BMI (Body Mass Index)
2323FatBoy
Posts: 33 Member
I’d really like to hear people’s thoughts on BMI?
Worthy of considering in a weightloss plan? Something I shouldn’t get hung up on?
My BMI as a 43 year old Man 6ft tall and 17st 8lb is 33.4
What are you personal beliefs on BMI please?
Worthy of considering in a weightloss plan? Something I shouldn’t get hung up on?
My BMI as a 43 year old Man 6ft tall and 17st 8lb is 33.4
What are you personal beliefs on BMI please?
1
Replies
-
Here's a previous thread with some good discussion about BMI. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10681147/bmi-agree-or-disagree/p14
-
BMI is meant to be a general guide, not an exact 100% correct personal assessment of someone's level of obesity. But overall, with the exception of certain very muscular people, it is pretty accurate as a general assessment.
At 6 feet and 246 pounds, you are likely considered obese by any traditional method. This is not meant to be a value judgement, as the word "obese" has taken on a very loaded social context. But from a medical standpoint, it is likely accurate. I started at 5'11", 235 which was a 32.8 BMI. So very similar to you. When I started I didn't consider myself "obese" but looking back on it now (40 pounds down and still about 15 pounds outside of normal BMI), I certainly was.
I think the reason why people tend to question BMI is because they don't like what it tells them about their weight. Nobody likes to hear that they are obese. But more often than not, the BMI is right on that.17 -
Your current BMI is defined as obese. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Many people claim that BMI does not describe their bodies or health risks accurately, but BMI is a decent metric for the vast majority of the population, unless one is perhaps a highly trained bodybuilder or similar.
Your own personal health risks are best discussed with your doctor.12 -
BMI is meant to be a general guide, not an exact 100% correct personal assessment of someone's level of obesity. But overall, with the exception of certain very muscular people, it is pretty accurate as a general assessment.
At 6 feet and 246 pounds, you are likely considered obese by any traditional method. This is not meant to be a value judgement, as the word "obese" has taken on a very loaded social context. But from a medical standpoint, it is likely accurate. I started at 5'11", 235 which was a 32.8 BMI. So very similar to you. When I started I didn't consider myself "obese" but looking back on it now (40 pounds down and still about 15 pounds outside of normal BMI), I certainly was.
I think the reason why people tend to question BMI is because they don't like what it tells them about their weight. Nobody likes to hear that they are obese. But more often than not, the BMI is right on that.BMI is meant to be a general guide, not an exact 100% correct personal assessment of someone's level of obesity. But overall, with the exception of certain very muscular people, it is pretty accurate as a general assessment.
At 6 feet and 246 pounds, you are likely considered obese by any traditional method. This is not meant to be a value judgement, as the word "obese" has taken on a very loaded social context. But from a medical standpoint, it is likely accurate. I started at 5'11", 235 which was a 32.8 BMI. So very similar to you. When I started I didn't consider myself "obese" but looking back on it now (40 pounds down and still about 15 pounds outside of normal BMI), I certainly was.
I think the reason why people tend to question BMI is because they don't like what it tells them about their weight. Nobody likes to hear that they are obese. But more often than not, the BMI is right on that.BMI is meant to be a general guide, not an exact 100% correct personal assessment of someone's level of obesity. But overall, with the exception of certain very muscular people, it is pretty accurate as a general assessment.
At 6 feet and 246 pounds, you are likely considered obese by any traditional method. This is not meant to be a value judgement, as the word "obese" has taken on a very loaded social context. But from a medical standpoint, it is likely accurate. I started at 5'11", 235 which was a 32.8 BMI. So very similar to you. When I started I didn't consider myself "obese" but looking back on it now (40 pounds down and still about 15 pounds outside of normal BMI), I certainly was.
I think the reason why people tend to question BMI is because they don't like what it tells them about their weight. Nobody likes to hear that they are obese. But more often than not, the BMI is right on that.
Great advice. Thank you very much indeed
2 -
2323FatBoy wrote: »I’d really like to hear people’s thoughts on BMI?
Worthy of considering in a weightloss plan? Something I shouldn’t get hung up on?
My BMI as a 43 year old Man 6ft tall and 17st 8lb is 33.4
What are you personal beliefs on BMI please?
BMI can certainly be a weight loss target. So you could aim for the weight that gives you a BMI of 24, and reevaluate once you get there.3 -
BMI: Boy it Makes me feel Inadequate.
Even though I work out regularly, have a low resting HR, reasonable BP, excellent VO2max, I still have a BMI of 25.5 (overweight). I try not to put too much weight on it. (That's at least the 3rd time I've posted that joke!)12 -
Your current BMI is defined as obese. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Many people claim that BMI does not describe their bodies or health risks accurately, but BMI is a decent metric for the vast majority of the population, unless one is perhaps a highly trained bodybuilder or similar.
