Coming to grips with BMI
Options
KeithBarrows
Posts: 34 Member
I just ran the BMI calculator on the MFP site. Holy hell!
This cannot be right. Most of my adulthood I weighed 195 or more. My 13 years in the Marine Corps I weighed between 196 and 204. Here is a pic at 196ish lbs:
Is the BMI calculator that far off or am I on the freak side of measurements?
This cannot be right. Most of my adulthood I weighed 195 or more. My 13 years in the Marine Corps I weighed between 196 and 204. Here is a pic at 196ish lbs:
Is the BMI calculator that far off or am I on the freak side of measurements?
3
Replies
-
BMI is really not a good indicator of much of anything at the individual level, mostly because it fails to take into account body composition and variation among individuals. The norms were largely developed about a hundred years ago based on a population of well-to-do young white men, so the further a population is from that "standard" (in the biggest quotes you can imagine), the less useful BMI is. You do appear to at least be a white man, so you've got that going for you. But, if you were a Marine, you probably had more muscle than average when you weighed in around 200lb. So on paper you would have been "overweight," but not overfat, and BMI has no way to make that distinction since it's just based on mass and height.
To put it in perspective - if you calculated Arnold Schwarzenegger's BMI when he was in his prime and winning Mr. Universe, he was 6'2" and 260lb. That's a BMI of 33 or so, firmly in the "obese" category, but look up a picture of Ahnold circa 1974 and tell me who would call that an obese man.5 -
OP would you be willing to measure your waist circumference and post it here?3
-
I have no problems posting my measurements. Right now - I know I am over weight. I was looking at the BNI to see what it might suggest as a target weight for weight loss and was flabbergasted by the range it gave.
Yes - I am English/Irish/Scottish ancestry. My Withings scale reports a BMI of 30.1% right now. I am down 7 or 8 lbs from my heaviest ever weight of 262.
Are you looking for today's measurements? When I am in shape measurements? Back in the Marine Corps measurements?Date Pounds Shoulders Waist 3/1/2015 210.10 51.50 36.25 10/24/2021 252.7 54.0 47.0
From the early 2015 time period:
3 -
So you currently weigh 252 pounds, with a BMI of 32.2, and based on a formula that assumes "average" body fat levels for your height and weight, you are considered obese. I don't see what is surprising about that.
I also don't understand how a picture of yourself from six years ago, 40 pounds lighter, is supposed to expose the BMI formula for your current assessment as somehow off the rails?
14 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »I have no problems posting my measurements. Right now - I know I am over weight. I was looking at the BNI to see what it might suggest as a target weight for weight loss and was flabbergasted by the range it gave.
Yes - I am English/Irish/Scottish ancestry. My Withings scale reports a BMI of 30.1% right now. I am down 7 or 8 lbs from my heaviest ever weight of 262.
Are you looking for today's measurements? When I am in shape measurements? Back in the Marine Corps measurements?Date Pounds Shoulders Waist 3/1/2015 210.10 51.50 36.25 10/24/2021 252.7 54.0 47.0
From the early 2015 time period:
So given your change in waist size from 2015 until now from 36 in to 47 in I think it's not offending you to say most of the 42 pound gain is fat.
For someone that is lifting and/or has a very physical manual labor job, generally nothing wrong with being in the overweight category as they are most likely carrying a good bit of muscle. Once one gets into the obese range, chances are one is carrying too much fat (unless you are talking a high level strength athlete). I would say a doctor would not have an issue with your weight in the 2015 picture.
When you say your scale reports a BMI of 30.1%, you are mixing 2 things. BMI is not a percent, its a number derived from a formula using height and weight. Bodyfat is measured in %. If you're 30.1% BF you are in what would be considered the obese range. I'm not familiar with the Withings scale but if it measures BF by electric impedance, these can be fairly inaccurate
Another measurement, waist size. At any weight over 37 inches for a man is considered increased risk for health issues (especially heart related), over 40 is substantially increased risk.
Hope this clears a few things up.6 -
Everyone needs to understand that BMI is just your (weight in kilograms) divided by your (height in meters, squared). Thus, if you were 2 meters in height and 80 kg, you'd have a BMI of exactly 20.
The simplicity of this formula has made it a stand-in for harder-to-measure parameters, such as body fat, to which it correlates. But, correlation doesn't mean it works for every individual.4 -
I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?0 -
I long ago found all the usual metrics for appearance and fitness personally useless, except for the mirror, satisfactory physical strength and endurance, and lack of bodily pains. "Weight" is just an unhelpful proxy for body fat, given that the direct estimators for blubber are inconsistent / inaccurate. I recently came across this page (there are some others) that seems good enough for the ballpark:
https://www.ruled.me/visually-estimate-body-fat-percentage/
1 -
Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. It caught my interest again. I tend to dismiss from memory what is not at all useful so my memory of BMI discussions 10 years ago was hazy at best. In my military career I was never "over weight" (for 6' 2" I think that was marked at 210?).
So, if you want to tag along, I am on my 2nd weight loss/health/fitness lifestyle change...8 -
I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.3 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. .
Ah HAH! Clarity is approaching. For what it's worth, I had my heart attacks 2 years ago and that obviously got me started with a Cardiologist and was the first time I saw "BMI" mentioned. Long story short, I had been bristling with them over the BMI reports, my on-going weight loss, etc etc, and finally took them to task to explain why they were taking such a vague metric so seriously. Their explanation at the time is that it doesn't really matter between fat and/or muscle, its all extra tissue that your heart has to pump blood through, and the more tissue, the more your heart has to work. Which is a thing for heart attack survivors. But as a "statement of health", yeah, generally meaningless.7 -
KeithBarrows wrote: »Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. It caught my interest again. I tend to dismiss from memory what is not at all useful so my memory of BMI discussions 10 years ago was hazy at best. In my military career I was never "over weight" (for 6' 2" I think that was marked at 210?).
So, if you want to tag along, I am on my 2nd weight loss/health/fitness lifestyle change...
As others have said, it's a population metric to *kitten* potential health risk. At the individual level it's a good enough starting point, but isn't the be all and end all gospel of metrics. It's not unusual either for athletic males to fall slightly outside the high end of BMI and still be at healthy BF% levels. My normal maintenance weight is around 180 Lbs at about 15% BF...not super lean, but not fat either. The high end of BMI for my height is 174.6 so I am outside of that range, but at a perfectly healthy BF%. I am also a former Marine and was a competitive athlete for much of my life and I cycle, mountain bike, and lift weights regularly for the past 9 years or so. I'm no bodybuilder, but I have decent muscle mass, particularly in my lower body. I could definitely be leaner and get to that high end BMI number, but there's really no point from a health standpoint...it would be purely aesthetic and I'm 47 and don't care about 6 pack abs. I used to have those and they weren't life changing or anything.3 -
goal06082021 wrote: »BMI is really not a good indicator of much of anything at the individual level, mostly because it fails to take into account body composition and variation among individuals. The norms were largely developed about a hundred years ago based on a population of well-to-do young white men, so the further a population is from that "standard" (in the biggest quotes you can imagine), the less useful BMI is. You do appear to at least be a white man, so you've got that going for you. But, if you were a Marine, you probably had more muscle than average when you weighed in around 200lb. So on paper you would have been "overweight," but not overfat, and BMI has no way to make that distinction since it's just based on mass and height.
To put it in perspective - if you calculated Arnold Schwarzenegger's BMI when he was in his prime and winning Mr. Universe, he was 6'2" and 260lb. That's a BMI of 33 or so, firmly in the "obese" category, but look up a picture of Ahnold circa 1974 and tell me who would call that an obese man.
No one would call 1974 Arnold obese...but there's also no one who looks like 1974 Arnold.
Arnold being an extreme outlier doesn't mean that it's common for normal people to also be extreme outliers.
Is BMI perfect? No, of course not. But as cwolfman13 said, it is a decent starting point for the vast majority of people.
Edit: To clarify, I pretty much agree with everything wolfman said about it. There are certainly outliers (mostly athletic males). But for someone to be such an outlier that they have healthy bodyfat levels but measure as obese like Arnold...very rare.7 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »KeithBarrows wrote: »Thanks everyone for your input. As I am seeing a heart doc (a very recent development) and going in for my 60,000 mile checkup, err, 60 year physical, BMI was something that was asked on the intake forms for the new Doc. .
Ah HAH! Clarity is approaching. For what it's worth, I had my heart attacks 2 years ago and that obviously got me started with a Cardiologist and was the first time I saw "BMI" mentioned. Long story short, I had been bristling with them over the BMI reports, my on-going weight loss, etc etc, and finally took them to task to explain why they were taking such a vague metric so seriously. Their explanation at the time is that it doesn't really matter between fat and/or muscle, its all extra tissue that your heart has to pump blood through, and the more tissue, the more your heart has to work. Which is a thing for heart attack survivors. But as a "statement of health", yeah, generally meaningless.
It sounds like you've had multiple heart attacks, and your BMI is in the risk factor category, from what you're telling us?2 -
How tall do I have to be to be considered in the healthy range at 194? lol
At 5' 8", I'm in the overweight range when I crest 165 and obese at 197.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.
Yes, I'm aware that the number doesn't assume anything, but the categorizations of "underweight," "healthy weight," "overweight," and "obese" do have assumptions of averages in terms of body composition built into them since they are based on populational averages.
Which makes the categories less applicable for individuals who deviate heavily from average in terms of body composition for their BMI.
0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.
Yes, I'm aware that the number doesn't assume anything, but the categorizations of "underweight," "healthy weight," "overweight," and "obese" do have assumptions of averages in terms of body composition built into them since they are based on populational averages.
Which makes the categories less applicable for individuals who deviate heavily from average in terms of body composition for their BMI.
True, but by definition, "individuals who deviate heavily from average" are not common.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »I'm not really sure what you are looking for.
BMI assumes average muscle, so yes, if you have above average muscle, then it will be off for you.
BMI is a populational metric, so it's only a very rough metric for individuals.
So again, I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for?
BMI is weight and height, body composition (bodyfat % or muscle) assumed or otherwise doesn't come into the equation.
Yes, I'm aware that the number doesn't assume anything, but the categorizations of "underweight," "healthy weight," "overweight," and "obese" do have assumptions of averages in terms of body composition built into them since they are based on populational averages.
Which makes the categories less applicable for individuals who deviate heavily from average in terms of body composition for their BMI.
It doesn't appear a day or 2 ago when I replied to your post that you were aware the number didn't assume anything, hence my response:
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »How tall do I have to be to be considered in the healthy range at 194? lol
At 5' 8", I'm in the overweight range when I crest 165 and obese at 197.
Ever get your bodyfat measured by a reliable method?3 -
If you wanna know if you are overweight, measure your waist. On an individual level it's a very good indicator. Your waist should be less than half your height.
So a 5'9 man shouldn't have a waist that exceed 34.5.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions