What's your BMI?

edited October 2011 in Health & Beauty

Hi everyone,

I'm curious about your thoughts on the BMI (Body Mass Index) system of determining a healthy weight.

My current BMI is 18.6 which is a healthy weight but a few months ago I was a few pounds lighter and my BMI was 17.7 which is in the unhealthy range. I wasn't starving myself and was eating a very good, mostly raw diet but this BMI seems very low. Should I be worried if my weight is falling into this range, do you think it will cause health problems. I think that I looked very healthy and I actually preferred the way my body appeared at this weight.

Do all of you who stick to a raw diet have low BMIs or are you in the healthy range?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Comments

  • I don't believe in that BMI at all. When I am 10 pounds overweight and getting "muffin Top" over my pants, it says I am on the low range of just right when you can obviously see I need to lose weight. When I am perfect, it says I am too thin. It doesnt take into account muscle mass. If i have no muscle (which I don't) I am obviously going to weight much less. It also can't account for bone mass, fat mass, etc.

    I have seen overweight friends come from the doctor so happy and claim their BMI is just right so they don't need to lose weight. Uh uh, keep kidding yourself.

    And the BMI was never meant to work for an individual anyway, but a general population. It should never be used since it can tell overweight people they are undereight and normal people they are overweight.

  • I agree. My BMI is supposedly just right, but can see that I need to lose some fat and gain more muscle. I think a mirror is the best way to tell if you are at a healthy weight or not. That or a good friend.

  • Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus

    by Keith Devlin

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

    Americans keep putting on the pounds — at least according to a report released this week from the Trust for America's Health. The study found that nearly two-thirds of states now have adult obesity rates above 25 percent.

    But you may want to take those findings — and your next meal — with a grain of salt, because they're based on a calculation called the body mass index, or BMI.

    As the Weekend Edition math guy, I spoke to Scott Simon and told him the body mass index fails on 10 grounds:

    1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual.

    The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.

    2. It is scientifically nonsensical.

    There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.

    3. It is physiologically wrong.

    It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.

    4. It gets the logic wrong.

    The CDC says on its Web site that "the BMI is a reliable indicator of body fatness for people." This is a fundamental error of logic. For example, if I tell you my birthday present is a bicycle, you can conclude that my present has wheels. That's correct logic. But it does not work the other way round. If I tell you my birthday present has wheels, you cannot conclude I got a bicycle. I could have received a car. Because of how Quetelet came up with it, if a person is fat or obese, he or she will have a high BMI. But as with my birthday present, it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight, let alone obese. It could mean the person is fit and healthy, with very little fat.

    5. It's bad statistics.

    Because the majority of people today (and in Quetelet's time) lead fairly sedentary lives and are not particularly active, the formula tacitly assumes low muscle mass and high relative fat content. It applies moderately well when applied to such people because it was formulated by focusing on them. But it gives exactly the wrong answer for a large and significant section of the population, namely the lean, fit and healthy. Quetelet is also the person who came up with the idea of "the average man." That's a useful concept, but if you try to apply it to any one person, you come up with the absurdity of a person with 2.4 children. Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.

    6. It is lying by scientific authority.

    Because the BMI is a single number between 1 and 100 (like a percentage) that comes from a mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. But it is mathematical snake oil.

    7. It suggests there are distinct categories of underweight, ideal, overweight and obese, with sharp boundaries that hinge on a decimal place.

    That's total nonsense.

    8. It makes the more cynical members of society suspect that the medical insurance industry lobbies for the continued use of the BMI to keep their profits high.

    Insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums for people with a high BMI. Among such people are all those fit individuals with good bone and muscle and little fat, who will live long, healthy lives during which they will have to pay those greater premiums.

    9. Continued reliance on the BMI means doctors don't feel the need to use one of the more scientifically sound methods that are available to measure obesity levels.

    Those alternatives cost a little bit more, but they give far more reliable results.

    10. It embarrasses the U.S.

    It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.

  • Thank you for that, I don't think I'll ever look at my BMI again. Weighing oneself at all is a bit silly as it depends on so many different factors. Looking in the mirror seems by far to be the better option.

  • I looooved this article :-)

    I have a solid frame and even when young was pretty well muscled I was always tagged as being 'over weight or sometimes called fat by the less polite'.

    Funny thing is...I swam for and hour a day, did physically hard work all day, did weight training etc

    I was 62kg ( 136.69 lb) and 165cm tall (5' 5'') solid muscle, nothing wobbled (apart from my chest which is hard to avoid as a female) and I was called fat and told I was over weight.

    Which is funny because even according to the BMI I was 22.8 which is in the normal range anyway.

    I think a lot of people are just plain rude :-(

    I agree violet...the mirror is the best judge.

Sign In or Register to comment.