Mines 28.

At the gym (well Jacuzzi/sauna) last night I used a techy machine to weigh etc myself and apparently at a BMI of 28 I have a higher BMI than 54% of UK males and 81% of blokes in the world. 😯

Sauce: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18770328#G1A42H1.87W97.8C167

I’ve heard the ‘well muscles etc weight more’ but I thought that was driven by us biffers?

Just 2 more BMI and I’m obese.

I’m 15.5stone/97.8kg, 1.87metres/6ft1.6

20.56

is it realistic ..no idea tbh

FWIW i can loose 5 kg [at 5 10 and 65 kg] and still not be underweight.
That surprised me tbh

i can loose 5 kg [at 5 10 and 65 kg] and still not be underweight.

Thats crazy.

My bmi is about 21.
But I am a 12 foot tall body builder….

DrP

(Hang on, I got that wrong didn’t I…)

27.7 – hora you fat bastard.

FWIW i can loose 5 kg [at 5 10 and 65 kg] and still not be underweight.
That surprised me tbh

Surprises me too – you’re exceptionally skinny IIRC.

I need to be sub-80kg to just tip into normal, according to this. I had set my sights on 80kg as being my supreme racing weight 🙂

98kg and 6ft 1 is pretty tubby to be fair.

BMI is an indicated only and generally works for those of normal build. If you are in to any extremes of physique then it becomes less sensical as a measure.

My BMI is 26.5 apparently, not that I really care. I’m 6’1 and 14 stone 4. What I’m amazed at is that the NHS calculator reckons my healthy weight range is 9st 14 to 13st 7. I can tell you now at 9st 14 I would look seriously ill, like knocking on deaths door ill. Ridiculous

When I was very fit and training silly amounts it was 26.1 (6’5″ 15.5 stone) which is apparently overweight. No one would have said I was overweight (to my face 🙂 ).

It’s a helpful tool up to a point but doesn’t really work well for tall/short people or those who do sports that tend to build muscle.

25 BMI me @ 5’10. about 79-80kg.

Well, I will fit well into the South Korean society apparently because I am very similar to them. hmmm … must be the mongol gene.

I am a fatty apparently.

Surprises me too – you’re exceptionally skinny IIRC.

Yes that is what I would say as well tbh. I am wondering if it is set a little low as no way could I lose 5 kg and not be emaciated. i would look like I was leaving a concentration camp and would fit in teenagers clothes

98kg and 6ft 1 is pretty tubby to be fair.

I’d agree but then 34″ jeans/trousers across all brands and tshirts in large max is hardly tubby. Must be down to the mythical heavy bones

But you’re tall, aren’t you Junkyard?

The lightest I’ve been at my full adult height is 13.5 stone at which point I was unhealthily scrawny and that puts me only mid range in the BMI chart. That was after travelling for a month and basically not eating because I didn’t have any money…

22 according to your link. Realistic? – don’t know.

I have fit ‘less chubby’ periods and sometimes have some ‘muffin-tops’ 🙂
Probably somewhere in-between right now.

22.1
— I’m 51, 5′ 8 1/2″, 67kg (10st 5 or 6 lbs typically).

The thing is, that’s bang in the healthy weight (as above). Now I know that if I lost even 2 or 3 lbs, I’d not really be in a good way – flab grab is minimal even at the moment, there’d be none! pretty fit, legs are decently strong, arms too – solid.

Healthy range is from 8st 10lb to 11st 11lb – I’ve been under 10st only once in recent past – 25 years ago after a posting in Japan (!) and it was not a healthy look.. under 9st? get away!

mine is 24 at 82 kg whilst I would say I am close to racing fit. At onl 3kg more i would be overweight whilst i would say that most people would still envy my riding then(I was 85 last year and climbed at 1000VAM)I could offcially mose ten kg and be healthy though in reality i would be close to death. And its not from gyming to much I haven’t been in a gm for at least 5 year.

I have studied as a coach. BMI is good as a first indication for the general population. Though it is not accurate for muscular people and not accurat for quite tall or quite small people.

22 BMI and have a lower BMI than 94% of the UK!! bloody hell!! most like someone from Niger. TBH I though I’m ‘Mr average” … Turns out mr Average is a biffer

5’10” and 11st.

