Is there a better measuring stick than BMI?

For the average person, BMI is not a bad measuring stick. The exceptions are people with lots of muscle tissue and low body fat (bodybuilders are the classic example). I think we have a distorted view of what is healthy in our society and most of us don't realize that we are, in fact, that overweight.

I didn't believe it either. I was a good ways into the "obese" category when I started and I didn't look it really. Doesn't change the fact that I was obese.

As much as it sucks, it might be a good wakeup call to realize that you are borderline obese. That doesn't mean you can't do athletic things, but that you're carrying too much weight on you.

FWIW, I think the limits on the normal/healthy and overweight line is too low for some people, but not the obese/overweight line.

You should also have your body fat measurements done via BodPod or Dexa scan. They are the best way to know your body composition.

Sorry Elizabeth, I have to disagree with you on this one. The BMI scale was never intended to measure individuals, but was designed as a method for assessing populations. To apply it as it is currently used by the NHS/Insurance companies etc is quite simply a misapplication. Many people, not just body-builders, who are of greater-than-average physical structure quite simply do not fit within the parameters as they currently stand.

The WHO has reduced the guidelines several times since the current version was first used, as they expanded their reach to typically-smaller-framed non-Caucasian societies and needed to factor in their populations (critical word that - the WHO's primary use for BMI is the correct one - measuring populations, rather than individuals) and their associated predispositions. There are many people (particularly of Nordic, North/Eastern European and Celtic descent) whose frames and genetic predisposition to muscularity place them outside the current guidelines for 'health', yet are entirely healthy.

BMI's popular use has more to do with being cheap, requiring little more than a scale, a tape measure and a calculator, and relatively simple to assess than with being any real guide to healthy body composition. The OP may well be 'borderline obese' by the BMI standard, but very healthy using an appropriate method to measure an individual's physical health, rather than a misapplied, generic catch-all.

I understand your perspective, but the flip side of that is that we need some kind of standard measure of one's "overweightness" (not sure what word to use for that). I'm saying that the BMI measure is a good ROUGH guide to your body weight/height ratio if you are an average build (not an athlete, bodybuilder, etc.). There's wiggle room on the boundaries for sure based on size, your frame, and more importantly, your quantities of muscle and lean mass/fat ratio.

Far too many people use "BMI is a bad measurement" as an excuse to live in obesity. This is the problem with arguments like the one you're making.

While I understand the statistic is meant to used for the population as a whole, with few exceptions, it does apply to individuals by definition who are in that average build category which is most people.

I also think that the excuse of ignoring BMI goes to further distort our view of what is "healthy" weight in society. America is fat. Very very fat. It's not unusual for women to be 35%+ body fat and still think they're "healthy" or "just a little overweight." Average Americans now are overweight, and in some parts of the country obese. That's the AVERAGE.

While the term BMI was invented in the 1970's, the formula dates back to 1830 !

I see the point about BMI standards being used for general population, but not being so good for an individual. I had a friend who was skinny and didn't weigh all that much, but he was flabby. His BMI would have shown him to be healthy or perhaps even too light. A low-body-fat, highly muscled athlete would likely show up as at least overweight via BMI.

I do not even remotely suggest that America in general is not trending towards overweight/obese. All it takes is a quick walk around the mall (or workplace) and you can see that. The mirror and the fit of my clothes firmly convinced me of that a few months back.

I just want to have something to personally shoot for. Body fat percentage is probably a much better indicator. That, along with how I feel physically. In three months, I've lost 40 pounds and gone from 20 minute walks up to 2+ hour road bike rides and multi-mile runs. I'm not there yet, but I will be.

This is a good way to look at it. While the BMI scale is useful to see roughly where you stand, body fat is much better. Totally agree with you there.

Get a scan done. That way you know, then you can decide what to do next.

Bump!

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

The truth of it is that people who are generally considered overweight or obese are at higher risk for disease and other serious health concerns. That does not mean that YOU are. Just that, on average, people who fall into that group are.

Pretty sure you just proved why people are saying these generic tests aren't good for individual assessment and why I'm complaining, personally, about them. I'm "unhealthy" when I type my stats into these calculators, but I'm actually not. Doctor/blood work proven.

I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote so I will try to rephrase it more carefully.

You may not be the average case. This is exactly my point. The average person who is overweight or obese is not active. They do not eat a well balanced nutritious diet They are at higher risk for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and all sorts of other conditions. Obviously, you're not the average though you fit into the same category.

