Anyone Else "Overweight" on the BMI Chart but Healthy, Active, Happy and not Really "Overweight"
Options
Replies
-
bennettinfinity 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.
Which is why I hate that some insurance companies use BMI as a rating tool.7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »bennettinfinity 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.
Which is why I hate that some insurance companies use BMI as a rating tool.
True. BMI is horrible as an actuarial tool where any imprecision makes the tool worthless, but I do think that it can serve a purpose as a public awareness/education tool.
From the latter perspective, arguing between 24 and 26 is splitting hairs. The real issue are the people pushing 30 who do not even consider that they might need to do something about their weight.7 -
jillstreett wrote: »Anyone feel great and know you are healthy but you are "Overweight" on the BMI Chart? What's your take on it? I don't want it to seem like I'm fine with being "Overweight" but to me with my height and body shape, food choices and activity level, I'm not "Overweight!"
I was healthy, happy, fit and overweight. While my weight posed no problems I knew the risk of problems was greater so I wasn't really fine with it.
Now I am healthy, happy, fit and not overweight. I like it better now. I feel better knowing I removed a health risk that was within my control. And fitting back in my old clothes is also nice.9 -
-
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.
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.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.
Yeah...you better not lose any more weight....3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »bennettinfinity 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.
Which is why I hate that some insurance companies use BMI as a rating tool.
True. BMI is horrible as an actuarial tool where any imprecision makes the tool worthless, but I do think that it can serve a purpose as a public awareness/education tool.
From the latter perspective, arguing between 24 and 26 is splitting hairs. The real issue are the people pushing 30 who do not even consider that they might need to do something about their weight.
I respectfully disagree - I picked these numbers specifically because the 24 would be considered 'healthy' while the 26 would not - absent any additional context (such as when used as an actuarial tool, for example) - when in fact, the opposite might well be true.1 -
djeffreys10 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!
I say it's fairly worthless for all individuals. When I started all this, I had very little muscle. I dieted down to 152 and looked almost sick in my opinion, when I look back. Yet I was still at the higher end of normal. I could have lost another 25 lbs and still been in the "healthy" range. I think it's a horrible way to get any kind of guidelines. Granted, that is my opinion on the matter. Nothing more.
That's not how BMI works, though. The range is meant to accommodate various kinds of body frames (to a point, it can't accommodate overly muscular men), it does not mean that the every single person would be a perfect fit at both 18.5 and 25 BMI.14 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »djeffreys10 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!
I say it's fairly worthless for all individuals. When I started all this, I had very little muscle. I dieted down to 152 and looked almost sick in my opinion, when I look back. Yet I was still at the higher end of normal. I could have lost another 25 lbs and still been in the "healthy" range. I think it's a horrible way to get any kind of guidelines. Granted, that is my opinion on the matter. Nothing more.
That's not how BMI works, though. The range is meant to accommodate various kinds of body frames (to a point, it can't accommodate overly muscular men), it does not mean that the every single person would be a perfect fit at both 18.5 and 25 BMI.
But the other side of that coin is that the ranges are so broad as to almost be meaningless. One could be healthy in one end of the 'Healthy' range and unhealthy at the other.
For example, shorter people are quite frequently at a healthy BMI (higher end) but at an unhealthy BF%, but draw on a false sense of security because BMI says they're 'healthy'.7 -
It's been kind of an interesting experiment for me. Two years ago at the same BMI, I was 4 inches bigger in my waist and 3 inches bigger in my hips. This time around I've been able to wear old clothes that didn't fit until I was 20 pounds lighter the last go around. I don't consider myself a body builder, but body composition definitely plays a part when we consider BMI. It ultimately comes down to personal goals. I wouldn't write BMI off entirely, though. The My Body Gallery site that was posted shows some good examples of the same idea.3
-
To those of you who think that they can't or will never achieve a healthy BMI, you should keep trying and you may be surprised. I'm 6'3 and I used to weigh 240 lbs, just into "Obese" territory on the BMI chart. I remember seeing that the highest healthy weight for me was 199 lbs. I thought that number was absurd, that I'd be skinny and weak, etc. Now I weigh 175 lbs and honestly, I'm not super skinny. My view of myself was just really skewed due to all of the extra weight I was holding.