28.2 currently
Even when I was 7 kg lighter and pretty fit it was still 25!!!
I did hit 37 when i was a 20st chubbster (and occasional rugby prop)

But you’re tall, aren’t you Junkyard

Only when I lived in Wales 😉

Nope only 5 10

And 2 kg lighter than kcall

Junkyard – lazarus

But you’re tall, aren’t you Junkyard

Only when I lived in Wales

Nope only 5 10

And 2 kg lighter than kcall

That’s underweight … 😆

Had no idea, but having just looked it up 22. Blimey, at 6ft I’d need to be under 10st to be considered borderline underweight 😯

No idea. What will it help me to find out knowing such a thing?

28.4 here (16st 9lb, 6’4″) although I wouldn’t class myself as overweight, just chunky.

Althought I have just put on 7lbs in the last week thanks to Matt’s superb 3 course dinners at the White Rooms!

20.5 with 8.5% body fat, measured a few weeks ago.

188 and 73kg, or 6,2″ and 11.5 stone.

About as low as I get as it’s on the border of people thinking I’m ill.

22 – I’m 42, 1.8m, 72kg. Not surprised I’m in the middle of the healthy range – there’s still a bit (not a lot!) of flab I could get rid of.

I’d say BMI is generally pretty accurate – have you got a gut? Then the BMI is correct. 6 pack and huge arms from playing professional rugby? Maybe not so much – but you’d know if that were the case.

I’m 28 as well Hora. And I’d say I’m definitely on the portly side. Which I’m actually trying to do something about for the first time in my life (in case anyone missed Greggs issuing a profits warning)

The range of weights its given me as an ideal weight is ridiculous though. I’d have to hack off a couple of limbs

20.4/”normal” (first time I’ve been called that!) at 5’10”, 10st2.

Fighting weight is usually a little less than that. Below 10stone I notice my power output dropping, but I can climb bloody well. Much more than I am now, I really notice the extra weight when grinding up steep hills. I’m carrying a little more upper body muscle these days than I used to as I’m rock climbing regularly.

Most (non-sporty) people would call me skinny, but I wouldn’t say I either feel or look it myself…

BMI is a crap measure – it takes no account of body make up so all it can tell you is the ratio of your height to your weight.

People seem to think it will tell then if they are under or over weight, which implies having too much fat, which it can’t.

Chris Hoy is obese by his BMI – says it all really.

About as low as I get as it’s on the border of people thinking I’m ill.

🙂 If I get any lower than what I am now (22 apparently) then mrs blobby really starts to complain!

BMI is simply a measure of risk. If you’re white, risk of health problems (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, various cancers) increase at a BMI of over 25, increase more at over 30 and even more at over 35. However, some people will deal better with excess weight than others. Another, more accurate, assessment of risk is waist circumference.
You have a higher risk of health problems if your waist size is:
more than 94cm (37 inches) if you’re a man
more than 80cm (31.5 inches) if you’re a woman
Your risk of health problems is even higher if your waist size is:
more than 102cm (40 inches) if you’re a man
more than 88cm (34.5 inches) if you’re a woman
The BHF tells you how to measure it: Waist circumference (Don’t just use trouser sizes – you’re probably wearing them under your waist.)

If you are Asian your risk increases at lower weights /waist circumferences.

The BMI is widely used because it’s pretty simple. If you are a professional athlete chances are your BMI will put you in the higher risk category but your waist circumference will be lower. It’s not a hard test though – is my BMI >25? Am I an athlete? If I wear my trousers on my hips does my stomach overhang them?If the answers are Yes, No, Yes then you’re at higher risk.

The ideal BMI is around 21-22 but you can go down to 18.5 before anyone gets really concerned. 60% of the population have a BMI of over 25 so people with lower, but still normal, BMIs look skinny to modern eyes (unless they’ve been airbrushed).

6’3″ and 14 stone so 24.

I think at my height I can go down to 11 stone 3 – which would be pretty skinny, about what I was when I was 14yo (and the same height as I am now).

Jeans are sized to flatter in my experience – I think you’ll find a couple of extra inches if you use a tape measure!

30.2

Yup, tubby funster here!

BMI is an indicated only and generally works for those of normal build. If you are in to any extremes of physique then it becomes less sensical as a measure.

The problem is people then kid themselves that they’re not average to justify their BMI. I’ve got fair sized arms/shoulders/back and probably pretty good core muscles from sailing, and probably reasnoble legs from cycling. But that’s not why my BMI’s 30.

Realisticaly I remember being 80kg as a rugby prop in high school, and still being a bit tubby.

Jeans are sized to flatter in my experience – I think you’ll find a couple of extra inches if you use a tape measure!

Depends on the brand and the size IME.

36″ French connection jeans seem to be about the same as 32″ **** and 34″ Hillfiger, and even then the FC jeans measured up more than 36″. But the bigger they go the more flattering they get, the difference between 32 and 34 is about 2″, but 36 and 38″ feels more like a 4″ difference!

25.5 here, which makes me overweight. 32″ waist would suggest that’s not realistic, but like plenty of others on here I’m packing way more than the normal amount of muscle. Though I did used to have a BMI around 22.5 (and a 30″ waist) until fairly recently, and back in my skinny triathlon days a BMI of ~21 (and 29″ waist), so I’m clearly overweight compared to what I could be.

23.3 in the higher third of “healthy” weight sounds right-ish, I could lose a few pounds if I tried properly, lower end would need someone with a very slight frame.

In my twenties I had a BMI of ~26 and people thought I was OK weight, publics perception of healthy weight is not very accurate

… what Cyve said especially:

The BMI is widely used because it’s pretty simple. If you are a professional athlete chances are your BMI will put you in the higher risk category but your waist circumference will be lower. It’s not a hard test though – is my BMI >25? Am I an athlete? If I wear my trousers on my hips does my stomach overhang them?If the answers are Yes, No, Yes then you’re at higher risk.

The ideal BMI is around 21-22 but you can go down to 18.5 before anyone gets really concerned. 60% of the population have a BMI of over 25 so people with lower, but still normal, BMIs look skinny to modern eyes (unless they’ve been airbrushed).

BMI is a crap measure – it takes no account of body make up so all it can tell you is the ratio of your height to your weight.

People seem to think it will tell then if they are under or over weight, which implies having too much fat, which it can’t.

Chris Hoy is obese by his BMI – says it all really.

It’s a perfectly good measure for the vast majority of the population – the limits are well known: elite (or very serious amateur) athletes, very tall and very short people. Unless you’re in one of those categories the chances are you’re just kidding yourself.

‘Back in the day’ my fighting weight was 95Kg near as no matter 15st, at the time I had a 48″ chest and a 32″ waist BMI said i needed to lose 1.5st where from?

BMI of 17

I’ve got a six pack though 🙂

21.5 and below 96% of males in my age group. Apparently I could lose 4 kilos, but I’m not sure from where.

Currently about 26.5; just under 6 ft and 13.10 (87kg)

I know I need to lose about 3kg / half a stone to get back to being proper comfy in my skin which would make me about 25.5 so still ‘overweight’ on the scale; lowest I’ve been for many years was just prior to the 12:12 last year at 12.13, and I did look quite gaunt.

My mid range BMI for healthy (22.5) would be 74.2kg, ie: 2st lighter than i am now, and bottom end would be 66kg (10st 5) I can’t imagine I’d be healthy at that weight!!

There was a ‘new’ BMI proposed a couple of years back. The rationale that as people get taller, they also get wider and deeper, hence a system that takes your height change and only factors it as a square is over simplified, and was only devised that way because in the 1840’s when the ability to do complex calculations and proper statistical analysis was more limited.

http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html

How do you stack on that calculator? (I’m still fat!)

The explanation http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html is interesting, particularly wrt the impact of muscle vs fat.

What about the density of muscle vs. fat? We hear about this frequently in discussions of BMI (including in the Economist article I was responding to, which mentioned Olympic weight lifters), but it’s a smaller effect. Muscle is about 18% denser than fat. This means that if you heroically exercised so much that you converted 10% of your body volume from fat to muscle (wow!), your BMI reading would go up just 1.8%. That’s much less than the corrections just mentioned for short or tall people.

22 here

*chuckles at the tubbies*