Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a BMI that considers me overweight. Im 5'10'' and 180.
I did a bodyfat composition that gave me 19.8 % which is not too bad. I still want to lose about 10lsb.
Anyway i wish they would stop using that indicator since you could be very muscular.
BMI is a good tool for measuring populations. For example, the US in 1980 vs. today. It's not as helpful for a single individual, but it's rare to meet somebody who is 30+ bmi on muscle alone. They do exist, but most of us do need to lose some fat.
Let's be honest. The vast majority of Americans who register as overweight, let alone obese, don't do so because they are just so swole with muscle. It's one thing if you're one point into overweight, or even underweight. But when you 4-5 points in, chances are, it's because you're fat. America isn't full of muscle bound athletes.
BMI is a good tool for measuring populations. For example, the US in 1980 vs. today. It's not as helpful for a single individual, but it's rare to meet somebody who is 30+ bmi on muscle alone. They do exist, but most of us do need to lose some fat.
I agree that it's a good starting point for determining how on target someone's weight is but it is a rather vague measurement. Body fat composition tests are more precise. Another good indicator I've heard of is that your waist size should generally be equal or less to half your height. So for someone who's six feet tall (72 inches), a waist circumference of 36 inches is generally a good goal.
BMI isn't a joke.
It's the best tool for the job it's designed for.
If you had to underwrite 5 million life insurance policies at one time, or if you had to determine the outlook of 200 million people at once, I'd like to see you use some other metric.
BMI certainly isn't anywhere close to perfect, but it's kinda funny that you jump from one arbitrary number (BMI) to another (weight). Neither is going to give you the full picture of health, but there has to be some barometer of health and both are easily measured.
BMI has it's problems, but I see just as many issues with people saying "oh, it's not accurate" and pointing at examples where it isn't accurate as proof they are not overweight, when they actually are. You see the same thing with weight and the "muscle weighs more than fat" crowd. BMI is always accurate but sometimes it is.
I lived in western Montana for fourteen years and during a better part of that time I was a hardcore trail runner.
I competed in many 50K and 50 mile mountain trail races around Montana, Wyoming and points farther west.
My average weekly mileage total was approx 60 miles a week.
The trails that I would traverse on a daily basis were at times very steep.
This caused my legs to become large and very muscular which added notably to my weight.
I also did upper body strength training which also added to my overall weight concerning muscle mass.
According to the doctor the BMI number had me at close to 30 for my 5' 9" build when I weighed at around 202 lbs.
My resting heart rate for a 41 year old was at 55 BPM.
BMI is highly inaccurate for a very large segment of the population as it pertains to individuals themselves.
Something that targets certain types of people whether that be obese, average, thin or athletic needs to be implemented and adopted at the federal level instead of attempting to pigeon hole the entire population into one chart average.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.