Your own personal health risks are best discussed with your doctor.
BMI does have a significant racial bias, so it's not just bodybuilders. For a good chunk of people who aren't white, the BMI is not an accurate depiction of health. I don't know anything about the OP, but I think that is an important piece of information to consider for anyone on these forums.
The BMI was not created by a scientist, so it's important not to hold it as science. I agree, discussing with a doctor is more important -- but I just wanted to jump in because it's important to not erase ethnic and racial backgrounds in this discussion and making a generalization based on a mathematical equation that takes into account white people only.
To the OP, I would focus on body fat %, rather than BMI.3 -
Your current BMI is defined as obese. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Many people claim that BMI does not describe their bodies or health risks accurately, but BMI is a decent metric for the vast majority of the population, unless one is perhaps a highly trained bodybuilder or similar.
Your own personal health risks are best discussed with your doctor.
BMI does have a significant racial bias, so it's not just bodybuilders. For a good chunk of people who aren't white, the BMI is not an accurate depiction of health. I don't know anything about the OP, but I think that is an important piece of information to consider for anyone on these forums.
The BMI was not created by a scientist, so it's important not to hold it as science. I agree, discussing with a doctor is more important -- but I just wanted to jump in because it's important to not erase ethnic and racial backgrounds in this discussion and making a generalization based on a mathematical equation that takes into account white people only.
To the OP, I would focus on body fat %, rather than BMI.
Care to elaborate? As far as I know, the issue with BMI and race is that non-white people of a normal BMI are more likely to be at risk for health issues than white people. So the bias goes in the opposite direction than what you imply. I don't know of any research that says that overweight/obese non-white people are better off than white people of a similar BMI, so if you have, please share.
https://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/19/obesity-childhood-obesity-body-mass-index-bmi-weight-weight-gain-health-595625.html7 -
Your current BMI is defined as obese. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Many people claim that BMI does not describe their bodies or health risks accurately, but BMI is a decent metric for the vast majority of the population, unless one is perhaps a highly trained bodybuilder or similar.
Your own personal health risks are best discussed with your doctor.
BMI does have a significant racial bias, so it's not just bodybuilders. For a good chunk of people who aren't white, the BMI is not an accurate depiction of health. I don't know anything about the OP, but I think that is an important piece of information to consider for anyone on these forums.
The BMI was not created by a scientist, so it's important not to hold it as science. I agree, discussing with a doctor is more important -- but I just wanted to jump in because it's important to not erase ethnic and racial backgrounds in this discussion and making a generalization based on a mathematical equation that takes into account white people only.
To the OP, I would focus on body fat %, rather than BMI.
Care to elaborate? As far as I know, the issue with BMI and race is that non-white people of a normal BMI are more likely to be at risk for health issues than white people. So the bias goes in the opposite direction than what you imply. I don't know of any research that says that overweight/obese non-white people are better off than white people of a similar BMI, so if you have, please share.
https://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/19/obesity-childhood-obesity-body-mass-index-bmi-weight-weight-gain-health-595625.html
I don't claim to be a scientist either, so there might be something I'm missing, but my understanding is that while you are correct that non-white people of a "normal" BMI are more likely to be at risk for health issues than white people, it calls into question the accuracy of what "normal" looks like and centers the concept of normal = healthy around the experiences of white individuals. It's a problematic scale for a lot of reasons, but especially if we are using the BMI scale as an indicator of health because it's just simply not accurate for all kinds of people.
Say one's BMI comes up as obese -- what does that mean, beyond a descriptor? What are the implications? And if we're saying the implication of an obese BMI is poorer health, that's not always entirely true. Same with the implications of a normal BMI -- what are the implications? Health? Not necessarily. It's a one size fits all tool that doesn't really take into account a lot of factors, including body comp and genetics.
Again, not a scientist, just my interpretation of what I've read. I just think it's interesting we have these scales of descriptors that don't really mean much when it comes to reflecting true health and vitality but we treat them as gospel.2 -
BMI should only be used as a reference point, and not the end all, be all. I suggest using a tape measure and some of the US Military bf calculators (army or navy) where you punch in your waist measurement and your neck measurements. While still flawed, they are better than BMI. I'll explain with my stats to paint a picture.
For instance- I'm 6'1, 230lbs. BMI puts me at obesity class 1 until I'm sub 227. Meanwhile, most calculators based on measurements (17.5 neck, 40 waist) put me between 21-23% bf, which is classed as "average". That said, I am still visibly overweight (average is a load of *kitten*, you're either fit or you're not). I'm muscular, but overweight still, carrying a bit of subcutaneous fat on my legs and torso. I would hit the top of "fitness" range around 210-215. (17%) bf...which is still smack dead in the middle of "overweight" according to BMI.
