Am I unhealthy? BMI says I'm obese..
Replies
-
john_not_typical wrote: »I think you need to ask your doctor what they think. I was obese at one time on the BMI scale and my doctor told me not to lose more weight. He told me don’t become one of those cyclists with eating disorders to lose more weight. It really depends on the person.
Are you more obese now, or less obese now than when your doctor saw you and said the above? Are you a cyclist? Do you have an eating disorder? If you did lose more weight did it hurt you in any way?
What you relay above sounds as if it's either missing part of the conversation or else your doctor's comment, as relayed, sounds like an off the cuff comment as opposed to a medical opinion. If a doctor said the above to me I would be very tempted to ask them if this was their professional opinion and ask for their reasoning for rendering such an opinion...15 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I am an RN and I do like the BMI tool - used in conjunction with clinical picture, ie seeing the actual patient.
Is usually blatantly obvious whether somebody has a very high BMI because they are have an unusual muscle mass, ie elite body builders - or they are plain old fat.
Yes I've seen people who are fit and healthy and BMI says overweight too - usually young active men who have a BMI of 27 or so.
They are the demographic often just above upper limits and still healthy.
Young women with BMI over 30,( ie OP) much less likely to be healthy weight.
Highly unlikely her BMI does not reflect true obesity, or at least significant overweight. As I said before.
The fact that BMI was first invented in 1830's doesn't change its validity. Maths hasn't changed and human body structure hasn't changed in that time.
I think it is really hard for a person to accept that they are obese and they cling onto anything they can to try and justify being an unhealthy weight. I am included in this they. I tried to kid myself for years that I simply had a large frame which meant I could still be healthy carrying around that extra weight. Once I got down to a healthy BMI I finally came to the realisation that my frame is anything but large. I was simply overweight.
It probably has to do with obesity being portrayed as a character flaw, not just a health risk. From a different perspective, as someone who has no self-esteem issues related to weight, I knew I was fat all along I just didn't care. Now, I know I'm still fat, and I prefer it. I don't feel the need to justify wanting to be an overweight BMI by saying I'm big boned (I actually am, but I'm also fat) because I don't feel it's something I need to be ashamed of.
This is why, personal opinion only, I don't like the BMI tool, because I did feel ashamed. Even as a nurse, telling people who look over weight, yeah fat, that they are morbidly obese feels terrible. Before I started here two years ago my BMI was morbidly obese. I also have g cup breasts Which are pretty damn heavy and hard on my back (Only lost one cup size after losing 17kg mind you), it was embarrassing because to look at me yes I was over weight, fat, I held my weight Differently as everyone does, obese, yeah OK, but Being told I was morbidly obese, when all we see is the stereotype of morbid obesity, can't move off the couch, chronically ill Etc it really did a number on my self esteem. I guess Everyone's entitled to disagree with our opinion, doesn't mean It's wrong for us. I have 10kg to go, I'm doing it for me and my health not because some scale says so.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I wonder what exactly people are disagreeing with, that feeling bad about something can skew our perception or my belief that being fat is not shameful?
Who knows?
I shared my actual experience of how it doesnt work for me, and people disagreed with that.
Does that mean they all think Im lying? Who knows! MFP has a strange relationship with BMI.
Youve got a disagree to go with your question - what does that even infer?1 -
samhennings wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I wonder what exactly people are disagreeing with, that feeling bad about something can skew our perception or my belief that being fat is not shameful?
Who knows?
I shared my actual experience of how it doesnt work for me, and people disagreed with that.
Does that mean they all think Im lying? Who knows! MFP has a strange relationship with BMI.
Youve got a disagree to go with your question - what does that even infer?
Yeah, my opinions regarding BMI seem polarizing. It's just that it would be interesting to see the other perspective.2 -
Indeed it would.
I think, and speaking generally here, weight loss can be a bit of a religious experience.
