Do you care about your BMI?

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

@gabbyo23 What’s your frame size? http://www.myfooddiary.com/Resources/frame_size_calculator.asp

I have a large frame and the only time I've had a BMI as low as 24 was after 6 weeks of undereating and overexercising during boot camp. I have wide shoulders, big hands, big feet, and a big head and had to get my boots and hat from the men's side of the uniform room.

My goal is to get back into my skinny jeans from when I was a full time yoga teacher, which will have me at a Low Overweight BMI, and I'm ok with that.

That calculator drives me batty, because I have differing elbow breadth and wrist findings. If you look at me, it's all a puzzle. My hips are narrow (34"), but my shoulders are broad. I have no earthly idea what my frame size is. I have small hands and feet, and a narrow rib cage (I wear a 30" bra band). I'm going to go with small-ish frame size. I think.

Yes, my measurements confuse that calculator.

I have teensy-tiny wrists (and ankles) ... child-sized. But long limbs.

According to the Asian BMI calculator:
https://aadi.joslin.org/en/am-i-at-risk/asian-bmi-calculator

Your weight is within healthy range. Continue exercising and eating healthfully.

I wonder if there's one for people of Eastern European descent.

ShammersPink wrote: »

Mouse_Potato wrote: »

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.

Sadly, this ratio is largely genetically determined. It is a good descriptor for apple vs pear fat deposition, which does affect your risk, as it indicates visceral fat, but beyond a certain point, you may not be able to alter it. If you tend to have a high waist:hip ratio, it may be more important to make sure the other measures, such as BMI, are okay.

I'm pretty sure that if I went up into the obese range, I'd start putting enough on my belly for the waist:hip ratio to go the wrong way, but I'm hour-glassy by genetic disposition, and I could be overweight by BMI, borderline by waist:height ratio, and almost certainly overfat by BF%, and my waist:hip ratio would remain healthy.

So I think it's a ratio to use in conjunction with other measures, not by itself.

This is why I hate it. For me, that is. My BMI is 21.2. My body fat is somewhere between 20 and 22 percent. I have visible abs. But I have narrow hips and a short waist, so even when I weighed less than 100 pounds (at 5'4"), I still had a 27" waist. Squats and deadlifts have helped give me a booty, but my WHR is still .82.

I make a point of never paying attention to my BMI, since it told me I was overweight. It's not a denial thing, but I happen to be very tall and have a good deal of muscle on me with a fairly low body fat percentage. I might weigh more than other people my height, but in no way am I unhealthy.

I don't so much care about the BMI number because it's not particularly accurate in a lot of cases. I have a book that has some other numbers (though partially based on BMI) that calculates your weight from fat and your belly fat. To me that is more important based on what I've read over the last few years.

I did before. Didn't like the obese label. Overweight by 2 whole pounds doesn't bother me at all

I've used it to help set my initial goal. Once I get there, I plan to get a body fat test to determine a more accurate stopping point. I'm seeking to be in the middle of the healthy range, and since I've been overweight most of my adult life, I don't know where that is. The BMI scale is useful to me for that sort of benchmarking.

BMI tells me I am in the high/normal range. But I feel "thick" because I used to be in the low/middle range. I still have that picture of my trimmer and fitter self in my head and want to get back to it.

I had creeped into "overweight" 25 BMI range briefly. That wake up call did help to kick me to lose the weight to get into the "normal" BMI. But the "normal BMI" range is HUGE! And 10 pounds increases my clothes one size so I can't fit into my wardrobe.

So I basically use my wardrobe to keep me in check. When I can't button my slacks comfortably it's time to get back on a deficit and start cutting calories.

I gained some weight over the holidays and feel pudgy. But no one can notice under the winter clothes. Now I'm going to work to get those pounds off before warm weather hits.

My summer wardrobe is smaller than my winter wardrobe. I've noticed that larger sizes give a lot more leeway than the lower clothes sizes. When you get down to a lower size it seems even 5 pounds gained will make clothes not fit correctly.

I do, to an extent, and here's why: it's my understanding that BMI charts were formulated to provide GENERALIZED data about health risks. Of course there is limited application to statistical outliers, for example the very short/tall/highly muscular. The "healthy" range indicates the lowest level of risk, and health risks statistically increase the farther one gets from that range.
Heart disease runs in my family, with both my grandmother and mother dying in their early sixties, and my mom having her first heart attack at age 36. (She had no other risk factors than just bad genes) So you can bet I'm going to do everything within my power to decrease my risk for disease, while keeping in mind that there are no guarantees, and that BMI is just one piece of the puzzle.
As long as one realizes the way BMI is formulated and the limitations, I see no reason not to use it as one tool among many to help objectively measure ones progress.

This content has been removed.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

applemiki wrote: »

to be honest the BMI charts are usually for people who have average frame structures. i have learned never to gauge from that because i have a large bone structure. what is overweight for the average person is pretty much ideal for me. i want to look healthy, not malnourished.

That is not true. You'll be at the upper range of a healthy BMI if you have a large frame, and at the lower range if you have a small one. That's why there's a range of what's considered healthy.

There are some people for whom this doesn't hold true, of course. There's one poster on these forums who has a large frame and her height/weight ratio is skewed due to scoliosis. That makes her a very rare exception.

That would be me.

I care about bmi because there are health care penalties applied to it.

I have finally achieved "normal" bmi for my current height, but to be honest I wouldn't force others to do it. My height - adjusted Bmi would be 21.5 (if my height spine wasn't a twisty corkscrew) but because of the height loss its 24.5. My wrist and ankle measurements still place me as large - framed.

My motivation is removing strain from my spine, but I think I'm getting pretty thin. My hips and bust are smaller than they were when I was 12 and I wasn't overweight then. My torso between my hips and under my ribs is now concave, which looks strange to say the least.