Furthermore, the risk for serious disease is a long-term risk, not a short term one. So while your bloodwork may be just fine now (and will likely remain so since you are active and eat well), for the average person who is not active and doesn't eat well who may have ideal bloodwork at 20 years old, statistically, they most likely will not be at 45 or 50 years old. People often use the "my bloodwork is just fine" at age 20-30 as another excuse for ignoring their obesity. I did the same. I was 220 lbs with perfect bloodwork. I was not healthy. If I had maintained that weight and sedentary lifestyle another 10 years, I would have put my body at serious risk for all sorts of nasty and potentially life-ending diseases. The human body is capable of acclimating to almost any hardship for a short period of time, but eventually it catches up to you.

My point in saying that the BMI is not necessarily a bad measure is that we need some kind of rough estimate for where you stand. There are exceptions, but ON AVERAGE, people will fit the mold. That's the definition of "average"

Don't use sticks, they don't bend very well.

Instead use a measuring tape to measure yourself, and keep track that way.

I understand your perspective, but the flip side of that is that we need some kind of standard measure of one's "overweightness" (not sure what word to use for that). I'm saying that the BMI measure is a good ROUGH guide to your body weight/height ratio if you are an average build (not an athlete, bodybuilder, etc.). There's wiggle room on the boundaries for sure based on size, your frame, and more importantly, your quantities of muscle and lean mass/fat ratio.

Far too many people use "BMI is a bad measurement" as an excuse to live in obesity. This is the problem with arguments like the one you're making.

But it IS a bad measurement for an individual, and there are much more accurate and effective alternatives that could be used as your 'rough guide'. That BMI is the industry-standard, so to speak, is worrisome and frankly unhelpful. The way it's applied in the UK under the NHS provides none of the 'wiggle room' you refer to, and people, very healthy people, are regularly denied treatment because they fall outside these notional, and flawed, guidelines that were never meant to be applied to individuals.

While I understand the statistic is meant to used for the population as a whole, with few exceptions, it does apply to individuals by definition who are in that average build category which is most people.

I also think that the excuse of ignoring BMI goes to further distort our view of what is "healthy" weight in society. America is fat. Very very fat. It's not unusual for women to be 35%+ body fat and still think they're "healthy" or "just a little overweight." Average Americans now are overweight, and in some parts of the country obese. That's the AVERAGE.

Unfortunately, again I have to disagree. A 'healthy' BMI does not necessarily constitute a healthy weight for an individual - health is more complex than simply what the numbers on the scale say in proportion to height.

Please read my response above (a couple posts up) that addresses your second point.

To your first point, I agree that BMI should not be the only measure for whether you get certain healthcare benefits or not. We have the same problem here in the US. Insurance rates go up with BMI, nothing else, which is very unfortunate for people like us who are still considered "overweight" but live active healthy lifestyles.

There are plenty of people who fall into the "normal" weight range that aren't active or healthy either. However, statistically, they still have lower risk of disease, cancer, and diabetes. This is because excess body fat is linked to many of these diseases. That's why insurance companies in the US use BMI. Your aggregate risk of disease goes up with body size.

In a fair and just world, people like us should get benefits to being active and eating well beyond what our BMI shows, but that's just not going to happen for a while. Some doctors have started doing waist measurements and body fat estimates to go with BMI, but this is still an uncommon practice.

I'm saying, again, that ON AVERAGE, most people who are overweight or obese are not what you or I would call "healthy." They are not active. They do not eat well. They are carrying excess body fat. This is the norm. You, the previous poster, and I and most of us on MFP who have been here a while are the exception, not the rule.

Anything is better than BMI.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%. That's absurd. I would have to be anorexic to be in the athletic range. When I went to the doctor and had blood work done, I was well within athletic range for all of my tests.

BMI sucks. Another thing that really pisses me off is that I'm considered at risk for heart disease because of my hip to waist ratio. 33 and 27, respectively. I'm not sure what else I can do to make myself be "healthy" on these ridiculous generic tests. And, again, all of my tests came back WELL WITHIN the athletic range. Some are almost so low that they dipping into too low. The doctors praised me...highly.

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I lift and do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

You are well within the healthy BMI range at that weight--I am 5'2" and at 136.7--you have a healthy BMI--so I'm not sure why you are knocking it so much. My GOAL is to get to the top of my range.

I feel the BMI is a good baseline for most people. but even site that calculate your BMI say that is is not the end all to be all, and that many factors play into a "healthy weight". If some one is in good shape, exercises and eats well the BMI has less meaning.

For the OP, I would say get your body fat tested. according to US Army standards at 40 years old 6'3 your max weight should be 220 lbs or your body fat percentage should be 26% or less. Again, not a perfect standard, but one that gives your a rough estimate of a range to be in.

Anything is better than BMI.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%. That's absurd. I would have to be anorexic to be in the athletic range. When I went to the doctor and had blood work done, I was well within athletic range for all of my tests.

BMI sucks. Another thing that really pisses me off is that I'm considered at risk for heart disease because of my hip to waist ratio. 33 and 27, respectively. I'm not sure what else I can do to make myself be "healthy" on these ridiculous generic tests. And, again, all of my tests came back WELL WITHIN the athletic range. Some are almost so low that they dipping into too low. The doctors praised me...highly.

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I lift and do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

You are well within the healthy BMI range at that weight--I am 5'2" and at 136.7--you have a healthy BMI--so I'm not sure why you are knocking it so much. My GOAL is to get to the top of my range.

I'm more knocking the other calculators like hip to waist because it puts me in the increased risk for heart disease range.

I ran 70 miles in March. Going for 100 in April. I run races. I do kickboxing, Step and Zumba....but I'm unhealthy.

:noway: :noway: :noway: :noway: :noway:

The truth of it is that people who are generally considered overweight or obese are at higher risk for disease and other serious health concerns. That does not mean that YOU are. Just that, on average, people who fall into that group are.

Pretty sure you just proved why people are saying these generic tests aren't good for individual assessment and why I'm complaining, personally, about them. I'm "unhealthy" when I type my stats into these calculators, but I'm actually not. Doctor/blood work proven.

I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote so I will try to rephrase it more carefully.

You may not be the average case. This is exactly my point. The average person who is overweight or obese is not active. They do not eat a well balanced nutritious diet They are at higher risk for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and all sorts of other conditions. Obviously, you're not the average though you fit into the same category.

Furthermore, the risk for serious disease is a long-term risk, not a short term one. So while your bloodwork may be just fine now (and will likely remain so since you are active and eat well), for the average person who is not active and doesn't eat well who may have ideal bloodwork at 20 years old, statistically, they most likely will not be at 45 or 50 years old. People often use the "my bloodwork is just fine" at age 20-30 as another excuse for ignoring their obesity. I did the same. I was 220 lbs with perfect bloodwork. I was not healthy. If I had maintained that weight and sedentary lifestyle another 10 years, I would have put my body at serious risk for all sorts of nasty and potentially life-ending diseases. The human body is capable of acclimating to almost any hardship for a short period of time, but eventually it catches up to you.

My point in saying that the BMI is not necessarily a bad measure is that we need some kind of rough estimate for where you stand. There are exceptions, but ON AVERAGE, people will fit the mold. That's the definition of "average"

Nope...didn't misunderstand. Thanks though.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

Ahhh...because MFP is the sole holder of BMI calculators! GOT IT! Thanks!

And I meant under "overweight." Not obese. My apologizes for not being PRECISE on a MFP thread.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

Ahhh...because MFP is the sole holder of BMI calculators! GOT IT! Thanks!

BMI should be exactly the same no matter where you calculate it assuming you're putting the same height and weight into different calculators. It's a standard comparison between height and weight, there is no room for BMI calculators in different locations to actually give different results unless one is programmed incorrectly. Body fat, on the other hand, is estimated in different ways using different formulas and different measurements and therefore you can get different results from different calculators, b/c it is an estimate and there are several different ways to estimate it.

Agreed! I'm 5'2" and 120ish lbs. I wear a size 0 in work pants, 2 in dresses and 1/2 in jeans. I'm technically just under obese at 22.3%.

I'm not sure what you are using to measure your BMI, but it's very wrong. According to the BMI calculator on MFP, your BMI is 21.9 which is right in the middle of the "healthy" category. Not sure where the 22.3% comes from either...

Ahhh...because MFP is the sole holder of BMI calculators! GOT IT! Thanks!

And I meant under "overweight." Not obese. My apologizes for not being PRECISE on a MFP thread.

I think someone has had too much caffeine today....seriously dude, chill!

Who me?!?!?! :grumble: :grumble: :grumble:

Everyone is picking apart every little ****ing word I've said. GEEZZZZZZZZZ it is MFP. It isn't that serious!