BMI = bull

BMI does suck. body composition (body fat% and skeletal muscle%/lean body-mass) is a much better predictor of all measures of health.

The bmi is such BS. According to the bmi, I would be at a healthy weight at 118, and my husband at 130. I havent been 118 since maybe 12. My husband at 5'11 would be alarmingly thin.

i'm 5'8, my goal weight is 155, but I'd be thrilled anywhere around 160ish

BMI is not the ONLY measure of what dictates a healthy size, but it's reasonable I think for most people of average build or size. The people who complain about it are usually totally misinformed about their appropriate weight range (see poster who claimed a healthy BMI would put her 5'11" husband at 130, nonsense). If you're a little over or a little under, I don't think it's a big deal, but it isn't a bad measure of how you measure up against the averages. Of course, bodybuilders and men or women with more than average muscle mass will not fit the range, but that's a completely different issue.

I wish doctors would look at body fat percentage, BMI, and waist circumference to get a more comprehensive picture of body size and health though. BMI alone isn't the whole story.

We, as a society, have lost touch with what is a "healthy" weight. We're used to seeing men at >25% body fat and women at >30% body fat.

I agree! I am 5'10" and supposed to be between 130 and 174 according to the BMI calculations. At one time I was on the verge of an eating disorder and over exercised until I was at 149 and a size 2/4. My husband complained that I was too boney and my mother thought that I was purging. There is NO WAY I will EVER be there again. I was skinny but unhealthy. I too asked my doctor and he instructed me that my healthy weight would be no less than 180. I was a size 8 at that weight. I would be happy at that weight. That is what my goal now is.

I would also recommend going to your doctor to find out where you should be. Don't shoot for unrealistic goals.

Sadly, an awful lot of doctors seem to rely on the BMI... although these are generally not good doctors.

I am 4"11 and 160. It states I should lose 32 pounds. How do I know how much I should actually lose?

BMI calculators tell me that I'm underweight even though my doctor tells me that I'm healthy. I could still even stand to lose a few. But I also have a very small frame, I can overlap my pink and thumb around my wrist. Right now I'm 115 at 5'8" and I used to be at 110 naturally and my doctors told me that I was healthy then also. So I say just stick with what the doctors say.

Funny how we are all so different. I am 5'2 and 120 with a very medium range BMI. I don't leave normal range for about another 10-15 pounds. HOWEVER...my body fat is nearly 30% which tells me I have plenty to lose...so I </3 BMI but for the opposite reasons.

I agree that BMI does not give the full picture. It is a good STARTING POINT for many. I for one have adjusted my weight goal to 225 since most body fat analyses show that I have near 200 lbs of lean mass (200 lbs is the top end of my IBW range (BMI=25)... BMI tells you ONE THING. What is your height to weight ratio. That is all. It says nothing about lean body mass.

The better guide is a body fat analysis. Keeping your body fat percentage within the recommended levels for your age and physical fitness goals is by far the better and healthier method.

BMI works for probably 70-80% of the population. It never works for athletic individuals because the muscle mass is so high.

It must be true, because PETA says that vegetarians are healthier because they have lower BMIs than meat eaters.

:huh:

What??? I am living proof that numbers do lie. I am 5'7" inches tall and 115 pounds. I have a very small frame. My ring finger is a size four, to give you some idea, bur I have a full bust and a butt. I run daily, do Pilates, and lift. And while that may seem like a very low weight, it makes sense given my natural propensity toward leanness and my workouts. I do not have an eating disorder and eat very well. Yes, I watch what I eat but no one has ever commented that I look too thin. I have curves and definition. And my bmi is around 17, I think. Just be careful and do what you think is right and healthy.

What??? I am living proof that numbers do lie. I am 5'7" inches tall and 115 pounds. I have a very small frame. My ring finger is a size four, to give you some idea, bur I have a full bust and a butt. I run daily, do Pilates, and lift. And while that may seem like a very low weight, it makes sense given my natural propensity toward leanness and my workouts. I do not have an eating disorder and eat very well. Yes, I watch what I eat but no one has ever commented that I look too thin. I have curves and definition. And my bmi is around 17, I think. Just be careful and do what you think is right and healthy.

I'm the opposite of you lol... I'm 5'1" and large build (as in the size of my skeleton, rib cage, etc). My body fat percentage is currently 24% and my BMI is 25. Apparently a healthy weight range for my height is 101-132 lb, and I'm right at the heavy end of that. I know from my own calculations based on my lean body mass and body fat percentage, that at 20% body fat I'd weigh around 124lb. It's generally not recommended to go below 18% body fat. Given that there's *NO WAY* I would be healthy at 101 lb!! I really don't think I should go below 120lb, and my goal weight is not that low even, because I'd like to gain lean body mass. I'm aiming at 20% body fat, and estimate that I'd weigh around 124lb, but preferably I'd like to weigh more than that if I manage to gain some LBM. At the moment I'm working on body re-composition rather than just fat loss, and I don't want too much weight loss.

BMI can be so misleading as it does not take build into account at all, and there is a lot of variation between small and large build. my youngest daughter has inherited my build, and my friend's daughter who's the same age (2) has a very noticably smaller ribcage (you can tell when you pick them up one after the other), mine is about an inch taller, has a much larger ribcage, and is a kilo heavier than my friend's daughter. (they have the same amount of baby-chub) And that's just at age 2.

BMI is supposed to take build into account that's why there's a large range, but I've come across so many women, and even health professionals, who think it's better to be in the low end than the high end, when I was a teenager and very athletic and couldn't have had more than 20% body fat (based on the fact that I have significantly more now than back then and I'm currently at 24%) and was always being cautioned that I was "almost overweight" and should "watch what I eat" - advice that made me very paranoid about food and body image for a long time, and totally unnecessary as my body fat percentage was probably lower than a lot of the other girls my age who did no sport and had medium or small build skeletons.

There are some people who should only be in the high range of BMI and would have to have too low body fat levels, or lose a lot of lean body mass, to get in the low range, and that is not healthy by any definition - and there are others who should only be in the low range and would have a too high body fat percentage if they were in the high range.

IMO body fat percentage and waist measurements are a lot more reliable, and BMI needs to be consigned to the bin because it can be dangerously misleading!!!

BMI is not the ONLY measure of what dictates a healthy size, but it's reasonable I think for most people of average build or size. The people who complain about it are usually totally misinformed about their appropriate weight range (see poster who claimed a healthy BMI would put her 5'11" husband at 130, nonsense). If you're a little over or a little under, I don't think it's a big deal, but it isn't a bad measure of how you measure up against the averages. Of course, bodybuilders and men or women with more than average muscle mass will not fit the range, but that's a completely different issue.

I wish doctors would look at body fat percentage, BMI, and waist circumference to get a more comprehensive picture of body size and health though. BMI alone isn't the whole story.

We, as a society, have lost touch with what is a "healthy" weight. We're used to seeing men at >25% body fat and women at >30% body fat.
[/quot





That poster would be me, I used the bmi caculator on mfp, and put my husbands stats in. Yes , it did say a healthy weight for him would be 132. Which is far from healthy.

I like what my bmi says more than my doctor...
My doctor laughed at me (when I was at my starting weight) and said I needed to lose 55lbs before I got to the line of healthy/over, but needed to lose even more if I wanted to be healthy.

My bmi says my healthy weight range is 115-155... I want to reach 135 and maintain that.. Even at 145 I'll be happier.