[improbable]

I found this image again in replying to someone else's post and thought it deserved to be shared here, as it always puts things in perspective for me. It's a graph of mortality vs. BMI - and it shows that the BMI range of 25-27 is just as healthy as 19-21, even though it's considered technically overweight. It all depends on your body type. It also helps reinforce both how strange BMI categories are (if this is the rationale, why is 19-21 ideal and 25-27 overweight?) and also how our society is focused on a degree of thinness that is not only unattainable for many, but often truly unhealthy.

This certainly isn't to discourage anyone off of losing to THEIR ideal, it's just a reminder not to take the 'ideal weight' charts so seriously, especially if it doesn't feel right for YOUR body.

[mandalinn82]

Thanks for sharing! The version of this graphic that I've seen actually has the bottom of the curve higher...at somewhere in the BMI of 27 or so. One of the main reasons I think BMI is an imperfect tool...

[ubergirl]

I'd just like to point out that the graph is a little bit misleading.

There was a study done that indicated that the risk of mortality increases as BMI decreases, which that graph shows, and that study got a lot of publicity.

However, as with all statistics, it needs to be put in context.

This study did not prove that it's "just as healthy to have a BMI of 25-27"

What is showed was that people with underweight BMI have a slightly higher risk of dying from all causes than people with an overweight BMI.

Remember, that includes EVERYONE. Most people die when they are both old and ill.

The study did not separate out for cause of death-- so just bear in mind that many critically ill people get underweight due to health conditions such as cancer before they die.

Think about people in a nursing home, for example. It may well be true that it's healthier to be a robust 87 year old with a BMI of 25 than a frail 87 year old with a BMI of 17.

BMI is supposed to be a screening tool, not the final indicator of health and weight. As is well known, a trained athlete can have a high BMI and be in peak condition.

But, the majority of data indicates that on a variety of measures, it is healthier to be a normal weight.

[paris81]

Very interesting! Thanks for posting this. I guess they need some type of general guideline for everyone, just to have a consensus on what's healthy and what's not on average, but it's too bad that people don't realize that it's not necessarily useful for the individual.

[Marjolein]

Originally Posted by ubergirl

But, the majority of data indicates that on a variety of measures, it is healthier to be a normal weight.

Of course it is! And for me getting healthy (ier) is more important than a number like my weight/BMI. The number is a good tool to check if I'm doing ok, but that's all.
Apart from being overweight, at the moment I'm 'healthy'. And yes I know, many of you are now going to tell me that being overweight is an illness in itself. But I don't want to be hung up on a number and get all frustrated over it. That's not healthy for my heart!
So I'm loosing weight through trying to be healthy.

Marjolein

[nitestar]

Thanks for the great reminder. I've never put much stock in BMI numbers because I'm 5' 0", and when I weight 135 lbs, I'm a size 4 and my BMI says I'm very overweight, and I disagree with that!