Certain things become sacrosanct to people, and so there is a reaction to anything that challenges it.
Ive had similar response when explaining that I dont weigh/measure everything and still lose the weight I want on schedule.
BMI seems to be another.
I think, logically, if something like BMI is designed to be used on populations, then the outliers above/below the line cancel each other off and its a pretty reliable formula.
But the fact it has that interaction, by definition, suggests its not ideal as a blanket thing for all individuals.
There are a lot of outliers, and as my case shows, you dont need to be an 18st of hulking muscle Rugby player to fit that profile. I am very simply short and stocky, and BMI falls over completely for me.
2 -
"Obese" does not necessarily mean "unhealthy".2
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I wonder what exactly people are disagreeing with, that feeling bad about something can skew our perception or my belief that being fat is not shameful?
16 people disagreed with my opinion and only one person explained their thought which was really insightful. Not sure about the disagree yet lol there's always something2 -
Regardless of anything else, I can't imagine there are many 5'3" women, weighing 170 pounds, who aren't carrying quite a lot of fat. Particularly ones who have only recently started training, and don't eat very well.33
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I wonder what exactly people are disagreeing with, that feeling bad about something can skew our perception or my belief that being fat is not shameful?
16 people disagreed with my opinion and only one person explained their thought which was really insightful. Not sure about the disagree yet lol there's always something
What tends to happen with the ex-woo now disagree button is that as people read along they will see a reply that they disagree with, think of a reply, then see that a reply has been made saying what they were going to say in disagreement, more or less. They will then go back, hit disagree then follow with a like.
Where paperpudding did a fuller explanation of the use of BMI and being a nurse, she got the likes to counter the disagrees you got.
You followed her post agreeing with her, saying it was more in line with what you were trying to convey.
Using the disagree and like buttons in this way saves a lot of people piling up on you saying the same thing over and over x16 again. Never mind the 20+ then saying why they liked paperpudding’s reply.
I have been neutral in this and haven’t liked or disagreed with you.
Cheers, h.14 -
middlehaitch wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I wonder what exactly people are disagreeing with, that feeling bad about something can skew our perception or my belief that being fat is not shameful?
16 people disagreed with my opinion and only one person explained their thought which was really insightful. Not sure about the disagree yet lol there's always something
What tends to happen with the ex-woo now disagree button is that as people read along they will see a reply that they disagree with, think of a reply, then see that a reply has been made saying what they were going to say in disagreement, more or less. They will then go back, hit disagree then follow with a like.
Where paperpudding did a fuller explanation of the use of BMI and being a nurse, she got the likes to counter the disagrees you got.
You followed her post agreeing with her, saying it was more in line with what you were trying to convey.
Using the disagree and like buttons in this way saves a lot of people piling up on you saying the same thing over and over x16 again. Never mind the 20+ then saying why they liked paperpudding’s reply.
I have been neutral in this and haven’t liked or disagreed with you.
Cheers, h.
Thanks for replying, you make great points. I wasn't being defensive or having a sook, the post below mine was great. I have read lots of reply's that people have disagreed with, on other topics too, and I find people's perspectives interesting and sometimes confusing depending on the context.2 -
yet...neugebauer52 wrote: »"Obese" does not necessarily mean "unhealthy".19 -
john_not_typical wrote: »I think you need to ask your doctor what they think. I was obese at one time on the BMI scale and my doctor told me not to lose more weight. He told me don’t become one of those cyclists with eating disorders to lose more weight. It really depends on the person.
Are you more obese now, or less obese now than when your doctor saw you and said the above? Are you a cyclist? Do you have an eating disorder? If you did lose more weight did it hurt you in any way?
What you relay above sounds as if it's either missing part of the conversation or else your doctor's comment, as relayed, sounds like an off the cuff comment as opposed to a medical opinion. If a doctor said the above to me I would be very tempted to ask them if this was their professional opinion and ask for their reasoning for rendering such an opinion...
