BMI - an imbalanced and unhelpful measurement?

[Blueminerva]

Hey guys,

I've just used one of those online BMI calculator doohickeys (as I'm sure many of you have), and the results seem to be very skewed!

I'm a 5ft 7 guy (which isn't exactly super tall), but the range of "normal" weights (within a BMI range of 18.5-25) are between 118 and 160lbs.

Now I'm not disputing the upper range (even though I have a heavy-set frame so it seems hard to imagine losing another stone even if that is the goal!), but the lower range seems absolutely ridiculous. 118lbs corresponds to under 8 and a half stone - I know extremely petite girls who weigh about this. For a guy of my build to weigh that, I would have to be incredibly malnourished and have almost no muscle whatsoever.

Surely this can't be considered healthy? Plus, there are so many mitigating factors which render BMI invalid - like muscle mass, bone density and size, even water retention - carrying an extra pound of water when you weigh yourself could be the difference between classing as "healthy" or "overweight".

I know I'm being a little picky and it's not supposed to be a super accurate measurement, but is 118lbs really considered a "healthy" weight for a man of my height? It sounds crazy! Just interested to hear your thoughts is all

 

[ChefChiTown]

BMI is just a vague estimate of how much people "should" weigh; VERY VAGUE. According to the chart, I have never been at a healthy BMI. Even at my healthiest, when I was in really good shape, I was still "obese" according to the BMI chart.

 

[San2]

According to the BMI charts, my healthy weight is roughly 150 lbs. I talked to my GP about that, and she told me outright that BMI charts are complete rubbish. They do not take bone structure and your overall build into account.

According to her, and a specialist that I spoke to not too long ago, bone structure can make a difference of up to 30 lbs, bone shape and build can add another 20 (in extreme cases).

Both of them agreed that if I got down to between 190 and 200 lbs, that would be a perfectly healthy weight for me, and anything below would be unhealthy. At 190 lbs I would still be overweight (according to BMI charts), at 200 even borderline obese.

Do I believe a specialist who just weighed me, measured me, made a bone density test and a few other tests that I don't even exactly know what they were there for, or some chart from some website? Let me think about that for a moment...erhm...ok, I'll go with the doc's oppinion, and also with what my body tells me. Screw the charts!!

 

[MGR1]

I think it ties into the fact that if you disregard BMI and google for "healthy weights" they still make old, obscure, and unrealistic recommendations. Stuff that I think the BMI weights are probly based on. Fer instance, I am 5'9" and I consider myself a medium build in most places, with maybe a smaller set of large shoulders in terms of width.

Regardless, I think 162 is the highest of the weight band for my height and build, and in high school during my 9th year of soccer I was 165. Hint: I looked great then. I have thickened up in build some since then, and I know for a fact that if I can get back down to 175 or -maybe- 170 I will look fantastic, and have a decent frame to add weight back to.

If you hit a healthy ratio of fat to lean mass, your aren't obese, and you are happy with how you look/feel and your fitness levels I think you are at a good weight.