Well, BMI isn't really something you can believe in or not :P but I get what you're saying.
BMI was invented as a quick and dirty tool to be applied across populations for sociological studies... not as an indicator of individual health. While I do think it's good as a rough guideline for what's a 'normal' weight, it's completely irrelevant to individual health (what we eat and how much we move is FAR more important to health than what we weigh).
As scales for the everyday home are becoming so much more detailed, accurate, and affordable (for example, the scales that can measure your body fat from muscles, etc), I think the BMI will be going out of style soon.
Of course, they are still slightly expensive, around $100-150.
Instead, the focus will be on our percentage of body fat in relation to our muscles, organs, skeletal frame, etc.
Originally Posted by amandie View Post
I'm with you! Though I do look at BMI for some personal milestones like getting out of the obese category and into the overweight category. After I get to 165ish, I'm just gonna focus on my body fat % and how I feel overall.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I so agree with this!
I use BMI to set my goal weight just because I know it's unrealistic lol. I know it seems counterintuitive, but I'm doing the "Reach for the sky, so if you fall you'll land among the stars" thing. I've always been curvy and according to the doctors, BMI has never been a really good indicator for me. I told our nurse my weight and she was like, "What????" I weigh much more than I am fat and BMI just doesn't take that into account.
I'm TOTALLY 1000000000% with you! BMI has NEVER worked for me. When I was fit, toned, muscular with hardly any fat on me, I was in a size 4/5 I weighed.....get this between 160/165lbs!!!!! YUP! I remember stepping on the scale when I hit my size goal and was MORTIFIED of my weight! It's what triggered me back up, believing I will never weigh 110lbs......but now, forget it. It's just how my body is, I have a med-large frame and killer muscles and kickass power (my trainer is so impressed with my power) I'm deadlifting 50lbs now he believes with my muscles and frame I will get to 220lbs once I hit my size goal! I'm 200lbs and my size 12's are starting to fall off! People are shocked I'm 200lbs, and in a size 12....cause you know what, IT'S MUSCLE, yes I still have fat galore, but it has a lot to do with body composition........so I'm with ya. BMI does not WORK FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!
Thank you! I have the exact same thing. When I weighed 180 I was a size 10. At 265 I'm a size 22, one of my friends weighs 270 and is a size 28. It is all body comp! I measure by body fat % Your post made me feel like I wasn't the only one in this situation!
Height: 5 ft 8.5" athlete who can give a punch & certainly take one too! :)
The problem with BMI is that it doesn't take muscle mass into account, for instance look at Venus & Serena Williams, who are both ROCK HARD SOLID MUSCLE MASS, it's no doubt that they are both leaner & healthier than their BMI would give them credit for! And many other peeps, including myself. So yeah BMI is sorta like BM being it is really $hit for true accuracy!
Thank you! I have the exact same thing. When I weighed 180 I was a size 10. At 265 I'm a size 22, one of my friends weighs 270 and is a size 28. It is all body comp! I measure by body fat % Your post made me feel like I wasn't the only one in this situation!
I'm SO glad! I don't know many women like us, its just hard to tell people your weight you know. Like when I was 240 I was in 16's, my friends were like "whatever you do not weigh 240lbs" Ahhhhh yeahhhhh I DOOOO. LOL It always made me feel so bad about myself, weighing so much. I always felt everyone thought I was lying! LOL Isn't that crazy?? It's a hard hump to get over especially when things like BMI tell you that for me I should be the higher end for my height at 130lbs....is it possible........I have no clue? All I know is that I'm going for a size 3 and stopping there. Smaller than I was at 160lbs at a size 4-5 so we'll see.
And evilwomaniamshe I LOVE your quote: weights do make you look good naked!!! LOL
I will use myself as an example. The BMI guideline puts the top of the "healthy" weight range for a 5'5" woman at 150 pounds. For the longest time, I thought, that doesn't apply to me; I could never, ever be healthy at 150 pounds. After all, I am built like an ox, with strong muscles and a very powerful core, and I have very large breasts. So I must be one of those people who falls outside the average range that the BMI charts cover.
Well, guess what? I now weigh 164 pounds, less than I've weighed in 23 years. And I have to tell you that looking at my body now, 150 pounds seems totally reasonable and doable to me. Looking at my body fat percentage (still around 28%), looking at my saddlebags and my belly, I can readily stand to lose another 15 or 20 pounds, putting me well within the "healthy" range for those BMI standards, despite all my muscle and boobs.
The more I lose, the more I realize this is going to be true for me too. I've spent a few decades convincing myself of that. Well, I don't believe it any more! I do agree that BMI isn't the be all and end all. But I also think a healthy BMI is a far more achievable number than a lot of people give themselves credit for. I mean, sure, I understand that not everyone wants to get there and that's fine. But I think that more people are CAPABLE of getting there if they wanted to. And I'm not even sure that I will end up losing all the way down to officially put me at a healthy BMI - I may feel that I am good at a slightly higher number and want to put more of that energy into long term maintenance instead.
Now, whether not getting to a healthy BMI has an adverse impact on health is another story. Personally, I can't believe the changes I've felt in my body in the past 60 lbs, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the next 30, 40, or ?? (not sure where I'll stop) will bring. But I am not necessarily convinced that 166 is going to be THAT much different than 156, you know? But I am absolutely sure that 166 is a far cry from 261!!
Having a goal of a higher BMI, isn't necessarily "settling for less," because optimal fitness (not just "average" fitness) almost inevitably puts a person into the overweight category. Healthy BMI may not only be acheivable, it may be surpassable. Using only BMI, the "overweight" category doesn't distinguish between those who have extra fat (unhealthy) or those who have extra muscle (not necessarily unhealthy).
As a result, "healthy BMI" is a bit of a misnomer.
My husband has a friend who is in the "obese" category of BMI, despite being incredibly lean, because BMI assumes an "average" amount of muscle, not the "fittest" amount of muscle.
If you saw this man in shorts without his shirt, you would laugh at the idea that he could be considered "obese," or even "overweight."
Yes, he is capable of "achieving a healthy BMI" - but only by losing muscle (because he doesn't have fat to spare, the muscle definition on this guy is incredible). Reaching a healthy BMI for him would be possible only by reducing his health and fitness.
You can be "at a healthy BMI" and yet have more fat and less muscle than you should (sometimes people call this being "skinny fat").
If you have more muscle than "average" (which is a very good thing), you're very likely going to be "overweight" by BMI calculations.
Now, I have no illusions that I am currently at a healthy BMI. In fact, with my physicial limitations, the odds are that I will get into a "healthy BMI" weight category, long before I have a "healthy" ratio of fat to muscle.
Well, BMI isn't really something you can believe in or not :P but I get what you're saying.
BMI was invented as a quick and dirty tool to be applied across populations for sociological studies... not as an indicator of individual health. While I do think it's good as a rough guideline for what's a 'normal' weight, it's completely irrelevant to individual health (what we eat and how much we move is FAR more important to health than what we weigh).
I'm with this!
BMI is One indicator. And actually, works pretty well for me - my top 'normal' is a very good weight for me. I suspect the nearer a good weight one gets, the less applicable BMI is as an indicator of health.
I've read people (Not in this thread!!) who are massively overweight - as I am at the moment - complaining that BMI is not a true indicator for them either; and I alternate between being sad for them and throwing bricks at the laptop - BMI may not be the be all and end all but if one is 50/60/70/100lbs overweight then there's no point pretending that it's all BMI's fault that we get a high reading on it.
Your post made me feel like I wasn't the only one in this situation!
