I hate the BMI Index
07-14-2010, 02:35 PM
#11
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Atlanta/Germany/Afghanistan
Posts: 64
BMI is a pretty outdated statistic. When I was in high school I wrestled at the higher weights 160 and 171, and I was great shape, but even then my BMI was in the "overweight" range. It's odd for someone who was 13% bf at the time to be "overweight." It just goes to show you how flawed BMI is. The BMI index seems like it was made for those long and slender body types, when its applied to someone with a stockier more muscular build the chart can definitely be way off, not just a little off.
For example I'm 5-10 and 218lbs my BMI is 31 which puts me in obese range. I currently am 21% body fat which is actually on the low end of overweight. And when I reach my goal weight of 180 I will still be in the "overweight" range. To me it seems like the BMI chart thinks you should be all skin and bones or have the physique of a marathon runner, when I want the physique of a sprinter.
For example I'm 5-10 and 218lbs my BMI is 31 which puts me in obese range. I currently am 21% body fat which is actually on the low end of overweight. And when I reach my goal weight of 180 I will still be in the "overweight" range. To me it seems like the BMI chart thinks you should be all skin and bones or have the physique of a marathon runner, when I want the physique of a sprinter.
07-23-2010, 12:37 AM
#12
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10
When I was 275 lbs, my body fat % was 31%. An ideal body fat was recommended to me as 15%. Using their formula, I would be 15% at 212 lbs. The BMI index recommends I weigh between 128 and 176 lbs. According to the numbers, if I lost ALL OF MY BODY FAT I WOULD STILL WEIGH 190 AND BE OVERWEIGHT.
If there is anyone out there with a similar height/weight issue I would appreciate hearing from as to how they approach their diet/exercise program.
If there is anyone out there with a similar height/weight issue I would appreciate hearing from as to how they approach their diet/exercise program.
07-23-2010, 07:03 AM
#14
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 25
I agree that BMI is not that useful but then we all think we're large framed.
I was once 185 lbs and 5'6" and had 12% according to calibers. Well, after about 10-12 years of sitting on the couch and eating poorly I'm now 230. Just had a bodpod done and I'm 43% bf.
So over the course of several years I've lose around 25-30 lbs of lean mass and replaced it weith 60 pounds of fat. My bone structure is large for my height 54" shoulders at 12% bf.
Inactivity and poor diet will strip you of a lot of lean mass.
I was once 185 lbs and 5'6" and had 12% according to calibers. Well, after about 10-12 years of sitting on the couch and eating poorly I'm now 230. Just had a bodpod done and I'm 43% bf.
So over the course of several years I've lose around 25-30 lbs of lean mass and replaced it weith 60 pounds of fat. My bone structure is large for my height 54" shoulders at 12% bf.
Inactivity and poor diet will strip you of a lot of lean mass.
08-19-2010, 09:52 AM
#17
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
I'm in the same boat. I'm 6 feet tall, and have always been in the overweight/obese column of the BMI chart. Even when I was 21 years old, in the best shape of my life, and working out several hours a day, my weight only got down to about 195. At that time, I couldn't "pinch an inch" of fat anywhere on my body.
My understanding is that the waist vs. neck method is prone to inaccuracy, calipers depend on the person doing it and where they pinch, and the only real way to get an accurate BMI test is to shell out the money for a hydrostatic water tank test.
My doctor promotes the idea that there is no gauge or method that is nearly as accurate as the mirror and your thumb and index finger. If you like how you look in the mirror and you pass the old special K test, then don't worry about the numbers.
My understanding is that the waist vs. neck method is prone to inaccuracy, calipers depend on the person doing it and where they pinch, and the only real way to get an accurate BMI test is to shell out the money for a hydrostatic water tank test.
My doctor promotes the idea that there is no gauge or method that is nearly as accurate as the mirror and your thumb and index finger. If you like how you look in the mirror and you pass the old special K test, then don't worry about the numbers.
08-19-2010, 11:49 AM
#18
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The wonderful south.
Posts: 196
I made my goal a couple weeks ago of 240. My long-term goal is to stay in the 230s, keep doing 4-5 full workouts with both cardio and resistances and keep with my jogging (doing 2- 5 mile runs a week). I feel like I'm in the best shape of my adult life but if I go by the BMI thing, I need to loose over 20 more pounds just to be in the normal range (I'm 6-5). I take it for what it is worth, an out of date government chart. My wife, family and friends all agree that I do not need to loose a lot more weight but I am still working on firming the belly some more. It also states that the normal healthy range for a person my height goes down to 156 pounds. 6-5 and 156 lbs. Not sure I can agree with that unless the guy has no muscle.
08-24-2010, 10:28 AM
#20
FitDay Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NorCal
Posts: 566
Do it! It's money well spent. I did it back in July and it was 49bux & 39 bux to retest. I'm re-testing Oct. 1st to see if I've gotten to my target BF% which is 10%.
