BMI

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
User avatar
oliviamanda
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:11 pm
Location: South Jersey, NJ

BMI

Post by oliviamanda » Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:20 pm

For the heck of it, I did the old BMI test to find out that I am 26.5 which means I am slightly overweight. Good to know. Glad I am on No S Diet! I was 28. 2 when I re-started No S 3 months ago.
Habit is habit and not to be flung out of the window by any man, but coaxed downstairs a step at a time.--- Mark Twain

guadopt1997
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by guadopt1997 » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:21 pm

I've gone from 35.7 to 31.2. Still obese. Funny, I don't feel obese...
Last edited by guadopt1997 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blithe Morning
Posts: 1220
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:56 pm
Location: South Dakota

Post by Blithe Morning » Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:44 pm

I checked both my BMI and waist hip ratios. Both say I'm healthy - at the high end - but still healthy.

Which is nice but I know that these measurements don't always tell the accurate story for every person.

angigal
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:33 pm
Location: Utah, USA

Post by angigal » Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:59 pm

Question for you folks.... Do you use the site Reinhard references to calculate your BMI (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assess ... lator.html)?

The corporation I work for has a fabulous on-site fitness center. One of the services they provide is BMI testing, using the "pinch me and measure my fat in several places" test, which is supposed to be quite accurate. The difference in results between the web site and the pinch test is about 8%, which to me, is significant. About 10 pounds ago (I'm afraid go in now), the pinch test placed my BMI at 29.5%, while the web site claims 21.3%. Has anyone else seen these discrepancies between the tests?

User avatar
Blithe Morning
Posts: 1220
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:56 pm
Location: South Dakota

Post by Blithe Morning » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:43 pm

I've heard not so great things about the pinch tests too. Way too much variability. I can change how much I can pinch just by varying my posture and flexing my muscles.

See how we can make ourselves crazy?

I won't say ignore the number but it's just that, ONE number.

User avatar
oliviamanda
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:11 pm
Location: South Jersey, NJ

Post by oliviamanda » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:53 pm

I can pinch a lot. : ) But since on No S, I have noticed that my thighs have slimmed down a bit and my boobs shrank and sagged... : ) so I gotta do something about that... maybe shovelglove can help!
Habit is habit and not to be flung out of the window by any man, but coaxed downstairs a step at a time.--- Mark Twain

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:48 am

Congratulations! BMI is nobody's favorite metric, but hey, you've clearly made progress and it's nice to have some quantitative confirmation of that.

Bushranger
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:30 am

Post by Bushranger » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:55 am

The way most BMI is measured opens it to a lot of variables which inevitably produces mixed results of dubious accuracy.

The cheapest way to be reasonably accurate in bodyfat % is one of those scales that do body composition with the electronic foot plates. My wife and I have one. You input age, height, sex and then step on. It gives back weight, bodyfat %, water %, dense muscle/bone % and recommended caloric intake for maintenance. I know it is quite accurate because I've had my bodyfat % measured professionally at a gym not long before. One negative point; the caloric recommendation it makes for me are way over the top and I would get huge eating that much per day. Oddly, the recommendation for my wife is much more accurate. Of course this feature was just an extra and we never purchase the unit with that in mind. You can purchase these units for under $100, a sound investment in my opinion.

Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Kathleen » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:47 am

My starting weight BMI was 34.5, and I now have a BMI of 31.25. Still obese. What is worse is that I weight about what I weighed three years ago, so no one except my 10 year old can tell I've lost any weight at all.

I keep telling myself "That's OK."

When I got married, my parents objected to my choice of spouse, thinking I was marrying someone just so I could marry. I told them, "It's easy to get married. The trick is staying married."

Same thing with dieting. It's easy to lose weight. People do it all the time. There are fewer than 1,000 people in the country registered with an organization that tracks people who lost 30 pounds and kept it off for a year.

I'll be one of the registered members someday! Definitely not in 2010. Maybe not in 2011. But someday.

Kathleen

User avatar
Kodama
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Kodama » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:05 am

Um, the pinch test is to measure Body Fat %

And BMI uses height and weight to calculate Body Mass Index.

They are 2 different metrics. Not methods to calculate the same metric.

