Shall I ignore my BMI
jc1961AA
Posts: 283 Member
Just wanted to know if people in general try to reach a BMI goal. My goal is to reach 80kg for 175cm (currently at 81.6kg), but the BMI calculator says that i would still be "overweight", and ideal weight would be 75kg, I don't know if I could even reach that, and I don't think that I want to lose that much weight. Is BMI calculation overrated?
6
Replies
-
For me personally, until they come up with a way to measure body fat within 0.5% accuracy there is no point to waste time and money on it. When the margin of error can literally hide months worth of work, it just seems like an exercise in frustration.
13 -
Like most things in life, the accuracy of the BMI is on a bell curve. It is accurate for the majority of people, however, it isn't for those who have too little muscle mass or those that have a lot of muscle mass. You'll have to answer the question for yourself whether to ignore it based on your own assessment (either by doing a relatively accurate body fat measurement - DEXA, bod pod, underwater weighing), or just look in a mirror to determine if you like what you see and like how you feel at the "overweight" BMI weight.
I myself have a lot of lean mass for my frame size. To get into the non-overweight category, I need to stay at 16% body fat or less, which is really tough for me to do, so I typically hover about 3-5 pounds into the "overweight" BMI. I feel great at that weight, am happy with how I look, so I don't care about BMI.9 -
BMI is in just about all cases, a worthless measurement.40
-
I've been at my bmi and slightly over and where I am. To be honest, I was happiest with my body when I was slightly over the normal range (25.5-27). The only reason I have some eye on it is that hubby's insurance that I'm on gives a discount if you are under a set bmi (along with other factors).
Hubby is in the same boat though that his weight would be stupid low if he were to get into the normal range (his weight for the discount also is lower than he would like). The last time he was that low, he was also training for the MS150, and after the ride, he gained a bit of weight since he didn't have intentions of riding in the next year.2 -
marathon_44 wrote: »Like most things in life, the accuracy of the BMI is on a bell curve. It is accurate for the majority of people, however, it isn't for those who have too little muscle mass or those that have a lot of muscle mass. You'll have to answer the question for yourself whether to ignore it based on your own assessment (either by doing a relatively accurate body fat measurement - DEXA, bod pod, underwater weighing), or just look in a mirror to determine if you like what you see and like how you feel at the "overweight" BMI weight.
I myself have a lot of lean mass for my frame size. To get into the non-overweight category, I need to stay at 16% body fat or less, which is really tough for me to do, so I typically hover about 3-5 pounds into the "overweight" BMI. I feel great at that weight, am happy with how I look, so I don't care about BMI.
That's what i am thinking too, once i reach my bodyweight goal, I will concentrate on lifting a bit more to tone, and you are spot on saying that if you are happy with what you see when you look at the mirror, I should not worry too much about some scientific guidelines0 -
The BMI calculation is fine as a guideline but that doesn't mean much to you as an individual beyond being a somewhat interesting piece of the information jigsaw.
As you are male and clearly exercise (from your photo) there's a good chance you are an outlier - all population measures have outliers. It's just with BMI more people think they are outliers than actually are!!
To me it's the difference between rules and guidelines.....
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."
I'm currently 174cm and 76kg.
There's been times being a higher weight has been better for me, times when lower was better and a big chunk of time when higher really did mean I was fat!8 -
-
I'm using mine as a starting point. But as I close in on the ideal range for my height, I mean to sit down with an RD and figure out what's probably a good number for me. (I know I don't want to be at the bottom of the range and I think I want to be about 10lbs into it, but that's more because I'm the kind of person who can drive herself nuts if she's 0.2 out of the 'good' zone and I'd like to have enough of a buffer so I'll still be within the range with 'normal' fluctuations. If an RD tells me something else, I'll take specific advice from an expert over general recommendations from a chart.)1
-
I used mine as a goal. It became clearer to me that my goal should be the low end once i got there but i had no way of knowing until i got there. And then as i went for the lower end i found im perfect in the middle. I get to eat more and my boobs arent overly deflated (lol)
Wherever you feel happiest, Its your body. Assuming your not lieing to yourself about feeling happy and healthy at an overly obese weight that can cause health issues your good. Go until you like you and can do all the things you want to do.5 -
Why worry about goal now? It's certainly not worth agonizing over.
Goal weight changes literally nothing about needed behavior along the path. As long as your body image isn't distorted, you can evaluate how you feel and look as your weight progresses downward; you'll know when you're getting close to a good weight for you.
You can even change your mind later: Get to goal, test drive it for months, decide to lose more or regain some. It's renegotiable.
Setting a goal weight in MFP affects only some cosmetic features, like your progress ticker (display of hiw many pounds to goal). It doesn't affect calorie goal at all.
If something above normal BMI seems right now, pick that for starters. When we've been overfat for most/all of adulthood, we have no clear idea how a much lower weight will feel or look until we approach it. BMI applies well to most people, but not everyone. Don't stress over goal weight at the start - it's pointless.9 -
I find the BMI scale a good value to strive towards, but I know for my bone structure and muscle etc, If i get as low as the BMI suggests I'd look malnourished lol. Just take pictures and measurements and go from there. When you see yourself in your body that you are YOUR optimum weight then stop there
0 -
One thing I'd say is - just don't get too fixated on a specific number... years ago I, for some reason, set my goal to a BMI of roughly 20.. I did drop to that weight (though the last 3-4kg was due to dental issues, to be honest) and I looked awful - like, gaunt face, ribcage showing through my back, super skinny arms, etc
As it turns out I feel best at what's cosidered the slightly higher end of normal BMI0 -
The easy way to do it: Set a goal based upon whatever metrics you like (weight, BMI, body fat percentage, etc.). If you like what you see when you get there, you're good; if you don't, set another goal and work toward it. If, somewhere along the way to your initial goal, you find a weight where you look good and feel good, you're good. It's not like you're immutably locked into your initial goal and can't change your mind along the way.
IMO, the ultimate goal is to reach a healthy weight where you minimize/eliminate the health risks associated with being overweight (or underweight), and are satisfied aesthetically with what you see in the mirror. BMI is a reasonable range for the vast majority of people, but it's not the be-all and end-all of measurement metrics.11 -
TThe easy way to do it: Set a goal based upon whatever metrics you like (weight, BMI, body fat percentage, etc.). If you like what you see when you get there, you're good; if you don't, set another goal and work toward it. If, somewhere along the way to your initial goal, you find a weight ....
Thank AnvilHead, that's some good advice you are giving me. I am about just over 1kg from my current goal. BMI still a bit too high but as you said I am not too worried about it. Once I reach my goal, I see how easy it is to maintain, if I can afford to lose another couple of kgs, i will set a new goal
4 -
The easy way to do it: Set a goal based upon whatever metrics you like (weight, BMI, body fat percentage, etc.). If you like what you see when you get there, you're good; if you don't, set another goal and work toward it. If, somewhere along the way to your initial goal, you find a weight where you look good and feel good, you're good. It's not like you're immutably locked into your initial goal and can't change your mind along the way.
IMO, the ultimate goal is to reach a healthy weight where you minimize/eliminate the health risks associated with being overweight (or underweight), and are satisfied aesthetically with what you see in the mirror. BMI is a reasonable range for the vast majority of people, but it's not the be-all and end-all of measurement metrics.
Nice thoughts, or set a performance goal, say being able to do 10 pullups. Most people carrying a lot of extra bodyfat won't get that metric until they drop some.2 -
I had trouble when looking at my BMI. For me (5’5” female) my normal range is 111-149 lbs (huge, eh?). I look fat in the 140s so I set a goal of 115 — I figured that is safely in normal weight and far from where I look fat. Well, I dieted and got down to 121 lbs. I was way skinny. I’m muscular, and you could see every muscle but my chest looked weird — you could prominently see all the ribs. And I stopped menstruating. I saw my GP and he said I didn’t have enough fat to support a menstrual cycle — and I was 10 lbs above underweight! I think I look best at 125-130 lbs.5
-
smnovosad1 wrote: »I had trouble when looking at my BMI. For me (5’5” female) my normal range is 111-149 lbs (huge, eh?). I look fat in the 140s so I set a goal of 115 — I figured that is safely in normal weight and far from where I look fat. Well, I dieted and got down to 121 lbs. I was way skinny. I’m muscular, and you could see every muscle but my chest looked weird — you could prominently see all the ribs. And I stopped menstruating. I saw my GP and he said I didn’t have enough fat to support a menstrual cycle — and I was 10 lbs above underweight! I think I look best at 125-130 lbs.
A bit confused. Normal range means that the majority of people of a certain height whose weight falls in that range will have less health problems than similar height people whose weight falls outside it.
It does not mean that any particular individual can pick any single point in that range with impunity and it will be just as good as any other point for them!
So big hug and glad you discovered your happy spot... apparently within the range of normal BMI!10 -
Yes it is overrated especially since people have different frame sizes you should go online and figure out your frame size. That determines A LOT as well22
-
you probably have a large body frame . I have a large frame as well and if i see rib cages in my opinion thats a red flag that you need more fat.smnovosad1 wrote: »I had trouble when looking at my BMI. For me (5’5” female) my normal range is 111-149 lbs (huge, eh?). I look fat in the 140s so I set a goal of 115 — I figured that is safely in normal weight and far from where I look fat. Well, I dieted and got down to 121 lbs. I was way skinny. I’m muscular, and you could see every muscle but my chest looked weird — you could prominently see all the ribs. And I stopped menstruating. I saw my GP and he said I didn’t have enough fat to support a menstrual cycle — and I was 10 lbs above underweight! I think I look best at 125-130 lbs.
20 -
A better indicator for health than BMI is waist measurement, a waist measurement has been proven to be a better indicator of actual health, risk of heart disease and stroke so if your bmi was higher than the normal range but your waist measurement is less than 94cm for men and 80 cm for women your probably perfectly healthy4
-
BMI is a pretty good indicator for the majority of folk to go by. You say you don't know if you can reach a healthy BMI, well you wont know until you try All the best. 3
-
Just wanted to know if people in general try to reach a BMI goal. My goal is to reach 80kg for 175cm (currently at 81.6kg), but the BMI calculator says that i would still be "overweight", and ideal weight would be 75kg, I don't know if I could even reach that, and I don't think that I want to lose that much weight. Is BMI calculation overrated?
The BMI scale works well for me. My best weight is when I'm in the lower half of my normal BMI range.
Maybe you just can't imagine yourself there yet ... but when you get closer you might.4 -
Just wanted to know if people in general try to reach a BMI goal. My goal is to reach 80kg for 175cm (currently at 81.6kg), but the BMI calculator says that i would still be "overweight", and ideal weight would be 75kg, I don't know if I could even reach that, and I don't think that I want to lose that much weight. Is BMI calculation overrated?
I think bmi is a good guide but you have to consider your own experience.
I feel best around the middle to top of the bmi range. However, I still feel pretty good 10 lbs overweight. I still plan to get into the healthy bmi range.
Evaluate as you get closer. If you are losing weight for health reasons talk to your doctor about it.0 -
BMI can't differentiate between fat and muscle since it only takes into account height and weight. If you have a decent amount of muscle it will be inaccurate; according to my BMI I'm overweight (26.62), but I'm objectively not.
Bf% is a better indicator to go by.5 -
Just wanted to know if people in general try to reach a BMI goal. My goal is to reach 80kg for 175cm (currently at 81.6kg), but the BMI calculator says that i would still be "overweight", and ideal weight would be 75kg, I don't know if I could even reach that, and I don't think that I want to lose that much weight. Is BMI calculation overrated?
I use BMI for guidance but also take into consideration BF%. My typical maintenance weight is about 180 Lbs at 5'10" which puts me at about 6 Lbs overweight as per BMI but at that weight I'm at a totally healthy BF% but not super lean...like 12-15% BF which is fine by me.
I'm not a body builder by any stretch of the imagination, but I am an active guy and I workout and train regularly. I don't think it's unusual for active males with some muscle mass to be slightly overweight or at the high end of the BMI scale.
I imagine I could get down to 170 and be super lean...sub 10% and have poppin' abs, but I just don't have that kind of dietary discipline. No gut or love handles is good enough for me aesthetically speaking.0 -
BMI is one data point that should be considered along with a lot of other data points. It tells you one thing about your health, but that's it. I don't know that I would flat-out ignore it, but I wouldn't give it more consideration than other important metrics either.3
-
GlorianasTears wrote: »
you probably have a large body frame . I have a large frame as well and if i see rib cages in my opinion thats a red flag that you need more fat.smnovosad1 wrote: »I had trouble when looking at my BMI. For me (5’5” female) my normal range is 111-149 lbs (huge, eh?). I look fat in the 140s so I set a goal of 115 — I figured that is safely in normal weight and far from where I look fat. Well, I dieted and got down to 121 lbs. I was way skinny. I’m muscular, and you could see every muscle but my chest looked weird — you could prominently see all the ribs. And I stopped menstruating. I saw my GP and he said I didn’t have enough fat to support a menstrual cycle — and I was 10 lbs above underweight! I think I look best at 125-130 lbs.
I sort of disagree about the rib idea - though I agree that's a sign one needs to give serious thought to resetting goal weight higher.
Ultimately, though, fat distribution also differs between individuals. Personally, I get a bit of rib visibility while there's still fairly generous lower body fat rolls and blobification. Continuing loss after that stage depleted lower body rolls'n'blobs, but didn't noticeably affect upper body at all.
I'm not a fan of the frame size "calculators" either - they can mislead. They usually work off wrist/elbow measurements, when what really makes a difference is bigger body parts like ribcage, pelvis & shoulders, plus non-fatty breast tissue for women.
Unfortunately, it's hard to measure those parts while still over-fat. (The effect on "ideal weight" is not so much the weight of the bones themselves, but rather the weight of the geometrically greater skin, muscle, and connective tissue it takes to wrap that larger spatial volume.)
Here again, my skepticism comes from my personal experience. Because I have mysteriously huge hands - I'm talking size 10 ring finger on 5'5", 120lb female - big arms, big head, wide shoulders, the wrist and elbow measurements make "calculators" claim I have a medium to large frame.
Not true, because the rest of me is built like a 14-year-old boy (despite being a 62-year-old woman
): Narrow hips, no booty (despite some muscle), literally no breasts (post mastectomy) = small frame, in the important respects. A weight around 120 (BMI 20) looks good and feels great on me. A similar height woman with an actual large or even medium frame - wider hips, larger breasts - would be skeletal at that weight . . . without even getting into the question of major athletic muscularity.
This is why I argue for making an initial goal-weight guess, and monitoring how one feels/looks as that approaches (as in my earlier post in this thread, above).7 -
You're pretty close to where your original goal was. Are you happy here? Once you hit 80, what are your plans? Are you going to go back to old ways or have you made enough of a lifestyle that you can maintain at 80?
I used the high end of normal BMI for my initial target weight. Since puberty, I have been either overweight or obese, and have no idea what a "normal" bmi will look or feel like, for me. Once I hit that 145lbs I will start recomposition, so it won't really be over.
I think that if you are still doing some sort of activity you love, and eating a nutritionally sound and varied diet, the difference of 11ish pounds is not the end of the world.2 -
BMI can't differentiate between fat and muscle since it only takes into account height and weight. If you have a decent amount of muscle it will be inaccurate; according to my BMI I'm overweight (26.62), but I'm objectively not.
Bf% is a better indicator to go by.
True, BMI is a proxy measure of body fat; so actually knowing your %body fat is much better/accurate. The problem is most people don't know that value; much less do what it takes to get it measured accurately as they progress. So they end up using BMI.
BMI has a fairly strong positive correlation with body fat so feel free to use it as a data point. Interestingly, the few studies I've seen show that if it's going to be wrong it's far more likely to underestimate your % body fat. Of course, if you exercise and build muscle your BMI may trend toward overestimation.
2 -
BMI can't differentiate between fat and muscle since it only takes into account height and weight. If you have a decent amount of muscle it will be inaccurate; according to my BMI I'm overweight (26.62), but I'm objectively not.
Bf% is a better indicator to go by.
People for whom BMI is inaccurate because of muscle mass tend to know that. You don't get to a 27 BMI at 10% bf on accident from one day to another.12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions