Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How fat are you really?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How fat are you really?  

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
I noticed that the only fit problems people discuss is their washboard abs, muscular thighs, or amazing shoulders. Since this does not parallel my own experience, I thought a reality check was in order. Body Mass Index = height (in meters) divided by the square of your weight (in kilograms). Alternatively, it is your height in inches, divided by the square of your weight in pounds, all times 703.
post #2 of 47
To make life easier for all us mathematically challenged folk... If you cant work the tool, then your weight isnt the only problem you have   JJF
post #3 of 47
Mine is 22.5, which is shocking to me because I'm tall (6'3.5") and pretty thin (180 lbs). I would have figured I'd be on the thin end of the normal range, but apparently not.
post #4 of 47
David- Sorry, no. But I am not buying the premise and your description of the formula is in error. The body mass index (in non-metric measurements) is weight divided by height squared times 703. (Not the reverse as you have it.) Thus, using me as an example, 184 lb./5041 (71" x71") x 703 = 25.65 BMI. If I plug the same numbers into the handy calculator at, I get: 25.7 (close enough for government work). However, my dear doctor, as you know, BMI is not a very precise measure of "fat" for all. For example, let us assume a 5'10" 225 lb. athlete at 6% body-fat. His BMI is a whopping 32.3 (obese by this measure, but not by any other standard.) In any event, inasmuch as I pack a fair amount of muscle and have a lower body-fat % than most men my age, I am not prepared to correlate my BMI with fatness.
post #5 of 47
to have a bmi under 15 I'd have to weigh 96 lbs. or less (@ 5' 7 1/2"). we're talking biafran/holocaust survivor/karen carpenter territory...
post #6 of 47
that simple calculator is not all too accurate. i have one of those scales that measure body fat and it compares well with what my physician measures. i have found that when i went from 140 to 155 in the past few months, i have gone from 18% to 25%. the simple calculator here would put me at 22.6% initially and 25% now. so take these numbers with a pinch of salt. go see a doc or buy one of those scales - i have one made by tanita.
post #7 of 47
BMI is not intended to be a measurement of body fat. To really measure body fat in a way that is useful for comparison we all need to find hydrostatic weighing tanks. Body fat calipers and impedence scales are only accurate to +-4 points. I will note that they are still useful for relative measurements on a single individual. Maybe we should talk about what your "drop" is, from chest size to waist size.
post #8 of 47
slim as a pole, too bad everybody cuts their clothes for you fatties and not me
post #9 of 47
BMI does not take into account many things including your build. If you have broad shoulders for example you can expect to have a poor BMI despite what your actual body fat percentage may be. You could calculate your BMI index and then proceed to lose 10 lbs. of fat and gain 10 lbs. of muscle and guess what? Your BMI index will be the same. Completely worthless.
post #10 of 47
Even YSL, and Gucci don't always have 28 trousers in stock.
post #11 of 47
slim as a pole, too bad everybody cuts their clothes for you fatties and not me
We will find you, and we will kill you... (Or at least give you a really painful wedgie, and pink belly...) JJF
post #12 of 47
Thread Starter 
I cannot believe I did that. When someone wrote me explaining my mistake, I did not even see the error. Of course it is weight divided by height squared. So far as its accuracy, it is what it is. For most people it is not useless, because most people do not spend hours in the gym. This is a young crowd: I am sorry we cannot do such a survey in AAAC. But if you think that your BMI is above thirty due to your Stallone-like muscles, you keep thinking that, until they intubate you and are about to pull the plug. Amazing how people distort reality to suit their own egos.
post #13 of 47
David, I apparently have a 23.6, which seems odd to me since that number is in the upper range of "normal". I do not go to the gym much at all, am 6 feet, 174 pounds, have powerful legs and heavy bones. I am unsure exactly what I am getting at... other than the abover referenced index is a horrible measure.
post #14 of 47
Actually, the BMI is an incredibly useful index for most people - however, it does tend to fall down when applied to those with unusual builds (e.g. weightlifters). I'm afraid that the objectors don't really have a leg to stand on - there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the BMI is a very useful index. Put frankly, I'd be more prepared to form an impression based upon BMI than on self-descriptions (body image often bears no resemblance to reality). I'm 6ft, I have a "medium" build (based on objective measurements), I take exercise 5 or 6 times a week and I do Wing Tsun Kung Fu. My BMI is 21.8, and my "drop" is 8.5 inches.
post #15 of 47
My BMI is 19.0, and my drop is 9". I am confused as to what BMI is supposed to represent here. I could see it being a measure of how stocky or large you are in proportion to height, but wouldn't body fat % be more useful?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How fat are you really?