Why You Should NEVER Use BMI

"While the formula previously called the Quetelet Index for BMI dates to the 19th century, the new term "body mass index" for the ratio and its popularity date to a paper published in the July edition of 1972 in the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys. BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness."

There you have it.....not appropriate for individual diagnosis.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I will second this!

Seriously, everyone on here who said "it is ok if you are an average person" was basically saying it was ok for me. If it were ok for me, then I should be able to get my BMI a lot lower than just under overweight and still be healthy, but I cannot. According to the BMI, I will always be considered overweight, and thus at health risk.

It's a crock of *kitten*.

I use a body composition monitor which has been rated to be accurate within 2% +/-.

If my current BF% were 26-27%, then my UGW would be even higher, making me even further out of the "acceptably healthy" range.

It has foot and hand grips. About 10 pads in total.

I used to ride a lot 4 or 5 years ago. I'm sure my fat and muscle composition has changed a decent amount in those years. Since my injury, I've basically spent my entire life sitting on my butt.

I'm sorry but body builders and elite athletes are not part of the average population. By the time someone is in that category they do not need an instrument for the average population as a guideline. Look around you--the average person is overweight or obese. many will read this and say--well BMI means nothing--I'm just big boned and not obese.
It is not pleasant t look at the chart and see that you are obese--but it is a wake up call. It is frustrating to lose weight and still be considered overweight. For those of you who are elite fit, you are at the point where the number on the scale means less than your body fat %.
BUT the average person should not toss out BMI because it gives a large range of what is considered healthy. To just toss it out is to stay in denial.

I judge my UGW based on my current lean mass + a certain BF%. I was going by 15%, but decided that I should slow it down a bit and increased that number for a "One-step-at-a-time" goal. Once I've built up my fitness, then I'll aim for a lower BF%.

So I did the numbers. A healthy, relatively inactive male should have a BF% of 18-25%. 21% is half way in between, so I chose that as my goal.

I got the numbers from here: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/body-fat-chart.php

I currently have a BF% of about 35%. At 223 lbs, that makes my lean mass around 144 lbs. Put on enough fat to make it 21% fat, and my UGW is 179 lbs.

Well, I'm 6' tall. I checked out the BMI scale, and at that weight, I will be hitting 24.27.

"Overweight" is higher than 24.9.

Now, here's the thing: If I put on 2 lbs of muscle before I reach my UGW, I'll be 185 lbs, which is considered "overweight," but it'll be less healthy for me to try to achieve a lower BF% so quickly!

I will ultimately aim for a BF% of 10-15%, but by that time, I'll have put on a lot more muscle, I will probably still be around 180lbs.

So, for those of you who believe that you need to have a low BMI in order to be healthy, or sexy/attractive, you may want to think again. The BMI scale is flawed.

Oh, and I should note: I could make my BMI lower, but I'd have to lose lean mass. For those who aren't in the "know," that would be a very, very bad idea. You want more lean mass, not less. Lean mass being your muscles, bones, and organs.

Edit: Added the link.