Body Mass Index and recommended weights

[leng]

This seems to be quite a sensible site.

http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm

Check out the "ideal weight calculator" and read the caveats

[Serani]

Hmmm. That's interesting. I've often thought my "ideal weight" seemed kind of low, but I figured, too, I was just giving myself an excuse to be lazy.

VERY interesting site. Thanks!

[GravenStone]

/rant

In my view BMI is a steaming pile of crap, at least for those of us on the outer edges of the Gaussian population distribution. Body weight tends to change as the cube of the height differential, not the square. Yes, my BMI is high (36.8, I'm 6'5", 310ish) but to suggest that my "medically optimal" weight should be 160 to 211 is ludicrous. Lightest I've ever been at this height was 210, and that only for a month or two before my weight stabilized at 220 through late HS/most of college. Much as I'd love to reach back to that weight, I would think a more modest (and reasonable) intermediate value would be much more appropriate.

/rantoff

Your mileage may vary...

[Draknor]

Agreed. I've taken a few of these types of surveys. I'm 5'11" and about 160 pounds right now (my problem isn't weight but rather cholesterol :roll: ).

While this one says I'm "ideal", I've run into similar ones that have told me I'm borderline overweight at 170-175 - which is about the most I've ever weighed. The same ones suggested I could get down to 135-140 and not be considered underweight - if I did that I'd look emaciated.

As a basic target guideline it might be okay, but some of these things are just too strict and don't take other factors into consideration - like the fact that everyone is different. I've yet to run into a completely "average" person, weight or otherwise.

[Raveneye]

I've never taken BMI seriously. For one thing, it does nothing to account for percentage of body fat or physical condition of the subject. For example, a male, age 21, weighing 215 pounds at 6'3" tall is considered overweight by quite a bit using BMI. The point guard for my favorite college basketball team matches those numbers, I'd love to see a doctor pronounce him medically unsound due to a weight problem. :)

I think most people are smart enough to know when they've reached a weight and body type that is healthy for them and when they've become overweight or out of shape. BMI would have us all looking like Lara Flynn Boyle if we accepted it as gospel.

[DinbinFanfoom]

Me either. I know I'm overweight at 5'10"/195 but suggesting an ideal weight of 160 is nuts. At 160 I'd be a rack of bones if I had any muscle mass at all. I wouldn't go under 175.

[ColonelSanderz]

I'm 5' 7'' almost and 120 lbs....

[Caranthir]

At my worst I was 6'2-1/2" and 179 lbs. Sounds like that would be pretty much ideal by BMI standards, but I looked like a concentration camp survivor.

I think ideally I should be at about 200 lbs, so that's what I'm shooting for.

[leng]

Like I said, read the caveats. BMI offers a range of acceptable weights, not an Ideal. It is a broad range which covers most of the population, although any sort of generalisation is suspect at the outer fringes.

The "Ideal Weight" section of the site generates an offering from a formula relating height to people's perception of their own ideal weight. This is not the BMI. The more advanced BMI stuff on the site actually offers ranges with a gender bias as well, something the original BMI does not do (read their criticism of BMI).

Nothing will give the correct result in every case, especially when there is not a real "correct" answer. In the quoted case (195/5'10") the traditional BMI gives a weight range of 140-175. I agree that for a 5'10" man 140 is probably well underweight (unless you have a build like a Masai tribesman) but 175 is probably reasonable. The gender modified formula actually has a top limit of 187. You admitted to being a bit overweight :wink:

I'm not going to argue about the square/cube thing as it is basically irrelevant. The BMI is intended to work over a limited range. It is not ideal but it can give a feel for where you are on the reasonable weight scale.

As for 6'2.5", the traditional BMI upper limit (25) gives 203 lbs, so 200 is within the range. The gender modified version would allow a weight up to 217lbs.

The main thing about BMI is that it offers ranges, rather than a single "ideal".

[Caylor]

Thank you for the site!

I have found that as I have previously tried to attain my "ideal" weight, I never felt well or healthy. I don't believe the guidelines take into consideration all of the individual natures that our bodies have.

I can only follow what my body tells me. If I get breathless easily, then I am out of shape. If I can't comfortably tie my shoes then my gut is too big. You get my drift. We know what will make our bodies function better. We know when we are struggling because we carry too much weight and when we carry too little weight.

I use a scale as a tool to measure progress in my goal to become healthier and tend not to get hung up on the numbers. I find that the more I read on the charts and figures, the less they will apply to my goals.

[Asharad]

This is considerably better than the BMI stuff I had seen previously (which always listed me as slightly overweight- I'm not).

It put me in the 38th percentile with a BMI of 23.7. Also, it includes the caveat about how athletic people are going to have their results skewed upwards.