Well, not really lies, but definitely inaccurate. My Dh who is 5'11" and weighs 185lbs is considered overweight according to the charts. My DH has virtually no fat on him and definitely not overweight. So I'm thinking how can it possibly be accurate. How can they lead so many into believing that their weight is unhealthy without taking into consideration a person's body frame or muscle mass. Lumping everyone together and creating one chart is impossible. I think they should have some type of disclaimer saying that the results aren't accurate. Judging how much fat someone has just by height and weight is ridiculous. I know that a more accurate result can be achieved through the use of calipers and the water tank, but it's not like they tell everyone that.
Sorry, I just had to vent. It's just irritating. This all came about because my DH and I was trying to get a quote for life insurance because there's a big possibility that he will be deployed and the quote they gave us was high. They based it on his height and weight and according to the BMI chart my extremely fit husband was considered overweight. Such BS. He has to take a physical if we want a lower rate. Of course, this is ridiculous because he's in the military and they have a weight cut-off point and he's required to have a physical every year.
I rely fairly heavily on the BMI chart, only because I know that my healthy BMI range is my healthy weight range as well. At the end of my weight loss journey, I will have a physical to check everything (fat mass vs. muscle mass, VO2 max, etc.), but for now I check my BMI with every recorded loss.
Will the insurance company take his last physical records as evidence of his health? If he's had one in the last year, I bet that would be a fairly accurate depiction of his level of fitness. I can certainly understand why they're doing it -- I've known quite a few military-persons that were well overweight as well as (of course) civilians and I'm sure they all got charged higher rates. Also, I doubt they're allowed to take you and your DH's word for it that he's healthier than their BMI indicates; I'm sure they need hard evidence. They've got to cover their backs when it comes to premiums.
I've seen disclaimers in places about the BMI chart where they've stated it does not apply to heavily muscled individuals. I mean, look at the guys on the cover of Muscle and Fitness....some of them would be considered obese by their BMI! Crazeeeee!
Unfortunately, places like insurance companies just don't think that progressively. Its easier to rubber-stamp everyone and then require you to go the extra mile to show them why you're different. It's a business advantage to make you spend the extra time and money proving your point, instead of them having to do it. Sux....
My BMI says that I am obese. And my number is 30. One one chart and I have done it on another chart and it said 39. So go figure. You think there would be a standard chart out there somewhere. It is very depressing.
I think they should go by body fat %. Granted there are still differences in body types but at least it is more accurate and gives a more accurate scale.. your height isn't gonna change! LOL
Insurance companies are a racket. My husband is 5'7 and weighs 120 pounds average and probably has ohhh 2% body fat. He is a bicyclist and is all lean muscle. He doesn't smoke, drink and has no medical issues. He was considered high risk by several insurance companies due to being "underweight". He comes from a family who are all petite and under 95 pounds. Didn't matter that his previous medical history showed he had no medical issues. I know his sister is battling right now because the niece is being tagged as anorexic and high risk by the insurance company.
It basically sucks for people at both ends of the spectrum. The companies need to get a clue.
My BMI was overweight when I was a gymnast, but because the weight was mainly muscle I was never concerned. It still doesn't make you feel good, though!
BMI was developed some time in between 1830 and 1850 by a Belgian mathematician/sociologist. He was not a doctor. How can something developed over 150 years ago be relevant for us today? Nutrition is so different in this day and age. People are taller than they used to be and people exercise differently.
Even though I think that the top range of a healthy BMI for my height is a good weight for me, that is just my situation. However, I think I would be too thin in the mid-healthy BMI range for my height.
BMI was developed some time in between 1830 and 1850 by a Belgian mathematician/sociologist. He was not a doctor.
That totally explains it. I had no idea it was developed so long ago and by someone who wasn't even a doctor. You would think that the importance it is given, particularly, with overweight patients that it would have been developed by doctors.
BMI chart and the lies it tells...........
