Weight Loss News and Current Events - New BMI index published - affects shorter, taller ends of spectrum




JayZeeJay
01-29-2013, 02:43 PM
This was just published. The mathematician explains that the current BMI calculation will underestimate BMI for shorter people, and overestimate it for taller people. The new BMI calculator is linked in the article and I tried it. My BMI is unchanged. Apparently my height is very average for all people combined. But my 6' boyfriend dropped about 0.5 points. Interesting explanation for math/science geeks (hand raised).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21229387


penmage
01-29-2013, 02:49 PM
Yuck! I don't like the new one at ALL. On the old scale, at 164 pounds I am right at a BMI of 30.0 (sooo close!), but on this new one, 164 puts me at 31.07- not a gigantic difference, but I still don't like it!

I'll follow the new one once I'm at my goal weight ;)

bargoo
01-29-2013, 03:23 PM
Mine increased as well.


April Snow
01-29-2013, 03:24 PM
I like the new one. At 5'7", it puts my current BMI down .2, and I also get an extra pound at the borders between obese/overweight and overweight/normal.

Avezy44
01-29-2013, 03:44 PM
According to this I could weigh as little as 115 and still be considered normal... idk about that.. maybe.

CherryQuinn
01-29-2013, 03:45 PM
Meh still says im obese as a size 10 so don't put much stock in it. Sure I'm a fat 10 but well into the obese? I don't think so lol

April Snow
01-29-2013, 04:29 PM
Meh still says im obese as a size 10 so don't put much stock in it. Sure I'm a fat 10 but well into the obese? I don't think so lol

Your bones must be made of lead if you are a size 10 at 211 lbs! :lol: Seriously, that is impressive - you must work out a LOT! I am the same height as you, and when I got down to 198, I was still a 1X top and size 14 or 15 jeans.

berryblondeboys
01-29-2013, 04:32 PM
Your bones must be made of lead if you are a size 10 at 211 lbs! :lol: Seriously, that is impressive - you must work out a LOT! I am the same height as you, and when I got down to 198, I was still a 1X top and size 14 or 15 jeans.

I read somewhere else that she has an apple shape?

It's all in how you are built too.

I wear a size 10 and can wear it between weights 175-195. Though at 195 I was feeling squeezed. And my shape now in my mid-40s is straight up and down (or at least I feel like it - waist is 35 and hips are 42).

Melissa

Radiojane
01-29-2013, 05:20 PM
Mine drops slightly, which is good, because I am quite tall

gailr42
01-29-2013, 05:40 PM
It doesn't pay to be short. All of a sudden I am obese again. Rats!

ImImportant
01-29-2013, 05:49 PM
I thought it was just me. I went up too, bah! Eyes closed, ears plugged...I didn't see it, I didn't see it, I did't see it....!

berryblondeboys
01-29-2013, 05:54 PM
Well, it's almost good for me. If I say I'm 5'6" I will still be overweight at 160, but if I put in 5'7" I will be JUST within normal BMI. I'm in between these heights, so it's probably not moving me into the "ok" range even with a slight change for the better for me.

But I don't much stock in those arbitrary lines and neither did the scientist as he called the middle area fuzzy and the line arbitrary.

Silverfire
01-29-2013, 05:58 PM
Mine drops too, no complaints here :D

CherryQuinn
01-29-2013, 06:17 PM
Your bones must be made of lead if you are a size 10 at 211 lbs! :lol: Seriously, that is impressive - you must work out a LOT! I am the same height as you, and when I got down to 198, I was still a 1X top and size 14 or 15 jeans.

Its a combination of things. I don't work out a lot per se but I have a decent amount of muscle mass (genetics? walking? dancing?) and as well after loosing the amount I did a percentage of that 211lbs is slack skin. It doesn't hang but im very squishy and wrinkly in some areas. Also my weight is very evenly distributed around my body. I don't have one big trouble area so much as everywhere is a problem :P As well some people have a tendency, not saying you did this, but some girls and guys overestimate their height. I have people on a daily basis argue with me til they are blue in the face that I'm 5'11-6 feet tall cause they think themselves 5'7 and I'm like half a foot taller than they are lol so I think thats part of the reason I'm a smaller size than a portion of the '5'7' girls.

@berryblonde if you mean me by the apple shape thing, I'm large chested but not apple shape. My chest and hip measurements are the same with my waist 8 inches smaller than both. So hourglass/banana type deal. On top I take large-xl depending on the make and a size small/medium mens t shirt.

It weirds me out to that im that size at this weight but I guess its just how I'm built. I know some people probably think I'm lieing or fooling myself but I got out of a taxi other day with a pair of 12s on and I had to grab them as they were on their way to the ground. Would of been a rather embarrassing sight.

I'm not a smoothed out flat size 10. I got rolls and bumps and a belly, I look very different than a toned size 10 or a size 10 that didnt get there through luck in a body shape lottery lol I'll probably be a size 6 before I look flat.

vabs
01-29-2013, 06:25 PM
Mine went down by 0.08 points. :dunno:

Nikel1979
01-29-2013, 06:29 PM
Mine dropped an entire point. I'm tall with a lot of muscle, so I don't pay much attention to BMI. I'm still obese, but my size 14 pants are getting to big. I care more about that than I do about my BMI.

Skellig19
01-29-2013, 07:09 PM
I went from Obese to Overweight! woot woot! I was nearing the Overweight moniker anyway. About 4 lbs away...

Not that I put much stock into it but finally, it's advantagious to be tall!

Magrat
01-29-2013, 07:48 PM
This blows. My bmi went up more than a point. Under this new system I am essentially six pounds fatter, and further away from my goal than ever.

Tall people already had all the advantages ( needs more calories so more room to create a livable deficit, small flucuations don't mean a bigger size, etc) when it comes to weight loss.

Why do they have to have this one too?

AlmostMe
01-30-2013, 06:00 PM
BMI is a bunch of crap. I'm average height, but muscular and 'large framed' (according to the Dukan test). I'm a prop forward in rugby, if that means anything to you. I'm fat - and I'm willing to admit that at my current weight I'm obese, but for me the BMI boundaries don't make sense. They're not way, way off, but enough off. I haven't even checked the new BMI.

Amy8888
01-30-2013, 06:15 PM
Another reason for us short people to be jealous of you tall folks. :P

In my mind, my goal weight is 145. That is still slightly overweight according to the old BMI, and seems solidly overweight according to the new one. I'd have to be 140 (old) or 135 (new) to be normal. At first I thought I should move my goal weight, but the new calculation made me want to stick with 145. It just seems more realistic and sustainable to me, and I can't see myself living at 135 (just because 145 was my lowest weight as an adult after losing weight).

ChickieChicks
01-30-2013, 06:24 PM
I read this yesterday, and I am so upset by it! Illogically so, but it really bothers me that short people are getting the shaft on this one!

I took this picture today after coming home from my Zumba class. Here I am, less than 4 pounds from be "overweight". :dizzy:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/babyheckel/IMG_0011_zps3d553dca.jpg

I am not a weight-lifter, but I must have good muscle mass, because my body fat % is consistently calculated at 20% using calipers. I guess I could be smuggling bricks in my yoga pants, but it just irks me that I have worked so hard and come so far, and now I am supposedly just a cheeseburger away from being overweight!!


GRRRRRR! (breathing deeply...)

VermontMom
01-30-2013, 06:54 PM
JayZeeJay, thanks for posting that link! I'm just happy to see that I'm considered 'normal' :dance:

I read this yesterday, and I am so upset by it! Illogically so, but it really bothers me that short people are getting the shaft on this one!

I took this picture today after coming home from my Zumba class. Here I am, less than 4 pounds from be "overweight". :dizzy:

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/babyheckel/IMG_0011_zps3d553dca.jpg

I am not a weight-lifter, but I must have good muscle mass, because my body fat % is consistently calculated at 20% using calipers. I guess I could be smuggling bricks in my yoga pants, but it just irks me that I have worked so hard and come so far, and now I am supposedly just a cheeseburger away from being overweight!!

GRRRRRR! (breathing deeply...)

ChickieChick, you got NUTTIN to worry about!! props on the awesome pic from today...and I went back to check your Goal story and if I were you, I would show the bikini pic and then the later one to strangers on the street :devil:

AlmostMe
01-31-2013, 02:30 AM
Here's a very geeky article on BMI http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html

Mine went up by .5 - I note that there wasn't an explanation of the change to the formula in the article.

ChickieBoom
01-31-2013, 04:29 PM
I'm going to have to lose an additional 3 pounds to hit the normal range...great.

LockItUp
02-01-2013, 07:28 AM
According to this I could weigh as little as 115 and still be considered normal... idk about that.. maybe.

And according to the original BMI for 5'6" (I'm that height too) 114 is the bottom of normal. I imagine that is much to thin for *most* people our height! But for me too the top range of BMI still leaves me looking chubby. I think we're both at that happy medium place!



BMI will be argued FOREVER unless/until it goes away. It's HUGE range for each height as it is, then you have people argue the top range is too LOW and some will even argue the bottom range is too HIGH. I mean body frame and muscle mass taken into account, maybe there's no way to have an average. Maybe doctors should start taking body fat to determine level of overweight-ness/obesity. I don't really see a way to make BMI acceptable to everyone, it won't ever be. It's simply an average, for the average person, with average bone structure/frame, and average muscle mass. But how many people are average!? Probably the majority, but certainly not all!

krampus
02-01-2013, 01:01 PM
Your new BMI: 20.71
Your old BMI: 20.47

I'm one of those people who would look fine at the bottom BMI threshold, but look like a fat mess too close to the borderline.

JayZeeJay
02-01-2013, 02:10 PM
I note that there wasn't an explanation of the change to the formula in the article.

There is - if you click the link at the bottom of the article, it goes to the mathematician's webpage at Oxford and the complete derivation is cited.
That was really why I posted this, his explanation is interesting (or funny). He faults the prior formula for having a ^2 exponent, and says that we live in a three-dimensional world.

AlmostMe
02-04-2013, 08:38 AM
@JayZeeJay - Ok, thanks for the prompt to go back! We live in 3 dimensional world so let's raise it to the power of 2.5 - 'cos some days we feel a little bit, ya' know - flat.

Why not CUBE it - give tall folks a real advantage. What a laugh!

JayZeeJay
02-04-2013, 02:57 PM
AlmostMe: I know right? It really does seem that arbitrary!

And as several other people have commented, I agree that BMI isn't the greatest universal measure. It doesn't differentiate at all between lean mass and fat, or between subcutaneous and visceral fat - it's a weak measure of overall health in that respect.

And as a "lady", I always feel shortchanged by BMI. I read somewhere that D cup breasts can weigh up to 18 lbs. How does BMI account for our "endowments"? Because breast weight has a very different health impact than 18 lbs of visceral fat has.

My .02-

sontaikle
02-04-2013, 05:18 PM
as a shortie, my BMI went up slightly.

I too think that body fat should trump BMI. There are too many variables otherwise when it comes to the BMI range.

I have to say though, at the top range of the healthy BMI for my height I still felt (and looked) chubby. The bottom was too low for me, so I'm quite happy in the low middle.

KittieKat
02-07-2013, 09:53 PM
I went from very obese to obese, I'll take it :) LOL
Your new BMI: 39.31
Your old BMI: 40.32

ControlW
02-16-2013, 04:22 PM
Here's a very geeky article on BMI http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html

For those of you who aren't quite so nerdy, what Devlin says in this article is that the BMI is, in its essence, a quick and dirty way of estimating the measurement of people's waistlines given that historical medical records don't usually track that information. (I've tried this out. I've divided my BMI by my waist measurement for a number of different moments in time, and I always get close to the same number.)

Devlin's article has thoroughly convinced me of the value and limits of BMI: It's like a waistline measurement, but not as good, and subject to all the limits of waistline measurement. The thing to remember with BMI is "quick and dirty" or, to quote the BBC, "cheap and cheerful." I wouldn't even dream of using it as a the way of determining if I were healthy or fat or anything else, since I have a whole bunch of more precise measurements at my disposal for that.

Rant over. Thanks for listening.

PatPat
07-18-2014, 04:17 PM
It says my new healthy weight range is between 36 and 48 kg.
I disapprove of that. I have been under 40 kgs once and it was visibly underweight.....

jeminijad
07-20-2014, 11:45 AM
Everyone wants to complain about BMI when its inventors - and maintainers - only meant it as a tool for populations. They clearly can't take detailed arm/waist/thigh measurements of everyone, or put them in a Bod Pod. And mortality/morbidity wise, there are trends. It gives them SOME information.

Of course personal body fat measurements and individualized attention is better for individuals. Do people expect epidemiologists and statisticians to be magicians?

I will say that I tend to roll my eyes a bit at the tendency many of us have to say "oh the bottom range of the BMI is just too skinny/I look gaunt there/the overweight range is actually healthy for me because of my big bones." You have got to remind yourself - forcibly if necessary - that you have grown up in a society where over half of adults are carrying too much fat. Your internal visual gauges are different than they would be if you grew up in Paris or Japan. Also, if you've always been over 200lbs, imagining yourself at 120 is just... foreign. 150 or 160 feels safer, more achievable, less foreign. Doesn't actually mean that you couldn't be healthy lower and that your ideal weight might not be lower. I don't know, only you being honest with yourself can know.

There is a thread in the Goal forum of a British girl who lost 100ish lbs. After the first 50, she looked great! My American eyes were very happy with how she looked, and would not have thought that she could lose another 50 and still look wonderful. Well, she did, and it really helped me reassess my own goals.