[Closed] Whats your BMI (and is it a 'realistic calculation?)

Must be down to the mythical heavy bones

It's not a myth - I read that MTBers have a 30% denser skeleton than other athletes due to the vibrations etc, but other athletes also have denser bones than sedentary people.

However how much actual weight that equates to I have no idea 🙂

I think that is Greipel?

82kg on the Lotto Belisol site

Indeed he is - that is a pretty big difference to the TdF site!

48 with a BMI of 19.

"You have a lower BMI than 99% of males aged 45-59 in your country"

"You're most like someone from Bangladesh"

KOM material 😉

call bullshit on that - try John Rocha & Next trousers, I need 36" to be comfy. Mind you every bit of fat I have is on my gut.

I know what you mean and I know its standard in the ragtrade to 'flatter' customers.

My gut hangs over the waist band - well I say hang - it sticks out abit more than it should. But I still wear the same Diesel jeans from 10+yrs ago.

My DG pants, recent fatface cargo pants (quite nice), All saints jeans etc- are all listed as 34". Bet I'm closer to 35" but gut bigger.

What annoys me is road cycle shirt and lycra sizing. It seems to be ALL OVER the place.

My Le Coq top is XL - fits perfect. I had to go to XXXL on a Peaks council one.

47, bmi 24

bmi = 20. I've always been skinny, although I like to think of myself as athletic rather than malnourished...
At school we were doing body types and the teacher selected me out as a representation of an "ectomorph" body type. Thanks for that teach, that helped my confidence no end.
I cycle a lot, and can never sit still hence I also eat quite a lot. What p1sses me off was someone brought a cake into work the other day and after cycling in I scoffed 2 slices - which was commented on as "have another slice you look like you need it". Yeah maybe I better eat yours you fat fVcker*
*thought, but unfortunately not said.

My problem is losing the last four kilos. I've been doing 350km a week since April and while the last six kilos have come off pretty readily, I seem to be stuck at 84kg as a low point and from there it very easily goes up to 85.5kg if I have a slightly indulgent weekend.

I'm not saying I can't lose it, I just don't know how to do it.

Lord knows I'm no expert but I reckon you need to mix it up a bit - some upper body weight training, maybe running or swimming.

For me, cycling just doesn't take weight off, unless I do lots and keep and extremely close eye on what I eat - running seems to work far more effectively, mainly because it suppresses my appetite when cycling makes me want to eat everything in the kitchen (as does swimming). More time efficient too.

My problem is losing the last four kilos

I'm going to drop to 92kg's. Protein powder, fasted rides and lots of veg.

46 and a BMI of 24.9.

I lost a couple of stones a few years back and my mother-in-law suggested I didn't lose anymore, as I'd look ill.

6'2"ish, 77kg, bmi 22, and i could do with losing a bit.

(apologies for mixing units, i blame thatcher)

i don't even know where Burkina Faso is...

I think for girls clothing sizes should be... from biggest to smallest 🙂

Your mum/auntie
Your mate
You.... On a good day
After a 6 month diet
Victoria beckham and alexa Chung only...

So when you buy something and it looks big on you, you can say "its my mums, or its my mates"

I know, no need to thank me

Wahoo, my BMI is actually 33, down 1 point. Puts me as a Tongan, which in rugby player terms is probably a fair position in terms of body shape, limb girth and torso shape. 😆

Those pics up there - who the hell is on the right? It looks like Greipel suffers from the same "drive side leg syndrome" as me, albeit on a rather grander scale 🙂

EDIT: Robert Forstemann - chuff me, that is really not normal!

[img] [/img]

I'm 28 ish on normal calculations. Which is I think a touch harsh. I should be light but people who know me think I'm thin

On the height corrected one I'm 25.1 which seems more realistic. It seems obvious to me that squaring the height is unfair to tall people

I was at least 10kg lighter in my early teens high I think that put me at the other end of the healthy BMI range

On the right is Robert Forsterman - Track sprinter.

I'm 32, 188cm and 75Kg (and about 9% BF when last measured) gives me a BMI of 21.

30" waist and reasonable upper body strength, I should be a better climber than I am :/

45 years old
BMI 24

Read it and weep you fat bastards.

37 years
1.8m, 72kg
BMI = 22
"New" BMI = 21

I could still loose some fat from around my stomach, but I like food too much.

37 years
1.72m
78kg
BMI = 26

I think slightly overweight is fair. I know I need to shed 5-6kg. But beer, curry and crisps are great!

40, BMI of 26 which is down from 31 in January. As for clothing sizes well the 32" jeans I bought at the weekend are actually 34" in circumference and I bought a small shirt that fits which is frankly ridiculous!

100! (Not my BMI!)

I'm also BMI of 28. 6'2, ~100kg.

BTW I'll eat my hat if Forstemann is hormonally normal.

His thighs were measured at 34 inches around.

19 in my skinny student days (30" jeans)
28 at my weight training peak (38" jeans)
28 (again) in my sans exercise wilderness days (36" jeans)
22 now with my cycling obsession (32" jeans)

BMI is a silly measure. How can you take something seriously that doesn't work for anyone on the taller or more muscular end of the spectrum? The comments on turning fat into muscle are as ill informed as those who think that muscle turns to fat when you stop exercising - it's a physiological impossibility. I'm actually heavier since I got back into mountain biking because I'm stronger but I'm far fitter despite being almost overweight according to BMI...

How can you take something seriously that doesn't work for anyone on the taller or more muscular end of the spectrum?

Because the vast majority of people aren't really tall or really athletic?

I think my BF is lower now (based on observations and clothes) than it has been in the past when I've been lighter. But I'm a more powerful rider now than I was then.

22.5 - 188cm & 79.5kg.

I could probably lose some extra wobbly bit around my waist, but bulk up in my top half. I don't actually want to weigh any less than where I am, just replace a bit of fat with some core/upper body muscle.

I'm nearly in the middle of the normal. That's fine by me!

Because the vast majority of people aren't really tall or really athletic?

I didn't say really tall or really athletic, I said tall or muscular. I'm 5'10.5" and I'd say not that much broader of shoulder than average and am more often called skinny than fat and my BMI is 24. Lift a few weights and I easily go over the 'healthy' limit and if I was an inch or two taller and the same build there's no way I'd be within the 18-25 range.

I didn't say really tall or really athletic, I said tall or muscular

The point still stands. BMI is a very good and simple guide for the majority of the population. That's why it's used. I thinks it was on here that someone said that somewhere there will be a venn diagram of "people who say BMI is crap" and "people for whom BMI is crap" and there won't be a lot of crossover!

am more often called skinny than fat

I have never had wobbly bits, incidentally, or anything hanging over my belt.

I thinks it was on here that someone said that somewhere there will be a venn diagram of "people who say BMI is crap" and "people for whom BMI is crap" and there won't be a lot of crossover!

Aw thank you, my legacy here is complete 🙂

22.49 on the height adjusted one.

Easily within the healthy range but my wife says I look like a scarecrow and my mother (bless 'er) says I look like someone from a WW2 Prison Camp!'You look just like so and so when he came back to the village after the war' style.

I think that the BMI not working for really muscly is fine. Its a tool that could never cover that. Its not weight corrected for build or proportion of fat

But to me it is completely unacceptable that BMI doesn't correct for height properly. BMI is a one trick pony. Its your weight corrected for height. If it can't do that properly then there is no point in it existing

In the past five years I’ve been as high as 85kg and was definitely a fatty and as low as 59kg.

I’m currently 21.7 (176cm x 67.5kg) bang in the middle of healthy, but I have a bit of a tummy and could easily lose a few kgs. As above I look a little POW but 60-63kg feels about right for me, especially on the bike.

As per my posts above, I come under the obese section of the scale, I personally think (and i know i may say different if i was one of the "skinnies") that the whole BMI thing is just far to much of a generalisation. It is saying you are x weight therefore you are considered "normal" or "obese" and whilst weight is one indicator of health, it is not the only indicator of health.

I participate in exercise most days, have pushed my body on 22 hour long rides, run mountain marathons, played rugby at a very high level, but no getting away from it i am "obese" on the scale, yet recent health check up showed i am healthy when you consider actual tests run by a doctor, not just a sliding scale.

Yet, one of my oldest friends idea of healthy food is salad in his burger, he starts drinking most days at about 10-11am, smokes enough skunk weed that he is part chimney and yet BMI states he is "healthy".

What if we both did a job where they took BMI as a consideration as whether or not you are actually healthy and whether you should be considered for the job?

[i]You have a lower BMI than 91% of males aged 45-59 in your country [/i]

23 on the bbc thingy.

What if we both did a job where they took BMI as a consideration as whether or not you are actually healthy and whether you should be considered for the job?

There is a much more common example. Life Insurance.

If you're BMI is above normal, you get an increased premium.

I’ve been as high as 85kg and was definitely a fatty

Interesting. I'm 2cm taller than you, and even at 94kg people didn't think of me as fat and were surprised when I said I was trying to lose weight. I was not at all fat looking, until I would take off my shirt and you could see I didn't look that healthy.

Still, not much wobbly fat though even then.

25 BMI @ 175cm. 76.5kg

Realistic? who knows, probably good as a guide which I guess is what BMI is all about.

Could probably lose a few pounds of insulation but I'm relatively fit, ride ~100miles a week normally, race regularly and I'm happy enough like this. 🙂

179cm, 81.7kg, shade over 26 on the scale. I definitely could do with losing a bit of weight, but am probably as fit as I've ever been...

I guess that means: Good News, you've put on muscle; Bad News, you need to lose some fat 😀

[quote=WackoAK ]I really think that perceptions of normal have shifted

I've recently noticed that I now have to buy medium clothing in almost everything whereas previously it was large..

Strangely enough I actually found the opposite - when I recently bought a shirt I needed a medium when I tried the small first as usual. The small didn't fit me round the shoulders rather than the waist - despite being a serious kayaker for 25+ years not a problem I've had before (though my current programme of higher intensity stuff and weights along with rock climbing might mean I've bulked up more). Is it also that normal people are more scrawny?

[quote=scud ]I participate in exercise most days, have pushed my body on 22 hour long rides, run mountain marathons, played rugby at a very high level, but no getting away from it i am "obese" on the scale, yet recent health check up showed i am healthy when you consider actual tests run by a doctor, not just a sliding scale.
Yet, one of my oldest friends idea of healthy food is salad in his burger, he starts drinking most days at about 10-11am, smokes enough skunk weed that he is part chimney and yet BMI states he is "healthy".
What if we both did a job where they took BMI as a consideration as whether or not you are actually healthy and whether you should be considered for the job?

You seem to be confusing being healthy with being overweight. Clearly fat levels are an indicator of health, but not the only one, and if you are officially obese then unless you're carrying the sort of muscle shown in some of the pics above the chances are you could be more healthy if you lost a bit of weight. Fortunately I don't think any jobs (or indeed anybody apart from ignorant GPs) do use BMI in that blunt a manner.

I'm 2cm taller than you, and even at 94kg people didn't think of me as fat

I didn't really carry it well there was just a thick layer of extra Huw with the figure of Michael Rasmussen underneath.

Fat calipers are cheap as chips though - I may buy some.

What - the calipers or the chips..? 'cos there may lie the problem... 😉

DrP

You seem to be confusing being healthy with being overweight.

He's not.. it's everyone else that does.

20 @ 180cm and 65kg

It's about right, always been "athletic" still says I can drop to 60kg and still be healthy not convinced about that tbh

21.8, slightly lower than about a year ago, but not as low as I'd hoped.
( 5'8 & 63.8kg)

My BMI = 21 (183cm, 68kg), aged 33. Like lots of people my age though, there is a modest but persistent little belly - with me since my early 20s.

Most like a man from the Democratic Republic of Congo!

180cm and 85kg puts in a better place than 70% of my age group but I think that reflect more on my peers than it does me and It took fifty years to look this good.

42yr old, 1.77m tall, max weight 68kg gives 22 and Zimbabwe. You can see my ribs on my sides and I have a hint of a six pack in the right light (and without breathing in!) and most of my cycle kit is small, so god knows how you guys with a BMI of 20 think you can afford to healthily lose weight?

BMI is a clumsy tool, and for its intended function - to highlight that populations are getting heavier/fatter - causes as much confusion as it does help. Its amazing how many "steve redgrave would be obese" comments you get from people who havent used years of athletic training to increase their body mass, so it ends up being counter productive by being so open to ridicule.

BMI is a clumsy tool, and for its intended function - to highlight that populations are getting heavier/fatter - causes as much confusion as it does help

Exactly its not really fit for purpose. bBecause BMI rising in a population could an increase in average height

Its amazing how many "steve redgrave would be obese" comments you get from people who havent used years of athletic training to increase their body mass, so it ends up being counter productive by being so open to ridicule.

Sadly he is now 125 kg and out of training I think we can conclude he is no longer an example of high BMI healthy weight

But of course diabetes doesn't help

19 should be about 18.5 but been off the bike and put about 3kg on round the middle.
Technically borderline undernourished but I eat more than most people.

[quote=ampthill ]Sadly he is now 125 kg and out of training I think we can conclude he is no longer an example of high BMI healthy weight
But of course diabetes doesn't help

No disrespect to a knight of the realm, but he is a genuine fat biffer nowadays!

BMI is a rough tool for the average build if you are a slight or stocky build it it useless.

170cm tall average man has a 36-38" chest and 30" waist (wetsuit sizing)

If you have a bigger chest ie 44" and corresponding waist you come up as over weight and visa versa if a slight build but for the average its ok

Its a load of bollox. They did a BMI on a 6' 7" Olympic rower and deemed him clinically obese.

Once got a health check when I joined a new GP and got told by a wee dumpy nurse that my BMI was a bit on the high side at 26.
The fitness check at the gym though told me my resting heart rate was 45 and I had a body fat %age of 16. The gym test was a bit more accurate IMO.

Its a load of bollox. They did a BMI on a 6' 7" Olympic rower and deemed him clinically obese.

Yes It's a load of bollox for an Olympic rower, doesn't mask the fact that a significant proportion of the population are overweight or obese and that number is increasing. A fair few of those people are in denial about being overweight.

23.3 6 foot and 78kg but as above it is a total load of bollocks as someone like Cavendish would probably be deemed overweight.

Its a load of bollox. They did a BMI on a 6' 7" Olympic rower and deemed him clinically obese.

I'd love to know how he did on the height corrected one. I suspect that might be enough to put him in range as that is very tall

Also it doesn't mean it rubbish just because it doesn't work for olympic rowers

They did a BMI on a 6' 7" Olympic rower and deemed him clinically obese.

It's long been known it doesn't necessarily work for athletes. The question is, how many of us are athletes? 🙂

5'6" 11st 5lb 44yrs. BMI 26. Could lose a few pounds. Rugby and Sprint training in my youth has left a legacy, I think, always been broad, will never be Robert Millar shaped.

It's long been known it doesn't necessarily work for athletes. The question is, how many of us are athletes?

I think what bugs me most about the stupidity of BMI is that not only does it only work for those who are more lightly built than average and not tall, it encourages the obsession with mass as an indicator of health. So many people would be better served by gaining some muscle mass, getting heavier initially and then getting lighter as their quicker metabolism works in their favour - and in the process sorting out a multitude of issues which arise from poor core strength or joint stability. And the older you are, the more beneficial this is.

38 (178cm / 120kg) which puts me squarely in the BMI is a load of bollocks camp. It was still 32 all through my late teens and twenties, when I was playing University and National League rugby, so I don't put much by it. My BP is normal which is what my wife (a nurse) cares about. Last time I did a bleep test at work I was this weight and got to 12 something so I definitely think there are better indicators of health than BMI.

I definitely think there are better indicators of health than BMI.

I think everyone agrees. I'd be surprised if medical professionals were simply focusing on this and nothing else.

Fortunately I don't think any jobs (or indeed anybody apart from ignorant GPs) do use BMI in that blunt a manner.

Some police forces do. I know someone who was turned down from a transfer from West Yorkshire to North Yorkshire based on BMI, and I know a gym instructor (!) who was told he has lose X kgs before he could join thames Valley as a PCSO.

I'm 27.1 and I've hardly any fat at all. 5"10 and 86 kg.it really is rubbish.

Waist to hip & shoulder ratio is probably the most reliable yet simple indicator of healthy levels of fat.

188cm and 81kg bmi 22

6ft & 65kgs BMI 20 aged 67. (have a lower BMI than 99% of males aged 60-69 in your country).
Could be interesting seeing some of your scores when you get to my age 🙂

I think the US army puts staff on a diet who are above a certain BMI.

Fortunately I don't think any jobs (or indeed anybody apart from ignorant GPs) do use BMI in that blunt a manner.

Some police forces do.

pennine - Member

6ft & 65kgs BMI 20 aged 67. (have a lower BMI than 99% of males aged 60-69 in your country).
Could be interesting seeing some of your scores when you get to my age

Good work on your weight though.

24.82. So I'm nearly fat. Better have another toffee crisp then. (I've got a long back, big hip bones, am a professional athlete etc)

Abot right for me if I'm honest. Got a minor pie satchel since Mini S#2 came along and bikes were verbotten. Starting to shift it now though.

[quote=thegreatape ]38 (178cm / 120kg) which puts me squarely in the BMI is a load of bollocks camp.

5'10" and 19 stones. 3 stones more than your competitive rugby weight, when you presumably had rather more muscle than now - that extra flab is enough to take you from being very skinny (which you presumably weren't when a competitive rugby player at 16 stones) to being overweight. What is your waist size?

I definitely think there are better indicators of health than BMI.

Of course there are. BMI is however a fair indicator of unhealthy excess weight.

38". For sure I'm overweight, but a BMI that high is like those people that go on the TV for getting taken out of their house through the wall. I'm not skinny, but I'm not one of them!

Which puts you quite firmly in the "at risk" category and suggests that BMI might not be quite such a load of bollocks http://www.bhf.org.uk/bmi/bmi_measurewaist.html

It's a very rough guide for average builds. According to the scale, I'd be more healthy at 9st 10 than I am now, which is bollocks. 14st is my optimal weight at around 12-15% BF, which still counts me as overweight despite being in the healthy BF range.

BMI is not used to definitively diagnose obesity – as people who are very muscular sometimes have a high BMI, without excess fat – but for most people, it can be a useful indication of whether they may be overweight.
A better measure of excess fat is waist circumference, and can be used as an additional measure in people who are overweight (with a BMI of 25 to 29.9) or moderately obese (with a BMI of 30 to 34.9).
Generally, men with a waist circumference of 94cm or more and women with a waist circumference of 80cm or more are more likely to develop obesity-related health problems.

I'm carrying a good bit spare at the moment (due to 6 month old baby eating gym time) and my waist is still 2-3" less than 37" (94cm) so despite the BMI alarm going off, I reckon I'm OK.

Which puts you quite firmly in the "at risk" category and suggests that BMI might not be quite such a load of bollocks http://www.bhf.org.uk/bmi/bmi_measurewaist.html

Not seen that before - thanks. I've always been told - by Mrs TGA and the doc as above - something along the lines of 'BMI is pish, don't worry about it'.

Not read the whole thread but mine is 35 - do I win?

Now I am quite fat around my chest/stomach and do still need to lose a stone or two ideally, but I don't really have the overall shape or the face of a fat person I don't reckon. I would look ludicrous if I lost 40 kilos which is what my ideal weight would apparently be.

I'm around 34-36 in jeans and an L in most t-shirts etc.

I guess lots of fat people say this but I am pretty damn muscly. 🙂

Was beating two skinny friends up the hills out on the bike last night.

34!

I do more weights than riding and eat 150g of protein.

6ft2 116kg 33" inch waist and 48" shoulders.

I can press my Father overhead but he's only 11 stone.

Need to drop 12kg for a 6 pack but aiming for my first contest in Sept.