# How fat are you really?

Discussion in 'Health & Body' started by brescd01, Sep 25, 2004.

1. ### brescd01Senior member

Messages:
543
4
Joined:
Apr 23, 2004
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.

2. ### FIHTiesSenior member

Messages:
2,959
4
Joined:
Apr 28, 2004
Location:
Back and Better Than Before

3. ### montecristo#4Senior member

Messages:
12,263
18
Joined:
Jan 7, 2004
Location:
Reagan Country (Massachusetts)
Mine is 22.5, which is shocking to me because I'm tall (6'3.5&quot and pretty thin (180 lbs). I would have figured I'd be on the thin end of the normal range, but apparently not.

4. ### marc237Senior member

Messages:
2,381
1
Joined:
Apr 4, 2004
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 http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/...i.htm#English, 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.

5. ### AJLSenior member

Messages:
2,750
844
Joined:
Apr 1, 2004
to have a bmi under 15 I'd have to weigh 96 lbs. or less (@ 5' 7 1/2&quot. we're talking biafran/holocaust survivor/karen carpenter territory...

6. ### housemaidskneeSenior member

Messages:
205
0
Joined:
Aug 9, 2004
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.

7. ### OltmannSenior member

Messages:
186
0
Joined:
May 14, 2004
Location:
Orange County, CA
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 &quot;drop&quot; is, from chest size to waist size.

8. ### aybojsSenior member

Messages:
957
1
Joined:
Jul 25, 2002
slim as a pole, too bad everybody cuts their clothes for you fatties and not me

9. ### GSH1976Member

Messages:
7
0
Joined:
Aug 11, 2004
Location:
Delaware
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.

10. ### LabelKingSenior member

Messages:
25,745
238
Joined:
May 24, 2002
Location:
Constantinople
Even YSL, and Gucci don't always have 28 trousers in stock.

11. ### FIHTiesSenior member

Messages:
2,959
4
Joined:
Apr 28, 2004
Location:
Back and Better Than Before
We will find you, and we will kill you... (Or at least give you a really painful wedgie, and pink belly...) JJF

12. ### brescd01Senior member

Messages:
543
4
Joined:
Apr 23, 2004
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.

13. ### dorianSenior member

Messages:
518
0
Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
Location:
NYC/London
David,

I apparently have a 23.6, which seems odd to me since that number is in the upper range of &quot;normal&quot;. 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.

14. ### MPSSenior member

Messages:
217
0
Joined:
Aug 31, 2003
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 &quot;medium&quot; 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 &quot;drop&quot; is 8.5 inches.

Messages:
9,760