BMI vs Body fat %

Options
Ok, so I calulated my husbands bmi and it says he is obese, But then I calculated his body fat % and he is only 18% wich strats the acceptable category. My husband is not fat at all! He has muscular legs and arms from work and his stomach is flat so I don't understand how he can be considered overweight much less obese! Is the bmi really something everyone should go by?? And for a little more info he is 6'1'' and bulit like a football player but in no way shape or form is he fat! And I'm not just saying that bc he is my husband he really isn't.

Replies

  • barbiex3
    barbiex3 Posts: 1,036 Member
    Options
    body fat.
  • 3ricaAnn
    3ricaAnn Posts: 288
    Options
    Thanks barbie!
  • Ash_76
    Ash_76 Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    the bmi was invented in the 1800's it is well out of date, people are built bigger these days, go of body fat %
  • ladyhawk00
    ladyhawk00 Posts: 2,457 Member
    Options
    BMI can be very inaccurate for a lot of people, particularly those who are particularly muscular. It's meant to be used as a general indicator for health of populations, not individuals. For most people, it can give a basic idea, but it won't be accurate for every individual.
  • psychmz3
    psychmz3 Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    BMI doesn't take into account the build of a person. It is the most ridiculous thing that has ever been invented and you should never go by that and stick with body fat %.
  • debtfre12
    debtfre12 Posts: 203
    Options
    Yeah, I agree with everyone else. BMI is something I prefer not to follow too closely. I am avid about taking my measurements though.
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    BMI works for MOST people. It applies to the majority of people, because most people are "average" sized. The majority of the population should fit within one standard deviation of the mean BMI.
    HST, lots of people are outside of the "average". Including me. Muscularly built people are not accounted for in standard BMI values.
    Go by what your personal MD/PCP tells you.
  • kneeki
    kneeki Posts: 347 Member
    Options
    According to the BMI, my profile picture to the left shows me as "overweight". I put zero faith in the system.
  • Michelle_M2002
    Michelle_M2002 Posts: 301 Member
    Options
    My gym trainer is 140 pounds and is 5'2. That sounds like a high weight, but she's only 22% body fat. According to the BMI scale she is overweight for her height..but I'm telling you, overweight is definitely NOT a word that you would use to describe her. She's all toned, sleek and sexy.

    According to BMI, my healthiest weight is 130 pounds. But I actually already ahve 128 pounds of lean mass on me. Even if I were only 18% body fat, I'd still be at 151 pounds.

    Use the body fat measurement. It's more accurate.

    God bless!
  • TexasGirl92
    TexasGirl92 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    I found this article about BMI a while back

    Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus

    by Keith Devlin

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439


    Americans keep putting on the pounds — at least according to a report released this week from the Trust for America's Health. The study found that nearly two-thirds of states now have adult obesity rates above 25 percent.

    But you may want to take those findings — and your next meal — with a grain of salt, because they're based on a calculation called the body mass index, or BMI.

    As the Weekend Edition math guy, I spoke to Scott Simon and told him the body mass index fails on 10 grounds:

    1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual.

    The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.

    2. It is scientifically nonsensical.

    There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.

    3. It is physiologically wrong.

    It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.

    4. It gets the logic wrong.

    The CDC says on its Web site that "the BMI is a reliable indicator of body fatness for people." This is a fundamental error of logic. For example, if I tell you my birthday present is a bicycle, you can conclude that my present has wheels. That's correct logic. But it does not work the other way round. If I tell you my birthday present has wheels, you cannot conclude I got a bicycle. I could have received a car. Because of how Quetelet came up with it, if a person is fat or obese, he or she will have a high BMI. But as with my birthday present, it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight, let alone obese. It could mean the person is fit and healthy, with very little fat.

    5. It's bad statistics.

    Because the majority of people today (and in Quetelet's time) lead fairly sedentary lives and are not particularly active, the formula tacitly assumes low muscle mass and high relative fat content. It applies moderately well when applied to such people because it was formulated by focusing on them. But it gives exactly the wrong answer for a large and significant section of the population, namely the lean, fit and healthy. Quetelet is also the person who came up with the idea of "the average man." That's a useful concept, but if you try to apply it to any one person, you come up with the absurdity of a person with 2.4 children. Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.

    6. It is lying by scientific authority.

    Because the BMI is a single number between 1 and 100 (like a percentage) that comes from a mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. But it is mathematical snake oil.

    7. It suggests there are distinct categories of underweight, ideal, overweight and obese, with sharp boundaries that hinge on a decimal place.

    That's total nonsense.

    8. It makes the more cynical members of society suspect that the medical insurance industry lobbies for the continued use of the BMI to keep their profits high.

    Insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums for people with a high BMI. Among such people are all those fit individuals with good bone and muscle and little fat, who will live long, healthy lives during which they will have to pay those greater premiums.

    9. Continued reliance on the BMI means doctors don't feel the need to use one of the more scientifically sound methods that are available to measure obesity levels.

    Those alternatives cost a little bit more, but they give far more reliable results.

    10. It embarrasses the U.S.

    It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.
  • harrietlg
    harrietlg Posts: 239
    Options
    i''m going to go by body fat. i'd quite like to know mine, it won't be majorly high but I know it'll be too high for me!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,708 Member
    Options
    Ok, so I calulated my husbands bmi and it says he is obese, But then I calculated his body fat % and he is only 18% wich strats the acceptable category. My husband is not fat at all! He has muscular legs and arms from work and his stomach is flat so I don't understand how he can be considered overweight much less obese! Is the bmi really something everyone should go by?? And for a little more info he is 6'1'' and bulit like a football player but in no way shape or form is he fat! And I'm not just saying that bc he is my husband he really isn't.
    BMI doesn't work for athletes or people with bigger than average muscles. I'm considered overweight by BMI standards. It states that the highest I should weigh is 144lbs. I'm 182lbs right now. I'd look like Skeletor.
  • 3ricaAnn
    3ricaAnn Posts: 288
    Options
    BMI doesn't work for athletes or people with bigger than average muscles. I'm considered overweight by BMI standards. It states that the highest I should weigh is 144lbs. I'm 182lbs right now. I'd look like Skeletor.
    [/quote]

    It says my hubby should be like 180! His smallest was probably about 185 and he looked so skinny (and hungry! lol) I did not like it at all!
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    Options
    BMI doesn't really work for muscular men.