My doctor said based on my frame size and blood work I should not lose more weight. He told me he would write a letter to my insurance company saying I was at a healthy weight if I needed one. As a biomedical engineer that used to work clinically with doctors all the time, I found his explanation to make sense. Yes, I bike either inside or outside just about every single day, if for no other reason than arthritis relief.
He was not the first doctor to tell me this so I believe it. I also recently had surgery that didn't end up the way we had planned because according to one of the doctors "there's just no room in there."
I did lose a little more weight (not really trying to at the time) and I don't think it had any real effect on my health, but I got very sick after that in a way completely unrelated to weight loss or gain so I suppose I'll never know.
He told me my bones and muscles were very large and my body fat percentage was appropriate for my age.
I have never had an eating disorder.
2 -
john_not_typical wrote: »john_not_typical wrote: »I think you need to ask your doctor what they think. I was obese at one time on the BMI scale and my doctor told me not to lose more weight. He told me don’t become one of those cyclists with eating disorders to lose more weight. It really depends on the person.
Are you more obese now, or less obese now than when your doctor saw you and said the above? Are you a cyclist? Do you have an eating disorder? If you did lose more weight did it hurt you in any way?
What you relay above sounds as if it's either missing part of the conversation or else your doctor's comment, as relayed, sounds like an off the cuff comment as opposed to a medical opinion. If a doctor said the above to me I would be very tempted to ask them if this was their professional opinion and ask for their reasoning for rendering such an opinion...
My doctor said based on my frame size and blood work I should not lose more weight. He told me he would write a letter to my insurance company saying I was at a healthy weight if I needed one. As a biomedical engineer that used to work clinically with doctors all the time, I found his explanation to make sense. Yes, I bike either inside or outside just about every single day, if for no other reason than arthritis relief.
He was not the first doctor to tell me this so I believe it. I also recently had surgery that didn't end up the way we had planned because according to one of the doctors "there's just no room in there."
I did lose a little more weight (not really trying to at the time) and I don't think it had any real effect on my health, but I got very sick after that in a way completely unrelated to weight loss or gain so I suppose I'll never know.
He told me my bones and muscles were very large and my body fat percentage was appropriate for my age.
I have never had an eating disorder.
I feel the need to say that I haven't hit the disagree button on your post that I quote
There exist corroborating measurements that can be used to determine increased health risk: waist circumference, waist to high, waist to hip, and BMI.
I am not a doctor, nor a biomedical engineer, but if all these measures were indicating increased risk I would reconsider my belief that my BMI was of no concern. if most of them indicated lack of concern then I would be more confident... makes sense?
Now if I was convinced I was OK but the numbers said I wasn't and I wanted to corroborate it, I am not sure what I would do... maybe post "guess my body fat" pictures on the exercise board asking if I should cut, bulk, or recomp? I supposed that might be an idea to see how other people perceived me, people who look at me without the filter of my own perceptions!
Luckily I was just an average kitten. When I was morbidly obese all measures showed me as having increased risk. When I became normal weight my waist ratio showed a tiny bit of increased risk. When I fell to a BMI of around 24 the rest of my measurements fell in line. Lucky for me, I guess. The nature of most statistical estimates is that they will be correct for most--not all!
<I note that BMI is using height squared. One of the criticisms of BMI is that it sometimes falsely signals lack of risk for people who are BELOW average height and over-fat. While I would have less concern ignoring BMI that indicated slightly increased risks if I was a 6ft 6" individual, I would be much more conservative ignoring an indication of risk as a 5ft 3" individual>12 -
There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.3 -
There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
Interesting. I must be in some goldilocks zone because both numbers are exactly the same for me.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
Interesting. I must be in some goldilocks zone because both numbers are exactly the same for me.
The difference is there but it isn't massive. About 4kg (~10lbs) or thereabouts for my height at 183cm (6 foot).
