Forum menu
BMI of 29.1 ( ish )
waist = 36
and overweight, but not at all concerned when compared to 7 months ago
BMI of 41 ( ish )
waist was 46 + , and definitely obese, so progress has been made, and continues
@TheBrick - OK, fair point, disturbing or worrying might have been a better word.
19.1 here.
I am not particularly active, don't eat that well and have an office job. I am far from fit.
However I don't eat that much, don't drink large quantities of alcohol and have always been skinny.
I've gained a couple of kilos in the last year or so, and could do with gaining some more lean muscle, which I plan to do through exercise and diet changes.
21.8
I've put on a few lbs too in the last 3 years since my daughter arrived and riding time has got less.
18.6
Last time the BBC did one of these it compared you to where you fit on the global fat scale. I.e. what country you are the closest to the average BMI of. I was closest to the inhabitants of Eritrea. A famine hit African country with an appalling human rights record.
21.5/178 cm/68 kg
could go lower but would be hard work. I eat 10 days of food per week already. Target race weight of 65 kg would probably result in divorce.
Most of the pros are actually about the same BMI. Some will have to work at it harder than others
BMI of 26.6 so officially overweight and I'm at an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease.
Funny that, because at 37 I've got c.12% body-fat, can do 15 strict wide-grip chin ups, bench 120kg+, and get to level 13.x on the bleep test.
Total bollox, as mentioned above. BMI was created to study whole populations and when used on an individual basis is totally meaningless.
A simple waist vs height ratio is far more indicative and involves exactly no online calculators or square roots.
Waist-to-height ratio more accurate than BMI in identifying obesity, new study shows
I keep meaning to get a DEXA bodyfat scan, just out of curiosity…
Same here, but can't quite justify the time, effort or cost. I'm always realistic about body-fat and occasionally use a caliper on the hip to get a ball park figure. 12% to me is you can clearly see abs but not a ripped six pack.
Total bollox, as mentioned above. BMI was created to study whole populations and when used on an individual basis is totally meaningless.
No it isn't, For the average person it is a good indicator. For someone who is not average and likes to spout body fat numbers and how much they can bench press it may not be very indicative - maybe an ego test or self worth test or something like that is more appropriate 🙂
You are in the 0.n% of people I referred to earlier. Walk down the street and look around you and you will see that....
I'm overweight and I know I am but I've got a very knackered knee, sciatica, a penchant for beer and a proclivity for pastry (and all things beige - bread, pasta, pies, chips etc). I'm slightly under the average for my age (46) which means that there are a lot of proper fat knackers out there. WALL-E is starting to look like Nostrdamus now.
All the posters above mixing metric and imperial units will be exiled when I become King. Arrgh!
19.1 - 10st - 6ft - 32w I'm 71 hence imperial measurements.
Never managed to reach 11st in my entire life. 32" waist since a teenager. Hill walker for over 50yrs with many years climbing, caving & last 25+yrs mountain biking.
25.4 BMI, which is about right, as it suggests I am slightly on the overweight side of things and that's the way I look. I am 179 cms tall and currently weigh 81.5 kgs, but am working to get down to my 'racing weight' over the next few weeks, so am aiming to be about 77 kgs by the end of May.
My BMI is around 28 but fat percentage is 15.
I am officially bordering obese!!!
For the average person it is a good indicator
It's just not. For the average person it will give a meaningless average result-ish that tells you nothing. Most people are average on the bell curve and it's a test to see who falls outside this, except for those that fall outside it it often doesn't work. It takes no account of frame size, amount, or not, or muscle carried, etc.
maybe an ego test or self worth test or something like that is more appropriate
Maybe! Being knowledgeable, positive and proud about your own body isn't very British! Ha!
You are in the 0.n%
Maybe 10 years ago, yes, but not these days. Plenty of the next generation are in fantastic shape especially with the increase in knowledge from the internet and things like Crossfit.
Most people are average on the bell curve and it’s a test to see who falls outside this, except for those that fall outside it it often doesn’t work. It takes no account of frame size, amount, or not, or muscle carried, etc.
Well, yes. But we do have a thread here in which almost the entirety of STW falling above 25 is claiming to be an outlier because they're Schwarzenegger/Hoy, not because STW is probably quite average, and they're quite average and quite average is now quite tubby.
I don't know how many STWers you've met in real life, but it's safe to say there's more pastry than Pilate's, and there has never been a forum ride ending at a salad bar.
19.1
180cm, 62Kg, 73cm waist - built like a Greek God (whoever the Greek God for Malnutrition was)...
Through lots of running/cycling and careful diet I lost about 10Kg 18 months ago, and it's stayed off thankfully - but my running times especially have improved massively - my speed appears to be completely connected to my weight - climbing on the bike's better too!
t’s just not. For the average person it will give a meaningless average result-ish that tells you nothing.
It just is. Of course it tells you something. If one person is 35 and another is 22 the person who is 35 is overweight and that is very unlikely to be because they are some muscle bound athlete (again there will be 0.n% of those that are)
Most people are average on the bell curve and it’s a test to see who falls outside this, except for those that fall outside it it often doesn’t work.
You say often, where in reality it is a tiny amount, say 0.n%. Walk through a busy office, walk through a busy street and then come back and tell me how many people you see that are going to be heavy due to high muscle mass.
6.0ft - 74.5kg - 32” waist & 63yrs = 22.1 BMI.
Am I fit? Well since switching from the MTB to the road bike I have been doing an average of 200 miles a week. So reasonably......
my speed appears to be completely connected to my weight
Yep, I often imagine running/riding carrying a 10kg weight and realise losing weight would help
At 24.7 I'm on the upper end of healthy though - just got to be a bit careful which is fine. I'm happy to use BMI as an indicator rather than an absolute measure
According to the BBC thing I'm overweight - 28 BMI.
But I'm in better shape than most men my age apparently.
25.4 just overweight. But I've got childbearing hips and a MASSIVE head.
It just is.
Without staring odd forum tennis, it really is.
Let me give you an example: johnhighfield above. Sorry John!
74.5kg with a BMI of 22.
John loses 5kg of body fat and gains 5kg of muscle. He would not only be dramatically fitter, but look better and very likely be far healthier as well (John, I'm sure you look dreamy already).
His BMI would remain the same - but it's still a good indicator?
Madness.
Well, yes. But we do have a thread here in which almost the entirety of STW falling above 25 is claiming to be an outlier because they’re Schwarzenegger/Hoy
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you understand where the bell curve lies. 20-25 is the "healthy" range, but this doesn't mean this is where the centre of the normal distribution falls, this is where it "should" lie according to whomever stuck arbitrary numbers of this outdated measure. The UK isn't particularly healthy and it's average BMI was 27.3 as of 2014, and I'm not sure it's improved since then, and this is borne out by the responses above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_mass_index#WHO_Data_on_Mean_BMI_(2014)
My personal BMI of 26.6 is under the UK average so hardly a crazy outlier. Also, 12% body fat at a 26.6 bmi is no Arnold or Hoy. It's decent shape with an emphasis on having put a bit of muscle on a largish frame. We're not talking six packs and steroids here, we're talking deadlifts, chinups, steak and chips. Just over 14 and a half stone at 6'2".
According to the BBC thing I’m overweight – 28 BMI.
But I’m in better shape than most men my age apparently.
That's probably right. Most men are overweight or obese.
21.9, 31” waist (for what it’s worth).
Do people not know if they're overweight or not without having to fill in some quasi-scientific quiz?
Do people not know if they’re overweight or not without having to fill in some quasi-scientific quiz?
Apparently they won't know that they're overweight even after the quiz!
Last year I was 29.3 now I'm 23 and need a new cycling wardrobe
21.9, 31” waist
16st 2lb ,Overweight and I know it.
32.4 on the BMI scale (obese)
47 , 5'10" , 36" waist , 47" chest. I walk 10-12 miles every work day and ride at least a couple of times a week off road. I feel fairly fit but just enjoy my home cooked meals a bit more than I should. Ideally I'd like to get down to 15 stone and I'm half heatedly trying to cut back . The BMI scale reckons I should be a maximum of 12st4lb , I weighed that when I was playing rugby at 16 years old.
Apart from the guy who ran the marathon nearly as fast as Mo i suspect there arent many ‘athletes’ here…
How do you define athlete? Or are you just working in a way to be shitty to people for some reason?
As for being not fat but BMI > 25, it really doesn't take that much muscle to push you over. Plenty of people I work with are much narrower at the shoulder, bum and thigh than me, weigh less, but have a paunch.
22.8. Lightest I've been for probably 25 years at the moment.
Plenty of people I work with are much narrower at the shoulder, bum and thigh than me, weigh less, but have a paunch
This is why it's a bit of a joke and a good example of why waist vs height is a better simple metric, and without needing square roots.
Also, your skinny with paunch person loses a pound of fat and gains two pounds of muscle and they've suddenly become closer to being overweight and obese.
No idea what my BMI is, but I’m still sylph-like at 63...
Have a crisp lads.
25 but I am a tall git go the odds are slightly stacked in my favour. Bottom half looks pretty good if I do say so myself. Top half of the body is a different matter completely!
So, do I use my height from when I was taller? I have a set of those BMI scales and the results are clearly bollox because if you alter the height it changes the fat, muscle and other ‘readings’.
I weigh exactly the same as last year but there is more fat due to injury/too much input.
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)