BMI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
Body Fat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage

But basically, most of us here want both numbers to decrease!

:lol:
--- Stephen ---
My No S Diet Progress
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:49 pm

guadopt1997 wrote:I've gone from 35.7 to 31.2. Still obese. Funny, I don't feel obese...
I'm in much the same situation. If you look around for stuff about the BMI, you'll find pretty widespread dissatisfaction with it as a metric. (There's a lot of funny stuff about how many Hollywood stars come in as "obese" under its definition.)

A running joke in our family is that you should calibrate all advice on weight-loss by the weight of the doctor providing it. :) We went through a series of ultra-skinny doctors, all of them scolding us to lose weight. Now we have a comfortably-padded doctor, and she looks at us and says, "Meh, you're fine." I think I do have some weight to lose, but the BMI/weight chart stuff can get a bit hysterical about the actual health implications of one's weight. It's probably more dangerous to yo-yo up and down in weight than it is to be carrying around a few extra pounds.

User avatar
bluebunny27
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by bluebunny27 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:11 am

Yeah, I wouldn't bother too much with the BMI chart.

People who have a BMI between 25 and 27 are supposed to be healthier than slimmer folks anyway ... even though they are "overweight" according to the BMI chart.

I saw a program that talked about this just yesterday actually ... This young man they featured was 6'0" tall and weighed 190 pounds I think ... looked perfectly fine even if according to the BMI chart he was overweight. (Muscles weigh more so anyone who is training is at a disadvantage, especially younger men)

The best thing is to have a BMI between 25 and 27 according to the program I saw.

Cheers !

Marc ;-)

Image

User avatar
Kodama
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Kodama » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:21 pm

<sigh> Sounds like that program took ONE person who was exception, and tried to use him to discredit BMI. Typical. You don't use the fringe exceptions to discredit the what fits the vast majority.

My current BMI is 25.6 which indicates I'm overweight, which I am. I still have the tire...

Unless I suddenly gain a lot of muscle (highly unlikely), I'm stickin' to the BMI charts.
--- Stephen ---
My No S Diet Progress
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
bluebunny27
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by bluebunny27 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:18 pm

Hum, in the program they said it was inaccurate for a lot of people :

Younger folks, older folks (Especially women), people who are active and have more muscles ... etc.

The guy they used as an example didn't have a lot of muscles, he just looked like a regular young man and he was still considered 'Overweight' ... They tested this FAT BOY (!) thoroughly and he was super healthy, cholesterol, all that, he was in really good shape despite being OVERWEIGHT (!), hah !

They said if your BMI is between 25 and 27 and you are fairly active there's no problem at all, as long as your waist measures less than 38 inches for a man and huh ... I think it was 34 inches for a woman ... you're healthier than most people. Don't smoke cigs, exercise, eat well, and enjoy life.

You shouldn't worry too much about the last 10 pounds, it doesn't have a huge impact on your health, as long as you're waist is under 38 inches, no worries.

It's the fat around the belly/waist that can be problematic, not the fat related weight you may have elsewhere. That's why they were using the BMI number and linking it to the waist measures.

Cheers !

Marc ;-)

Image

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:29 pm

My main issue with BMI is that it's unwise to reduce your entire health status to a single number. I think you can see whether you're overweight without the charts to tell you so - that's basically what you said, Kodama: you know you've got some weight to lose by observing your body, so you'd know that without a BMI chart.

When I was in high school, I was lean and fit as all get out, and my BMI still said I was either overweight or borderline-overweight. It just always ticked me off that the doctor wouldn't glance up from the BMI chart long enough to take a look at me in the interest of determining if I actually seemed to need to lose weight. Now, when I know I do have some weight to lose, I still have some of the same feeling: "Do I look obese, to you? No, not the number, *me*."

I can see your concern, though: we should worry about everyone convincing themselves that they are one of the exceptions. I don't think I am, but I see your point, there's no doubt a reason these ranges exist. All this sort of thing is why I'm trying to use the number-free definition of ideal weight, namely whatever weight I settle at when I have a sensible diet and moderate exercise levels. It'll take a while to get there, but I'll let you know what my BMI is, when I do. :)

User avatar
Kodama
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Kodama » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:34 pm

Well, it's hard to say what's right. I can just see that I have a ways to go, and the BMI # for me seems to agree.

I'm also very wary of any documentary. Just look at all the crap that's on some Nature channels or Discovery channels. UFO garbage and all that. Even the 'History' channel puts on lot's of false or misleading shows. All these channels seem to put on shows as if they are the last word, when they really aren't. Giving viewers the impression they are learning the 'gospel' truth.

Then there's the concern that some health industry folks might have an agenda to 'soften' the standards of what's considered fit. Finally, let's not forget that Food, INC. has a strong motivation to keep us eating their crap. Fit, skinny, customers would mean a decrease in profit growth.

Perhaps I'm overly suspicious... but I doubt it! :wink:
--- Stephen ---
My No S Diet Progress
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
NoelFigart
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:23 pm
Location: Lebanon, NH
Contact:

Post by NoelFigart » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:06 pm

The expression BMI gets thrown out a lot lately, but it seems to me that very few people — either health professionals talking about weight, or people who talk about the fact that skinny is a lousy metric of health understand very well.

BMI means Body Mass Index. It’s a height/weight ratio. That’s it. It doesn’t measure what the weight is composed of (muscle, bone, adipose tissue, water bloating or anything). It’s just what you get when you step on a scale. Most adult male athletes would be considered overweight or obese by BMI standards. Clearly this is a measurement that leaves much to be desired.

It was developed somewhere between 1830 and 1850 by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian scientist who was trying to develop a discipline known as Social Physics. This was basically the study of Man by means of statistical measurements. Because many of his theories were not well thought of by his peers, the discipline of sociology supplanted it not long afterwards.

Quetelet did work in the public health sector, where his formula of BMI was applied to issues of health of the day. Thing is, these measurements were used to establish an average based on the 1840-1850 set of measurements he took. “Average†was then taken as a baseline for “acceptably healthyâ€.

Friends, barring cancer, almost anyone reading this is far healthier than the average person of the 19th century. Our mothers were better nourished while we were gestating. Our medical care — even if it was sub-standard, was better than was even available then. Losing a child has gone from something routine that most mothers faced to something unusual and unexpected. I have a friend who’d be facing death in childbirth in the next few weeks if it weren’t for obstetrical advances.

I wanna chuck the BMI for one reason: It’s bad science. It’s a statistical measurement based on environmental conditions that no longer exist compared to conditions we no longer find desirable. We’ve got better ways to measure health now. Let’s use ‘em. Body fat percentage, waist to hip ratios and just how energetic you FEEL are all much better ways to measure. (Even if how you FEEL isn't very scientific).
------
My blog https://noelfigart.com/wordpress/ I talk about being a freelance writer, working out and cooking mostly. The language is not always drawing room fashion. Just sayin'.

User avatar
bluebunny27
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by bluebunny27 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:17 pm

Yeah, but Stephen ... what's going on inside your body is more important ... than what you look on the outside. They were talking about it in the program. The young man had really awesome numbers, cholesterol, blood pressure ... they did a lot of tests on him and he was in terrific health DESPITE being in the Overweight division (Not by much, just 5-10 pounds overweight but that didn't matter ... according to the BMI he was indeed in the overweight category. That didn't seem to make sense !

I thought it was an interesting show, seemed to be legit.

They say there's an obesity epidemic, but if you hang out at a mall or a place where a lot of people walk by you won't see so many severely obese people walking around, not 50-60% as the official numbers would suggest based on the BMI stats for the population. The average person weighs 10 pounds more now than they did 30 years ago, that's true .. but it doesn't mean all you see on the street is severely overweight people, it's a bit misleading, just like the BMI chart.

Cheers !

Marc ;-)

Image

User avatar
Kodama
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Kodama » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:27 am

Marc, if you'll allow me to repeat what I posted earlier: Sounds like that program took ONE person who was exception, and tried to use him to discredit BMI. Typical. You don't use the fringe exceptions to discredit the what fits the vast majority.

But the guy in the show, they found he was healthy but 'overweight'. I'll bet he'd be even healthier if he lost that excess fat... :wink:

Also, I could've sworn it was in this thread, but I can't find it, where i mention the same things you do: That it's the inner workings of the body that's more important than external appearance. Well, at least we agree! :)

As to sightings of obese people. You mention you won't see so many severely obese people walking around malls etc. Maybe not so many severely obese, but plenty of obese! My goodness, the obese in America are so common now, it really is becoming the norm. We tend to stop noticing the norm, which is natural if you think about it. Go out and really look at random people. It's amazing how big most americans are! :shock: This is the obesity epidemic that is talked about.

BMI may be 'bad science', as NoelFigart mentioned, but there's no denying that it's application across populations and time can be used to indicate that we are a vastly enlarging nation.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
--- Stephen ---
My No S Diet Progress
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

CriticalMass
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:14 pm

Post by CriticalMass » Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:50 pm

I've got to agree with Kodama here. It's not necessarily a good metric for evaluating individuals. But it is a great metric for evaluating populations.

I live in one of the 3 worst states that are red on that map. Let me assure you that people are not getting shorter.

User avatar
Nichole
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:37 pm
Location: PENNSYLVANIA
Contact:

Post by Nichole » Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:39 pm

All I know is I was 5'4" and 150+ lbs and my BMI was 25.7, which is supposedly overweight. I dropped 10%+ of my weight to about 134 and now I'm at a 23 BMI, which is a healthy bmi. So personally I like my BMI, though I know it's not the most accurate way to measure your success or health.
"Anyone can cook." ~ Chef Gusteau, Ratatouille

User avatar
DaveMc
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm

Post by DaveMc » Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

I have a feeling that my concerns about BMI really come down to haggling over the last ten or fifteen pounds. It seems pretty clear that if you're fifty or a hundred pounds overweight, you'll have health problems, and it's probably going to be pretty obvious if you're in that state no matter what definition of "ideal" weight you use. My only quibble is about how much you really need to worry if your BMI lands just a tad over what's defined as the ideal range.

F'r instance, I was just looking at this study in the NE J of Med:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abs ... 41/15/1097

Their summary "risk of death" number does shoot way up as you get to BMIs that are very low (below 19, say) or very high (above 30), but the curves are actually pretty flat in the middle, so that there's not a huge difference between, say, BMIs of 24, 25, and 26. (I imagine one could find other studies that say something different . . . ) My point is that a slight deviation from "ideal" may not, in itself, be cause to panic. (Though, bluebunny, I have to agree with Kodama about a single person not representing a compelling reason to think that BMIs above 25 are actually *healthier* than lower ones. Any such argument needs to be made using statistics, since you can always find individuals to establish almost anything you like. Unfortunately, you can almost always find ways to screw up the statistics, too.)

At any rate, I think we can all agree that moderate eating is going to lead you to be healthier than immoderate eating, no matter what the scale or the BMI may end up saying!

User avatar
NoelFigart
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:23 pm
Location: Lebanon, NH
Contact:

Post by NoelFigart » Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:17 pm

Nichole wrote:All I know is I was 5'4" and 150+ lbs and my BMI was 25.7, which is supposedly overweight. I dropped 10%+ of my weight to about 134 and now I'm at a 23 BMI, which is a healthy bmi. So personally I like my BMI, though I know it's not the most accurate way to measure your success or health.
Well, my goodness, anything you get to with sensible No-Sing is probably excellent health-wise.

The thing is, weight/BMI is a terrible metric taken as a single data point.

I feel better much leaner than I am, too. But most of my "essential numbers" (cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, blood sugar, heart rate) don't seem very effected by my levels of adipose tissue. You'd THINK I'd be a walking heart attack to look at me right now. But my numbers are great. My problem is twofold: Vanity and physical fitness. I genuinely do have too much non-active tissue to move around on my body and it DOES slow me down a great deal.

But back when I was regularly winning tournaments I had a BMI that listed me as overweight even though you could SEE the muscle, if I took off my gi.
------
My blog https://noelfigart.com/wordpress/ I talk about being a freelance writer, working out and cooking mostly. The language is not always drawing room fashion. Just sayin'.

Post Reply