There are a lot of crackpot scientists out there, FYI. A glaring omission of BMI charts like that is that muscle weighs more than fat. (And I’m the one who said yes, I’m that height and weight, and am overweight.)
Sure, it’s not perfect, Ferret Herder. You’re right that muscle weighs more than fat, but it’s not lead versus cotton, and most people aren’t muscular enough for that to matter. It’s not going to work on Ronnie Coleman, but you know what a bell curve is. Some people do fall at the end of it. To believe that almost everyone who sees their BMI falls at the end of it is stretching things.
BMI indicators call me just barely overweight, and that’s pretty accurate. I’m a little over 6’4" and weigh 220 pounds. Science has confirmed what I already knew; cheeseburgers and coca-cola lead to weight issues.
That’s the problem, though - many people do think it’s supposed to be perfectly descriptive. It’s science, right? I could say “yay I’m normal, I can even gain some weight and still be average!” as per the linked BMI chart, but I’m not. If I converted the 10 lbs of extra padding to muscle, then sure, that’d be true. There’s such a thing as being too simplistic.
FWIW, proportional bodyfat measurement is a much better gauge for overall fitness. Getting accurate and precise measurement of it is a somewhat different matter.
Hmmm . . . I disagree. 1) it applies to most people, 2) your doctor will tell you if you’re the exception 3) I’ve never seen anyone say it’s perfect. All the BMI websites have explanations of its shortcomings on them.
And, really, the “converting” fat to muscle, and “oh I’m the same weight but I lost fat and gained muscle” is mostly a myth perpetrated by the diet/exercise and personal training industries. There are kernels of truth in there as in most myths but the bottom line is that if you can grab even a small handful of fat anywhere besides your boobs or ass, you need to lose weight, and you probably know it. I will never understand why people have such a hard time admitting it.
I’m surprised you would like to lose 10 to 15. I’m 6’3", 185, and I figure I need 10 to 15 just to look average (I’ve been skinny all my life).
hmm… I’d agree, you’re borderline overweight.
I’m 5’10 and 154 pounds. Medium build. And I think I’m maybe 7 or 8 pounds more than I should be.
I’m also reasonably muscley so you can’t use that excuse. You’re about 14 pounds overweight.
I did a little bit of simplifying. I’m more like 6’4&3/4ths" and 198lbs. Ten to 15lbs really isn’t much on a guy my size. It’d just firm me up a bit and make all my favorite activities easier on the knees.
In this case,the science is on the side of the folks here saying it’s not accurate. Waist/hip ratio is a much better indicator of fatness.
On the other hand, this also means that plenty of people who are in the “normal” category BMI-wise would fall into an unhealthy category by waist/hip ratio.
Misleading. If you’re built like Brad Pitt or David Beckham, no one is measuring your BMI. The vaaaaaaaaast majority of Americans are not built like Brad Pitt or David Beckham. I doubt more than one or two, if any, SDMB members are.
You can be ‘science, science, science’ without claiming that every aspect of science is always correct. I’m not sure the BMI is terribly scientific anyway.
And not everyone who finds fault with the BMI is ‘fat.’ :rolleyes:
Well, a lot of times it’s just an excuse, but some people really ARE big-bones, or rather, large FRAMES. My aunt, for one, is 6 ft, she’s got very broad shoulders, hips, etc. She’s not fat-but she’s built big.
As for “frames” being bigger, I just didn’t know how to phrase it. Everyone’s body is different. I say, as long as you feel comfortable with how you look, you’re healthy, in good shape, and your doctor says you’re okay, if the BMI tells you’re over and/or under weight, ignore it.
Actually, I’d add to this that the charts for children are the ones that make the least sense to me. My daughter really, really is not in the slightest bit overweight, and I don’t mean compared to those around her, but looking at the tiny amount of fat she has on her body (she’s ten), but she has a couple of friends the same age (not in her class) who are definitely well overweight; if she’s in the 75th-90th centile, then they must be off the charts. The charts should account for those kids too. They’re meant to be about average weights, not ideal. My daughter did see her place on the charts, though, and kept saying that she was fat. If you’d ever met her, you’d know how ridiculous that was.
So I admit that I’m adding my ire regarding kids’ weight charts to my WTFness regarding the BMI. The BMI doesn’t seem to me to be very useful, really, but it’s not *quite *as nonsensical as the charts for kids.
Here’s a quote from wikipedia that might make my point clearer.
So, in other words, according the bolded parts, MORE people may meet obesity standards under body fat measurements than BMI measurements. Inaccuracy is inaccuracy, whether it’s in favor of people trying to argue that they couldn’t possibly be as fat as their BMI suggests, or against them.
How so? When I weighed 10-15 pounds more than I do now, my hip to waist ratio was still only .4 higher than it is now. (.76 vs .72) Even at .76 you get praised by the calculator for having a shape that puts you at “reduced risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes and stroke” - but I was clearly overweight then, and could still stand to lose a few more pounds. From what I’ve read, there isn’t much women can do to change their waist-hip ratio, because you’ll gain or lose from your waist and hips at approximately the same rate.
What the studies are starting to narrow down is that “being overweight” as a general rule doesn’t seem to be the biggest factor in disease risk, but that where you gain fat plays a bigger role. Even at 10-15 pounds heavier, you weren’t carrying all your extra weight in the belly.
Here’s one article - it’s late and I can’t right now find a good cite. It doesn’t really cover the health differences between two people with the same BMI but different waist/hip ratios.
A little nitpick- muscle doesn’t weigh more than fat. A pound of one thing can’t weigh more than a pound of another thing. People who are saying this mean a ten pounds glob of muscle is more compact than a ten pound glob of fat.
Jen, you’re missing the point that people with an abundance of lean muscle mass aren’t getting their BMI taken to see if they need to lose weight. The muscle vs. fat thing is a red herring.
About 15 years ago when I was young and slender, I was almost turned down for an insurance policy for being underweight…I went in for the insurance physical and the doctor weighed me in at 127 ( I’m 5’7"), recorded my weight at 129, showed me what he’d done and told me I needed to gain the two pounds. It seems to me now, looking back, that he was trying to tweak my BMI to a number over 20.
These days, the lower limit for a healthy female is 18.5. That means a 5’7" female can weigh in at 118 and still be healthy. When I weighed 118 back in 1983, I had stopped having periods and my doctors were very concerned and ordered me to “pig out constantly”.
So I think the definition of overweight keeps sliding back and causing more of us get scolded for being “overweight”.