On the new scale 'Overweight' starts at 104kg (229lbs) and ends at 88kg (194lbs) with 87kg (192lbs) being 'Healthy' whereas the old scale Overweight starts 100kg (220lbs) and goes to 84kg (185lbs) with 83kg (182lbs) being top of 'Healthy'1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I am an RN and I do like the BMI tool - used in conjunction with clinical picture, ie seeing the actual patient.
Is usually blatantly obvious whether somebody has a very high BMI because they are have an unusual muscle mass, ie elite body builders - or they are plain old fat.
Yes I've seen people who are fit and healthy and BMI says overweight too - usually young active men who have a BMI of 27 or so.
They are the demographic often just above upper limits and still healthy.
Young women with BMI over 30,( ie OP) much less likely to be healthy weight.
Highly unlikely her BMI does not reflect true obesity, or at least significant overweight. As I said before.
The fact that BMI was first invented in 1830's doesn't change its validity. Maths hasn't changed and human body structure hasn't changed in that time.
I think it is really hard for a person to accept that they are obese and they cling onto anything they can to try and justify being an unhealthy weight. I am included in this they. I tried to kid myself for years that I simply had a large frame which meant I could still be healthy carrying around that extra weight. Once I got down to a healthy BMI I finally came to the realisation that my frame is anything but large. I was simply overweight.
It probably has to do with obesity being portrayed as a character flaw, not just a health risk. From a different perspective, as someone who has no self-esteem issues related to weight, I knew I was fat all along I just didn't care. Now, I know I'm still fat, and I prefer it. I don't feel the need to justify wanting to be an overweight BMI by saying I'm big boned (I actually am, but I'm also fat) because I don't feel it's something I need to be ashamed of.
This is why, personal opinion only, I don't like the BMI tool, because I did feel ashamed. Even as a nurse, telling people who look over weight, yeah fat, that they are morbidly obese feels terrible. Before I started here two years ago my BMI was morbidly obese. I also have g cup breasts Which are pretty damn heavy and hard on my back (Only lost one cup size after losing 17kg mind you), it was embarrassing because to look at me yes I was over weight, fat, I held my weight Differently as everyone does, obese, yeah OK, but Being told I was morbidly obese, when all we see is the stereotype of morbid obesity, can't move off the couch, chronically ill Etc it really did a number on my self esteem. I guess Everyone's entitled to disagree with our opinion, doesn't mean It's wrong for us. I have 10kg to go, I'm doing it for me and my health not because some scale says so.
Was it though the BMI or the label the issue? If you were being essentially labelled "fat" by whatever other tool, would it have changed anything?4 -
Several years ago, my father was a dr, in a large training hospital, head of a big clinic, with a PhD, and several peer reviewed publications. So, definitely not stupid and not ignorant. Yet, my father was also a chain smoker, since his teens, and never really managed to cut back.
What did he do? He developed a theory that it was not just smoking that caused cancer, but lung cancer was affected by several other parameters. He based this theory on outliers: he knew of someone who was a chain smoker and never had a health problem even though he was in his 80s. He had a friend who died from lung cancer in his 40s, despite never smoking. And so on.
Obviously he never dared publish this theory and had every single one of his colleagues roll his eyes at him, but still, he had convinced himself. To deal with the obvious problem of "smokers are far more likely to get lung cancer" , his theory was extended to claim that correlation does not mean causation and that perhaps the same genetic traits who make you more likely to get to lung cancer make you also more stressed, thus more likely to seek nicotine as means to deal with the stress! All this from a medical dr, who was just desperate to find an excuse to continue smoking.
The mind is a very powerful thing, and it is amazing what we will lie to ourselves about to not admit to bad, or at least less than great, choices.23 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
Interesting. I must be in some goldilocks zone because both numbers are exactly the same for me.
The difference is there but it isn't massive. About 4kg (~10lbs) or thereabouts for my height at 183cm (6 foot).
On the new scale 'Overweight' starts at 104kg (229lbs) and ends at 88kg (194lbs) with 87kg (192lbs) being 'Healthy' whereas the old scale Overweight starts 100kg (220lbs) and goes to 84kg (185lbs) with 83kg (182lbs) being top of 'Healthy'
Even ranges are spot on for me 18.5-25 are exactly the weights regular BMI calculators give me
2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
Interesting. I must be in some goldilocks zone because both numbers are exactly the same for me.
The difference is there but it isn't massive. About 4kg (~10lbs) or thereabouts for my height at 183cm (6 foot).
On the new scale 'Overweight' starts at 104kg (229lbs) and ends at 88kg (194lbs) with 87kg (192lbs) being 'Healthy' whereas the old scale Overweight starts 100kg (220lbs) and goes to 84kg (185lbs) with 83kg (182lbs) being top of 'Healthy'
Even ranges are spot on for me 18.5-25 are exactly the weights regular BMI calculators give me
Is it a twilight zone coincidence, he asks with tremor in his voice?
But, no, his google foo whispers, it's all as it were meant to be! The numbers 1.3 and 5734 are designed make the BMI reading unchanged for an adult of average height, which I take to be about 66.5 inches, i.e., 1.69 meters. (The square root of 1.69 is 1.3.) To find your "New BMI", try the New BMI Calculator written by Nick Hale. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
Interesting. I must be in some goldilocks zone because both numbers are exactly the same for me.
The difference is there but it isn't massive. About 4kg (~10lbs) or thereabouts for my height at 183cm (6 foot).
On the new scale 'Overweight' starts at 104kg (229lbs) and ends at 88kg (194lbs) with 87kg (192lbs) being 'Healthy' whereas the old scale Overweight starts 100kg (220lbs) and goes to 84kg (185lbs) with 83kg (182lbs) being top of 'Healthy'
Even ranges are spot on for me 18.5-25 are exactly the weights regular BMI calculators give me
Is it a twilight zone coincidence, he asks with tremor in his voice?
But, no, his google foo whispers, it's all as it were meant to be! The numbers 1.3 and 5734 are designed make the BMI reading unchanged for an adult of average height, which I take to be about 66.5 inches, i.e., 1.69 meters. (The square root of 1.69 is 1.3.) To find your "New BMI", try the New BMI Calculator written by Nick Hale. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
That makes much more sense. The calculations were messing with my head.3 -
Pipsqueak1965 wrote: »Regardless of anything else, I can't imagine there are many 5'3" women, weighing 170 pounds, who aren't carrying quite a lot of fat. Particularly ones who have only recently started training, and don't eat very well.
i'm a 5' 3" woman. i have weighed 170 a couple times. right now, i'm definitely obese and working on it, with the smallest amount of thigh and calf muscle i've had in my entire life, but in the '90s, i was packed with muscle - legs included - and my waist was 5 inches smaller than it is now - at the same weight, but after spending several years lifting heavy. i had no double chin like i do now, either. no one would guess i'm the same weight if they could see me then and now. i'm guessing i've been an outlier on both sides of 170 - once higher in muscle and lower in fat than average and this time higher in fat and lower in muscle.3 -
There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
This is my new weight range according to this.
Your new BMI healthy range is
38.57 to 52.11 kgs.
There is no way I would consider myself healthy at under 40 kgs! I feel more comfortable with the current range between 41.5 and 55 kg, especially as I stop my periods under 42 kg.
4 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »There is a different BMI type calculation which uses height to the power of 2.5. Back in the day when BMI was invented powers of non-integers were hard to calculate, square is much easier.
The equivalent calculation is 1.3 * weight / height ^ 2.5, this gives a number about 0.8 lower than the normal calculation for my body, I'm 183 cm tall.
People can read about the new calculation here:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
There are a number of other indexes I've come across over the years, probably the most sophisticated which uses the height difference between shoulders and hips, and other measurements.
This is my new weight range according to this.
Your new BMI healthy range is
38.57 to 52.11 kgs.
There is no way I would consider myself healthy at under 40 kgs! I feel more comfortable with the current range between 41.5 and 55 kg, especially as I stop my periods under 42 kg.
Which is why I really don't think that BMI should be used for individuals, as this graph shows
The scatter graph shows that people of the same BMI can have vastly different body fat percentages.3 -
That new calculation is a bit sobering! It takes my range right down to 6st 3lb as opposed to the standard NHS calculator which gives the bottom weight as 6st 14lb. (?) why that is not the same thing as 7st has always puzzled me! 😂
On the other hand I suspect it is more accurate for us shorties. Just means I’ll adjust my goal weight down a bit, to be somewhere in the middle to lower end of that new range. 🙄3 -
Guys the "new BMI" which is not nearly as validated as waist circumference, waist-to-height, or waist-to-hip. is nothing more than an interesting curiosity at this point. All it does is correct for the issue I mentioned earlier, namely that tall people are "penalized" by BMI while often shorter people are considering themselves to be OK at the upper reaches of normal BMI when in fact they might still be over-fat.
What the bottom end of "new BMI" fails to take into account is that the bottom of healthy BMI was extended from 20 down to 18 in part to accommodate Asian populations and shorter individuals.
So with just as much apparent validation as the proponents of new bmi I can propose a "super new bmi" where the top end of the "normal range" uses the new bmi formula and the bottom end of the normal range is derived using the old bmi formula and we can all be happy!
BMI was not meant to be considered solely and in isolation. Do people use it this way? Sure they do. People often do things they shouldn't do!
<also: BMI is a continuum. also: BMI of 27 used to be considered healthy. also: the extra health risk between 25 and 27 ain't that large. also: the extra health risk to ME as an individual of moving from 23 to 23.5 may be INFINITE if 23 was where my fat level would nor create a stroke and 23.5 happens to be where it will. BMI looks at populations, not individuals. While the population of BMI 24.5 people may have normal health risks this doesn't mean that YOU ms bmi 24.5 have normal health risks if your body would have only been normal health risk at 24! Also it doesn't necessarily mean that YOU Ms. BMI 28.5 have appreciably increased health risks: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/risk.htm However for MOST people, being at a normal BMI level would be a good thing!
>
As to fat percentage vs BMI: it is just a screening tool people. A screening tool used in addition to other criteria. Are you going to MRI everyone for their body composition and exact fat level and composition? Dexa scan them since it is less expensive and has less risks-but it still takes a technician and a machine-and infinitely more money than BMI! Dunk test them? (come for your physical ready for a swim)...6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I am an RN and I do like the BMI tool - used in conjunction with clinical picture, ie seeing the actual patient.
Is usually blatantly obvious whether somebody has a very high BMI because they are have an unusual muscle mass, ie elite body builders - or they are plain old fat.
Yes I've seen people who are fit and healthy and BMI says overweight too - usually young active men who have a BMI of 27 or so.
They are the demographic often just above upper limits and still healthy.
Young women with BMI over 30,( ie OP) much less likely to be healthy weight.
Highly unlikely her BMI does not reflect true obesity, or at least significant overweight. As I said before.
The fact that BMI was first invented in 1830's doesn't change its validity. Maths hasn't changed and human body structure hasn't changed in that time.
I think it is really hard for a person to accept that they are obese and they cling onto anything they can to try and justify being an unhealthy weight. I am included in this they. I tried to kid myself for years that I simply had a large frame which meant I could still be healthy carrying around that extra weight. Once I got down to a healthy BMI I finally came to the realisation that my frame is anything but large. I was simply overweight.
It probably has to do with obesity being portrayed as a character flaw, not just a health risk. From a different perspective, as someone who has no self-esteem issues related to weight, I knew I was fat all along I just didn't care. Now, I know I'm still fat, and I prefer it. I don't feel the need to justify wanting to be an overweight BMI by saying I'm big boned (I actually am, but I'm also fat) because I don't feel it's something I need to be ashamed of.
This is why, personal opinion only, I don't like the BMI tool, because I did feel ashamed. Even as a nurse, telling people who look over weight, yeah fat, that they are morbidly obese feels terrible. Before I started here two years ago my BMI was morbidly obese. I also have g cup breasts Which are pretty damn heavy and hard on my back (Only lost one cup size after losing 17kg mind you), it was embarrassing because to look at me yes I was over weight, fat, I held my weight Differently as everyone does, obese, yeah OK, but Being told I was morbidly obese, when all we see is the stereotype of morbid obesity, can't move off the couch, chronically ill Etc it really did a number on my self esteem. I guess Everyone's entitled to disagree with our opinion, doesn't mean It's wrong for us. I have 10kg to go, I'm doing it for me and my health not because some scale says so.
Was it though the BMI or the label the issue? If you were being essentially labelled "fat" by whatever other tool, would it have changed anything?
Great question. I knew I was fat and needed to loose weight. Being told I was morbidly obese by any other tool would have elicited the same feelings. For me, it was the label. Its an easy straight forward tool to use of course, but on a societal and psychological level the "morbidly obese" label, can sometimes be associated with the image of someone sitting on a couch constantly eating, breathless, can barely walk, sagging round body ect. Which was not the case for me. So trying to take into consideration someone's mental health when telling them their BMI is morbidly obese, my mental health in this case, and those images that pop into my head and others, I was shocked, ashamed, disgusted and felt guilty. BMI doesnt take into account other aspects of a persons body, fat distribution, race etc That's why I question it sometimes. I hope that makes sense. I'm getting deep here lol4 -
Great question. I knew I was fat and needed to loose weight. Being told I was morbidly obese by any other tool would have elicited the same feelings. For me, it was the label. Its an easy straight forward tool to use of course, but on a societal and psychological level the "morbidly obese" label, can sometimes be associated with the image of someone sitting on a couch constantly eating, breathless, can barely walk, sagging round body ect. Which was not the case for me. So trying to take into consideration someone's mental health when telling them their BMI is morbidly obese, my mental health in this case, and those images that pop into my head and others, I was shocked, ashamed, disgusted and felt guilty. BMI doesnt take into account other aspects of a persons body, fat distribution, race etc That's why I question it sometimes. I hope that makes sense.
In a semi sensitive tone of voice... sorry, it doesn't make sense.
You would not object to a blood test that called you iron deficient on the basis that you prefer being called anemic. Or for that matter object to both anemic and iron deficient because it bring images of your elderly grandmother to your mind so you would prefer to be called oxygen transport factor deficient instead!
You are objecting to the label because of the cognitive load it carries for you. This is not an issue with the test that is being used to determine the level presumably because of a medical need to assess risk as opposed to a need to ridicule or discomfort the patient.
The only way around this would be for medical staff to start using more obscure terms to designate people who they consider to be carriers of excessively large excess energy reserves.
Look. Not every obese person sees their health impacted by their condition as soon as they hit the milestone and not every level of obesity carries the same risk. But, for most people, over time, the risks and impacts increase.18 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I am an RN and I do like the BMI tool - used in conjunction with clinical picture, ie seeing the actual patient.
Is usually blatantly obvious whether somebody has a very high BMI because they are have an unusual muscle mass, ie elite body builders - or they are plain old fat.
Yes I've seen people who are fit and healthy and BMI says overweight too - usually young active men who have a BMI of 27 or so.
They are the demographic often just above upper limits and still healthy.
Young women with BMI over 30,( ie OP) much less likely to be healthy weight.
Highly unlikely her BMI does not reflect true obesity, or at least significant overweight. As I said before.
The fact that BMI was first invented in 1830's doesn't change its validity. Maths hasn't changed and human body structure hasn't changed in that time.
I think it is really hard for a person to accept that they are obese and they cling onto anything they can to try and justify being an unhealthy weight. I am included in this they. I tried to kid myself for years that I simply had a large frame which meant I could still be healthy carrying around that extra weight. Once I got down to a healthy BMI I finally came to the realisation that my frame is anything but large. I was simply overweight.
It probably has to do with obesity being portrayed as a character flaw, not just a health risk. From a different perspective, as someone who has no self-esteem issues related to weight, I knew I was fat all along I just didn't care. Now, I know I'm still fat, and I prefer it. I don't feel the need to justify wanting to be an overweight BMI by saying I'm big boned (I actually am, but I'm also fat) because I don't feel it's something I need to be ashamed of.
This is why, personal opinion only, I don't like the BMI tool, because I did feel ashamed. Even as a nurse, telling people who look over weight, yeah fat, that they are morbidly obese feels terrible. Before I started here two years ago my BMI was morbidly obese. I also have g cup breasts Which are pretty damn heavy and hard on my back (Only lost one cup size after losing 17kg mind you), it was embarrassing because to look at me yes I was over weight, fat, I held my weight Differently as everyone does, obese, yeah OK, but Being told I was morbidly obese, when all we see is the stereotype of morbid obesity, can't move off the couch, chronically ill Etc it really did a number on my self esteem. I guess Everyone's entitled to disagree with our opinion, doesn't mean It's wrong for us. I have 10kg to go, I'm doing it for me and my health not because some scale says so.
Was it though the BMI or the label the issue? If you were being essentially labelled "fat" by whatever other tool, would it have changed anything?
Great question. I knew I was fat and needed to loose weight. Being told I was morbidly obese by any other tool would have elicited the same feelings. For me, it was the label. Its an easy straight forward tool to use of course, but on a societal and psychological level the "morbidly obese" label, can sometimes be associated with the image of someone sitting on a couch constantly eating, breathless, can barely walk, sagging round body ect. Which was not the case for me. So trying to take into consideration someone's mental health when telling them their BMI is morbidly obese, my mental health in this case, and those images that pop into my head and others, I was shocked, ashamed, disgusted and felt guilty. BMI doesnt take into account other aspects of a persons body, fat distribution, race etc That's why I question it sometimes. I hope that makes sense. I'm getting deep here lol
I’ve been just over the line into morbidly obese. I looked fairly normal, not like a Walmart cart person, but my health was suffering, even when it didn’t show. As a result I got type 2 diabetes. I was shocked and ashamed to receive a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Should the doctor have kept my diabetes diagnosis to himself to spare my feelings?
Morbid obesity - not regular obesity, morbid obesity - is wildly unlikely to be a healthy weight for any woman, because women aren’t ordinarily capable of building enough muscle to double their weight. In addition, that much extra weight is physically limiting simply because your body has to work around that much mass - you can’t bend in certain ways, you can’t stand with your ankle bones touching because your thighs are too fat, you can’t cross your legs. Morbid means that the obesity is great enough to qualify as a health condition on its own. It won’t kill you instantly like dropping an anvil on your head, but studies have shown that even healthy appearing people with morbid obesity are just playing a waiting game.16 -
I'm not saying conditions secondary to obesity or the significant health implications obesity has isn't an issue or unimportant at all. Or that bmi isn't an easy, straight forward tool that shouldn't be used. Or that people's feelings should be spared by not telling them they are much more predisposed to chronic health conditions because they are obese, over weight, morbidly obese. I simply answered the question. Yes, the label, for me, was an issue and sometimes, it's hard, telling patients that have NO idea they are actually morbidly obese, not Just "overweight" after using the BMI tool as an assessment. I've strayed way to far from the OP's post by discussing other issues related to BMI.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions