Your Opinion on BMI

I'm considered overweight....it's so useless. No provisions for muscle mass

IMHO, BMI is just a bunch of BS. A lot of factors go into determining if a person is obese, overweight, underweight, appropriate, etc like age, height, race, build. BMI charts are very standard, thus making it a very dicey tool to rely on.

BF% on the other hand, is a tool I'd rely on.

being underweight by BMI standards you would have to be pretty thin and most likely have very little lean muscle mass. Since I equate at least some muscle mass with health, I don't think most people underweight by BMI standards are healthy, but there are plenty of exceptions.

That being said most ski jumpers aim to be around a BMI of 18, as the lighter they are the farther they tend to go in the air, and I would say most of them would be healthy.

Useless for individuals-- probably serves a limited purpose for society in general-- as a general concept that should at least put people on notice that they may want to inquire further about whether they are at a healthy weight-- but once an individual inquires- BMI is useless for that person for the reasons noted above.

^ This

BMI was never intended for comparing an individual to a chart. It was designed to compare groups of populations at different points on the chart with one another. For purposes such as showing the likely hood that X is more likely for groups that fall in Y range on the BMI scale.

Even if I had 0% body fat I would still be in the normal BMI range, so I couldn't imagine how little muscle one would have to have to be in the under weight BMI catagory

Honestly, I think BMI is a meaningless number. My BMI is in the obese category, but my BF% is in the acceptable category, which really makes no logical sense.

I trust body fat % more. Below 15% it start being iffy

I am also one pound from being overweight but I am about 20% bf.

I don't think the BMI is the gospel, but I don't think it should be completely discarded either. It should be recognized for what it is: an estimation of what your bodyfat is based on your weight and height.

When you recognize it for what it is, you see how the numbers would be off for folks that have more muscle mass. That said, for people that don't do any resistance training, I think the numbers are fairly accurate.

As far as the low end of the range, at my height of 6'1" I would have to be <140 to be considered underweight. I would certainly be underweight if I was 140, but I think your frame size comes into play here. Having a small bone structure and narrow frame makes a big difference in terms of bodyweight. Still, 140 is awfully small, lol.

So I would trust the under weight numbers as being accurate sooner than I would trust the overweight numbers. But again, BMI is just an estimate of what your bodyfat might be, which is the key issue. If your bodyfat isn't actually dangerously high or low, you don't have a problem

I'd buy the underweight -- there are ways to be 'overweight' without having excess fat, but very few ways to be 'underweight' without having too little muscle.

I'd buy the underweight -- there are ways to be 'overweight' without having excess fat, but very few ways to be 'underweight' without having too little muscle.

I agree.

The other thing since the the bmi scales doesn't account for large amounts muscle, I personally still use it as a guideline rather than "this is exactly what/where you are."

BMI=Bullsh$t Mimicking Information