Opinions On BMI
Replies
-
I don't like it but it's what doctors go by to determine if you're "healthy". When I can get to a "normal" BMI, I sit around 130-133# which is close to overweight for a female at 5'2", but I'm lazy and don't want to put in more effort to lose another 20# to get in the middle.
From the NHS website....
BMI takes into account natural variations in body shape, giving a healthy weight range for a particular height.
As well as measuring your BMI, healthcare professionals may take other factors into account when assessing if you're a healthy weight.
It's not intended or expected everyone should be in the middle of the range.
It's just one tool, not the only tool.
You know, that's really awesome! Now please tell every doctor I have that! No doctor I've seen has ever taken my blood work/lab results into account of what they consider to be "healthy" for me.
I'm pear shape with a smallish medium frame (almost 6" wrist circumference, and 2 1/4" elbow measurement). I can stand to lose 20# and still be considered "unhealthy" by looks alone because I would have a hanging, flabby belly.
Honestly, with the amount of weight you've lost, every doctor should take into consideration that you're carrying quite a few pounds of excess skin that factors into your BMI calculations. While it's likely true that there's fat clinging to that skin, that sort of fat often proves quite difficult to shift after a very large weight loss unless you lose weight to a very low body fat level.8 -
Outliers are the exception rather than the rule, unless you happen to work and live your life in a gym full of bodybuilders.DaisyHamilton wrote: »I absolutely never recommend anyone to go by BMI. It's interesting to read about, but not useful to go by.
If you take a look around at society in general, our problem isn't that the vast majority of our population are ultra-lean and carrying too much muscle mass. Pair that with the fact that a lot of people who consider themselves BMI "outliers" are fatter than they think they are.
BMI is a reasonable ballpark figure for most people - with the understanding that it's not being utilized for what it was originally designed for, and that outliers, although rare, do exist.
I totally agree. BMI is a great tool for 98% of the population. Yes there are outliers, but the ones quoted are pretty much always the star athletes at and over the top end of the BMI range. I always keep in mind the All Blacks (NZ Ruby) often according to BMI overnight or even obese, but highly skilled trained and muscular types. A lot of people think well they are outliers so the system is broken. No they are the exception to the rule, but it does not mean that the rule is invalid because some super top athletes do not comply. But these athletes also do not have a social life as the general population have.
Plus what always strikes me as odd is that they never focus on the outliers at the bottom end of the BMI range, who also exist
I disagree it is a useful tool - provided as with all tools it is used correctly. Outliers that do not fit into the toolbox exist. They are rare and they special and they are not the special snowflakes that claim thatBMI does not work for them because they {fill in reason of choice}DaisyHamilton wrote: »I absolutely never recommend anyone to go by BMI. It's interesting to read about, but not useful to go by.
1 -
I think it's a good tool. The BMI range certainly applies to me personally. The folks I know in real life that argue that it "doesn"t apply" are ALWAYS overweight (from fat not muscle). In my personal experience every single person that has ranted to me about BMI has been overweight and lying to themselves about their own weight.
Granted it's a small sample size - meaning the people I'm referring to - but I think it probably scales across the population in general. Yes, there are outliers but they are a very small percentage of the population.11 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »I think it's a good tool. The BMI range certainly applies to me personally. The folks I know in real life that argue that it "doesn"t apply" are ALWAYS overweight (from fat not muscle). In my personal experience every single person that has ranted to me about BMI has been overweight and lying to themselves about their own weight.
Granted it's a small sample size - meaning the people I'm referring to - but I think it probably scales across the population in general. Yes, there are outliers but they are a very small percentage of the population.
My anecdata matches your. I got wooed above for my "large frame" comments above but my experience with people I know personally is that any differences in frame did not account for their size. A large frame is what makes the high end of the scale more likely to be accurate.12 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »I think it's a good tool. The BMI range certainly applies to me personally. The folks I know in real life that argue that it "doesn"t apply" are ALWAYS overweight (from fat not muscle). In my personal experience every single person that has ranted to me about BMI has been overweight and lying to themselves about their own weight.
Granted it's a small sample size - meaning the people I'm referring to - but I think it probably scales across the population in general. Yes, there are outliers but they are a very small percentage of the population.
That’s been my experience also. Several people I know (and I will include myself, *previously-not anymore*) who are/were overweight or obese didn’t agree with BMI for various reasons. My personal reason was because I thought I had a “large frame” (I do not). A friend (a young man) especially raved against the doctor who told him his BMI was in the obese category, but it’s clear he is over fat. He says it’s because he “works out”.
7 -
BMI is what kicked me into gear about getting serious and losing weight. Realized that I had creeped into the "overweight" range and was not okay with that. I'm 5'7" and started off at 168, which was a 26 BMI. I'm down to ~140 now which puts me 22. That's right in the middle of my healthy range and I'm quite happy with how I look. At my height, I could get down to 120 and would have a healthy BMI but I don't think it'd be something I'd be able to sustain and quite frankly I don't think it'd look good either.10
-
3
-
Several things are factors in deciding which 'sub range' applies to individuals. Tall people are more likely to be healthy at upper end, Asian people more likely at lower end, for example.
Muscular young men ( not elite athletes, just generally sporty types) can be healthy slightly above range ie at around 27.
But for almost everybody, you are unlikely to be healthy anywhere much outside standard range - and is usually obvious to both your doctor and yourself whether that really applies to you.
In my case I knew darn well my BMI of 28 wasn't because I was unusually muscular for a middle aged woman. I was plain old overweight and I knew it.
Am quite happy now at bmi of 23. Could possibly lose another 5 lb of vanity weight, not planning to though as from health point of view am good where I am.8 -
My previous doubts about the accuracy of BMI were based on relative improvements. A few years ago, I was 230 pounds and lost down to 170, but was back up around 180 pretty quickly. I kept it there a couple of months. For me, 170 was a BMI of 25.8 and 180 was 27.4. I was in much better shape and didn't think it would be healthy to lose much more. I actually thought it was good/healthy to have gained back to 180. This time, I lost from ~225 to just below 155, but have stayed mostly in the upper 150s which is a little over a BMI of 24. I have done this for several months. Without this perspective, I honestly believed I was in great shape over 20 pounds heavier. I thought I would look emaciated at my current weight. I think a lot pf people who haven't recently had the perspective of being at a healthy weight believe the same thing.12
-
BMI is crap. When I was at a BMI of 19-20, everyone said I looked too skinny. I was at 16% body fat. Now I have naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23 (20% body fat) and I have more energy and I’m happier.23
-
Needtolosefive wrote: »BMI is crap. When I was at a BMI of 19-20, everyone said I looked too skinny. I was at 16% body fat. Now I have naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23 (20% body fat) and I have more energy and I’m happier.
How is it crap then? You feel best in the mid range of your BMI and you're on the skinny end in the low range, isn't that how it's supposed to be?
15 -
Needtolosefive wrote: »BMI is crap. When I was at a BMI of 19-20, everyone said I looked too skinny. I was at 16% body fat. Now I have naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23 (20% body fat) and I have more energy and I’m happier.
How does feeling better at one end of the healthy range rather than the other make BMI crap? That's why it's a range.
It seems many people who think BMI is problematic don't actually understand what it is or how it works.23 -
This content has been removed.
-
Basing the validity of a healthy BMI range on looks is completely missing the point of the measurement. BMI is an objective measurement. The only thing that BMI measures is statistical risk of morbidity at various height-to-weight ratios. Looks are subjective. Someone looking "too thin" at the top of a healthy BMI, or "too fat" at the bottom is dependent on self and other's perceptions of what thin and fat looks like, and is influenced by social, cultural, personal factors.
eta: I'm at the bottom of a healthy BMI, am small and narrow, and look "too thin". Occasionally a friend or family member will take me aside and express their concerns. Since the reason I'm at a low BMI is that my particular passions (cycling and running) are much easier at a lower weight, and I'm still within a healthy range, what I look like has very little bearing on my health and risk factors.
10 -
Needtolosefive wrote: »BMI is crap. When I was at a BMI of 19-20, everyone said I looked too skinny. I was at 16% body fat. Now I have naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23 (20% body fat) and I have more energy and I’m happier.
I think they should cut "healthy/normal" off at 20 on the low end. There are exceptions for petite women and people with small frames, usually of Asian descent. Most people will indeed look too skinny below a BMI of 20. at least IMO.9 -
I think it's good to keep in mind that it's a range and one person feeling best at X BMI doesn't mean that it's also the perfect BMI for someone else... I'm a fairly short woman (5'2) and I personally look horrible if my BMI drops below 20 even if it's technically still normal (can count my ribs through my back/chest) - but still look and feel a bit unhealthy at the very top end of it, too.. I feel best when I'm around the 21-22 range5
-
CarvedTones wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »BMI is crap. When I was at a BMI of 19-20, everyone said I looked too skinny. I was at 16% body fat. Now I have naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23 (20% body fat) and I have more energy and I’m happier.
I think they should cut "healthy/normal" off at 20 on the low end. There are exceptions for petite women and people with small frames, usually of Asian descent. Most people will indeed look too skinny below a BMI of 20. at least IMO.
Many physicians and organizations do. The 18.5-19.9 bit is really designed for people with legitimately small frames, and for those of Asian descent.
2 -
I don't really have much to add to what's being said here. I agree that BMI is a range for a reason. You are most likely to be healthy at anywhere within that range. Beyond that it's about what you want to look like and what you can maintain. I am currently at 24 (5 ft 3 and 137lbs) and I would like to be slimmer I know that I can maintain at about 5lbs less as I have done so before but much smaller than that is difficult for me and I think why stress myself out trying to maintain that when I am already healthy?3
-
Im the outlier I guess. I am best (for me) right at the bottom of the BMI normal or slightly below. I was FAT at the high end. That's me tho. Everyone is different. It's a good chart to start with but I think for shorter girls it is actually too lenient on the high end. My opinion only based on my frame and build.9
-
Needtolosefive wrote: »BMI is crap. When I was at a BMI of 19-20, everyone said I looked too skinny. I was at 16% body fat. Now I have naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23 (20% body fat) and I have more energy and I’m happier.
How is it crap? You're at a healthy BMI.8 -
DaisyHamilton wrote: »I absolutely never recommend anyone to go by BMI. It's interesting to read about, but not useful to go by.
While this is an extreme, it makes a valid point. Depending on your build, the healthy calculated BMI range can be way off. BMI is only 100% useful if you are willing to be properly tested where actual fat is measured. If you don't look obese, and BMI says you are by calculation, it can be related to what that picture describes in an extreme way. Any concerns pay for the proper test is what I say.10 -
SummerSkier wrote: »Im the outlier I guess. I am best (for me) right at the bottom of the BMI normal or slightly below. I was FAT at the high end. That's me tho. Everyone is different. It's a good chart to start with but I think for shorter girls it is actually too lenient on the high end. My opinion only based on my frame and build.
You say you're talking in specifics, then go on to make a generalized statement that it's too lenient for all short women. What the what now?
I think you and I are around the same height, and I look best somewhere around a 22-23 BMI.
As you said, it comes down to frame size. I don't have a small frame, and I do have a decent amount of genetic muscle mass that got laid down in puberty.
I'm pointing this out because I spent time chasing a low BMI because I'm so short after reading statements like the one you've made here, and it didn't lead anywhere healthy. I'd like to offer perspective for other short women in case they encounter the same issue.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »Im the outlier I guess. I am best (for me) right at the bottom of the BMI normal or slightly below. I was FAT at the high end. That's me tho. Everyone is different. It's a good chart to start with but I think for shorter girls it is actually too lenient on the high end. My opinion only based on my frame and build.
You say you're talking in specifics, then go on to make a generalized statement that it's too lenient for all short girls. What the what now?
I think you and I are around the same height, and I look best somewhere around a 22-23 BMI.
As you said, it comes down to frame size. I don't have a small frame, and I do have a decent amount of genetic muscle mass that got laid down in puberty.
I'm pointing this out because I spent time chasing a low BMI because I'm so short after reading statements like the one you've made here, and it didn't lead anywhere healthy. I'd like to offer perspective for other short women in case they encounter the same issue.
I understand. I also would argue there are some short gals who are actually heavy and not healthy at the upper end. I was one. Important not to fool yourself either way. I always hesitate to comment on these threads because they are pretty angst inducing.6 -
SummerSkier wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »Im the outlier I guess. I am best (for me) right at the bottom of the BMI normal or slightly below. I was FAT at the high end. That's me tho. Everyone is different. It's a good chart to start with but I think for shorter girls it is actually too lenient on the high end. My opinion only based on my frame and build.
You say you're talking in specifics, then go on to make a generalized statement that it's too lenient for all short girls. What the what now?
I think you and I are around the same height, and I look best somewhere around a 22-23 BMI.
As you said, it comes down to frame size. I don't have a small frame, and I do have a decent amount of genetic muscle mass that got laid down in puberty.
I'm pointing this out because I spent time chasing a low BMI because I'm so short after reading statements like the one you've made here, and it didn't lead anywhere healthy. I'd like to offer perspective for other short women in case they encounter the same issue.
I understand. I also would argue there are some short gals who are actually heavy and not healthy at the upper end. I was one. Important not to fool yourself either way. I always hesitate to comment on these threads because they are pretty angst inducing.
That's why there's a range depending on frame size for BMI.
And that's the whole point of the thread.
My issue, which isn't angst, is that you made a generalization based on your own experience and applied it to everyone of the same height.11 -
SummerSkier wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »Im the outlier I guess. I am best (for me) right at the bottom of the BMI normal or slightly below. I was FAT at the high end. That's me tho. Everyone is different. It's a good chart to start with but I think for shorter girls it is actually too lenient on the high end. My opinion only based on my frame and build.
You say you're talking in specifics, then go on to make a generalized statement that it's too lenient for all short girls. What the what now?
I think you and I are around the same height, and I look best somewhere around a 22-23 BMI.
As you said, it comes down to frame size. I don't have a small frame, and I do have a decent amount of genetic muscle mass that got laid down in puberty.
I'm pointing this out because I spent time chasing a low BMI because I'm so short after reading statements like the one you've made here, and it didn't lead anywhere healthy. I'd like to offer perspective for other short women in case they encounter the same issue.
I understand. I also would argue there are some short gals who are actually heavy and not healthy at the upper end. I was one. Important not to fool yourself either way. I always hesitate to comment on these threads because they are pretty angst inducing.
And there's a happy medium in between ... like 21-23. Or being muscular and being short and being at 23-24.
There's a reason there's a range.
This is almost as bad as "if you do CICO you must live on Twinkies!" It is possible to be short *and* be in the middle of the range, and be perfectly fine.
And when you say you're talking about you specifically, and then say that "for shorter girls, it's too lenient", you're extrapolating to everyone else based on *your* experience. Which, that's fine. But understand that you're going to get called out on it.
And, IIRC, weren't you saying at one point that you were wondering if you were maintaining too low? And just yesterday you were saying you've struggled with maintenance. I'd argue that if you're struggling, and second guessing yourself, that you're not actually at the best weight for you afterall.
But you go and do you. Just don't try to normalize the behavior as "you can't be short and be in the middle of the range." Based on your stats, you're maintaining what you call a "healthy" weight at .2 above the cutoff for the DSM weight criteria for anorexia. I don't think you have an accurate perception of what a "healthy" weight looks like.
13 -
Wow. I think everyone works on maintenance. Apparently there is angst here. Please be civil. I am not attacking anyone. Don’t put words in my mouth. Reread my posts. My opinion is that the chart range allows escapes at both ends.10
-
collectingblues wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »Im the outlier I guess. I am best (for me) right at the bottom of the BMI normal or slightly below. I was FAT at the high end. That's me tho. Everyone is different. It's a good chart to start with but I think for shorter girls it is actually too lenient on the high end. My opinion only based on my frame and build.
You say you're talking in specifics, then go on to make a generalized statement that it's too lenient for all short girls. What the what now?
I think you and I are around the same height, and I look best somewhere around a 22-23 BMI.
As you said, it comes down to frame size. I don't have a small frame, and I do have a decent amount of genetic muscle mass that got laid down in puberty.
I'm pointing this out because I spent time chasing a low BMI because I'm so short after reading statements like the one you've made here, and it didn't lead anywhere healthy. I'd like to offer perspective for other short women in case they encounter the same issue.
I understand. I also would argue there are some short gals who are actually heavy and not healthy at the upper end. I was one. Important not to fool yourself either way. I always hesitate to comment on these threads because they are pretty angst inducing.
And there's a happy medium in between ... like 21-23. Or being muscular and being short and being at 23-24.
There's a reason there's a range.
This is almost as bad as "if you do CICO you must live on Twinkies!" It is possible to be short *and* be in the middle of the range, and be perfectly fine.
And when you say you're talking about you specifically, and then say that "for shorter girls, it's too lenient", you're extrapolating to everyone else based on *your* experience. Which, that's fine. But understand that you're going to get called out on it.
And, IIRC, weren't you saying at one point that you were wondering if you were maintaining too low? And just yesterday you were saying you've struggled with maintenance. I'd argue that if you're struggling, and second guessing yourself, that you're not actually at the best weight for you afterall.
But you go and do you. Just don't try to normalize the behavior as "you can't be short and be in the middle of the range." Based on your stats, you're maintaining what you call a "healthy" weight at .2 above the cutoff for the DSM weight criteria for anorexia. I don't think you have an accurate perception of what a "healthy" weight looks like.
It's amazing what coherent people without migraines can say, especially when it's everything that I wanted to say and they say it much better than I ever could!5 -
No angst at all. Simply facts. I could link or copy/paste your own words, if that makes you feel better.
I maintain that if maintenance is a "struggle" -- https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/42960708#Comment_42960708 -- then you need to re-evaluate whether you are at an appropriate weight.
I would also argue that there is a very small amount of the population for whom an appropriate weight is a BMI of 17.7, and that I do not trust the perception of someone to determine *other* people's healthy weights when *they* are significantly underweight. It's the converse of how overweight is the norm in this country, and people think that anyone at a "normal" weight is thin.10 -
Ok. Just for the record I am not significantly underweight. My BMI is low normal true but I am also a runner. I am probably just under 19% bf. I know that recovered anorexics hold the mirror up a little backwards. I am not anorexic. I actually have known anorexics and pretty sure I don’t resemble. My post on maintenance is to try to help others maintaining. please quit stalking me. It’s creepy. I will not be quiet about my own opinions I have stated they are just that. You have woo d me enough times that I get that you disagree with anything I say. I say white. You say black. Peace.16
-
I never said you were anorexic. I said your BMI was .2 above the diagnostic weight. That's not "low normal", no matter how many times you try to justify that to yourself. Considering Desiree Linden has a BMI that's higher than yours, I'd also venture to guess that no, you don't need to be <18 to be a runner.
First you say I put words in your mouth, and then when I show you your words, you tell me I'm stalking you. Are we all just speaking in vacuums now?
You think *I'm* your wooer? I have better things to do with my time than to be a chronic button clicker. Do I woo you sometimes? Sure. Do I also "like" your comments sometimes? Sure.
Guess what: Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that you're trying to normalize abnormal goals.
I also won't be quiet about reinforcing that you do not need to be underweight if you are short. And that underweight should neither be the norm, nor the goal.12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions