BMI numbers skewed too low?

Options
ding30180
ding30180 Posts: 53 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I originally said that I wanted to drop 30 pounds. Interestingly though, I would have to lose another 40 pounds after THAT, to get to a BMI considered 'normal'. Now, there is no way on earth that I want to be 70 pounds lighter than when I started - I think that with my frame I would look emaciated. These BMI figures look really skewed to me, do they seem very, very low? We're not hunters and gatherers anymore, you know!

Replies

  • ding30180
    ding30180 Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    Any thoughts on this?
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    Options
    I don't think so, unless you're really muscular.
  • Clarecbear82
    Clarecbear82 Posts: 369 Member
    Options
    They don't seem low at all to me either! Unless like the previous poster just said you have a lot of muscles. I've finally reached the higher end of healthy and could still do with losing some more. I think back when my Dr told me that should be my ideal weight I thought there was no way id ever be that small but it just goes to show I was wrong lol.

    As for how you feel just go with what you feel happy with and as long as your healthy it doesn't really matter. Well done on the loss as well :)
  • galegetsthin
    galegetsthin Posts: 1,352 Member
    Options
    In MY case it is not too off. I will be about mid range of "normal" at the weight I want, only 20 to go! I just reached "normal" today. I am still heavy looking. Not fat really, just a bit squishy still. It depends on your frame, muscle mass, many things. If you are a solid person, lots of muscle and larger frame, it is aimed a bit low. If you are small framed, like I am though, I think it is about right. BMI is not the best indicator though. If you are healthy and happy and comfortable, that is where you should be.
  • the_other_kitkat
    the_other_kitkat Posts: 31
    Options
    Yeah, I'm 5 pounds below the high end of my healthy BMI range and I do have some decent muscle mass from weightlifting, but I'm pretty clearly still overweight based on my body composition.
  • Bentley2718
    Bentley2718 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    I don't think so, unless you're really muscular.

    And by really muscular, you mean like very serious body builder, or some other type of muscle heavy athlete.

    Sorry, but the BMI ranges are wide for a reason, they give quite a bit of latitude, unless you have some really serious muscle, it should be about right. If you have serious doubts, try having your body fat tested, you'll probably find you have plenty to spare.
  • sherrybaby81
    sherrybaby81 Posts: 257 Member
    Options
    I kind of agree. I am still considered 'obese' at 185 lbs. Even at my highest weight of 205, I still don't think I was obese. I want to get down to 140 (which I was before, and was not muscular), that is the high end of my normal weight range. If I was any smaller, I feel I would look too small.
  • Chameleone
    Chameleone Posts: 281 Member
    Options
    Actually I think they are a little low. I don't think it fully accounts for bone density and muscle mass. My goal weight would still leave me at a BMI that is considered over weight. But when talking to my doctor she considered me at a healthy weight even before I recently lost a few pounds! So it's a little confusing to me and I choose not to pay tooo close attention to it, and treat it as a vague guidline.
  • ding30180
    ding30180 Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    I kind of agree. I am still considered 'obese' at 185 lbs. Even at my highest weight of 205, I still don't think I was obese.

