BMI Illustrated

Heather
5'4; 163 lb
Resting Pulse: 58
Blood pressure: 105/56
Exercise 13-17 hours/week (running, bicycling, weight training)

Unhealthy?

I think a big problem with the whole BMI system is that it is based on weight and height, nothing else. Weight is a really meaningless number for a lot of people. Muscle weighs a lot, bone weighs a lot, etc. Fat doesn't weigh as much as muscle (per cubic centimeter, that is) or bone, so when you take the BMI of a tall, thin, out of shape person, it could come out as underweight even though the person's overfat. Or the BMI of a short athlete with a lot of muscle mass...they could be labeled as obese even though they have a low percentage of body fat. The measurement is really skewed for short people as well. Short people have the same organs as a taller person, but less space to stretch them over. I have a friend who's only 4'9" and weighs something like 125. It's probably the lowest weight she can get to without starving herself silly and working out all the time. She'd have to work damn hard to get to a weight of 95 lbs to put her in the normal BMI range.

I think most of the pictures of "obese" people look so "normal" to us is that our perception of "normal" is indeed getting skewed so that we think fatter people are normal. I live in a city where there are definitely more overweight people than slim people and a lot of people tell me that I'm the thinnest person they've ever seen, even though I'm definitely not THAT skinny. If I lived in LA or something, it'd be a different story.

Heather said:
Heather
5'4; 163 lb
Resting Pulse: 58
Blood pressure: 105/56
Exercise 13-17 hours/week (running, bicycling, weight training)[...]

I agree it depends on where you are. When I was 17 most people I knew were extremely thin and unhealthy (Sorry, you can't win a million bucks guessing why). I met a Southerner. He thought of himself as somewhere on the borderline of too skinny and perfect. I was actually shocked that a young man could be that fat. He wasn't really large, but soft and flabby. Now, he would be considered skinny here too. I looked over some photos of people I knew years ago that I had seen as normal and most would be harassed as anorexics if they looked like that now. The ones we had all thought of as seriously needing to diet actually looked like most Americans now want to look after the diet. Times change so much.

I wrote about this back in May that the BMI is wrong in general, because it is general.

I am morbidly obese - yet my body fat percent (by DEXA) is in and out of single digits.

Go figure.

Neil said:
Stop talk about moral failures. Genes determine weight and our environment determines our genetic response... There is no simple way ot say "no" to food when the world says "yes"

Explain to me, then, how is it, that the same people who believe otherwise are the ones who are the most successful at improving themselves and their lives?

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

Maybe you don't get it.

I can see others as failing because I can see myself failing too.

In your happy go-lucky world, where everybody's fine and there's no judgment, NOTHING EVER GETS BETTER.

Everyone, with the exception of about five people, look exactly like what their BMIs say they are. Fat acceptance advocates freak me out. Why would I accept being fat? That's like accepting that I'm making less money than I should be or accepting a crack habit. I will always strife to be better and being not fat is better than being fat.

*strive*

rhoda said:
October 23, 2007 5:44 PM Heather said: Heather 5'4; 163 lb Resting Pulse: 58 Blood pressure: 105/56 Exercise 13-17 hours/week (running, bicycling, weight training)[...]

Yes, that looks unhealthy. That's extremely low bp. When mine is around 110 over 70 I get dizzy and can't stand up sometimes. Are you getting enough water?

It does sound like an awful lot of exercise, but I don't see the problem with her BP. It's just naturally low in some people. I know a women whose BP runs around 98/65, and she's never been ill a day in her life. My blood sugar (NON-fasting) runs about 70-80. Once after eating, it was 68. Alot of people probably would feel lightheaded, but I felt fine. Not everyone's body is the same.

BTW, here are my stats:
5'5", 128 lbs
Resting HR: 60
Resting BP: 110/68
Exercise: 1-2 hours/week
Body fat percentage: probably more than Heather's!!

Kailash said:
Explain to me, then, how is it, that the same people who believe otherwise are the ones who are the most successful at improving themselves and their lives?[...]

You can keep being full of bitterness towards strangers if you'd like. Personally, me and my polyanna attitude have been incredibly successful at improving.

