A question about the BMI

[Ryan.Stoeppel]

I'm having lots of questions about BMI lately, and I want to get some perspective from others.

I'm 6'2" tall and initially I had set a goal weight for myself of 185 lbs because according to the BMI that weight was within the healthy range for my height (According to the BMI a healthy weight range for my height is between 144 lbs and 195 lbs...anything below about 170 lbs for my height sounds totally bogus to me).

The problem that I am having is that my goal isn't to be "skinny". My goal is to be healthy and toned. So I've been checking around (mostly at pro athletes since their stats are so readily available) and the men who I have looked at who are within an inch or two of my height and are healthy (ie no fat baseball or football players) all weigh anywhere from 200 to 225 lbs or so. These guys aren't muscle-heads, nor are they flabby. They are toned, athletic men. But according to the BMI, if I weighed from 200ish to 225 lbs I would be considered overweight.

I realize the BMI is a very controversial statistic in the medical community, but how seriously should you take the BMI? Personally I'd much rather be a healthy, toned 195-215 lbs than a skinny, scrawny 144-170 lbs.

I'm also having a lot of issues with this simply because in my adult life I've never been at a healthy weight, so I honestly don't know what "healthy" looks like for me. Any thoughts or perspective would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[Ohbehave007]

Re: A question about the BMI

I honestly don't like the BMI thingy. It can't calculate muscle or bone mass so there for it is not reliable.
My boyfriend is 6'1 and 160lbs. He is still growing and having trouble gaining weight. I would consider him skinny-fat just because he has thin arms and has started to get a pouch. He would really like to be 180-190 and toned. He is trying, but right now it isn't his #1 priority.
I say which ever weight you feel best at and like what you see in the mirror is the right weight for you. I can see a toned 6'2 man weighing 200+ just because of the sheer mass of him, well at least compared to the 5'1 frame I am living with...and 215 really didn't look too good on me .

[phil h]

Re: A question about the BMI

To give you some ideal.I am 6 foot 1 1/2", 53y/0 and weigh 199 lbs today.HW was around 260-265.Was wearing 42 pants then that rode down because of huge belly.I now wear 36 but they are too loose.35 is about perfect but holding out till I reach my ideal wt.Wear lg shirts down from 2XL.I probably will lose till I am around 185-190.That would put me around 23.5-24 BMI.Not a lot of visible fat left now..Below 185 I would look too lean.So if you are considerably younger and slightly taller, I would say 195-200 range for you.I should be about 32 waist and large shirt very roomy at my ideal wt.Hope that gives you some ideal.Word of advice, get handy sewing pants buttons.I moved everything over a inch and got longer wear out of my shorts.Thrift stores are good for pants that you may wear only a month before they get too loose.

[Goodbyefat27]

Re: A question about the BMI

Hi Ryan. I wouldnt worry too much about BMI as a whole. BMI doesnt take into account muscle mass or bone structure. My husband is 6'3 and 210 and he is very muscular and lean, yet he is considered overweight. Just aim to lose the fat and tone up your trouble areas. As long as your healthy and happy with where you are thats all that matters.

[gooniegirl]

Re: A question about the BMI

Just copied this from an old post of mine-an article that I had found regarding BMI--Interesting I think. (The calculator link is expired though)
Gigi

Waist to hip ratio beats BMI

Measuring heart health
By Richard Poplak


For many years, the medical establishment has considered Body Mass Index (BMI) to be a key indicator of heart disease. Physical checkups often result in a doctor providing the patient with a BMI percentile and based on that figure, assessed whether the patient was in the at-risk category. But a recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet, suggests that there is another, more effective method for detecting heart disease risk. And all it involves is a tape measure and a calculator.
BMI is considered the standard measure of obesity. It takes into account a person's weight and height and comes up with a percentage that indicates whether the individual is overweight or not. A percentile over 25 suggests that a patient cannot afford any further weight gain. But BMI has long been criticized for its central fallibility -- it does not factor in where on the body the patient's fat lies, or whether the body mass constitutes fat or muscle. With BMI, a lean, muscled athlete could have the same percentile as an out of shape couch potato. This is why researchers have been searching for a more effective, but just as simple, measurement for obesity.
It appears that the waist/hip ratio may be exactly that. A Canadian led study, crunching data from 27,098 patients in 52 countries, concluded that BMI is three times less likely to indicate heart attack risk than waist/hip ratio. Because there are such established links between obesity, abdominal fat and the increased risk of heart disease, it made sense to look at whether waist size could be an appropriate indicator of health issues. It became clear from the study that BMI in heart attack patients was only slightly higher than in control groups, while those same patients' waist/hip ratios were significantly higher than those of their counterparts.


The study further concluded that by measuring abdominal size, physicians are targeting areas on the body definitively linked with heart disease, rather than the mass of the body as a whole.
Also, a hip size larger in circumference than the abdominal region suggests a good distribution of lower body muscle mass. What's more, the measurement process is simple.
To determine if you have a healthy waist to hip ratio, use a measuring tape to measure the circumference of your hips at the widest part of your buttocks. Then measure your waist at the smaller circumference of your natural waist, usually just above the belly button.
To determine the ratio, divide your waist measurement by your hip
measurement. For a healthy woman, the figure should be 0.85 or less. For a healthy man, the figure should read 0.9 or less. Here is a calculator and chart.


While there is clearly more research to be done, the study does suggest that you should ask your doctor to factor waist/hip ratio into an overall assessment of your health. Given that the links between obesity and heart disease are so established, it makes good health sense to try and reduce your waist/hip ratio by eating appropriately and exercising frequently. Make that tape measure your best friend, rather than your worst enemy!

[niko772]

Re: A question about the BMI

My doctor doesn't even believe in the whole BMI thing. According to that, I should be between 140-153, but at 170 you can count my ribs. By 150, I look malnourished and gaunt. My daughter's Doc told her she was obese, yet she's 5-8, extremely fit (MMA fighter), wears a size 8 and weighs 196. She's all muscle, so I don't agree with the BMI thing.

[liv]

Re: A question about the BMI

I have always found the healthy BMI sort of a reasonable thing to shoot for. It may be different for women than men.

Also those men you mention may not look muscular to you but toned bodies can be surprisingly dense. Even at my level of exercise I am a lot smaller now than I was when I last was this weight.

Here is another link that kind of take into account other aspects of weightloss.
Better Ideal Weight Body Calculations

[Slapshot]

Re: A question about the BMI

I'd also be leery of looking at reported stats of athletes. I'm 5'9", but in the hockey programs I was in back in the day, I was miraculously always listed as 5'11".

[J.R.]

Re: A question about the BMI

I too question the approach to compare yourself to pro athletes, especially american football and baseball players. Obviously steroid use is rampant in both sports. Football players generally are split by position - some guys are approaching 400 lbs as required, others are physical specimens (e.g. wide receivers, possibly stocky yet lean running backs). Even "average" guys like quarterbacks are probably in the 10 - 12% body fat range. BMI is useless for guys with body fat that low.

I'm guessing for 80% of the population, a BMI between 20 and 25 (the "healthy zone) is appropriate though. I've got the same goal as you do, but I'm 2 inches shorter than you are as my calves, quads, pecs, and triceps naturally have more muscle mass than average.

That said, you might want to examine your definition of "skinny". I think of skinny as a lack of muscle, not low body fat. Most people probably wouldn't call a muscle-bound dude with 8% body fat "skinny". I live in France and a large portion of french guys are unbelievably skinny, walking skeletons. They've got no pecs, small diameter upper arms, and toothpick legs. Even some of the gym rats with enormous shoulders, triceps and biceps still have toothpick legs, they look topheavy and frankly ridiculous for not building up quads and calves. Anyway, it's probably not physically possible for me to be considered "skinny". Anyone that would is just accustomed to seeing me 50+ lbs overweight and can't adjust their mental image of me.

[Ryan.Stoeppel]

Re: A question about the BMI

Since the athlete thing has come up in a number of the posts from you all, I will just address that. When I said "fat baseball and football players" the people that I had in mind were first basemen and catchers in baseball, and anyone on either line in football. They tend to be the bulkier players on their respective teams. As I mentioned, I am not going for bulk...I have no dreams of being a Mr. Universe (that would be more like a nightmare). I simply want to be toned when I reach my goal.

Now as for my definition of skinny, I think Ohbehave007 hit my main concern right on the head of the nail. Her boyfriend is 6'1 and 160, which would be considered healthy according to the BMI, but she called him "skinny fat". As I said, I don't want to lose weight just so the scale has a lower number. I want to be toned. Having a size 32 or 34 waist means nothing to me if that means I still have between 15 and 25% body fat, you know?

I guess what my real question was is, okay, I set a goal weight for myself of 185, and I am sure it is possible to attain a healthy, toned body for my height at that weight. Being as I have a large frame, isn't it also possible that my healthy, toned body weight could conceivably be as high as 215 - 220lbs?

I don't want it to sound like I'm looking for an easy out on my goal, because I'm not. I'm just a bit divided because I did set that goal based on BMI before I knew much about it.

I appreciate all the responses, definitely helping me work through my issues! LOL

[Goodbyefat27]

Re: A question about the BMI

Hi again. I think it is very possible for you to be considered at ideal body weight between 200-215, in fact the calculator I used said up to 220. Check this out, it takes into account your frame and is more realistic. THis is the result of your height and frame, and your current weight. Ideal Body Weight Calculator - MyDietExercise.com I think the 200-215 range is perfect.

[J.R.]

Re: A question about the BMI

"Toned" means muscle tone, which means muscles are prominent. I have muscles right now, but since my fat% is about 26, I'm not toned. In my opinion, you can achieve tone in two ways: either lower body fat% (wild guess, <15%) or start packing on serious muscle that show despite a relatively high body fat%. The second option can obviously take years to achieve. Apparently it's possible to reduce body fat% to levels where people are normally toned, yet not be toned, if that person has never done strength training. Muscles do respond pretty quickly to properly done strength training, so even a person in the last category could achieve tone quickly.

I'd throw out any concept of Mr. Universe. There's no way to accidentally get muscles like that. If you want tone, you have to hit the weights, and hit them as hard as anybody else you see in the weight room. Hopefully you've never been exposed to that myth about "lean" muscle and "bulky" muscle, it's BS, there's only one kind.

To answer your question though: If you don't hit the weights and have never done so, I don't think you'd be lean and toned at 220. Without any weight training, your "toned" look probably would arrive with your 20 - 22 BMI, so yeah you'd have to get to your "bogus" weight.

At 220, my guess is you'll look decent in business casual clothes, but you probably wouldn't be rushing to take off your shirt at the beach/pool.

[J.R.]

Re: A question about the BMI

I think the 200-215 range is perfect.

From what you have indicated, I'd actually pick the range 195 - 200.

[Goodbyefat27]

Re: A question about the BMI

I agree JR that closer to 200 would be best. Its all very dependent on whether or not he incorporates weight lifting into his routine. I just know my husband weighs 210 and is 6'3 and is very toned with flat abs and defined muscles. But he has been following routines similiar to the UFC guys. I think most of the UFC guys are great examples of lean and toned, but not overly abundunt in muscles.

[Ryan.Stoeppel]

Re: A question about the BMI

JR, no offense, but I don't think we are reading from the same script. While I appreciate your input, I'm not real sure how half of what you are talking about has anything to do with the questions I asked. I never said I wanted to be Mr. Universe. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. That is not my idea of health.

The one thing I did pick up though from you, to help clarify, is that I am going for LEAN and toned. It is totally possible to have a BMI in the healthy range and be overweight, whereas it is just as possible to have a BMI in the overweight range yet have 10% body fat or less. This is the core of the problem that I have with the BMI.

For example, I have a "dream body" that I am going for and use as motivation. I've got a picture of Ben Cohen, the rugger. He is 6'2 and he weighs 16 stone 3 lbs, which I believe is around 225 lbs. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that he is overweight, but if you went according to the BMI then he would be considered overweight.

I realize that I won't just gain muscle as I lose weight, which is why starting this week I am beginning a 90 day boot camp type program which encompasses cardio and resistance training.

I'm not really concerned with the number that reads on the scale, because even that is deceptive. My question is: isn't it just as probable that someone of my stature could be healthy if they were lean and toned at the weight of 220 lbs as they would be at a lean and toned 185 lbs?

I think Goodbyefat27 has given her husband as a great example. While I'm no MMA or UFC fighter, that is a good example of my goal body type.