Do you care about your BMI?

245

Replies

  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    I care about it in so far that I'm still a good chunk outside what's considered healthy. My goal is to reach healthy and then reevaluate there.

    For me it's a good guideline of where I should be going as I'm so totally not an outlier, even if I'd love to believe I am... :tongue:
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,426 Member
    If I get to 5 lbs from the top healthy weight for my height I probably wouldn't stress about it and be okay maintaining there.
    I do know I felt and looked my best toward the middle healthy bmi in the past so that is where I am aiming. I don't have to be a paricular number but do want to get as close to that healthy range as I can.
  • everher
    everher Posts: 909 Member
    With only five pounds to go, it could be your deficit is too high. It should be set to a half a pound a week with so few pounds to lose.

    I do go by BMI but it's because I really have no reason not to fall in the healthy weight range for a woman of my height. I'm not incredibly muscular (nor do I ever plan to be). I have a larger frame, but nothing fantastical. I plan to stay in the high end of the healthy weight range for my height.
  • jdhcm2006
    jdhcm2006 Posts: 2,254 Member
    I pay attention to it enough to want to be in the range for my height, which I am on the high end of it which works fine for me. Now, I'm trying to shave a few more pounds (I gained about 5 over the holidays) and then I'm going back to recomping b/c I want to lose fat and keep or gain a bit of muscle mass.
  • animatorswearbras
    animatorswearbras Posts: 1,001 Member
    I worry more about my belly measurement as that comes with more health problems, I'm technically (just) in a healthy bmi of 25 atm but the measurement around my belly (taken where your bellybutton is not the slimmest part/dress waist) is over the healthy range of 32" for a women (according to the british heart foundation). If you don't store all your weight around your middrift like me and are a pear or hourglass figure you're probably fine. I however as an apple don't feel like I'm at a healthy weight even though my BMI says I technically am, as another poster says BMI is a rough guide based on averages if you feel healthy and are happy then no need to aim for that number. Hope that helps. :)
  • hellobaconplease
    hellobaconplease Posts: 108 Member
    edited January 2017
    I don't overly care - I mean, I don't want to be in any of the obese categories. I want to get down to "overweight" and I'll be pleased.

    My husband is 5'6"/168cm tall, weight varies between 161-174lbs/73-79kg which is overweight for his height, but he does olympic weightlifting almost every day and has a fairly decent amount of muscle. He's got fat too, sure, but I wouldn't say a huge amount. There is a small bit he can pinch on his tummy and hips, that's about it. I look at this picture of him and don't think "oh god, he's so overweight!" BMI 26.6 in this picture.

    DSC_0891_zps61bd14dd.jpg

    I would love to be "overweight" but from being more muscular than most women tend to be. I'd be more than happy with that. I know how hard that it is to build muscle as a woman though.
  • ShammersPink
    ShammersPink Posts: 215 Member
    I worry more about my belly measurement as that comes with more health problems, I'm technically (just) in a healthy bmi of 25 atm but the measurement around my belly (taken where your bellybutton is not the slimmest part/dress waist) is over the healthy range of 32" for a women (according to the british heart foundation). If you don't store all your weight around your middrift like me and are a pear or hourglass figure you're probably fine. I however as an apple don't feel like I'm at a healthy weight even though my BMI says I technically am

    Yes, that's a good point. But I think the 32" waist figure is an example of the over-simplification of health guidelines. It'd be relatively stout on a 5' woman, but not unreasonable on a 5' 10" woman. Waist:Height ratio is probably a better measure, along with Waist:Hip ratio.

    If those are both okay, then you probably aren't carrying most of your weight as visceral fat.
  • Chadxx
    Chadxx Posts: 1,199 Member
    Personally, I don't care what some BS chart says. I care how I look and feel and that I am healthy. According to BMI charts, I used to be obese with a 32" waist.
  • animatorswearbras
    animatorswearbras Posts: 1,001 Member
    edited January 2017
    I worry more about my belly measurement as that comes with more health problems, I'm technically (just) in a healthy bmi of 25 atm but the measurement around my belly (taken where your bellybutton is not the slimmest part/dress waist) is over the healthy range of 32" for a women (according to the british heart foundation). If you don't store all your weight around your middrift like me and are a pear or hourglass figure you're probably fine. I however as an apple don't feel like I'm at a healthy weight even though my BMI says I technically am

    Yes, that's a good point. But I think the 32" waist figure is an example of the over-simplification of health guidelines. It'd be relatively stout on a 5' woman, but not unreasonable on a 5' 10" woman. Waist:Height ratio is probably a better measure, along with Waist:Hip ratio.

    If those are both okay, then you probably aren't carrying most of your weight as visceral fat.

    Thanks for those the waist hip ratio has me at normal because it asks for the dress waist measurement, the waist height one has me at either normal or overweight depending where I measure, (dress waist or belly). I'm suprised the BHF measurement I use doesn't take into consideration height if it makes a big difference? I'm just shy of the obese range on that, and I'm fairly averege height at 5'5 :/ It doesnt make sense though a health measurement that would ask for the slimmest part of your waist and skip the belly? I can understand it from an aesthetic point of view but if you want to measure the fat surely thats the measurement to take?
  • cross2bear
    cross2bear Posts: 1,106 Member
    Neither my doctor nor I care about BMI - she is of the belief that the BMI index really doesnt reflect the physiological reality of women particularly, especially after the age of 40 yrs and after children. I love her for that! In fact, at my last appointment with her, she said I could probably stop losing weight, that I was at a good point. I whined a bit and said that I wanted to lose 5lbs more, as then I would cross from being obese to just overweight. She then shared her perspective on the BMI issue and as someone said earlier, noted that 5lbs was not going to be a make or break real live weight issue with me - maybe a psychological one, but really not physically necessary. When you think about it, it really is sort of goofy to say that if you way x amount, you are "normal" but if you weigh x + 8 ounces, you are overweight. I understand that even ranges have to have identifiable parameters, but in this case, I'm ok with not paying it a lot of attention.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited January 2017
    My doctor said to stop losing weight because I'm in the healthy range of BMI, and I stopped caring about my BMI once I was within the healthy range.

    However, I told my doctor that I had vanity and aesthetic goals that shedding a few more pounds were factoring into. She was cool with that. I care more about body fat and aesthetics at this point. I want to be light for running. I naturally have a stockier build, but I can lean out a bit.
  • KiwiAlexP
    KiwiAlexP Posts: 185 Member
    I use the standard BMI range as a good way of setting a realistic goal - I'm not tall and not that short and definitely not an athlete (professional rugby players get classed as obese so it doesn't work for them). I'm also of European descent so am reasonably sure I fit the average profile it was designed for. I know that the ranges are slightly different for other ethnicities - Asian is lower while Maori/Pacifc Islander ranges are about 2 points higher than European
  • ShammersPink
    ShammersPink Posts: 215 Member
    I'm suprised the BHF measurement I use doesn't take into consideration height if it makes a big difference? I'm just shy of the obese range on that, and I'm fairly averege height at 5'5 :/ It doesnt make sense though a health measurement that would ask for the slimmest part of your waist and skip the belly? I can understand it from an aesthetic point of view but if you want to measure the fat surely thats the measurement to take?

    I can't help on precisely the right place to measure - I think I'd need to look into it more. There are a number of different calculators around.

    But as for the BHF recommendation, health recommendations are frequently ridiculously simplified to give an easy number to remember - 2000 calories for a woman, 2500 for a man, protein amounts similarly standardised. Now there are lots of women who will gain steadily on 2000 calories, and plenty of others who will lose.

    The waist measurement given by BHF equates to a Waist:Height ratio of 50% on a standard height 5' 4" white British woman. It's a maximum, and if your height is close to 5' 4", not a bad approximation, but the further you are from "average", the worse it gets as a predictor, like many of these recommendations.
  • Mouse_Potato
    Mouse_Potato Posts: 1,493 Member
    I worry more about my belly measurement as that comes with more health problems, I'm technically (just) in a healthy bmi of 25 atm but the measurement around my belly (taken where your bellybutton is not the slimmest part/dress waist) is over the healthy range of 32" for a women (according to the british heart foundation). If you don't store all your weight around your middrift like me and are a pear or hourglass figure you're probably fine. I however as an apple don't feel like I'm at a healthy weight even though my BMI says I technically am

    Yes, that's a good point. But I think the 32" waist figure is an example of the over-simplification of health guidelines. It'd be relatively stout on a 5' woman, but not unreasonable on a 5' 10" woman. Waist:Height ratio is probably a better measure, along with Waist:Hip ratio.

    If those are both okay, then you probably aren't carrying most of your weight as visceral fat.

    I hate the Waist:Hip ratio. It shows me as "at risk" no matter how small I get because my hips shrink along with the rest of me. :disappointed:
  • crzycatlady1
    crzycatlady1 Posts: 1,930 Member
    sarahbums wrote: »
    sarahbums wrote: »
    Nope. I don't care, really. My Bull$#!t Mass Index is 17.9, which would be considered 'underweight', but I don't see myself that way at all. I'm fine with maintaining this weight.

    Your profile says you've struggled with an ED though. How you perceive yourself may not be the healthiest indicator to go by. What does your doctor say about your underweight bmi?

    they aren't too concerned since I've been maintaining for ~3 months. As long as my bloodwork is okay and my blood pressure and electrolyte levels check out, it's not a huge deal so long as I continue to see a therapist and work on reducing ED behaviors.

    Good to hear that things are going well with your treatment, thanks for responding :)