    I think that the problem is that 'obese' in BMI terminology has a VERY different meaning to 'obese' in everyday language.
  • galegetsthin
    galegetsthin Posts: 1,352 Member
    Options
    I thought so too, until I actually SAW myself in "normal". I thought 160 would be fine for me. I am 5'9". It is only 3 lbs til I get there. It is not fine for me. I think that when you are heavier, you dont realize how much you have the capabillity of weighing. And you cant even compare it to the cheerleading glory days of yore....... You are not built the same. For my height, the range is 129-165, I would be able to pull off 129, I think, I am not shooting for it, yet. But, I may when I get to 145 and re-evaluate. When I started, though, I would have never thought that to be rational. Your body will amaze you. I had places that I though the bone was fairly close to the skin, and then it seemed like the ribcage moved back. I am sure that it was just fat OVER the ribs that I lost and didnt know was there, but even visceral internal fat that you cannot see changes things. My ribs may well be farther back, just because there isnt blubber underneath them taking up room.
  • PoleBoy
    PoleBoy Posts: 271
    Options
    BMI is intended to be used for measuring groups of people, not individuals, natural variation is large enough that it will be out for some people. The big distortion is the proportion of your leg length to height
  • huntindawg1962
    huntindawg1962 Posts: 277 Member
    Options
    Don't focus on BMI - look more at % body fat.
  • KF1216
    KF1216 Posts: 175 Member
    Options
    I thought so too, until I actually SAW myself in "normal". I thought 160 would be fine for me. I am 5'9". It is only 3 lbs til I get there. It is not fine for me. I think that when you are heavier, you dont realize how much you have the capabillity of weighing. And you cant even compare it to the cheerleading glory days of yore....... You are not built the same. For my height, the range is 129-165, I would be able to pull off 129, I think, I am not shooting for it, yet. But, I may when I get to 145 and re-evaluate. When I started, though, I would have never thought that to be rational. Your body will amaze you. I had places that I though the bone was fairly close to the skin, and then it seemed like the ribcage moved back. I am sure that it was just fat OVER the ribs that I lost and didnt know was there, but even visceral internal fat that you cannot see changes things. My ribs may well be farther back, just because there isnt blubber underneath them taking up room.

    This exactly! I'm 5'9" and currently 189. I've been saying I want to get to 175, but the high end if my bmi is 169. I think I'll look pretty great at 169 and to think of dropping another 20 lbs from there seems crazy but I know it's just because I've never been that fit! I'm excited to see what my body can do!!
  • Bentley2718
    Bentley2718 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    I kind of agree. I am still considered 'obese' at 185 lbs. Even at my highest weight of 205, I still don't think I was obese.

    I think that the problem is that 'obese' in BMI terminology has a VERY different meaning to 'obese' in everyday language.

    It does. Also, most Americans are so used to either being overweight, or seeing people around them be overweight, that many do not have a very good sense of what a healthy weight is. (For women, it probably doesn't help that the other images they see, those of fashion models and celebrities, are often underweight, giving them a weird dichotomy with few examples of healthy.) Research shows that being "overweight" or "obese" based on BMI is associated with significant increases in the risk of various health problems. This doesn't mean that if you are overweight or obese you WILL have health problems, but that, on average, those health problems are more likely. This is why the medical profession recommends having a BMI in the healthy range--not because your doctor cares what you look like. If your doctor thinks that you, individually, are okay, then that's great, they know your body better than I do, but in general, BMI, while not an ideal measure, does happen to be correlated with a lot of health problems.
  • MattGetsMad
    MattGetsMad Posts: 429 Member
    Options
    It does. Also, most Americans are so used to either being overweight, or seeing people around them be overweight, that many do not have a very good sense of what a healthy weight is. (For women, it probably doesn't help that the other images they see, those of fashion models and celebrities, are often underweight, giving them a weird dichotomy with few examples of healthy.) Research shows that being "overweight" or "obese" based on BMI is associated with significant increases in the risk of various health problems. This doesn't mean that if you are overweight or obese you WILL have health problems, but that, on average, those health problems are more likely. This is why the medical profession recommends having a BMI in the healthy range--not because your doctor cares what you look like. If your doctor thinks that you, individually, are okay, then that's great, they know your body better than I do, but in general, BMI, while not an ideal measure, does happen to be correlated with a lot of health problems.

    ^Perfect
  • skylark94
    skylark94 Posts: 2,036 Member
    Options
    I used to think I would look too thin at 140 pounds...until I got there. I very clearly have a few more pounds to drop .

    I think the best thing to do it set your goal weight at a BMI of 24, then reassess when you get there.

    There are actually some folks out there who want to make a BMI of 24 the new obese for women.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/health/obesity-rates-maybe-worse/index.html?hpt=he_c2
  • Bentley2718
    Bentley2718 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    As others have pointed out, your mind plays major tricks on you. When I was between 200 and 240 pounds, I thought that being 180 would be great. Then I started losing weight, and I got down to a skinny fat 130-135, which was still WAY better than 180. I don't want to be skinny fat ever again, but a muscular 145 would be great. For a good chunk of my life, I would have told you there was no way I could ever weigh 145, I can, and I feel healthy and strong at that weight. In this case, I think the problem is more mental distortion than issues with the BMI scale.

Categories