Meanwhile, BMI would put my absolute peak weight at 189. At 189, I would be pretty lean according to most FFM calculators (as well as personal experience - experience that is 9 years ago and long before I discovered deadlifts, learned to squat and clean and press, etc.) I would venture to guess these days that 190 would be as lean as I'd ever want to get and would be unsustainable for long term without being ridiculously disciplined on diet and training. And that is the max I should weigh according to BMI.
I plan to stick between a comfortable 200-230, which is all in the overweight/obese range on BMI yet BF calculators put at fit/average, respectively.
Hope this helps.
3 -
@sarko15
Do you have any research to show this.
The lower end for ‘normal’ BMI is the same no matter race or ethnicity.
The upper end is reduced for people of Asian decent to somewhere around ~23 (don't have research on hand) because of higher health risks.
Some research has hypothesized people of African descent could have higher health risks at the upper end of ‘normal’, but not enough to warrent reducing the range at this time.
No race or ethnicity has an extended upper range (eta: or lower range) as far as I know, so I would be interested in reading the research.
Cheers, h.
11 -
BMI has enough issues when taken in isolation as the ONLY metric that gets considered that it doesn't really need any additional issues to highlight the exact same shortcomings that have already been demonstrated.
It is a cheap and quick screening tool that continues to be effective as a cheap and quick screening tool and continues to fail when used as the only screening tool and fails even worse when used as the only decision making tool.9 -
Your current BMI is defined as obese. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
Many people claim that BMI does not describe their bodies or health risks accurately, but BMI is a decent metric for the vast majority of the population, unless one is perhaps a highly trained bodybuilder or similar.
Your own personal health risks are best discussed with your doctor.
BMI does have a significant racial bias, so it's not just bodybuilders. For a good chunk of people who aren't white, the BMI is not an accurate depiction of health. I don't know anything about the OP, but I think that is an important piece of information to consider for anyone on these forums.
The BMI was not created by a scientist, so it's important not to hold it as science. I agree, discussing with a doctor is more important -- but I just wanted to jump in because it's important to not erase ethnic and racial backgrounds in this discussion and making a generalization based on a mathematical equation that takes into account white people only.
To the OP, I would focus on body fat %, rather than BMI.
Care to elaborate? As far as I know, the issue with BMI and race is that non-white people of a normal BMI are more likely to be at risk for health issues than white people. So the bias goes in the opposite direction than what you imply. I don't know of any research that says that overweight/obese non-white people are better off than white people of a similar BMI, so if you have, please share.
https://www.newsweek.com/2017/05/19/obesity-childhood-obesity-body-mass-index-bmi-weight-weight-gain-health-595625.html
I don't claim to be a scientist either, so there might be something I'm missing, but my understanding is that while you are correct that non-white people of a "normal" BMI are more likely to be at risk for health issues than white people, it calls into question the accuracy of what "normal" looks like and centers the concept of normal = healthy around the experiences of white individuals. It's a problematic scale for a lot of reasons, but especially if we are using the BMI scale as an indicator of health because it's just simply not accurate for all kinds of people.
Say one's BMI comes up as obese -- what does that mean, beyond a descriptor? What are the implications? And if we're saying the implication of an obese BMI is poorer health, that's not always entirely true. Same with the implications of a normal BMI -- what are the implications? Health? Not necessarily. It's a one size fits all tool that doesn't really take into account a lot of factors, including body comp and genetics.
Again, not a scientist, just my interpretation of what I've read. I just think it's interesting we have these scales of descriptors that don't really mean much when it comes to reflecting true health and vitality but we treat them as gospel.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000348.htm
Highlights:
People with obesity have a higher chance of developing these health problems:
High blood glucose (sugar) or diabetes.
High blood pressure (hypertension).
High blood cholesterol and triglycerides (dyslipidemia, or high blood fats).
Heart attacks due to coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
Bone and joint problems, more weight puts pressure on the bones and joints. This can lead to osteoarthritis, a disease that causes joint pain and stiffness.
Stopping breathing during sleep (sleep apnea). This can cause daytime fatigue or sleepiness, poor attention, and problems at work.
Gallstones and liver problems.
Some cancers.
Sure you can be obese and not have these issues, just like you can smoke and not have lung cancer, but look at the odds.9 -
I believe the point is that one can have a BMI that identifies them as obese without actually being “obese”...Theoldguy1 wrote: »Sure you can be obese and not have these issues...
0 -
BMI has enough issues when taken in isolation as the ONLY metric that gets considered that it doesn't really need any additional issues to highlight the exact same shortcomings that have already been demonstrated.
