"Ideal" weight and looking like a weakling.

[ysc]

If I recall correctly BMI was not designed to be used by individuals - it was designed as a statistical tool to use for large groups of sedentary "typical" people in the Netherlands or somewhere.
It was never intended for the sort of thing people use it for today and if you are any way outside of "typical" in build or lead quite an active lifestyle it is not much use to you.

The "healthiest BMI" I think is just the BMI at which fewest people report getting sick at statistically, its not a magic number, it just means that fewer people who don't do much exersize catch colds etc. at that BMI than people who are fatter or skinnier.

If you are drastically over or under the average band you have to ask yourself why, but beyond that its not much use.

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by turbozed

BMI is a load of bullshit
No, it isn't. Keep in mind that BMI is supposed to be used only for sedentary populations when used as a tool to detect obesity. It is also pretty accurate to calculate one's bulk, useful for things like dosing your meds (where you don't care much whether the mass is muscle or fat).

 

[unexpected]

Originally Posted by youngscientist

If I recall correctly BMI was not designed to be used by individuals - it was designed as a statistical tool to use for large groups of sedentary "typical" people in the Netherlands or somewhere.
It was never intended for the sort of thing people use it for today and if you are any way outside of "typical" in build or lead quite an active lifestyle it is not much use to you.

The "healthiest BMI" I think is just the BMI at which fewest people report getting sick at statistically, its not a magic number, it just means that fewer people who don't do much exersize catch colds etc. at that BMI than people who are fatter or skinnier.

If you are drastically over or under the average band you have to ask yourself why, but beyond that its not much use.

I agree with you. It's meant for the average person. If you are "way outside typical build" or lead "quite an average lifestyle" - most people do not fit these things. As such, for most people, BMI is a crude, but relevant tool.

90% of America leads a sedentary life. We're a society of urban dwellers, not farmers. For this 90%, the BMI works just fine.

My issue is that 90% of America believes they are in the upper 10%. It's just like 90% of people believing that they're above-average drivers. Statistically, this is impossible.

Until we have a more relevant tool, like a machine that can calculate body fat easily, quickly, and ACCURATELY, the BMI works okay. It's not perfect, for sure, but if we can take its shortcomings, and be honest about our own, we can use it effectively.

Michael Phelps fits neatly into the BMI index. I'm pretty sure why does. I'm pretty sure Eason does. All these guys lead "active" lifestyles and lift weights all the same. Even kunk, who can lift HUGE weights, isn't that far off - he's over it by 20 lbs or so.

It's been my experience that males grossly overestimate how much muscle they have. Sorry, but if you have a body fat % greater than 25%, it's going to add 2-3 inches to your biceps- but it's fat.

If you can lift the weights and have the low body fat % to back it up, that's great. For the rest of the population though, BMI is okay.

 

[Liberty Ship]

Originally Posted by unexpected

I don't think the BMI is quite bullshit- I would only say it "need not apply" if you're seriously into bodybuilding/weightlifting. People often use athletes (especially football players) as an example of "see, BMI doesn't matter!), but football players are not normal people.

Other professional athletes (NBA basketball players), fit nicely in their BMI categories.

Too often, I've seen people that weightlift 1x/week discount their weight b/c "they're serious weightlifters". As if doing curls on a machine is equivalent to professional NFL workouts.

And sorry, liberty ship. Not to pick on you, but if you have a 38" waistline, you're probably overweight. It might not look like it in America, because so much of our country is obese, but if you went to anywhere else in the world, you'd probably stick out like a sore thumb.

For a serious weightlifter who falls outside this range, just look at kunk. He's 215, a wide chest, and a 33.5" waist. That's what muscle does to you- it makes everything wider and bigger except your waist.

Just because you fit into a drop 6" suit further illustrates this point- If you were in incredible shape, you'd have an incredible drop- sometimes even 10-12". Simply saying that you can fit into a 6" drop makes you merely average. If you put on 20 more lbs, I'm sure you'd fit into a size 46 suit just fine, too.

I don't disagree with what you guys are saying. I could stand to lose a few pounds. But when I got out of Army basic training in the early 1970's, I weighed just about 200, which was still "overweight" based on BMI. For me to be low-normal, I would have to drop to 140. I suspect that might make me look like a "weakling." But a 140 pound 6' woman might look OK!

 

[aleeboy]

BMI is a load of crap. So it the machine that send electrical impulses through your body. I did this here, and I was astonished at the results. Apparently I am in the overweight section of the grid and I need to drop some muscle and fat. What a load of crock.

It does not take into consideration muscles mass. I'm 6'0 and 190lbs.... what the hell?

 

[unexpected]

Originally Posted by aleeboy

BMI is a load of crap. So it the machine that send electrical impulses through your body. I did this here, and I was astonished at the results. Apparently I am in the overweight section of the grid and I need to drop some muscle and fat. What a load of crock.

It does not take into consideration muscles mass. I'm 6'0 and 190lbs.... what the hell?

your argument here is very insightful. I know believe that BMI is a load of crap.

 

[EdenResident]

Originally Posted by Tck13

FWIW, I used this: Link

And the regular formula for BMI and they both came out almost the same (within .25). I agree that BMI isn't a good indicator but it seemed to work for me when I compared it to the machine above.

Maybe the computer above sucks as well?

How accurate is that thing? My gym has them lying around, too.

 

[unexpected]

EdenResident, it's "eh".

Basically, it measures your bio impedance level, then compares it to a built-in database of known weights & body fats with the same bio impedance level. There's a pretty large margin of error- I'd guess around +/- 5%.

BUT, the measurement will at least be fairly constant. You can measure the change in your bf% pretty accurately, though you might not have the exact measurement.

I prefer the scales that you can step on, rather than these ones that you can grip.

 

[Gradstudent78]

Originally Posted by unexpected

BUT, the measurement will at least be fairly constant. You can measure the change in your bf% pretty accurately, though you might not have the exact measurement.

Consistency will depend largely on your ability to take measurements under the same hydration conditions. Which can vary depending on the time of day, if you've had alcohol recently, when you exercised last, how much you've had to drink, etc...

 

[dcg]

I've got one and it reads low for me. At one point, it kept giving me errors...I trued it a few times and eventually it gave me a body fat of 4.0%. As it turns out, it doesn't go below 4.0, so I assume when I was getting errors it was getting a reading below that number.

I promise you that my body fat was not below 4.0%. Recently it gives me readings in the range of 8% (also not correct). Seems useful for trending at least.

 

[EOD2009]

Try using vitamin supplements

 

[Scrumhalf]

Originally Posted by EdenResident

How accurate is that thing? My gym has them lying around, too.

I have always got consistent readings with it. I am at about 8.5% bodyfat at this time and it has given me the same readings over multiple weeks within about 0.5%. Now I understand that this kind of measurement is sensitive to various things like the hydration levels of your body, etc. etc., so I have tried to be consistent with when I take the measurements. For example, I have always used it once a week as soon as I got in to work (it is in the gym in my workplace) and I have the same breakfast every day, so it has worked for me.

 

[unexpected]

honestly, I measure twice a day, right when I wake up and right when I go to sleep. The readings vary by 3% usually, but in their own respective times, they're pretty constant.

 

[Metlin]

Originally Posted by unexpected

I agree with you. It's meant for the average person. If you are "way outside typical build" or lead "quite an average lifestyle" - most people do not fit these things. As such, for most people, BMI is a crude, but relevant tool. 90% of America leads a sedentary life. We're a society of urban dwellers, not farmers. For this 90%, the BMI works just fine. My issue is that 90% of America believes they are in the upper 10%. It's just like 90% of people believing that they're above-average drivers. Statistically, this is impossible. Until we have a more relevant tool, like a machine that can calculate body fat easily, quickly, and ACCURATELY, the BMI works okay. It's not perfect, for sure, but if we can take its shortcomings, and be honest about our own, we can use it effectively. Michael Phelps fits neatly into the BMI index. I'm pretty sure why does. I'm pretty sure Eason does. All these guys lead "active" lifestyles and lift weights all the same. Even kunk, who can lift HUGE weights, isn't that far off - he's over it by 20 lbs or so. It's been my experience that males grossly overestimate how much muscle they have. Sorry, but if you have a body fat % greater than 25%, it's going to add 2-3 inches to your biceps- but it's fat. If you can lift the weights and have the low body fat % to back it up, that's great. For the rest of the population though, BMI is okay.
Well said. However, I find even 25% to be a bit higher. For a guy, anything more than 15% would be on the high side -- our ancestors who had to hunt and forage would think of us as fat weaklings if they looked at us today. My BMI is "normal", but I'm at 17% bf, and despite the fact that I work out at least 3-5 times a week, lift weights, climb and lead an active lifestyle, I still know that there are parts of my body that are "*****". The way I see it, if you cannot see your muscle definition clearly enough, you're fat. I've seen people who've 25% body fat -- you can sugarcoat what they are, but at the end of the day, they are fat.

 

[erdawe]

Originally Posted by Étienne

No, it isn't. Keep in mind that BMI is supposed to be used only for sedentary populations when used as a tool to detect obesity.

It is also pretty accurate to calculate one's bulk, useful for things like dosing your meds (where you don't care much whether the mass is muscle or fat).

Agreed. BMI is quite useful in epidemiological applications and the other mentioned.

To the discussion:
Bioelectric impedance body composition test is a field test, not a clinical (lab) based test. Getting a consistent reading on a BIA body composition measure does not guarantee that the reading is precisely "correct", merely the device is giving you a consistent value that is within the +,- 4-5% error that they inherently contain. Also, it is quite common that these will underestimate body fat. Just because the BIA device spits out a specific percentage doesn't mean that's your exact body fat, you can't forget the previous error mentioned. These devices are not useless however, because they can give a general range body composition range for one to get a general idea of their status.

Go get yourself tested on a properly preformed Tanita or Omron then compare your results to an air plethysmography or DEXA test performed by a professional... you'll be in for a surprise.