Yeah, it's always good to think of the BMI as just a basic guide. Some of the weights that I see for my height seem almost unattainable. I am shooting for the top of "normal" for my height.
Look at all those gorgeous women (and men) regardless of their size or BMI label.
What I found interesting was that I didn't think the "underweight" girls were really that "skinny". I would consider them very thin but normal. But I suppose this "obese" girl is probably a bit biased.
BMI doesn't take muscle mass into account. A very athletic person with a low body fat percentage will look very different at the same BMI as a sedentary person with a much lower lean body mass. It's just another tool, not perfect, but can be used as a general guideline, IMO. Common sense has to prevail in the end.
I think a much better indicator is body composition -- body fat, muscle mass, etc. But that's harder to measure accurately. It's easy to find a scale and a measuring tape.
I don't think the BMI scale itself is that far off, though the designation of "normal" is a little low for real people nowadays. It's a scale of averages, not meant to be absolute for individuals. A slide-show of some 50 people to whom it does not apply isn't surprising, especially since they probably collected tons and tons of photos to put it together (and, honestly, anyone can make themselves look ten pounds lighter or heavier with clothes and camera angles).
I agree that body composition and basic intuition are the best ways to go.
I've seen this before. It helps me because now I realize that I'll be perfectly happy in the overweight category- those are the people that looked the best to me. According to BMI because of my height I could be normal and weight under 100 lbs. That would not be normal or natural for me.
Most of the people in the underweight, normal, and overweight categories to me looked like - they were just at their normal for them. nobody looked really pudgy and nobody looked like they had an eating disorder.
I thought this was absolutely brilliant. So often, I've been in the "overweight" category and looking at myself in the mirror thinking, "really? I am that bad?" and letting my self-esteem be affected because of a number on a chart.
BMI is pretty silly actually. It takes no account into how fit you are, or body make up. Someone who is 250lbs is most likely considered obese, and a person who weighs 140 lbs is normal. However, BMI doens't consider things things like the person who weighs 250 lbs has a 3% body fat, and the person who weighs 140 lbs has a 34% body fat. So who's really healither? BMI is pointless.
BMI is useful as a tool to evaluate populations. At the individual level, body fat percentages are the way to go, but it's quite expensive to get an accurate test. The BMI charts are a guide for body fat, because when you look at thousands of people, the ones with more weight are USUALLY the ones with more fat. Some "normal" weight people should actually fall into the "overweight/obese" categories because of their body fat percentages, and vice-versa. It really tells you next to nothing about an individual, and isn't intended to.
On a side note, I got to have my body fat tested for a class (cool but totally intimidating). My lab partner and I had the same body fat percentage (29%), but my BMI was 27 and hers was 22! That lab really helped me shake off the feeling of failure the BMI charts gave me.
THE BMI SCALE a photographic look