It is a cheap and quick screening tool that continues to be effective as a cheap and quick screening tool and continues to fail when used as the only screening tool and fails even worse when used as the only decision making tool.
I think there's a big distinction to be made between BMI for healthcare and diagnosis purposes, and BMI for weight loss goals.
I think there is legitimate criticism of how BMI is overused as a sole determiner of a lot of healthcare related decisions, instead of using more precise metrics. A higher BMI is certainly correlated with higher health risks, but there is enough disparity in the results that other factors should be considered more.
However from a weight loss perspective, it I think it gives a good general idea of progress and helps to set goals. For a strong majority of people, their "ideal weight" will be somewhere within the normal BMI range. Not everyone, but enough that it is a solid tool for that purpose. I know my BMI has correlated pretty closely with my weight loss results. When I started I was certainly obese (if in denial about it), and now I am. Smack in the middle of the overweight range. Definitely not obese anymore, but I can also see how I am not in what could be considered to be a normal BMI. Now that I am closer (about 15 pounds out), I have a better idea of what my ideal weight would be, which is somewhere between 165-170. That would out be at a 23.0-23.7 BMI, well within the normal range. The range is large, usually 30+ pounds for most heights, and people will fall within varying degrees of that range for their ideal weight depending on a number of factors. But I am a decently athletic male and my ideal weight is well within the normal range. So I think it applies for most others as well.7 -
I believe the point is that one can have a BMI that identifies them as obese without actually being “obese”...Theoldguy1 wrote: »Sure you can be obese and not have these issues...
You can't, at least not officially. Obesity is defined by having a 30 or over BMI. That's the definition. It's not a state of mind or anything else.
Can someone be obese, and also have a low body fat due to high muscle mass, and have good health markers? It is possible. But it doesn't happen than often. An obese BMI is quite a fair bit of weight above a normal BMI. A person who has it is also likely to fit other traditional defitions of obese.
But when people are talking about "BMI doesn't apply to me", they have a stronger case when they are in the slightly overweight range of a 25-26 BMI, where they are a few pounds overweight but low body fat and good health markers. It's a lot less likely at 30+.10 -
I used to write off BMI as unrealistic. I'd tell myself the healthy range for my height was ridiculously low and I'd be an emaciated walking skeleton if I tried to get down to that weight. I'd hear people say 'oh there are athletes who are 'overweight' by BMI so it's totally flawed' and I'd cling to it..
Then, when I decided to stop kidding myself I had to admit to myself that none of that was true in my case. The only reason I was buying in to all of the above was because I was scared and full of doubt. By convincing myself that a healthy BMI wasn't appropriate for me and that I'd be crazy to try and get there all I was really doing was giving myself a convenient excuse to fall short. Trying to absolve myself of responsibility.
It was much easier to say to myself "The only reason I can't be a healthy BMI is because it's not possible for me. It's not my fault" than to admit to myself "The only reason you can't be a healthy BMI is because you don't think you can do it, you're scared of trying and failing. There are no excuses and if you don't get to a healthy BMI that's all on you".13 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »BMI: Boy it Makes me feel Inadequate.
Even though I work out regularly, have a low resting HR, reasonable BP, excellent VO2max, I still have a BMI of 25.5 (overweight). I try not to put too much weight on it. (That's at least the 3rd time I've posted that joke!)Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »BMI: Boy it Makes me feel Inadequate.
Even though I work out regularly, have a low resting HR, reasonable BP, excellent VO2max, I still have a BMI of 25.5 (overweight). I try not to put too much weight on it. (That's at least the 3rd time I've posted that joke!)
Love that! Thanks
1 -
The BMI Index was developed as an indicator of one's risk for certain health problems associated w/obesity but it was not developed as an indicator of obesity per se.
For a precise determinationv of your degree of obesity or lack of it, measurement of your BF% by means of DEXA scanning and/or hydrostatic testingwould be the way to go.1 -
Assuming you are a Brit like me from your use of stones it's worth reading the NHS take on the use of BMI as it's very sensible.
"As well as measuring your BMI, healthcare professionals may take other factors into account when assessing if you're a healthy weight."
Personal beliefs - that there are some genuine outliers is used as an excuse by far too many fat blokes to justify why it doesn't apply to them. For the majority of guys who aren't young and haven't put serious and prolonged effort into training it's a good guideline. Ordinary people pointing out for example that the England rugby team are all outliers are missing the point. Elite athletes in a power sport are not your average guy in the gym or street.
How it's applied to me - with a stocky build the my best weight would tend to be higher up the BMI range compared to someone who is "leggy" and with a slight build. When I was young and carried more muscle mass my best weight was about 7lbs into the overweight category. Now I'm an old fart who exercises more than ever the top end of the BMI normal range suits me best.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions