MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Someone at the bbc has clearly been following this little spat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43895508
The waist/height ratio would be a considerably worse measurement, I have colleagues with a huge beer gut and another that appears fairly slim but when seen without a top they seem to have a 1" layer of the wobbly stuff evenly spread over the upper half of their body.
With a waist:height ratio the second guy would be healthy, and Mr beer gut would be unhealthy despite overall weight being the same. Fat sits in different places, around the torso being the worst.
You can argue the accuracy/validity of measuring your BMI/waist/height/fat percentage but at the end of the day we are a fat nation and struggling with obesity and being overweight.
you only have to see the amount of waddlers in the street or look in people’s shopping baskets to see this, it’s becoming normal.
It is a simple method that indicates heathly weight ranges for 99% of people. You can come up with cases that don't fit but that doesn't mean it is not a good indicator for vast majority of people.
A person with a BMI of 40 is 99% more likely to suffer weight related health issues than a person with a BMI of 23.
A person with a BMI of 26 (and superfit and muscly) is not more likely to suffer weight related health issues than an unfit person with a BMI of 23. These sort of people are in the 1%. I am fit and fairly muscly but still under 25 BMI.
It is clearly not an exact science and simply an indicator. Yes most people know if they are overweight but it helps put in perspective just how overweight they are and what the health risks of being overweight to the level they are.
BMI is a decent indicator, but does have some flaws. That said, if you have a high BMI chances are it's because you're fat, rather than a super athlete, and if you're falling back on the excuse of being an athlete then you'll probably have a nutritionist and coach who'll be telling you to ignore BMI anyway. If you haven't - then ChubClub is over there ->
The flaws (for normal people) are:
was created at a time (1840) when people didn't have easy computer 'type in weight and height' access. As a result is a very simple calculation, and in being related to the square of height misses one point which is that as people grow bigger (not fatter) they generally do so in three dimensions. As a result tall people are somewhat penalised by the BMI measure (I'd like to see the distributions filtered for height ranges) However, we don't expand front to back (and I don't mean bellies) as proportionally as we do in width vs height, hence a cube correlation doesn't work well.
Consequently an Oxford applied maths academic proposed a new variant based on height ^2.5 https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html which makes an allowance for that.
Second issue is that people are different shapes before fatness and thinness is accounted. Sirs Hoy and Froome are the same height, and I'll bet you if you measured their dimensions without fat and muscle they'd be different (eg: shoulders from clavicular tip to tip, point of hip bones, etc.) so even at the same level of covering there's more of Hoy than there is of Froome, yet their BMI would be calculated just on height. Indeed, Specialized makes saddles in widths from 127 to 155 from memory to account for pelvis width differences - that's a 20% difference.
Lastly; the limits are arbitrary and black and white. I don't think health considerations of weight / fatness nicely divide into boundaries of 5 units each, and nor is someone with BMI of 24.8 so different from from someone with a BMI of 25.2 compared to the health differences of someone with BMI of 22 vs 29.7 - yet on this scale and reporting two are overweight and at risk of...... and two aren't.
So - it's a useful indicator for populations in general where these points average out, but it's not the full picture individually.
21 BMI here.
Watched Hughs fat fight on bbc1 last night, very interesting.
Lazy nation, expectation of instant communication, instant fixes and instant food.
Scary to think the next generation 70% will be obese by the time they're in their 30s.
For those saying BMI isn't an indicator of healthiness, you may feel fitter when you were a bit larger but it's not about your ability to cycle 500 miles in a day it's about the strain on your body with things like increased fat build up around organs.
165cm and 71kg 30"waist. According to bmi I'm overweight .
I'd agree just was 69kg at Christmas but chest infection stopped exercise and increased eating. Was up to 72kg but being 48 an enjoying the odd beer has an effect.
Mind you my ride tonight is 15km ss with 400m of climb. So I'm not exactly on the wrong side of healthy yet.
So – it’s a useful indicator for populations in general where these points average out, but it’s not the full picture individually.
Exactly and I don't believe anyone has said that it provides the full picture individually, how could it.
22.4.
79% of men in my age group are over weight. That's pretty depressing.
I don’t believe anyone has said that it provides the full picture individually, how could it
People are implying it when they say 'I'm BMI 27 but only 12% body fat and can run a marathon tomorrow, therefore BMI is no good'
It's a statistical measure and statistics relies on populations and distributions, and just because there are outliers doesn't make the overall wrong. Being an outlier and suggesting because you are then the whole distribution and theory is wrong, is wrong.
(although it is still IMHO <span style="text-decoration: underline;">somewhat</span> wrong for the other points in my post. Not badly as in totally discredited, but could be better)
165cm
63kg
48yr old
71cm waist
BMI 23.1 healthy, was 76kg two years ago 27.9 overweight - did seem like a lot at 5ft5in
Trying to see how much more I could lose safely. Using the resistance scale type % fat indicator suggested 21% body fat at the weekend which seemed high? Bit more reading suggested I may have been dehydrated?
I'm wondering if 60kg would be too low, but knowing my body fat % would maybe help decide. Don't want to end up too low and become prone to infections, plus the wife is moaning I'm too skinny now!
I think I'm just in the 'overweight' category which is up for dispute. To be be bang in middle of healthy I'd need to weigh 70 kg at 5.9..which is 9 kg less than just now.
If I weighed 70 kg I'd look ill. When I was training lots I had my body fat measured at 7% and I was 75 kg... Which is right on the borderline of being a fatty apparently... And I looked malnourished .I wasn't a body builder or rugby player.. I just have a bit of arm and chest muscle..you don't need to be an athlete to fall foul of that methodology.
BMI is just a number and without context doesn't mean a great deal on its own.
Mine indicates I'm overweight but if you look at my resting heart rate (RHR) then it's way off the scale, according to the charts about RHR I'm supposedly I'm a super-athlete. Yeah, right.
I might not want to believe the BMI figure's implication but I certainly don't believe that about my RHR.
31 BMI here... 6 ft 3 and 17st 8lbs with a 37" waist.
I don't think people who've seen me would describe me as Obese but i know i could certainly do with losing some, I reckon if i lost a stone I'd be in pretty good nick! As someone mentioned earlier, I think I'm one of those guys who carries an extra inch everywhere above the waist, but unfortunately not below 😉 haha.
When I've looked at these in the past it said my ideal weight is between 11st and 14st. I haven't been that weight since I was about 19 and a couple of inches shorter! I don't think my frame would actually allow me to get to that size. I have a big waist but my chest is in proportion I'd say (circa 46-48 inches) and I have a big arse and legs.
Unfortunately I do have a penchant for filthy foods but I am trying to work on eating cleaner but I have no willpower...
I'm finding the combination of indignation at the idea of being branded officially 'overweight' together with the counter-iinferrence that being 'athletic' is the new 'big-boned' quite entertaining, thanks.
My own status varies according to my height.
22.2 and feeling fat and sassy in my winter body still
@ekul - my dad was 6'4" and 16st7 so a BMI of 28 or thereabouts. At that weight he looked almost emaciated but he was a big bloke with a genuine 48" chest, there was a lot of room to take that weight. While he wasn't "athletic" he'd a lifetime of manual work on the farm so I'd describe him as "muscular".
Interesting that there's now a follow up piece on the BBC site.
In the same way the Bristol Stool Chart doesn't always neatly sum-up your own offerings, BMI is useful because it is a very simple way to evaluate people very quickly. The problem starts when you start applying it rigidly rather than looking at/talking to the human in front of you and using it as a sensible starting point alongside lots of other evidence.
Waist circumference is probably more useful, more of the time, particularly in children.
