Anyone Else "Overweight" on the BMI Chart but Healthy, Active, Happy and not Really "Overweight"

rheddmobile wrote: »

For me at least BMI seems to accurately represent my health and fitness level. When I was morbidly obese I got tired just walking normally. Then I lost enough weight to be just regular obese and could walk for miles but had difficultly running. When I hit overweight I could run much better, but I could also tell that running would be much easier at a lower weight. Now I am at the high end of normal weight and can do most things easily, but there are some more intense fitness related activities like jumping and acrobatics and pull-ups which would greatly benefit if I lost about fifteen more pounds, which would put me at close to ideal weight. In college I had an underweight BMI and was constantly run down and anemic. Everyone is different but in my case the chart is spot on.

I also note that when I first lost enough weight to get down to just overweight and no longer obese, I thought I looked great. I would admire myself in the mirror and think I was mostly finished with my weight loss journey. But then I would see photographs of me taken with other people and I looked fat in them. I blamed the camera. But now that I am normal weight, suddenly I look normal weight in photos and surprise, the ones taken when I was overweight, I still look overweight, because I was overweight then, I just had trouble seeing it. It just took a while for my perception to adjust to my new reality. You may discover something similar when you have been at your current weight for a while.

True but my "ideal weight" is around 115-120 and at 140 I'm already a size small and can see my bones. I can't imagine losing 25lbs.

I think we should all strive to at least hit the healthy BMI range tho. It's a great reference point for regular people. OP you might not think your body will be happy (idk what that means) but it will probably be a lot happier. Unnecessary extra fat just brings you down and you may feel healthy and active but just having that excess fat is making all these active things you're doing more difficult, whether you feel it or not.

I have been at the bottom and top range of my normal BMI and I prefer the top. I have an hourglass figure and I did look like a skeleton. I prefer my butt and boobs to be big, it looks hot. Same reason men might want to maintain a higher weight to look good. Fact is I want to stay in the lowest weight where these things are still true which is the middle for me, but if I never lose a single pound I'll be happy at the top range I still look hot. I don't really care what others do. Do what makes you happy 165lbs isn't going to make you fat. Any shame or pressure we feel is internal which means we have the power to change it. Ignore people who aren't supportive and live your life your way. That's what matters. Nothing else.

PowerliftingMom wrote: »

BMI charts are useless for those who have a muscular build like most athletes

This is true, may apply to 10% or so of the population. The OP reports doing 4.5-6 hours of cardio and weights a week. This just hits the minimum levels of exercise recommended by the CDC. I doubt it gives her the bodyfat level of an athlete, so in her case BMI is most likely a pretty realistic indicator.

Just my personal opinion but you also have to look at weight as just one component of being healthy. Sure you can be within a healthy BMI range and have a terrible health situation. Many skinny people do have heart attacks, high blood pressure, etc. On the opposite, many slightly over weight people would be overall more healthy on a whole than their lighter counterparts. I find this site really only focuses on the weight side in the forums when talking about health when really there's more to health than just weight. To take it to the extreme, many meth heads would easily fit into a healthy BMI category but you wouldn't consider them healthy as the only reason they are that way is the drug use keeps them from eating which in turn eats away at their bodies which in turn makes them skinny. Could they run a 5k or bike 10k? Probably not. Now on the other than I've seen many obese people easily run a 5k, including myself. So if you're asking can you be healthy and be higher then the recommended BMI, sure. Would you be even healthier lower on the BMI, maybe, but as another poster already said, if it starts to bring in too many other factors including mental stress, then no. There's a ton of proven scientific research out there to show that while most of when we want to get "healthy" focus only on weight, the mental aspect of our healthy is equally and in some cases even more important. Again just my opinons, not backed by science.

Packerjohn wrote: »

ap1972 wrote: »

My 14yo son was talking about this earlier, I'm 5'10" and around 210 which puts me just into the obese range. I don't feel obese but would say I'm overweight, when I said to him even if I lost 30 pounds I would still be overweight he said that would be crazy as he thought i would look unhealthy if I lost more than that.

My wife is also 5'10-5'11" and got up to 195. She is now 170, feels and looks great. She is going to go down another 5-10 to see how that feels.

Individual results/perceptions may vary.

I'm male and haven't been 170 since I was about 16.......if you looked at me then you would probably say I was underweight, my mum was always embarrassed if I took my top off in public as i was so skinny.

stanmann571 wrote: »

Statistically, "Overweight" BMI will generally tend to fit within "normal/healthy" BF%. There are exceptions, but since BMI is a statistical measure, it doesn't correspond in a 1:1 to healthy weight/body fat.

I believe it's statistically the opposite unless someone is doing manual labor/strength training, especially for women. People just don't use their muscles as much now with all the conveniences so they tend towards being overfat despite not being overweight. I could be wrong.

whosshe wrote: »

rheddmobile wrote: »

For me at least BMI seems to accurately represent my health and fitness level. When I was morbidly obese I got tired just walking normally. Then I lost enough weight to be just regular obese and could walk for miles but had difficultly running. When I hit overweight I could run much better, but I could also tell that running would be much easier at a lower weight. Now I am at the high end of normal weight and can do most things easily, but there are some more intense fitness related activities like jumping and acrobatics and pull-ups which would greatly benefit if I lost about fifteen more pounds, which would put me at close to ideal weight. In college I had an underweight BMI and was constantly run down and anemic. Everyone is different but in my case the chart is spot on.

I also note that when I first lost enough weight to get down to just overweight and no longer obese, I thought I looked great. I would admire myself in the mirror and think I was mostly finished with my weight loss journey. But then I would see photographs of me taken with other people and I looked fat in them. I blamed the camera. But now that I am normal weight, suddenly I look normal weight in photos and surprise, the ones taken when I was overweight, I still look overweight, because I was overweight then, I just had trouble seeing it. It just took a while for my perception to adjust to my new reality. You may discover something similar when you have been at your current weight for a while.

True but my "ideal weight" is around 115-120 and at 140 I'm already a size small and can see my bones. I can't imagine losing 25lbs.

I think we should all strive to at least hit the healthy BMI range tho. It's a great reference point for regular people. OP you might not think your body will be happy (idk what that means) but it will probably be a lot happier. Unnecessary extra fat just brings you down and you may feel healthy and active but just having that excess fat is making all these active things you're doing more difficult, whether you feel it or not.

A healthy span of 18.5 to 25 BMI covers far more than 5 pounds.

Applying population statistics to individuals is not how statistics work and therefore BMI is a pretty worthless metric.

For example, you wouldn't take the average height of men in the U.S., come up with a range of say +/- one standard deviation, and then go around telling people that they're too tall or too short if they fell outside of that range.

I'm 6'2, 205 lbs; my BP and cholesterol are in healthy ranges, I regularly run half marathons and trail halfs. I'm happy with what my body is able to do. I'm reasonably happy with my appearance, though, I'm still working on losing 5 lbs, but even then I'll be in the 'Overweight' category.

By my estimates, I'd have to get to and maintain a BF of <18% in order to get into the extreme top of my 'healthy' BMI. Is that achievable? Yes. Is it necessary to be 'healthy'? No.

There are many other metrics that are much more meaningful than BMI.

whosshe wrote: »

collectingblues wrote: »

whosshe wrote: »

rheddmobile wrote: »

For me at least BMI seems to accurately represent my health and fitness level. When I was morbidly obese I got tired just walking normally. Then I lost enough weight to be just regular obese and could walk for miles but had difficultly running. When I hit overweight I could run much better, but I could also tell that running would be much easier at a lower weight. Now I am at the high end of normal weight and can do most things easily, but there are some more intense fitness related activities like jumping and acrobatics and pull-ups which would greatly benefit if I lost about fifteen more pounds, which would put me at close to ideal weight. In college I had an underweight BMI and was constantly run down and anemic. Everyone is different but in my case the chart is spot on.

I also note that when I first lost enough weight to get down to just overweight and no longer obese, I thought I looked great. I would admire myself in the mirror and think I was mostly finished with my weight loss journey. But then I would see photographs of me taken with other people and I looked fat in them. I blamed the camera. But now that I am normal weight, suddenly I look normal weight in photos and surprise, the ones taken when I was overweight, I still look overweight, because I was overweight then, I just had trouble seeing it. It just took a while for my perception to adjust to my new reality. You may discover something similar when you have been at your current weight for a while.

True but my "ideal weight" is around 115-120 and at 140 I'm already a size small and can see my bones. I can't imagine losing 25lbs.

I think we should all strive to at least hit the healthy BMI range tho. It's a great reference point for regular people. OP you might not think your body will be happy (idk what that means) but it will probably be a lot happier. Unnecessary extra fat just brings you down and you may feel healthy and active but just having that excess fat is making all these active things you're doing more difficult, whether you feel it or not.

A healthy span of 18.5 to 25 BMI covers far more than 5 pounds.

Mhm I never said it didn't? My BMI right now is 24.8. I was talking about ideal weight, what is suggested at my height and age, not the whole healthy BMI range..

But where are you coming up with that ideal weight from? Who is suggesting it?

That "ideal weight" is far more nebulous than using BMI, because there are *so* many factors involved in it.

I am basically normal BMI and I feel I am still very overweight. The scale goes both ways, BMI is only a guideline. A better measurement is height/waist ratio and the mirror.

Francl27 wrote: »

I don't think that 12 lbs will make any difference whatsoever in your health, so I wouldn't even worry about it.

12 pounds can make a huge difference....

tyrindor wrote: »

I am basically normal BMI and I feel I am still very overweight. The scale goes both ways, BMI is only a guideline. A better measurement is height/waist ratio and the mirror.

Francl27 wrote: »

I don't think that 12 lbs will make any difference whatsoever in your health, so I wouldn't even worry about it.

12 pounds can make a huge difference....

Yes 12lbs makes a huge difference and the thinner you get each single pound seems to make a huge difference.

djeffreys10 wrote: »

I am 5'8", and weigh 180 lbs in the pics below. According to bmi, I should weigh below 160. That puts me at 20 lbs overweight, and 15 lbs shy of obese. Yeah, BMI is meaningless.

To be fair, it's readily acknowledged that BMI is fairly worthless for muscular individuals and I think you know that already.

That said, it can be pretty representative for the rest of us. The problem is when non-muscular individuals believe that they fall into the category of people who can ignore BMI. Thus people believing that they can't afford to drop below a BMI of 27 for fear of looking malnourished!

DX2JX2 wrote: »

djeffreys10 wrote: »

I am 5'8", and weigh 180 lbs in the pics below. According to bmi, I should weigh below 160. That puts me at 20 lbs overweight, and 15 lbs shy of obese. Yeah, BMI is meaningless.

To be fair, it's readily acknowledged that BMI is fairly worthless for muscular individuals and I think you know that already.

That said, it can be pretty representative for the rest of us. The problem is when non-muscular individuals believe that they fall into the category of people who can ignore BMI. Thus people believing that they can't afford to drop below a BMI of 27 for fear of looking malnourished!

But this is precisely why BMI is a poor metric at the individual level - it's only meaningful within context.

From a population perspective (as BMI is intended to be used), if I tell you that Population A has a BMI of 24 and Population B has a BMI of 26, you'd be correct in concluding that Population B has a generally higher BF%.

But if I tell you that Individual A has a BMI of 24 and Individual B has a BMI of 26, you can't make any determinations without additional context - and likely the additional context would be sufficient to make determinations absent the individual BMIs.