Stopping worrying about what others were thinking, getting rid of the good/bad mentality, and focusing on actually doing things is a far better strategy than picking over what you and others get wrong.

Guilt and judgement, beyond the initial reailzation that you or someone else did something you would prefer not to do again, are about as useless and counterproductive methods as there are.

And frankly? I believe that genetics determine an enormous amount of where we can get our bodies. And in a world where what people, particularly women, are told to look like, is both unreachable and unhealthy for a great deal of people, it's no wonder we can't get there.

Yes, you can mess yourself up and get away from what's healthy. But one of the easiest ways to do it is to buy into unsustainable over-dieting as a way to reach an unsustainable weight.

It annoys me every time I feel compelled to claim my own healthy habits in order to hold validity. But fwiw, I am a very healthy eater and very active. For me, that puts me in the range of what's deemed medically healthy. Which is nice, but my habits would be good otherwise. Either way, neither the habits nor the physical results make me a better person. And when I start to think they do, I start worrying about picking up worse habits. Which is odd, considering I really enjoy going running and eating vegetables.

rhoda said:
[...]

Low blood pressure is not considered a problem unless it is symptomatic.

rhoda said:
Heather said: Heather 5'4; 163 lb Resting Pulse: 58 Blood pressure: 105/56 Exercise 13-17 hours/week (running, bicycling, weight training)[...] Yes, that looks unhealthy. That's extremely low bp. When mine is around 110 over 70 I get dizzy and can't stand up sometimes.[...]

My whole life my BP has consistently been between 100/65 to 110/70 and I've never had problems. 110/70 is not even considered to be hypotensive unless you have symptoms at that reading - and most folks at that bp don't have any problems. You do - as you said - but that does not mean that someone else is "unhealthy" because they have a similar bp as you do that is a problem for you and not them!

Kim, I agree with you 100%

Genes determine weight and our environment determines our genetic response.

Have our genes changed significantly over the last thirty years? Our average weights and body sizes sure have. Genes and environment do interact with each other, but it's our environment, not our genes, that has changed dramatically in the last few decades. We consume a much larger percentage of our calories from processed foods. For the average American, nearly one-quarter of daily calorie intake comes from sodas! A typical American consumes 140 pounds of sweetener a year, 60 pounds from HFCS alone.

This has little to do with our genes. Tastes are to a certain extent acquired and can be unacquired. I was a Diet Coke addict for years but kicked the habit in favor of tea after living in Asia for several years. I can no longer eat at most chain restaurants like Olive Garden and Chilis because I find the food unpalatable after being spoiled by the abundant choices of freshly prepared dishes from whole foods served in ordinary Korean and Chinese restaurants.

If you cook and eat your own meals made from scratch and include generous portions of fresh produce, you will be healthy. You will not be obese no matter what your genes. The strongest evidence that genes are not your destiny is found among the Pima Indians of the American Southwest. 80% of adult US Pimas are overweight or obese and half are diabetic. Across the border in Mexico, about 20% are overweight and only 6% have diabetes. Mexican Pimas eat squash, beans, and corn while US Pimas eat a standard American diet of meat, cheese, and potatoes.

I too would like to know the body fat percentages of the people in the photos, I'm willing to bet quite a few of the women in the overweight range have body fat percentages under 30%, especially the ones that are just shy of an acceptable BMI.

On the first page alone Laurie, Pippa and Shauna do not look overfat. And on the second page, there are plenty that are being labelled as overweight who don't appear to be overfat. Most of them look at least 25% body fat yes, but not over 30% body fat, therefore this is acceptable and NOT overfat (despite what some misinformed personal trainers might say).

I'm also willing to bet that several of those labelled as obese are barely overfat, perhaps with body fat percentages in the low 30's as opposed to obese body fat percentages of 35% plus, i.e. Rachel and Cassie on the third page.

Spectra said:
The measurement is really skewed for short people as well. Short people have the same organs as a taller person, but less space to stretch them over. I have a friend who's only 4'9" and weighs something like 125. It's probably the lowest weight she can get to without starving herself silly and working out all the time. She'd have to work damn hard to get to a weight of 95 lbs to put her in the normal BMI range.[...]

Spectra that is very interesting to know.

Also, I believe shorter people generally have larger frames in relation to their height compared to tall people. So although taller people are obviously larger framed than shorter people, their size is not directly propoortionate to height.

There used to be a rule that for 5ft, you should weigh 100lb and then add 5lb for every inch. But this tended to underestimate lean mass in shorter individuals and overestimate it in taller individuals, so the body fat percentage would increase with the recommended weights as the person got taller. It definitely wasn't too fair on shorter people.

I agree that the BMI should be used as a guide only. After all, different body shapes, eating habits, metabolic rate, genetics and cultural differences all play a part in whether an individual accumulates fat in the body. The human body is just way too complicated to be simplified into a simple formula like the BMI. If you would like to read more about the science behind weight loss, visit my personal blog over here

That five foot plus 5 pounds per inch was the first rule I learned and I have always hated it. If you work it out it means that a 5 foot person (60 inch) can weight 1.66 pounds and inch while a person who is 5'10" can weigh 2.14 pounds an inch. I have no idea why one should weigh a whole half pound more per inch, especially when you consider how a shorter person has less weight in their limbs and more in their torso, which is the densest part for most people. I am only 5'1" and when I was under 110 I actually had to gain weight because my body fat was too low.
I also hate how there's all these new policies that are solely based on bmi and don't look at body fat or general fitness. I just read about a new workplace policy where a company was going to charge people with bmis over 29.9 an extra $20 a month. The article I read didn't mention any sort of exception for those with a lot of muscle so I assume there was none in place. Granted, that bmi would place most women in the overfat range, but there's a lot of men that look quite fit who have body mass indexes in the low 30s.

Natalia said:
That five foot plus 5 pounds per inch was the first rule I learned and I have always hated it. If you work it out it means that a 5 foot person (60 inch) can weight 1.66 pounds and inch while a person who is 5'10" can weigh 2.14 pounds an inch. I have no idea why one should weigh a whole half pound more per inch, especially when you consider how a shorter person has less weight in their limbs and more in their torso, which is the densest part for most people. I am only 5'1" and when I was under 110 I actually had to gain weight because my body fat was too low. [...]

I think if possiby, they had said start at 110lb for 5ft and then add 4lb per inch, it might have worked better and then it only would have been an extra 0.3lb per inch. But even then it's assuming that everyone has the same frame size, bone density and muscle mass.

Natalia said:
I also hate how there's all these new policies that are solely based on bmi and don't look at body fat or general fitness. I just read about a new workplace policy where a company was going to charge people with bmis over 29.9 an extra $20 a month. The article I read didn't mention any sort of exception for those with a lot of muscle so I assume there was none in place. Granted, that bmi would place most women in the overfat range, but there's a lot of men that look quite fit who have body mass indexes in the low 30s.[...]

Yep I agree, that's a pretty ridiculous standard to impose and completely discriminatory towards those that may well be perfectly fit and healthy and just have a very high lean mass. It's also been said that BMI is more flawed for men that it is for women, so I can only imagine what a large boned, muscular male is supposed to do in this case.

I started weight training and I went from a size 10 to a size 8. I also gained 8 pounds (muscle, baby!) so I went from "normal" to "overweight". Ah well. Sometimes you've just got to laugh at these things.

I tried Weight Watchers a couple years ago. For my height they recommended that 140 be the absolute maximum goal weight for someone my height. (The range is 117-140 for a 5'4" woman.) In college I weighed about 138 and my friends were often concerned that I was too thin; I was pretty bony. So, 15 years later I don't mind that my ideal weight is more than what Weight Watchers THINKS I should weigh. It does make me wonder though if there are other people just like me (loooking good at 145, thank you!) struggling for the elusive 117.

This pictures seem pretty accurately matched to BMI. Sure there are few pictures where the "overweight" people look okay, but not the obese or morbidly obese -- they are fat people. Notice the underweight people are underweight, the normal weight people pretty much look normal, there are one or two who may be borderline and the obese/morbid obese are fat. A couple of the men's pictures use a BMI at the low end of the range for normal, and they do look pretty thin, but that's the point of this test, to slant it to make it look like BMI is incorrect. That's just the facts. Excess body fat is just ugly in my opinion. This is just a fat person, who doesn't what to admit it to themselves. And by the way I fully own up to the fact that I am obese and that I got that way by stuffing my face. Please get real people and admit. Sure there are few people who can't be the 'ideal' weight, but most of us, myself included, are overfat because of overeating.

The BMI probably works for people who do not exercise at all and have little to no muscular tone. Personally I think it is a poor measurement. I run 3 miles per day, 5 days per week, and follow a free weight body building split 5 days per week. I ran track & field (sprints, long & triple jump) in college both indoor and outdoor seasons. When I graduated in 1976 I weighed 172 lbs at 5'9" (BMI 25). Today I am 177 lbs. have a six-pack, 32 inch waist, 45 inch chest, and a bp of 120/75. The BMI says I am at risk of being overweight at an index of 26 which is baloney (sorry for the bad pun). The BMI does not take into account anything about body type/shape/measurements and lifestyle factors such as exercise habits, dietary habits, smoking & drinking habits, blood pressure, stress factors, etc much less anything about a person's personal goals.

I'm a 42 year old 5'10 male with a 36 inch waist and fairly muscular. I know I'm over weight but was surprised to find out I was obese with a bmi of 31.5. However I do have high cholesterol which I've been able to reduce from 308 to 239 over the last year or so. Oddly I've stayed about the same size as I reduced my cholesterol. My problem is I am not consistant in doing those things which I know will reduce the weight. I dont want to be a commercial but I've been eating a lot of fiber one bars and today read that whey protein also helps lower ldl cholesterol. Also exercise will raise hdl. I'll be more consistant with that. My hdl has gone from 22 to 40. I think I can push it higher.

BMI was invented so that insurance companies could charge more for people that are overweight and obese. This has become the standard around 1986 (or so) and coincidentally...also when America suddenly developed an obesity epidemic and when insurance costs first started to skyrocket. Imagine if I said that the average height for the American male is 6'2" the newspapers the next day would say: American men are shrinking because the number of "short" men would have suddenly grown just by a numeric reclassification.
It is interesting that those people who could store fat efficiently were the survivors of history but now those who have a genetic tendency to store fat...are seen as unhealthy. It also amazes me how science has shown that being overweight and obese is 70% genetic, but the attitude still is "you can starve yourself and get thin". If you had a 70% chance of being under 6' tall, no one would think you are morally difficient that you didn't eat right or sleep enough or exercise enough to be 6'. They just accept that is your predetermined height. Not so with weight, eventhough it is proved that people have a natural weight set point.

I still think BMI is helpful, but I also feel that waist size and body fat should be used with it to get a better idea of health implications.

Of course by itself BMI doesn't tell you enough of the story.

No test in isolation can give you a complete picture of someone's health. Someone at a normal weight could have advanced heart disease. So even weight is normal that doesn't mean someone is healthy.

I have been taking blood pressure pills for a month...Yuk....they they I have diabetes 2...so now I am taking metformin for that, lovostatin, 10 mg for high blood pressure...but my blood pressure is too low, now it is 95/65....as much as 110/72 at the highest in 2 weeks....mostly around 100/66 average...I think it is too low, and I feel fatigue...I want to 1/2 the pills, and then get off them completely. I want to start tomorrow...but should I...I think if I call the doctor, they will want me to stay on them....I want to 1/2 them, and then do away with after I monitor that for a while. I have been loosing weight, thru diet and exercise...lost 15 lbs in a month....

The BMI isn't flawed. It's simply BMI (body mass index). Note the word 'MASS'. You need to be a healthy BMI to be happy, well and live a reasonable amount ot time. You also need to consider your fat lean tissue ratio as well as your BMI. Make no mistake here: if you have a BMI of 30+ but only have 10% fat you are still obese and dangerously overweight for your height. As I said above BMI has nothing to do with fat.