23.2 BMI and I'm 46, and the summer months usually see me drop a bit.
But 78% of my age group overweight 😬 I know some of my could have health issues impacting on weight, but not 78% of them, the fat knacker's!
39, 187cm & 80kg.
Puts me in at 23 on the BMI scale. Certainly could lose 5kg easily, so under no illusion of the BMI being junk camp. Seems right to me, despite the remarkable number of athletes on here 🙂
I'm a ~32" waist but struggle to get my legs into a slim fit pair of jeans. Too many years of squash and cycling. My legs are not built for running distance!
What is depressing is 89% of 30-44 year olds are fatter than me. Gross.
As noted by an earlier poster, the general problem is that the mid point of the BMI distribution curve doesn't sit over the "healthy" BMI range but in the overweight to obese area. I.e. what people see as "normal" or common weight/shape isn't healthy.
For me, 81kg is the boundary of healthy to overweight. 4.5kg to lose to get there!
I'm in the top half of healthy at 76KG and 186cm tall, aiming to lose another KG so I can claim 75 in Zwift.
I'm already getting flak from the Mrs about being too skinny though, i'm not sure if that's me being 'athletic' in the cycling sense or her wanting me to conform to societal norms 😉
18.7. But I run a lot.
I'm 5'11", 71kg and can take off my 32" waist jeans without unfastening the button. BMI is 21.8, which is smack in the middle of the healthy category. 69% (dude!) of men in my age group are overweight or obese, 72% of men where I live (NE England) are overweight or obese.
I've never smoked, only drink slightly too much, cycle to work, don't eat meat or dairy, eat about 15 of my 5-a-day, and haven't inherited the BRCA2 gene mutation from my mam. Hoping to live forever.
24.1 at 190cm. I've seen a significant increase in, er, insulation since Mrs. 10 had a baby. Gone up from around 20.
We have a despatch office at work, with calibrated parcel scales - so after coming back from a run at lunch I kicked off my trainers and wearing short shorts and a t shirt, jumped on 'em. Although there may have been some weight loss from water loss - I only ran 6 miles, and it was a recovery run too, so I wasn't hammering it and it's been drizzling.
So I've got NEW up to the minute stats!
180cm 60Kg 18.5 (still in the healthy BMI category - just)...
But the truth is I am really quite skinny compared to most people - I struggle to get clothes to fit; but I'm quite careful about my diet - I don't carry weight at all well, at 180cm and 70Kg I look fat.
Mind you, when I run cross country in the winter, if you look at the start line compared to some of the real headbanging xc whippets I look relatively podgy!
I'm still a medium in Castelli though - has anyone ever been a small?
Ooh ooh ooh! I've just looked - I think judging by the previous pages I might look the most like a smack addict!
Anyone else get baggy legs in small running tights? 🙂
5'9" and 76kg, 😆 @ElShalimo for a BMI of 24.8. First time I've been on the right side of 12 stones for a while - would still like to lose another half a stone (or maybe a stone, which would take me back to my latter day race weight and looking at the pics I look distinctly undernourished, so not sure how realistic that is).
I agree that for the majority of the population BMI is a perfectly reasonable measure - even those on here with BMI over 25 are mostly carrying a bit of spare fat. Neither is 1% an unreasonable estimate of the proportion of the population who are sufficiently athletic for it not to work. However a significant proportion of the people I know fall into that category (I tend to associate with people who are active, not those who just sit in front of the telly) and TBH when I was a kg or two heavier a few weeks ago I still had people questioning why I was trying to lose weight - I certainly don't and didn't look anything like the overweight caricature even then, and my 32" waist jeans were already needing belts to stay up (I managed to fit in one of my old 30" waist ones last week). Sure at one point I needed 34" waist trousers, and that was the sign for me that I needed to do something, but then I was well into overweight on BMI despite still not having huge amounts of body fat. Neither am I a gym bunny, but I do naturally put on muscle mass and currently climbing a lot which is resulting in noticeable differences in muscle tone. I reckon on the whole I'm pretty healthy (not eating as well as I should at the moment, but exercising almost every day - I even rode to the shops today which was nominally a rest day).
I'm fatty , about to become a brand ambassador for Mcvities' biscuits.
I thought this was going to be about tyres.
Anyway, since you ask 21.3. I put it down to my body type rather than any claims to athletic prowess.
26.9 bmi
6'2"
38 years old
95kg
38" round the middle
Def need to lose weight
42yo 68kg 175cm 21.9 bmi
Have been slim all my life, despite next to zero exercise through twenties and into thirties and then started cycling. Cycle to work 40+ miles a week. Belly has been slowly developing in tandem with appetite and taste buds so over the past few years have been slowly dipping my toes into bodywieght exercise on and off but only recently starting to exercise regularly enough to actually make relatively small strength gains. I used to get loads of neck/shoulder/back problems, which have become a rarity since exercising.
18.1 what do I win?
157cm and I weighed this morning (post poo) at 45kg despite the monster pizza (mmmmm, pizza) I made last night.
I'm pretty much ordering Asian size 0 clothes online, I can't really shop on the high street anymore.
BMI is a good measure of the obesity (or lack of calories consumed) by a population. It takes absolutely no account of the variation in build between individuals, because when you look at a whole population the naturally lightly built individuals balance out the naturally broader and more muscular individuals.
The man who came up with BMI made it clear that it was for populations, not individuals. It’s being completely misused.
I’m 39, stronger than I’ve ever been, and have a BMI of 26. Happily riding bikes and lifting weights and doing yoga.
This obsession with BMI sends totally the wrong message to too many people. Get fit. Get strong. Stay mobile. Eat wisely. Your weight is immaterial if you follow those tenets.
This is what 18.5 looks like - A SOLID WALL OF MUSCLE! Like a Greek God I tell you! - Who wears short shorts? Me obviously!
Given that the average BMI has grown over the years we are clearly now facing an epidemic of people with a more muscular build and a heavier frame size. I really have noticed when I am out on the local High Street how much more ripped the average Joe seems to be these days........
They must be hiding it under their coats. You wait until the summer when you will clearly see all these muscle bound athletes everywhere.
I was terribly smug while shopping for a new Castelli jacket after the guy in the local bike shop looked at me critically and offered the observation that "medium might be a bit flappy".
This was slightly tempered several weeks later when I went diving and was forced to use a child-size weight belt.
26?
Doesn’t take into account that I bodybuild though. I look great naked according to my drunk missus...
33inch waist and 6ft2, 93kg.
Might quit the weights and focus on slimming and riding.
44 years old, 178cm tall and ~76Kg, bmi 24.
Heck of a lot better than two years ago when I was ~95Kg, hope to go sub 72kg this summer and still be able to climb cat4s with 300+W power.
Our bathroom scales reckon ~9.7% of my current weight is fat.
21.5. Old and unhealthy but compulsive bike rider. If I gave up drinking and ate more the numbers may change. I'd probably lose some KOMs though.
39, 178cm (5'10"), 62kg, 29" = 19.6.
My Garmin scales say 7% body fat, but the previous ones said 5%, so I don't have much faith in that number being a useful absolute.
I do run occasionally 🙂
19.2 I'd like to ride my bike but am worried I might snap in two if I exert myself.....
“Given that the average BMI has grown over the years we are clearly now facing an epidemic of people with a more muscular build and a heavier frame size.”
The sarcasm actually highlights the reality - on average the population is fatter and more overweight than it used to be. But that doesn’t make it a suitable measure on an individual basis.
Also, saying BMI does not work for less than 1% of individuals doesn’t mean it works well for everyone. If it’s as little as 0.5% that’s still 300,000 for whom it is a poor measure.
If it’s as little as 0.5% that’s still 300,000 for whom it is a poor measure.
Most of whom appear to be indignantly posting on here 😀