BMI is most definitely not meaningless. The portion of the population considered overweight or obese by BMI who have a healthy body fat percentage is really low. I think I saw under 5% (see muscley guy above). Carrying around a bunch of extra weight, whether it's muscle or fat, is not good for you.19 -
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.
Agree.
I am healthier. I am more active. I am smaller. Than when I started out, yes. But I am ten pounds over the cut off for normal weight. I could and have looked a lot better 10- 13 lbs lighter than where I am now. I can see I am still overweight. I am not done yet. So the overweight and happy part? No. Can I be happy if the weight doesn't come off? The disordered, and yes I admit to some disordered thinking patterns going on with me, says no.6 -
jillstreett wrote: »I struggle with the BMI Chart on a regular basis. It has given me some goals of where I want to be but it also has shown me that it's probably not for everyone. I am aware of the vast amount of factors it does not account for. I am 5'6" and have 12 more pounds to lose to be at my goal weight of 165 (for a total loss of 30 pounds.) I realize that 165 is above the top of the "Normal" range on the BMI Chart by 11 pounds. BUT the only time that I was in the middle to the top of the "Normal" weight category I was dancing 8.5 hours a week for my Dance major in college, walking upwards of 2 miles with a heavy backpack all around campus 5 days a week, bartending/ waiting tables 4 days a week, walking my dog everyday and overall, super active. I simply am not in college any more. I do not believe (although I will try) that my body will be happy at 154 (top of "Normal" range) nor do I feel the need to be that weight. I am very active now, walking my dog everyday, dancing intense cardio and weight toning classes 4 times a week for a total of anywhere from 4.5 to 6 hours a week. I am doing all the necessary steps: cutting calories, getting in cardio and weights, etc. and the weight is coming off and I genuinely think that 165 is going to be fine and super healthy for my PEAR shape (big note there.) So my long winded question is? Anyone feel great and know you are healthy but you are "Overweight" on the BMI Chart? What's your take on it? I don't want it to seem like I'm fine with being "Overweight" but to me with my height and body shape, food choices and activity level, I'm not "Overweight!"
You may have noticed that folks around here have strong feelings about BMI, @jillstreett! You’re definitely not the only one to struggle with the “right answer.” When it comes down to real life and not hypothetical ideals, though, BMI and scale numbers aren’t the end all be all of health and happiness, and most people aren’t going to be able to tell at a glance if you’re a few pounds into overweight unless you tattoo your BMI on your forehead. Don’t do that and you’re good.
6 -
It's actually kind of funny.
At my heaviest I was definitely overweight, and fell into overweight on the BMI. Right now, while I fall into "normal" it's just barely, and I don't think anyone would accuse me of being "overweight" and my doctor is very happy with my weight. I'd like to see it closer to what it was in my mid-late 20's, which actually puts me at the low end of "normal" BUT, my BF was around 13-15% at that time (I was very fit and active, and wasn't "dieting" or restricting calories to stay there), which is pretty lean for a woman.
BMI is a very, very, very basic tool and I don't think it's even that great of a measurement as a general rule of thumb. I've known plenty of muscular guys with visible 6 packs who were far into the "overweight" category, even obese LOL.9 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
I respectfully disagree - I picked these numbers specifically because the 24 would be considered 'healthy' while the 26 would not - absent any additional context (such as when used as an actuarial tool, for example) - when in fact, the opposite might well be true.
Right, but this very thread shows that people are comfortable arriving at the conclusion that they are fine with sitting at a BMI of 26. Essentially, the BMI charts did their jobs in motivating the conversation and decision.
If anything, my issue with BMI is the subjective connotations given to the ranges by people like us and lazy/misinformed health professionals. While it's clear that being obese poses health risks and should be avoided, I think the direct link between 'overweight' and 'unhealthy' is more of a layperson thing and is driven by our skewed interpretation of the term 'overweight' resulting from decades of fad diets and flawed health marketing.
In reality, the official NIH or WHO literature avoids referring to the overweight category as generically 'unhealthy' and are very clear about saying that 'overweight' simply means that you may need to lose weight if combined with some other risk factors or at the very least, you might want to avoid putting on any more weight. Basically, they treat the term 'overweight' as a clinical definition, rather than a judgmental one. Healthy vs. unhealthy is never mentioned.7 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
I respectfully disagree - I picked these numbers specifically because the 24 would be considered 'healthy' while the 26 would not - absent any additional context (such as when used as an actuarial tool, for example) - when in fact, the opposite might well be true.
Right, but this very thread shows that people are comfortable arriving at the conclusion that they are fine with sitting at a BMI of 26. Essentially, the BMI charts did their jobs in motivating the conversation and decision.
If anything, my issue with BMI is the subjective connotations given to the ranges by people like us and lazy/misinformed health professionals. While it's clear that being obese poses health risks and should be avoided, I think the direct link between 'overweight' and 'unhealthy' is more of a layperson thing and is driven by our skewed interpretation of the term 'overweight' resulting from decades of fad diets and flawed health marketing.
In reality, the official NIH or WHO literature avoids referring to the overweight category as generically 'unhealthy' and are very clear about saying that 'overweight' simply means that you may need to lose weight if combined with some other risk factors or at the very least, you might want to avoid putting on any more weight. Basically, they treat the term 'overweight' as a clinical definition, rather than a judgmental one. Healthy vs. unhealthy is never mentioned.
I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but by virtue of labeling the 'Healthy' range 'Healthy', the implication is that the other ranges are 'Unhealthy'. I don't think I'd have as much a problem with it if it were labeled 'Normal' or something along those lines - especially since it's derived statistically - and 'Normal' by definition describes a probability density function which allows for outliers.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So using that same logic, an extra one dollar in your bank account would make no difference, so neither would an extra $100,000?
Or is there maybe a point at which a number reaches significance?11 -
cbohling1987 wrote: »It seems like most of the posters in this thread are women and I'm a man so my experience may be a bit different, but I've also found that I prefer to keep my weight a little bit above "trim." According to BMI I'm not overweight, but I can tell that if I cut down to 155 (currently 165) I would look very lean.
However, I don't really want to, because I've noticed that every time I've managed to cut down to under 160, my strength really starts to wane. I never noticed my squat max decrease except when I cut under 160.
So frankly I'm just going to keep bulk/cut cycling until I look leaner at 165. If I don't look quite as lean now, so be it.
You're probably burning muscle at that point.
BMI does not take into account muscle mass. I have a friend who is a dancer and bodybuilder who always ranks high on the BMI charts due to the sheer bulk of muscle he carries. He has a very low body fat percentage, but since muscle weighs more than fat, he comes out "obese" on the charts when he isn't.7 -
You weigh more than my husband who is a foot taller than you, he's like 165-170. xD15
-
bennettinfinity wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »
I respectfully disagree - I picked these numbers specifically because the 24 would be considered 'healthy' while the 26 would not - absent any additional context (such as when used as an actuarial tool, for example) - when in fact, the opposite might well be true.
Right, but this very thread shows that people are comfortable arriving at the conclusion that they are fine with sitting at a BMI of 26. Essentially, the BMI charts did their jobs in motivating the conversation and decision.
If anything, my issue with BMI is the subjective connotations given to the ranges by people like us and lazy/misinformed health professionals. While it's clear that being obese poses health risks and should be avoided, I think the direct link between 'overweight' and 'unhealthy' is more of a layperson thing and is driven by our skewed interpretation of the term 'overweight' resulting from decades of fad diets and flawed health marketing.
In reality, the official NIH or WHO literature avoids referring to the overweight category as generically 'unhealthy' and are very clear about saying that 'overweight' simply means that you may need to lose weight if combined with some other risk factors or at the very least, you might want to avoid putting on any more weight. Basically, they treat the term 'overweight' as a clinical definition, rather than a judgmental one. Healthy vs. unhealthy is never mentioned.
I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but by virtue of labeling the 'Healthy' range 'Healthy', the implication is that the other ranges are 'Unhealthy'. I don't think I'd have as much a problem with it if it were labeled 'Normal' or something along those lines - especially since it's derived statistically - and 'Normal' by definition describes a probability density function which allows for outliers.
Agreed. Poor choice of wording creates a lot of problems with interpretation. Better names could have been risk-based (low-risk, potential increased risk, high risk, and severe risk for example) since ultimately the link between BMI and health risks is what drives the classifications anyway..3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So using that same logic, an extra one dollar in your bank account would make no difference, so neither would an extra $100,000?
Or is there maybe a point at which a number reaches significance?
Yes, that is correct. If $1 makes no difference how can a multiple of it. $1 makes a very small difference, but it's still a difference.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions