Anyone Else "Overweight" on the BMI Chart but Healthy, Active, Happy and not Really "Overweight"
Replies
-
divinehipster69 wrote: »You weigh more than my husband who is a foot taller than you, he's like 165-170. xD
That comment was unnecessary at best, unkind at worst.19 -
Overweight doesn't mean unhealthy anymore than underweight. And you can be "too fat" even if you are within a haelthy BMI.2
-
divinehipster69 wrote: »You weigh more than my husband who is a foot taller than you, he's like 165-170. xD
Was this directed at me as the OP? Was it directed at the folks who have been sharing their experiences? Was it directed at anyone who is different that you and your husband? In any case, how dare you. I have so much to say but I'll leave it at that. To everyone else, your input has been awesome. I'm having an amazing weight loss week this week and I feel really good about myself and I feel really good about everyone out there is is kicking *kitten* in their own way. You guys are the rockstars.....Let's get back to your thoughts on the BMI Chart....24 -
jillstreett wrote: »divinehipster69 wrote: »You weigh more than my husband who is a foot taller than you, he's like 165-170. xD
Was this directed at me as the OP? Was it directed at the folks who have been sharing their experiences? Was it directed at anyone who is different that you and your husband? In any case, how dare you. I have so much to say but I'll leave it at that. To everyone else, your input has been awesome. I'm having an amazing weight loss week this week and I feel really good about myself and I feel really good about everyone out there is is kicking *kitten* in their own way. You guys are the rockstars.....Let's get back to your thoughts on the BMI Chart....
You're a rockstar OP! I'd take an above-average BMI over a sh*tty personality any day...
15 -
Depends on your bf% IMO. I'm 5'6" and at 163 I don't think anyone would describe me as overweight; but I"m at the top of the healthy range now (154) and I don't look a whole lot different. Maybe my arms are leaner.
My "after" pic is 163lbs and while I do have fat to lose, I don't think I would consider myself overweight.
16 -
Denial is a powerful emotion. My doctor told me I was borderline obese according to BMI. I scoffed at that because I hike, ski, snowshoe, etc on a regular basis and I thought I felt healthy. However, my cholesterol was really high, I suffered from acid reflux and my hips and knees were beginning to ache all the time, especially during hikes or just climbing stairs. When the aches began the light bulb finally went off and I realized she was right and that I had to do something if I wanted to have an active life moving forward. I lost the 60 pounds I needed to lose and I now feel better than I have in 35 years and every day I thank my doctor for pointing out the obvious even though it pissed me off at the time. I am now off my cholesterol and reflux meds. I'm 64 now and my only regret is that I didn't do this 35 years ago.18
-
I'm 6' 186lbs
BMI says over 183lbs is overweight
I'm about 10-12% BF
Goal is about 190-195lbs
BMI is too broad a scale to work for everyone7 -
I have do 10 pull ups consecutively, I can army climb a rope (only hands no feet), and I can run with no problem. My BMI still puts me over the "recommended" which for my height is ridiculous. I'm only 120 lbs (granted I've lost 30 lbs, but I'm still "overweight" technically) Ignore BMI forever plz10
-
I'm 51 years old, 6'2", 206 lbs and according to BMI, I'm overweight. But I'm also 18% bodyfat which is pretty good for a man of my age.
11 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »Depends on your bf% IMO. I'm 5'6" and at 163 I don't think anyone would describe me as overweight; but I"m at the top of the healthy range now (154) and I don't look a whole lot different. Maybe my arms are leaner.
My "after" pic is 163lbs and while I do have fat to lose, I don't think I would consider myself overweight.
That afterpic is at 163 pounds? Wow!
I would never have guessed that. Amazing!7 -
BMI certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like virtually everyone posting in this thread that they are technically overweight by BMI standards but feel that isn't true are barely overweight (like the two men that are 6'2" and 205ish...the top of normal weight BMI is 194) and most of them state they are trying to lose a few lbs. If you are trying to lose a few lbs doesn't that mean you consider yourself a little overweight? You're really just quibbling over the perfect number. BMI says 6'2" normal weight goes up to 194 and you think your perfect is 200. I'd say BMI is pretty close despite being for populations not individuals.15
-
mrsnattybulking wrote: »Depends on your bf% IMO. I'm 5'6" and at 163 I don't think anyone would describe me as overweight; but I"m at the top of the healthy range now (154) and I don't look a whole lot different. Maybe my arms are leaner.
My "after" pic is 163lbs and while I do have fat to lose, I don't think I would consider myself overweight.
You look great! Based on your traps, it looks like you might have been doing some resistance training? That could throw off the BMI link a little bit.
That said, the first 'overweight' BMI number might as well fall into the 'normal' category. It so close that you could fluctuate between normal and overweight simply by drinking water!3 -
mburgess458 wrote: »BMI certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like virtually everyone posting in this thread that they are technically overweight by BMI standards but feel that isn't true are barely overweight (like the two men that are 6'2" and 205ish...the top of normal weight BMI is 194) and most of them state they are trying to lose a few lbs. If you are trying to lose a few lbs doesn't that mean you consider yourself a little overweight? You're really just quibbling over the perfect number. BMI says 6'2" normal weight goes up to 194 and you think your perfect is 200. I'd say BMI is pretty close despite being for populations not individuals.
Speaking for myself, I'm in the process of recomping and my goal is to achieve 18% BF... I'm probably currently in the neighborhood of 20% (truly accurate numbers being near impossible to derive), which is at the low end of the 'Acceptable' BF% range, yet I'm still 12 pounds away from a 'Healthy' BMI (top 'Healthy' is actually 193).
From where I am now, I'd have to maintain something closer to 15% BF to be considered 'Healthy' from BMI standards. While achievable, that's pushing into the 'Athletic' BF% range - that means I'd be considered 'Unhealthy' at 16% BF.
How does that make any sense? And how is that the hallmark of a meaningful metric?
Spoiler alert: it doesn't and it's not.6 -
mburgess458 wrote: »BMI certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like virtually everyone posting in this thread that they are technically overweight by BMI standards but feel that isn't true are barely overweight (like the two men that are 6'2" and 205ish...the top of normal weight BMI is 194) and most of them state they are trying to lose a few lbs. If you are trying to lose a few lbs doesn't that mean you consider yourself a little overweight? You're really just quibbling over the perfect number. BMI says 6'2" normal weight goes up to 194 and you think your perfect is 200. I'd say BMI is pretty close despite being for populations not individuals.
Like the US Military and other health organizations, I consider BMI to be an approximation of fatness (the technical term, not an insult) that can be very helpful for people aiming for a healthy weight range and to lose body fat that may be contributing to health problems. And like the US Military and other health organizations, I consider other criteria important as well (such as waist size, body fat percentage) when making a determination of fatness. I think understanding body fat can be helpful for people at a normal weight as well for health reasons. My BMI, coupled with my body fat and waist/hip measurements and other health factors (big picture) puts me at low risk. For aesthetic reasons (not because I think I'm overweight and therefore unhealthy), I would still like to lose more weight. I would like to see what my body looks like at a normal weight. That's pretty much it.6 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
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.
To be fair, a quick google says that the average US height is 5'10" with a SD of 4 inches. I think we can all acknowledge that while nobody would outright call somebody short to their face for no reason in normal society, we all know what we really think when we see a guy shorter than 5'6". Heck, even the guys who are 5'6" or shorter are usually pretty open about their stature.
5 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
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.
To be fair, a quick google says that the average US height is 5'10" with a SD of 4 inches. I think we can all acknowledge that while nobody would outright call somebody short to their face for no reason in normal society, we all know what we really think when we see a guy shorter than 5'6". Heck, even the guys who are 5'6" or shorter are usually pretty open about their stature.
My point was that outside of that purely rhetorical 1 SD interval, is someone outside of it too short? Too tall?
The context matters (I know I keep harping on that - but only because it's true).
Context A: Individual seeks to be a jockey
Context B: Individual seeks to play center for L.A. Lakers
Now we can make some determinations and set some standards.
BMI is like me telling you that I'm driving 45MPH. Am I being 'Unsafe'? Should I speed up or slow down in order to be 'Safe'?2 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
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.
To be fair, a quick google says that the average US height is 5'10" with a SD of 4 inches. I think we can all acknowledge that while nobody would outright call somebody short to their face for no reason in normal society, we all know what we really think when we see a guy shorter than 5'6". Heck, even the guys who are 5'6" or shorter are usually pretty open about their stature.
Judgy much? I'm not sure what you think when you see a shorter man, but I think...nothing.
But this isn't an apples to apples comparison, since height isn't a controllable risk variable, it is what it is. Statistically there are increased (minor, I believe) risk factors for people on the far end of either side of the spectrum, but that would figure into general unavoidable risk factors like age. Weight (or body fat percent) is considered controllable.
7 -
I'm 6' tall and weigh 214.2 lbs. which puts my BMI in "overweight".
My goal weight had been 185... that is until I had a DEXA scan performed recently and was shocked by the results. The scan put my BF% at 11.4 and my total lean mass at 182.4 lbs. Obviously a goal weight of 185 was way off!6 -
Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.2
-
Mulling this over made me curious about something, and I'm not sure how to google it. Does anyone know if there has been a risk vs bmi study done on a population sample consisting of individuals with an overweight bmi but healthy body fat percentage? It would be interesting to see what that graph looks like compared to the general population.
This from a 2015 NIH study:
"The BMI has been useful in population-based studies by virtue of its wide acceptance in defining specific categories of body mass as a health issue. However, it is increasingly clear that BMI is a rather poor indicator of percent of body fat. Importantly, the BMI also does not capture information on the mass of fat in different body sites. The latter is related not only to untoward health issues but to social issues as well."
AND
"The EPIC observational study is a population-based study that includes 359 387 individuals aged 25 to 70 years living in Europe.109 The mean age of this group at the initiation of the study was 51.5 years, and the mean follow-up has been 9.7 ± 2 years. In this study, both the crude and adjusted relative risk of death among men was actually the lowest in those with a BMI of 26.5 to 28, that is, those in the overweight (preobese) category. Also, a significant increase in risk of death was present only among those with a BMI of less than 21 or greater than 30. That is, there is a wide range of BMIs in the central part of this population in which there was relatively little impact of BMI on risk of death over a 9.7-year period.
Similar data were obtained in the NIH–American Association of Retired Persons study of 527 265 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 years in the United States and followed for up to 10 years.110 The lowest death rate in the entire cohort was among those in the “overweight” category, and this was particularly true among the men. There also was a broad range of BMIs over which there was little difference in mortality (BMI of 23.5 to 30)."7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions