As a short person with a medium frame, I'd like to address the range issue because that's where BMI falls short and body fat comes in. You can be considered "healthy" in a broad sense, but you aren't fooling your body if you still have a high body fat percentage riding the high end of the healthy BMI range for your height if you have a small frame.
BMI's are useful for epidemiology, but on a practical, personal level, most of us should at least frankly compare ourselves to the online images of body fat percentage to get an idea if we're on track to a healthy body fat percentage when we're deciding where within our BMI range we'd like our goal weight to settle.
And I would be pretty sure if people do the comparison and are honest with themselves 80-90% of the people would realize if they are overweight on the BMI scale they are also overfat using a body fat % measure.
Well, it depends on which group of "most" people you're talking about. Most people in the general population, or most people here who have lost weight?
I would consider my statement true for both groups.
I'd agree with this1 -
Did I say "skin and bones"? Putting hyperbole in another person's mouth is a very effective way to dismiss them without actually hearing what they say.0
-
That skin and bones comment wasn't directed at you directly, there have been, in this thread and past ones, people who claimed that about themselves or others. People who say they look normal at a BMI of 27 or so and below 25 is absolutely unthinkable and they would look like a skeleton.
Seeing how I lost over 50 pounds and have the comparison of myself at that BMI and middle of healthy BMI I can't see anyone my height, even with shoulders as broad as a doorway (which would look rather comical), to look like a skeleton at that weight. We're not even talking the usual muscular argument here either.1 -
I'm not saying BMI is "total bunk" I'm arguing its a very limited metric for assessing individual health. Which I wouldn't care about at all if it wasn't the LAW in the United States that health insurance companies can fine individuals for not being under a BMI of 25. Mine does, because I have individual insurance. I imagine other people's insurance will follow suit in the coming years as it becomes an "accepted practice" akin to fining smokers.
I'm not saying people CAN'T get into the healthy range, if they really want to, even with large frames and high muscle mass. But it might be unreasonable to demand it of others. I get why the Asian countries use a lower BMI guideline, but I think the WHO was really out of line to move the marker for "overweight" from 27.5 to 25 on a world scale, and the NIH should definitely not have followed suit, particularly how this has become the primary metric on which any discussion of negative health effects of weight is based.
It is absolutely and grossly inappropriate to demand that individuals with larger frames and higher muscle mass maintain lower body fat percentages than those who have small frames and lower muscle mass, under the guise of "health". There are deeply troubling implications for public policy in a multicultural nation when measurable differences exist between racial groups with considerably different medical outcomes. For example, people of African descent generally have much lower visceral adiposity than those of European descent at the same weight, while those of Asian descent typically have much greater visceral adiposity. The health implications are pretty dramatic, with Europeans not showing measurable negative health risk on average until above a BMI of 28, while for African Americans that risk doesn't start increasing until about 32 and for Asians it appears above 23!
The BMI was always meant to be a population metric, not an individual assessment. That it has been coupled to health insurance and penalties are applied for those who do not meet the criteria is absurd.
Even the CDC agrees with this:What should we conclude about BMI? BMI is a reasonable indicator of body fat for both adults and children. Because BMI does not measure body fat directly, it should not be used as a diagnostic tool. Instead, BMI should be used as a measure to track weight status in population
CDC - BMI for Practitioners6 -
Just as a random thought: when did that BMI change from 27.5 to 25 happen? I ask this due to my recollection of a "healthy" weight for me being in the 180s-190s when I first started losing weight, but now it being in the low 170s.
I thought it was my memory screwing with me, but that obviously may not be the case.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a random thought: when did that BMI change from 27.5 to 25 happen? I ask this due to my recollection of a "healthy" weight for me being in the 180s-190s when I first started losing weight, but now it being in the low 170s.
I thought it was my memory screwing with me, but that obviously may not be the case.
1998. Strangely, there was a massive up-swing of obesity about then. Hmm...
"In 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention brought U.S. definitions in line with World Health Organization guidelines, lowering the normal/overweight cut-off from BMI 27.8 to BMI 25. This had the effect of redefining approximately 29 million Americans, previously healthy, to overweight."
Linky (check under U.S.) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#International_variations2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a random thought: when did that BMI change from 27.5 to 25 happen? I ask this due to my recollection of a "healthy" weight for me being in the 180s-190s when I first started losing weight, but now it being in the low 170s.
I thought it was my memory screwing with me, but that obviously may not be the case.
Around 98. Doctors sat down, and figured out the cut-off was too high, and matched it to the WHO's findings for when obesity related problems start to correlate.2 -
coreyreichle wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Just as a random thought: when did that BMI change from 27.5 to 25 happen? I ask this due to my recollection of a "healthy" weight for me being in the 180s-190s when I first started losing weight, but now it being in the low 170s.
I thought it was my memory screwing with me, but that obviously may not be the case.
Around 98. Doctors sat down, and figured out the cut-off was too high, and matched it to the WHO's findings for when obesity related problems start to correlate.
Yeah, that predates my first weightloss attempts by a long time. Best guess is that I am thinking of what my overweight numbers are, as I was morbidly obese at the time, and that seemed like a reasonable goal.0 -
Our perceptions of what is normal is very skewed (just like what our idea of the proper portion size is)!. BMI goes hand in hand with weight to help Identify weight groups that have a higher risk and or occurrence of having health issues. I knew that I Should watch what I eat, Keep my weight down, and exercise; however I didn't, gained the weight and found out a couple of years ago that I'm diabetic and am having to lose the weight to help lower my A1C and to improve my health.
The BMI is just a tool to help keep you healthier! If you don't like the scale or think it's right, then don't use it, it your life you can live it any way you want!
1 -
There are two parts to "BMI". There's the math, and there's the judgment that people infer from the "range" they fall into. The math is the simple part that results in a number like "32.1" or "24". No one has a problem with this part it seems.
What people seem to have a problem with is the judgment they assign to themselves when they see something other than "Normal". This of course makes it "invalid" and "outdated".
Well, OK, go ahead. Screw with the ranges all you want until all of you delicate snowflakes can call yourselves normal. But don't come crying to me when that "size 8" article of clothing you bought is now large enough to use for a 12 man camping excursion. You brought this madness on yourselves.6 -
It is accurate for AVERAGE people. Once you are no longer an average height (very short or tall) it gets a little odd. Also if a person has a great deal of muscle mass it is not accurate as it does not take muscle mass into account.1
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »BMI is a good general indicator. Slightly under or slightly over the normal range is fine. Is your weight within the normal BMI range or close to it? Is your natural waist circumference 80 cm (~31.5 inches) or under? Are you pleased with the way you look?
If the answer is yes to the above, you are safely within a good range. Are your general health markers within a good range (blood sugar, cholesterol..etc)? If they are not, you may find being at the lower end of BMI more beneficial.
BMI is not invalid, it's just more valid for some than others. Normal weight is defined as a range not a number for a reason, to accommodate some of that variance among people. Some are still outliers, but not as many as you think and not as many women. For those who are, being at 27 or 17 BMI, for example, and healthy otherwise is a nonissue.
I'm curious where the 31.5" waist thing is coming from. I'm 5'8", normal BMI, waist is 34".0 -
BMI is useful for population studies because it requires two static measurements that anyone with three brain cells can take; trying to apply BMI to individuals without any other contextual information is silliness at best.
When I was at a "proper" weight that fit BMI, I was considerably weaker both in raw numbers and proportional ones. Once I stopped caring about BMI, my weight went up slightly (about 10%) and my strength rocketed up 20% and is still rising while my body weight remains steady.
I weighed in at 184.6 as of this morning, which is where I've been for six months. My BMI is 28.9. My "ideal body weight", depending on the formula used, is between 144lbs and 147 lbs. I also have a combined squat, bench press, and deadlift that puts me in the top 4000 people in the drug-drug-tested IPF power lifting federation, and carry about 22-24% body fat.
My blood work is nearly perfect, aside from known genetic faults. I can work harder and longer than work colleagues half my age. All of my doctors agree I should keep doing what I'm doing because it's clearly working.
The tl;dr: BMI is a stupid measure for fit people.
[note: all edits were for typos]1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »MarkusDarwath wrote: ».... For at least half the population, even the high end of their "ideal" range is overly skinny ........
This is exactly the kind of distorted mindset that develops in a largely overweight/obese US.
For a 5'4" woman, 146 lbs, BMI 25, is the high end of normal wt range. You being overweight, or if we were in a room of overweight/obese pple, would view that as "overly skinny". I was 151 lbs with lots of belly fat (the unhealthiest kind of fat) and now I'm down to a good looking and normal 116 lbs with a BMI of 20 which you would probably view as "anorexic/deathly skinny" because you've lost sight of reality.BMI is a good guideline for most people, and is not dated. It does not apply as well to the very old (due to muscle wasting) and serious body-builders. We use it often in the hospital to guide dose-adjusting of various medications (along with ideal body weight). It works great as a generalization.
The thing to keep in mind: it is a guideline, and BMI gives a very generous range regarding what is considered a healthy weight. (My healthy weight range is defined as between 111-149 lbs- that's almost 40 lbs of wiggle room!) The problem is, there's been a movement of people in overweight nations that are unhappy with the healthy weight ranges given and have been trying to denounce the whole thing as bogus.
In many countries like the U.S., overweight has become the norm, so many people have lost perspective of what a healthy weight actually looks like. Many people will swear up and down that they are pure muscle and are an outlier, when they actually do have quite a bit of excess fat they could lose. That's not to say they look bad, or should lose it- if someone's happy at a certain weight I say stick with what makes you feel your best. Usually people trying to get rid of the BMI scale is people who fall into the overweight or obese range and are not happy about the label.
Body fat percentage, when done accurately, is probably the best indication though. It's just harder to do. I personally use a combination of everything to get an idea of where I fall.
I'm still obese by every measure, but I'm getting there!
Just chiming in to give my two cents that indeed, I myself used to believe that I was naturally big and curvy. At 5'2" with a 35/36 inch waist, I was about the average size of today's American woman. The healthy weight range for my height is about 101-136lbs, and I was sure that anything below 130lbs would be nearly impossible and difficult to maintain and that I might look too skinny. What do you know? I'm now at a BMI of 20, and I'm actually not naturally big and curvy. The only people who feel I look too skinny are those who knew the obese me beforehand or people who have been affected by a distorted image of what a healthy weight looks like. Otherwise, new friends, acquaintances, doctors, and I all think I look normal. Once I held myself accountable and took action on my health, I found that I fit comfortably into a healthy BMI range.3 -
CipherZero wrote: »BMI is useful for population studies because it requires two static measurements that anyone with three brain cells can take; trying to apply BMI to individuals without any other contextual information is silliness at best.
When I was at a "proper" weight that fit BMI, I was considerably weaker both in raw numbers and proportional ones. Once I stopped caring about BMI, my weight went up slightly (about 10%) and my strength rocketed up 20% and is still rising while my body weight remains steady.
I weighed in at 184.6 as of this morning, which is where I've been for six months. My BMI is 28.9. My "ideal body weight", depending on the formula used, is between 144lbs and 147 lbs. I also have a combined squat, bench press, and deadlift that puts me in the top 4000 people in the drug-drug-tested IPF power lifting federation, and carry about 22-24% body fat.
My blood work is nearly perfect, aside from known genetic faults. I can work harder and longer than work colleagues half my age. All of my doctors agree I should keep doing what I'm doing because it's clearly working.
The tl;dr: BMI is a stupid measure for fit people.
[note: all edits were for typos]CipherZero wrote: »BMI is useful for population studies because it requires two static measurements that anyone with three brain cells can take; trying to apply BMI to individuals without any other contextual information is silliness at best.
When I was at a "proper" weight that fit BMI, I was considerably weaker both in raw numbers and proportional ones. Once I stopped caring about BMI, my weight went up slightly (about 10%) and my strength rocketed up 20% and is still rising while my body weight remains steady.
I weighed in at 184.6 as of this morning, which is where I've been for six months. My BMI is 28.9. My "ideal body weight", depending on the formula used, is between 144lbs and 147 lbs. I also have a combined squat, bench press, and deadlift that puts me in the top 4000 people in the drug-drug-tested IPF power lifting federation, and carry about 22-24% body fat.
My blood work is nearly perfect, aside from known genetic faults. I can work harder and longer than work colleagues half my age. All of my doctors agree I should keep doing what I'm doing because it's clearly working.
The tl;dr: BMI is a stupid measure for fit people.
[note: all edits were for typos]
Are you male or female?
That body fat number is pretty high for a male.
4 -
CipherZero wrote: »BMI is useful for population studies because it requires two static measurements that anyone with three brain cells can take; trying to apply BMI to individuals without any other contextual information is silliness at best.
When I was at a "proper" weight that fit BMI, I was considerably weaker both in raw numbers and proportional ones. Once I stopped caring about BMI, my weight went up slightly (about 10%) and my strength rocketed up 20% and is still rising while my body weight remains steady.
I weighed in at 184.6 as of this morning, which is where I've been for six months. My BMI is 28.9. My "ideal body weight", depending on the formula used, is between 144lbs and 147 lbs. I also have a combined squat, bench press, and deadlift that puts me in the top 4000 people in the drug-drug-tested IPF power lifting federation, and carry about 22-24% body fat.
My blood work is nearly perfect, aside from known genetic faults. I can work harder and longer than work colleagues half my age. All of my doctors agree I should keep doing what I'm doing because it's clearly working.
The tl;dr: BMI is a stupid measure for fit people.
[note: all edits were for typos]
Congrats on your numbers. You are in the 10% or so of the population where bmi doesn't work. For most though, look at bmi, ubless lifting on a regular basis it's a pretty good indication of overweight/obese.2 -
CipherZero wrote: »BMI is useful for population studies because it requires two static measurements that anyone with three brain cells can take; trying to apply BMI to individuals without any other contextual information is silliness at best.
When I was at a "proper" weight that fit BMI, I was considerably weaker both in raw numbers and proportional ones. Once I stopped caring about BMI, my weight went up slightly (about 10%) and my strength rocketed up 20% and is still rising while my body weight remains steady.
I weighed in at 184.6 as of this morning, which is where I've been for six months. My BMI is 28.9. My "ideal body weight", depending on the formula used, is between 144lbs and 147 lbs. I also have a combined squat, bench press, and deadlift that puts me in the top 4000 people in the drug-drug-tested IPF power lifting federation, and carry about 22-24% body fat.
My blood work is nearly perfect, aside from known genetic faults. I can work harder and longer than work colleagues half my age. All of my doctors agree I should keep doing what I'm doing because it's clearly working.
The tl;dr: BMI is a stupid measure for fit people.
[note: all edits were for typos]
Did you maintain within the normal BMI range for any period or were you basically on a cut to get there and only maintained for a few weeks? Because that would account for no strength gains.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Did you maintain within the normal BMI range for any period or were you basically on a cut to get there and only maintained for a few weeks? Because that would account for no strength gains.
I hit my goal, almost immediately had a major surprise surgery, spent a year recovering with barbells, stayed within "normal" BMI for nearly over a year; strength gains came when I upped my calories and protein and put some weight on.0 -
Not sure. BMI says I'm obese haha0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions