Blog

1

Obviously, the BMI calculation is far from perfect. Generally though, where would you guys put the ideal BMI of healthy/active men and women? Just wondering if you guys have any thoughts on this.

flag
It's a crap measurement....bodyfat is much more telling. – KL Oct 18 at 17:30
Jeez it's just an indexing tool, not a precision instrument for body builders. If you're fat the ideal BMI is "lower". – thhq Oct 20 at 12:59

9 Answers

5

My thought is that it's a calculation that isn't worth terribly much. As such, I do not believe that there is a BMI number that can be cited as "ideal."

Just my opinion, of course.

alt text

http://paleozonenutrition.com/2012/04/25/what-does-your-body-look-like-on-the-inside-more-reasons-to-lift-weights/

link|flag
Agree. How can anyone expect to describe health through a single number, especially one that doesn't differentiate between muscle and fat? Preposterous. If we're going to use a single measurement, it should at least be something useful like body fat percentage. – Elunah Oct 18 at 19:14
Well there are all the blood tests too. And waistline. And just looking in the mirror. There is no one number that says you're healthy. BMI is particularly useful for fat couch potatoes; better than scale weight by itself because it takes in height. – thhq Oct 20 at 13:05
2

IN the UK just over 8 stone ( 112 pounds) for an average height woman (5 foot 5) is the lowest healthy BMI about 18.5/19 and if she were 10 stone 7 (147 pounds) she would be BMI 24.5 at thh upper end and almost into over weight. Most UK women and men are not fit rugby players or body builders but couch potatoes so the BMI is a pretty good indicator.

The 112 average heighter looks pretty good. 14 pounds on that can look good too if toned. 28 pounds on that is getting to look at bit fat.

Obviously if you are very tall or lift weights etc it can be different but most British women conning themselves that BMI is wrong know perfectly well that 112 - - 126 pounds looks good and up near 147 pounds does not, for average height.

There have been studies showing being 14 pounds over the weight for about 25 BMI is pretty healthy too (it's just you don't look very good naked then).

link|flag
1 
 147 pounds does not look good? I'm not British but come to Atlanta and I will show you an ADORABLE 147 pounder. Do speak for yourself about what looks good and what doesn't - it's very subjective. – Varelse Oct 19 at 21:13
Agreed. I wish I was a rugby player. I would look better in my rugby shirts. – thhq Oct 20 at 13:10
1

Agree with Anonymous Chump. BMI is shit. Best to just pretend it doesn't exist and if people bring it up as something to take seriously, politely tell them how ignorant they are and then change the subject.

link|flag
Insurance companies don't agree. BMI screws body builders, but they're trying to protect themselves from fat slobs. And fat slobs outnumber bodybuilders 100:1. Simple test, simple actuarial risk. – thhq Oct 20 at 13:08
1

I think it's the combination of BMI and body fat percentage that counts. There might not be a perfect BMI, but personally I'm a lot happier with my current BMI of 22 (body fat 16%) than 30 BMI and 28% body fat I was at the start of the year, pre-Primal/Paleo :-)

link|flag
ok, but what if you had a BMI of 25 (obese) and a body fat of 12%. You used a linear scale for both (which assumes they are coordinate) I would argue that they are often discordant wrt to the measure of correlation, Cardiovascular disease risk. – CD Oct 18 at 17:47
Doesn't happen for most people CD. If you're a bodybuilder BMI does have some use as a ripped index. If you can get BMI up to 30 at 12% bodyfat you'd be ripped. – thhq Oct 20 at 13:15
1

Why not the median?

People dump on BMI because it's an irrelevant biomarker for HGH enhanced NFL safeties. The problem with pointing out those limitations is that it provides another rationalization for the rest of the population to remain fat.

link|flag
because at 5'9", 167 lbs and 10% body fat I am three tenths below the "Overweight" range. BMI would be important if it were difficult or impossible to come up with another process -- it is cheap and easy. But basic body fat and skin resistance tests exist and are cheap (some might argue cheaper). Body fat also has a much stronger correlation to cardiovascular disease risk. Why not use the actual measure that the BMI is trying to assess if it's easier? – CD Oct 18 at 17:45
1 
 Why not? Because I just explained it to you, and you still don't get it. BMI isn't something for fit people to worry about. It's a perfectly fine measurement for average individuals. Average individuals co-opt your argument to remain fat. – Jim B Oct 18 at 19:14
Why not just measure body fat? That solves both problems. – CD Oct 19 at 21:12
Because all you need for BMI is a scale CD. For accurate bodyfat you need someone running the test that knows what they're doing. If you want a more accurate and useful measurement at home, waistline. – thhq Oct 20 at 13:20
all you need for body fat is a bioelectrical impedance device. Is it perfect? No -- but it is FAR better at estimating body fat than a BMI – CD Oct 21 at 0:22
1

BMI is a rough guideline, but some treat it like gospel, and it depends on your goals. Above a BMI of 30 seems to be where my weight starts causing health issues, but beyond that it is a beauty metric.

Having lost over 30 lbs recently and with my BMI just passing below 30 for the first time in ages, I find that I feel really good and healthy. I went to the doctor a few weeks ago when my BMI was officially 30.1 so they dutifully labeled me "obese". Now at 29.8 I am merely "overweight". To reach the top of the "normal" range (BMI = 25) I would need to drop another 35 lbs to get to 174 lbs, a weight that I haven't been since early high school over 30 years ago. I guess I'll always be overweight in some people's eyes - bummer for them.

I have some more weight to lose - 190 lbs is my "target" because that is the weight at which I felt best. But if I can be as active as I want to be and my weight isn't causing health problems and I otherwise feel awesome, why keep chasing a meaningless number?

link|flag
At BMI 30 I had T2D. At 25 I don't. 165 lb weight and 36" waistline tell me the same story but BMI is simpler. – thhq Oct 20 at 13:24
0

I like Keith's argument -- http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html

link|flag
0

i'm not a big fan of the bmi. that said, if you like to play around with standardized models for fun, i recommend that you play around with the following (US Navy BF Calc):

http://fitness.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Body-Fat-Navy

link|flag
-3

I think that the ideal BMI for women is 18 to 21 with a dress size of 0 or 2. If a girl doesn’t do weight lifting then her MBI should be below 20. For guys I think the ideal BMI is 24 to 26 and the guy should be lean and muscular with body fat % below 10%.

link|flag
2 
 This strict view of what's "ideal" is why eating disorders exist. Most women simply do not have the frame to be a 0 or 2. And what does "ideal" even mean? Like, it's what you're used to seeing in the media so it's what turns you on? Incidentally, I'm a size 0 and 17% body fat, but your comment still offends me. – Renee Oct 19 at 12:14
Thank you, Renee. As a younger woman, I was a size 0. Then my hips and breasts grew. The pants I wore then literally do not even come out to my pelvic bones now. It is just not possible. I'm also much more attractive now than I was then. Youth and weight are far from the only factors in beauty. – Varelse Oct 19 at 22:11
Every person has their own idea of what ideal is and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am not suggesting everyone try to lose weight to get into my ideal weight range, I am just stating what I think is most attractive. Some guys are into tall girls while others are into short girls. You have no control over how tall you are but you can control your weight. – Fitness Wayne Oct 20 at 15:23

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.