Should you really be in the normal range for BMI?

I'm pretty close to your situation. I'm 31, 5'7" and I'm at 162 right now (down from 216). I'm at the bottom of the "overweight category" right now according to the BMI charts. Personally I feel its crap. I'm hoping to pretty much stick where I am now, but cut down on BF%. BMI doesn't really account for larger frame people or people with a lot of extra muscle.

Right now, I'm at 15% BF and have okay muscle definition, but I'm in no weigh over weight/

Go with a combo of BMI and BF%. If you are in the low "overweight" range with a BF% 15% or so, then IMO, thats pretty darned good. And supposedly for men around our age, 8-19% is considered Healthy

Keep up the good work!

I would recommend not going by BMI... You should be going by your waist measurement. BMI is too out dated and not an accurate way of measuring whether your in your healthy weight range or not

This is the way most doctors here in Australia are going by now, and telling people to completely ignore BMI

agreed. i use tape measure as a primary yardstick. weight is much too iffy. a glass of water could send you up 1-2 pounds alone

Hey MFP peeps,

Went to the doctor today to discuss my weight loss so far and he was psyched. I'm 5'7.5", started at 211 (rough) and now down to 185 (awesome so far).

I told him I figured I should lost another 15 or so, that puts me roughly at the low-end of the "overweight" ranking for BMI, nearing the top of the "regular" section. He said to really push it I could aim as low as a BMI of 25, which would be 150lbs?!?!? I haven't been that light since I was in like 8th grade.

[...]
It seems like BMI used to be the go-to thing, but I've heard enough dissent about it that I am not going to take it as 100% gospel. For my frame and general weight history, I think 160lbs or 165 would be awesome and very healthy. Pushing to 150 area seems like I'd be pretty underweight, I'd be like back to middle school weight and I'm much taller and bulkier now of course. That seems almost dangerous to push it that low.

Thoughts?

Hey - you're exactly like me - except that I'm 5'9", female, 49 yo, and started off with a lot more to lose.

BMI seems to be based on data for 25-yo of average height (5'4 to 5'5 for women, 5'8 to 5'9 for men) who are Caucasions of non-Northwestern European (e.g., Scandanavian, German or Celtic) ancestry. It tends to underestimate bodyfat for middle-aged and elderly people, and for most Asians. BMI tends to overestimate body fat for African-Amercians, Northwestern Europeans, bodybuilders, people with unusually high bone or muscle density, and people with a lot of rocks in their pockets (just seeing if you're still awake there :bigsmile: ).

Interestingly, the US gov't had the high end of the "healthy" BMI range set at 27.8 unitl 1998, when it was revised to 25.0 iin order to match World Health Organizantion standards.

I'm taller than average, my ancestry is largely Celtic, and I also seem to have a genetic tendency towards high bone density. I'm setting my goal range at 188 to 183 lb (BMI = 27.8 to 27.0). When I get there, I'll see how things like my bodyfat %, blood sugar & lipids, and general well-being & self-image are; and then I'll decide whether to maintain or continue losing.

For my BMI to be 25.0, I'd have to weigh 169 lb, which, I suppose, might not be completely impossible.

But for me to fall into the middle of the normal range at BMI = 21.75, I'd have to weigh 147.5 lb - which was about what I weighed as an (admittedly about 10 to lbs overweight) 5' 6" 13-yo seventh-grader.

Here's probably the best example of why BMI is stupid and shouldn't be followed slavishly