BMI Illustrated

Wow-I knew BMI wasn't a flawed tool, but I was shocked to see what comprised "normal" versus "overweight"! Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I'm currently in the overweight category, but some of these people look quite fit to me! Especially the overweight triathlete! Wow! Good idea to do this-props to the organizers!

Very interesting. In my humble opinion, 50-60% of the pics showed what I feel to be an accurate representation of BMI. Generalization tools are never going to be 100%, but I think that 40% inaccuracy is too far off the charts.

It is frustrating to add muscle and not find oneself getting "healthier" on the BMI --especially since weightlifters get such satisfaction from carefully monitoring their own measured progression.

BUT--
I agree with Susanna--the photos don't really seem to make a bad case for the BMI as a very general gauge.

Doesn't the project's originator also say that she purposely showcased people at either the heaviest or lightest end of their BMI in order to make a point?

I saw this project on another website and I looked at all the photos. I think for the most part, most of the people did actually match up to their BMI description. It's definitely a flawed tool, especially for the athletes and the short people that were shown on there. I know for me personally BMI is a very flawed tool because I am a lot more muscular than a lot of people, so even though I'm not "underweight" by BMI standards, I'm underfat.

BMI is based on averages with a BMI of 18.5-24.9 correlating to roughly 20%-30% body fat in the average build, non-athletic female and 10%-20% body fat in the average build, non-athletic male. However with BMI taking no account of frame size, bone densit or muscle mass, it can be a very inaccurate tool for some people.

One person may be overfat at a BMI of 23 and someone else at a BMI of 27. Everyone is built differently.

does anyone else think some of the normal people looked far too thin?

also most of the people in the photos looked happy no matter what the weight or bmi!

We can take BMI for what it is, a very poor and quick estimation of someones obesity level. Only considering a person's height and weight. That's all it is - a guess. Doing a more accurate test with BF% and more would take longer.

Check this woman: an overweight triathelete

Truth hurts! Most of those pictures looked dead on right. The BMI only seems really skewed when it comes to muscular people, but I'm sure they (like the triathlete girl and Pres. Bush) know whether they can pinch an inch or not, and probably don't care what their BMI is.
We also don't know what those people have under their clothes. I look pretty small...but I actually have two big handfuls of blubber on my middle...I'm an expert camouflage dresser.
Overall, I don't like the tone of the two posts today: the rest of us are not obligated to make chubby people feel good about themselves! I hate being 20 lbs overweight...doesn't bother my boyfriend at all...but I don't need the bar lowered to get a fake level of good self esteem.
p.s.
I had this discussion with a friend in the medical field: we're just used to the nicer names of "normal" "chubby" "fat"...and THEN "obese"...but 'taint that way in the medical lingo...and never was.

Marie do you really think so? I though half of them looked like they were being misclassified. I guess it depends on your percption of what overweight looks like.

However you are right, you can't tell how much flab someone has under their clothes. They could look skinny and be all flab or they could look big but be all muscle.

This woman is a fat acceptance advocate, and the photos are submitted voluntarily by her fat acceptance blog readers.

BMI is especially inaccurate for those with a high percentage of muscle or larger frames. To be within the normal BMI I for example would have less than 16% fat- which is an athletes level- something I know I will never accomplish. So I ignore BMI and go by Body fat %.

the photos looked pretty accurate to me. though the few "underweight" people also looked like they lacked muscle tone and could be overfat while being underweight. but for the most part the people's BMIs didn't look grossly mismatched to their bodies.

In my opinion, BMI is generally FAIRLY accurate, particularly for women, and I believe this project shows that. It seems to be far less accurate for men (just look at "normal" Steven on page 3!) What's more disturbing to me are the generalizations we make about people who are overweight. Just look at the women in some of those pictures: overweight and obese women climbing mountains, getting into yoga poses that I, at 5'5" and 128 pounds, can only dream of being able to get into. I went on a recent hike in which I was very humbled by men and women 20+ years older, and some 50+ pounds heavier, leaving me in the dust. There is a line at which a person's weight alone will begin to affect their health, but a BMI of 27 or 28 (or even 30) is far from it.

-BMI is fairly accurate and maybe works for 70-80% of people if not a little more. It's not the end all be all and should be meant as more of a rough estimate. Body fat percentage, fitness level, and consideration for body composition (shoulder/hip/chest measurements) is much more accurate and representative of a person's health

-for the small minority BMI is definitely not accurate but should not be used to justify the majority which it is accurate for. My girlfriend who has run the Marine Corps marathon, Army 10 miler, and Va Beach Rock'n'Roll half marathon would be a couple points off being overweight under BMI standards. When she was in the Army she also maxed out there PT test which consisted of 42 pushups in 2 minutes, 78 situps in 2 minutes, and a 2 mile run time underneath 15:36....body fat percentage was in the mid to low teens with visible abs.

