Thank you for saying this better than I could. Some shapes carry fat better than other shapes. An hourglass figure, for example, can really pack on the pounds before it starts looking chubby. How your fat looks doesn’t really mean anything medically.
I think a lot of people think “I don’t have huge jiggling rolls, so I must be fine.” In reality, a medically normal weight is pretty actively skinny. Even for guys- healthy looks pretty darn skinny. It’s not just the absence of obvious obesity. We simply don’t get all that many calories a day to work with.
I’m heavy for my size because I’m muscular ( 5’ 7", 145 lbs, size 6-8), and according to the calculator my BMI is 22.1. So I guess I’m with the majority here. I had the caliper test done once, that’s supposed to be more accurate.
But really the calculator just gives you a WAG. Don’t body builders or anyone with massive amounts of muscle have high BMIs despite very low body fat?
Also, shouldn’t there be a given, albeit slight, difference between men and women? Women tend to carry a bit more fat and less muscle than men naturally, I thought. I weigh what I weighed in high school but now in my mid-50s, I’m definitely a bit more, ummm, squishy around the mid section!
Bolding mine. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t do that at all. It tells you the ratio of weight to height- nothing about body fat. Your weight may be made up of muscle as well as fat, so a short but well muscled person will show up as overweight, meaning too heavy relative to their height. But even that is questionable- too heavy based on what, and according to whom?
I guess it’s fine if it’s understood that all it does is tell you your weight relative to your height, but I think too many people rely on it as an indicator of body fat and/or overall fitness, and that’s a mistake. You can probably get the same results by looking in the mirror.
5’ 7", 125 lbs. BMI of ~19.5. Weight hasn’t changed since high school, nearly half my life ago–been a constant 125, +/- ~3 lbs. According to the impedance method (which I realize isn’t too accurate), I have <10% body fat.
Correct, more or less. For most people the BMI’s general height to weight ratio gives a good rough guideline of when they may have too much bodyfat, but individuals may vary. From the Center for Disease Control:
BMI bums me out, but I realize that it’s a very incomplete picture. My diet could stand to be better but I do get a lot of variety in it just the same. And I play squash three times a week and do spinning and go for long walks, and take the stairs at school. So I don’t equate my BMI with (necessarily) being in poor health. Though of course, all things being equal, I’d love to be 180! I was 268 back in high school, so I’m happy to have gotten as far as I have!
You are correct. It is based on height/weight. But for the general population, there will be a very high correlation between their ideal weight and their ideal body fat.
If you are outside the ideal BMI range, that should be a signal for you to find out why. Looking in the mirror and deciding you look good is not enough. As a society we are getting used to seeing rounder faces and smooth body shapes. At the ideal body fat, your face will look slightly thin and when you look at your body the shapes of the muscles will be easily visible.
Some athletes will have additional muscle which puts them in the overweight range even though their body fat is low. That will not be the case for most people, even if they work out a few times a week at the gym.
And not all athletes will be in the overweight range. Take Lance Armstrong as an example. With a height of 5’9.5 and a weight of 157, his BMI is 22.8. This guy can race up mountains and yet his additional muscle doesn’t put him in the overweight range. His body fat is lower than ideal (~5%) which is helping his low score.
But lets normalize his fat. At 5% he has about ~8 lbs of fat. Let’s give him the top of the ideal fat range ~17% or 26 lbs. That’s an extra 18 lbs. So now he weighs 175 and has a bmi of 25.5. That is just a scooch into overweight. So even with all his additional muscle, he can be at the top of the ideal fat range and just barely be considered overweight by the BMI scale.
So unless you really know why you are outside the BMI range, you shouldn’t discount it. It really has nothing to do with how you perceive the way you look.
Well, people who carry their fat subcutaneously, even if they have a lot of it (rolls) have much reduced health risks compared to those with the same body fat% who carry it viscerally, packed in around their organs (the firm ‘beer belly’). Naked though, if you have a lot of either kind of fat, it’s going to show.
It’s not a good feeling. I do resent it when overweight people say, “You’re so thin!” when I have a round face and a thicker midsection. I’m not thin. I’m just not fat.
Mine is 21.6. I lost 43 lbs and have kept it off for over a year. Although I am pleased to be in this range I don’t think of a normal BMI as a measure of good health. I still want to tone up more/build more muscle mass and work on my endurance.
16.6, underweight. I’m 5’4" and 97 lbs. I made it to 110 lbs. a few years ago, then got terrible food poisoning, lost a bunch of weight, and haven’t ever been able to gain it back. I would rather be this way than overweight, but people seem to feel entitled to make remarks about my body size that I don’t think they would if I were at the other end of the spectrum. At least once a week I get a comment on my eating habits or how I need to “put some meat on those bones.” What or how much I’m eating is my own business and your input is not appreciated.
It’s not perfect but it is not too awful either. Some past studies have shown the lowest mortality for those at the top of the normal and slightly into the “overweight” range, but this very large study, as summarized in this figure pretty well demonstrates that the lowest mortality rates are associated with BMIs of 22.5 to 24.9, and from 20.0 to 24.9 for healthy nonsmokers. Under 20 it goes up sharply and it goes up gradually as one goes over 25. (Interestingly per the figure the lowest for White male all is at about 26 (hazard ration of .97 compared to the 22.5 to 25.0 group) but White male healthy nonsmokers at 26 are starting the rise (1.06 compared to the same referent). So I guess I should drop about 4 pounds!
Of course that is pooled data and an athlete like say RunnerPat, or others with some more than average muscle mass, may be ideal at a bit higher than 25.
Agreed that it is a mere marker, as cogently expressed by filmore. Being more than a smidge into the overweight range should provoke a good look at ones health habits. If they are are good then fine, but perhaps there actually IS room for improving on health choices and lifestyle decisions.
28.5, 5’9" and 195-ish pounds. This is down from 36-ish at my worst, and at my best I had a bmi of 27. I would have to lose 10kg (22lb) to get below 25, and I don’t believe I can do that and hold that weight.
On the positive side, I get 10-12 hours intense mixed exercise a week, I have pretty solid muscle mass, and am feeling pretty good. I decided yesterday (there are big mirrors in the circuit room at the gym) that I did look pretty trim (solid, but trim). I know there is still some belly fat to get off, but is should happen eventually. Also, my wife likes how I currently look, and that is good enough for me.
As someone who has become especially lithe over the past year, I’ve been finding you’re right. Not a day goes by when someone is not trying to tell me to eat a sandwich or making a joke about my body. It’s not that fat people don’t get unwanted commentary either. It’s just that people who wouldn’t normally dare talk about someone’s fatness feel that it’s somehow different when teasing someone about their skinniness. And it’s so out in the open.
I usually take it all in stride, realizing that people will always be stupid about something. But occasionally it bugs me. Like when people say I’m lucky to have a such a fast metabolism. I don’t know why people assume skinny = fast metabolism. (Or fat = slow metabolism). It’s not like I pig out at McD’s everyday. And making myself walk 2 hours a day isn’t exactly “luck”. It requires discipline.
I am 18.5 right now, so I’m not underweight technically. I look at myself in the mirror and I think I look fine, but I still get told that I need to gain weight. Sometimes I suspect misery wants company and these “advisors” want to see me join their overweight ranks. Just leave me alone, I want to tell them.
25.8. 5’6", 160lbs. (I’ll admit to fudging a little there: I just took a two-day road trip and ate like crap, so I refuse to weigh myself right now, so I’m using my low from the last week).
In February I was a 33.1, and at my highest measured, 34.9.
I’ll be happy if I can get to 25, maybe a little below. I am muscular, particularly in the legs, so I’ll always be a little higher on the scale than my body fat would suggest. At my fittest in high school I was 150 (BMI 24.2). I’ve probably lost some muscle during my weight loss, but I plan on keeping up with strength training and replacing that anyway.
Wii Fit seems to want me to be at 22, which would require me to weigh 136lbs. Since my lean mass seems to be somewhere between 130 and 135, I’m thinking that’s unrealistic (not to mention, you know, deadly).
No, it does not. BMI does not measure body fat. It measures a ratio of height to weight without having anything to say about how much of that is fat.
No, it’s not a total crock, but it doesn’t mean much in isolation and far too many people don’t understand what it does and does not actually say.
I have. Although my BMI is slightly into the overweight range my body fat is actually slightly less than expected for someone my gender and weight.
This might also be connected with why I was able to lug loads half to 2/3’s my bodyweight up and down 20 foot ladders this summer for 4-5 hours without a break. Yes, I really do carry more muscle than average.
Now, if I was at the TOP of the overweight range, despite being fit, yes, it would be cause for concern.
Really, what BMI does is say “you’re under the normal weight for your height”, or “you’re in the normal and typical weight range for your height”, or “you weight more than the normal weight for your height”. Outside of “normal”, particularly nearly the borders, one has to look at additional markers to indicate actual health. Like actual bodyfat. Also blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
That said, although my doctor considers me healthy, it might be even better for me if I could take off 5-10 pounds and truly bring myself to the top of “normal” rather than the bottom of “overweight”, but it’s a close call and certainly it would be foolish to engage in nutty dieting that costs me muscle rather than fat.
Correct.
Correct. A good BMI calculator will ask for sex as well as height and weight.