-several of the "overweight" shots are of people who are .1-.5 over the limit which is kind of unfair because most people can vary more than that depending on what time they get weighed during the day

-Knowing a little about photography its pretty apparent that a lot of the people were shot in much more or less flattering shots for their shape with above and below shots being used for effect in several. There was also hip tilting, backgrounds, color use, close shots, and general posing. A lot of the shots used were part of every list on how to look better in photos. I am by no means saying it's intentional but the shots are far from objective. Clothing also plays a part as mentioned

I am not shocked at all. Sure, there are some people in a shadow zone, but those that are classified as "obese" or "morbidly obese" really are fat. BMI isn't fine tuned, but it is not completely off the course either. It's a guide line, and shouldn't be frowned upon for not being more than it claims to be.

Surely you're all missing the point. Every time I've checked my BMI, there is always a statement saying that it is likely to be inaccurate when measuring children and athletes. So, the people in the pictures who are athletes should not be having their BMI checked, as it's useless. I once had a doctor call me (I work for a medical organisation) asking what the equivalent for the BMI was, for athletes, as OBVIOUSLY he couldn't use the BMI scale to measure his athletic patient's overall weight.

I also thought it was accurate excepting the very lean and muscular. But really even athletes often seem to think merely about what they can lift, yet a man with more than 15% body fat has impaired fertility and will probably die sooner. If a man has great strength but also too much fat, he will look and feel old before his time. Same for a woman.
It's true that very short people and people past a certain age are different in their shapes. But for a person between about 20 and 50, over 5'3", not pregnant or nursing or bedridden, not a professional or competitive bodybuilder, etc., the BMI looks fairly right on to me.
The issue is how we treat one another. It is not OK medically nor attractive to have excess body fat, but it is even less healthy and less attractive to criticize people's weight in ways that hurt them. This seems to be the blog's point. Otherwise why post a cat?

BMI is not perfect. The Center for Disease Control says that the "BMI is used as a screening tool to identify possible weight problems for adults. However, BMI is not a diagnostic tool. For example, a person may have a high BMI. However, to determine if excess weight is a health risk, a healthcare provider would need to perform further assessments. These assessments might include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, family history, and other appropriate health screenings." In America's quest to oversimplify everything, however, we tend to use the BMI to label people.

That said, I agree with those who have said that the pictures look about right.

I ALWAYS KNEW THIS!!! To bad it took doctors too long. I mean come on, it's not that abstract of a concept to understand. If you've got more muscle on you body, your BMI goes up, and then all of a sudden, you're considered overweight. Obviously it's flawed.

gee i guess marie didnt like the tone of MY first post. i mentioned most of the people looked happy no matter what their weight. i am not attempting to make overweight people feel good about themselves. i was unable to loose weight until i trashed my scale and worked at looking good at whatever my present weight was. i worked on eating healthy and excercising and have lost a whole lot of weight (75+) so i am now "normal". i thank the people who supported me and dont consider it "giving a sense of false esteem". if that were the case i would probably still be fat and harping on how much i hate it.

I have it on good authority that those are all photoshopped pictures of Faith Hill!
:-)

Ok. I'm not understanding things here. What on earth is wrong with trying to help people (overweight or not) feel better about themselves? Fat is NOT a moral failing. It is NOT a character flaw. Judging people because of their weight is no worse than judging them for the color of their skin.

I read this blog because generally I like the discussions about health and fitness. I think that for the most part the entries and commenters are pro-health and fitness for everyone.

Part of what I believe encourages ALL people to live a healthier life is to respect them for who they are at that very moment.

And if you don't feel that you are capable or willing to help "make chubby people feel good about themselves!" at least you can try to not make them feel worse.

D'oh.

I meant to say

"Judging people because of their weight is no BETTER than judging them for the color of their skin."

The BMI tool has always had the disclaimer that if you are an athlete with high muscle mass, the number is not accurate.

Other than those people who appear to be very fit (i.e. have high muscle mass) the illustration seems to be extremely accurate! Alot of the people in the 'obese' category look 'normal', but we have to remember that 'normal' in North America has been categorized as obese. So really, is the BMI tool flawed? Or are we too forgiving of people who are carrying a few extra pounds?

The BMI tool isnt something designed to make us feel badly about ourselves, its a tool so that we can see how healthy we are. Every decimal place a person is (excluding those in the high muscle mass category) above the 'health BMI' range, is one step closer to type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Instead of trying to accuse it of being 'discriminatory' maybe just accept the fact that even though they dont LOOK unhealthy, a person in the 'obese' category is at a higher risk for certain diseases, and take it as a warning.

Kim said:
Fat is NOT a moral failing. It is NOT a character flaw. Judging people because of their weight is no worse than judging them for the color of their skin.

Are you kidding me?

Isn't alcoholism a moral failing? How about gambling irresponsibly? How about succumbing to any animal urges at a unhealthy rate?

The ability to resist unhealthy temptation surely factors into the strength of one's character. I can't possibly see how you believe otherwise.

At the same time, I consider myself a little overfat. I drink a glass of wine almost every night (a BIG glass), and often feel guilty afterwards. But I don't consider myself to be so strong in character, either, not as much as some other, more disciplined people.

And I wouldn't expect a person fatter or more out of control with drugs than I, to think they have as strong a character as myself. That's how it is.

No, I am not kidding. There is no way that I believe that I am a superior person to someone who weighs more than me because of our weight differences. Just as I do not look at someone who is thinner than me and think that they must have a stronger character than me.

A person's relationship with food is just one aspect of who they are as a person. And I consider it off the list of character issues that I value.

I've known overweight people who are kind and generous and thin people who are selfish and grasping. Am I to value the thin more because they eat less/exercise more? Or just have a different set of genes?

Isn't there a saying about walking a mile in someone else's shoes before judging them?

You can't compare being overweight to skin colour. One is born with their skin as it is but they are not born fat. In most cases overweight people are juut that because they overeat and can't stop themselves (most overweight people freely admit this) and it therefore is indeed a character flaw.

(And yes, before anyone says, I know there are cases of people with medical conditions that result in them being more prone to carrying excess fat, but these are a discrete minority).

Kim said:
A person's relationship with food is just one aspect of who they are as a person.

Very true. Even though I'm a little overfat and a budding alcoholic, that doesn't mean I'm not far more disciplined in other facets of my life. Which I very much am.

But that doesn't change the fact that I'm weak in some respect. And knowing this about myself isn't a condemnation, but a call for improvement.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

It is completely comparable to skin color. In both it is using a person's appearance to make judgments about a person's character.

You think that you can look at a fat person and see the nature of their character. That is wrong. What is outside reveals nothing about what is inside.

What does it matter to you if someone is fat? Why is eating a lot considered to be a character flaw? What if they just like food?

That is really the big question: why does someone's size matter to you so much that you judge it as a character flaw?

Many of the photo's appear to be mostly accurate. Unfortunately, many Americans have a rather distorted view of what is a healthy weight. The BMI doesn't account well for more muscular bodies, but the ratio of heavy/muscular to heavy/fat isn't near what it should be.

Americans in general need to simply do more and eat less. Eat less processed foods to be more specific. We are a commuter society and spend way to much time sitting instead of moving. We've got this 'hearty 3 meals a day' attitude developed from the pioneer days when we actually needed the nurishment, but the times they have a changed folks.

Don't blame the messenger [or tool], get up and move around.

Kailash said:
Very true. Even though I'm a little overfat and a budding alcoholic, that doesn't mean I'm not far more disciplined in other facets of my life. Which I very much am.[...]

And that's a fine and commendable way to look at yourself. But is it fair to extrapolate those judgements to other people?

My concern is when people look at others and judge them based on their weight.

When people make hateful anonymous comments on Fat Girl on a Bike's blog that cause her to go on hiatus then something is seriously wrong.

All I am asking is that people be more respectful of others and not to jump to judgments just because of someone's appearance.

Yes, I consider being overweight to be a character flaw, but obviously this does not mean I can determine anything else about their personality by looking at a picture, and I cannot judge them as a person in general. A person's size does not have an impact on how I treat them as an individual.

But it does mean I can make a judgment about their lifestyle habits as far as diet and exercise go.

Kailash said:
At the same time, I consider myself a little overfat. I drink a glass of wine almost every night (a BIG glass), and often feel guilty afterwards. But I don't consider myself to be so strong in character, either, not as much as some other, more disciplined people.

If I'm going to judge people like you are, I could say that you're incredibly undisciplined if you can neither cease a habit that causes you guilt and discomfort nor get over your guilt over something that brings you pleasure in life.

But we don't exist to judge others. It's the easy way to feel better about ourselves (another moral failing?)

Frankly, if you're participating in a triathalon and climbing up mountains, you're probably pretty fit. Those, along with cholesterol, blood pressure and other actual health readings mean a lot more than the number on the scale. You can't tell any of those things from looking at someone.

And while I would hazard a guess that absent serious medical conditions, most people will not be morbidly obese, there is a serious genetic component here. Some people are genetically predisposed to put on weight much more easily than others, and everyone is calibrated to a different set point. While it might be possible for almost anyone to get down to a low BMI by eating a very low calorie diet and exercising constantly, it's also a good way to convince your body that it needs to learn to be prepared for a famine the next time you start eating. What business do I have telling people they have a responsibility to the world to starve themselves down to BMI of 20 when normal healthy balanced eating and exercise leave them closer to 27? Isn't our moral outrage couched in the language of health anyway?

The idea behind the project was to challenge the idea that the two thirds of Americans who are overweight look like the "headless fatty" pictures we see on TV. They don't. Some look fat, some look fit. Some look both fat and fit (yes, it's possible!) But they all look like people, and like people you know. We are not a nation unable to get off the couch. We are a nation of people, some who weigh more, some who weigh less and that's not really what matters.

If you want to make it matter to you, that's fine. But that doesn't make you better or worse. It just means that you've made it a priority.

I just wanted to say, normally I just lurk around to get a few laughs off some of the crazier things posted on this blog. But I think I really need to make a point here, sure there are larger folks who do have character flaws and are weak willed. But there are people who are truly sick and get fatter because of it. A good example is myself, I was never one of the small pretty girls that people love to see. I was a bookworm who never wanted to deal with people.

For the last 4-5 years I've been a medical mystery. At the old age of 21 I've gone through THREE bouts of starvation mode seriously screwing up my body. Only this year have doctors finally stopped looking at me like I'm some fat girl who wants a magic pill to turn me into one of those pretty girls that you never see around hospitals. (That took me having an acid attack right in front of her eyes and throwing up stomach acid) I have gastric paresis, GERD, and other problems that you normally don't get till your in your late 40s. (And no, actually I'm not diabetic and I have no problems with my heart or blood pressure.) So do you honestly think I'm at the gym sweating up a storm when I can barely remember to eat since I don't get hunger pangs?

I weigh 240-50, about 5'4 and I'm 21...I can't drink, smoke, do drugs since with my sensitive stomach and system it would kill me. Hell, I can't even drive because of acid attacks. Going to college every day is a serious test of my will power to withstand pain.

Sure there are people who are weak willed, but remember...not everyone has a perfect body underneath all that fat. -Zeal

BMI is guide not an absolute. You have to look at the big picture. Stop talk about moral failures. Genes determine weight and our environment determines our genetic response. It is an independent relationship where people have to deal with the personal consequences of their genes and environment. We are social beings. It is heroic to be personally responsible in toxic or violent enviroment. There is no simple way ot say "no" to food when the world says "yes"

Neil said:
There is no simple way ot say "no" to food when the world says "yes"

Great post, but I have to point out that saying "no" to food will have much worse consequences than saying "yes." ;)

I think the more we look at foods as good and bad and weight as a moral failing and not a product of genes as much as habit (in some cases, more so), the easier it is to have a healthy mentality.

Weighing everything you eat for the rest of your life, or subsisting on the same three small meals a day is not healthy, no matter what weight it makes you. The point of healthy living is not to be as thin as possible or to fit into someone else's idea of health. It's being at your body's natural set point, where a day missed running because of a sore ankle or a piece of cake on your birthday doesn't make your body hold onto every last ounce of energy it can get. It's about eating for hunger, for real food in the amounts that give one energy, and about finding ways to be active that don't (usually) feel like torture.

For some people that's 95 pounds, for some it's 125, for others it's 155 or 205. It's not up to you to judge. And if someone decides that they'd rather take care of their kids or earn enough to pay rent or even, god forbid, relax and watch some TV because the point of life isn't to be as thin as possible, it is not an issue of right and wrong.

According to BMI, I am obese. According to body fat measure taken by my doctor, I'm in great shape, with a body fat percentage on the lower side of the healthy average for men. BMI is flawed in sooo many ways!

Gal

60 in 3 said:
According to BMI, I am obese. According to body fat measure taken by my doctor, I'm in great shape, with a body fat percentage on the lower side of the healthy average for men. BMI is flawed in sooo many ways![...]

That is a perfect example of a person who doesn't even NEED to look a your BMI. Body fat percentage is a far more accurate tool for understanding your body composition.

The BMI tool IS flawed to a certain extent, but I will vouch for it being an eye opener to those people who are unaware of their actual body type.

Years ago, I knew I was chubby, chunky, whatever cute word you want to insert However, when I went to the doctor for a regular check-up, she informed me that, according to my BMI, I was actually OBESE . Yes, an ugly word, and I was devastated. As much as I was devasted though, it was at that moment that I actually began to change my attitude, activity level and eating habits, and now 5 years later I can brag that I have a body fat percentage of 22.

Yes, BMI is flawed, but do not discount its value as a guide.

These pictures would be so much more meaningful if they were paired with BOTH BMI and BF%. To my eye, the majority of them look pretty appropriate. But I can't read anything useful from the collection without a better indicator, such as actual body fat percentages. I imagine that MORE folks would have unhealthy/overweight stats then (or maybe the same numbers, since some of the "overweight" folks are really not overweight at all, merely more fit and muscular ...).