NHS bmi | Mumsnet

MarthaMayWho · 2023-12-09T22:41:42+00:00

I was well versed on the NHS Bmi. You used to have to put in male or female and your ethnicity. Changing the sex used to massively skew whether you were in the health zone or not. NHS bmi tool now has no option to choose sex so now a blanket bmi. Surely this is going to cause problems?

SaffronSpice · 10/12/2023 23:42

Unabletomitigate · 10/12/2023 08:05

Fenlandia made a good point.
BMI is good for population level studies of weight, not really helpful for an indvidual. I thought there was a switch to waist hip ratio these days?

That would be a reasonable argument IF it wasn’t being presented to individuals to work out their own BMI

Melroses · 10/12/2023 23:19

OhcantthInkofaname · 10/12/2023 18:47

Because naturally men's bones, muscles, organs, and body tissue are more voluminous in males than females. There is a difference. Using the old MetLife body composition tables is a better indicator than BMI.

Show quote history

Yes, DH is cleary underweight on those tables, which I would agree with.

kitsuneghost · 10/12/2023 21:15

Sex has never been used in the calculation. It's weight over m2 I think

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 21:09

Why does it change one women's range, but not another's? Healthy bmi has been 18.5 to 25 for years.

I wasn't telling anyone not to use it, I was trying to give a simpler alternative that some may find easier. I will suggest what I like thank you.

ChristmasPuddy · 10/12/2023 21:09

The tool hasn’t changed though. Sex has absolutely no impact on BMI.

Original poster

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 21:02

And yet others have found that it does change their range. That stupid little equation is about as useful as typing in boobs on the calculator in comparison. No visual. No advice. No suggestion of percentage to go. So no it doesn't fit the remit. Kindly stop suggesting it.

Just don't use the website/changing room/ sport racking my brains. Where have I heard that before...

OP posts:

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 20:44

I have used the old website, the healthy range is the same on the new one as it was for a female on the old one.

You need less technology and time to type something like 55÷1.65÷1.65 into a calculator than you do to access a website. It was just an alternative though, if you wanted to avoid the website!

Original poster

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 20:36

It's the advice and the visuals and yes, the healthy range.

No, I'm not a man but I would regularly mess around with the same weight and height to see the difference between the sexes. I use the thing regularly as I have been having to lose a lot of weight.

And that's great for you, but as with all these things we don't say ya boo sucks to you just because another women's numeracy, literacy, technology access or time does not tally with our own.

The same as I know that calorie tracker apps work for a lot of people but as someone with an eating disorder history I know it's not helpful for me. If they became less usable for women I wouldn't be insisting it wasn't a problem because they don't work for me.

It's really tiresome.

OP posts:

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 20:30

The healthy range hasn't changed for me with the new look website. What are you saying has changed? I never clicked male as I am not a man but the healthy range is the same as it was when I clicked female before.

I find it much simpler and quicker to use the calculator on my phone than going onto the website, it saves work for me.

Original poster

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 20:18

Well numerous people have explained why it's a problem.

But you keep on with your 'simple explanations', but they don't tally with the changes made to the actual website.

It's not super feminist to expect women to have to do extra work no matter how 'simple' it is. Whether that's mentally realising we're now referred to as 'period people' or changing a tool which helps them track a healthy weight.

The problem is that there are steps along the way to a healthy weight and that the tracker when using sex was useful to track this for a female body without using mathematical equations that are not common knowledge. Why are you insisting that women have to do extra work when a simple calculator did a reasonable job for the average women to help track weight loss.

OP posts:

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 20:08

https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/a-healthy-lifestyle---who-recommendations

This is dated 2010 with the ranges the same, overweight just called pre-obesity, for adults of either sex, 20 and over. What has changed recently?

A healthy lifestyle - WHO recommendations

https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/a-healthy-lifestyle---who-recommendations

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 20:04

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 19:54

So put me in detention then.

I was just trying to help by explaining the simple calculation if you don't like the website.

The healthy range has been the same for a very long time so I don't understand the problem.

Original poster

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 19:54

So put me in detention then.

OP posts:

dudsville · 10/12/2023 19:43

Whoa, suddenly I'm in the healthy bmi range...

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 19:34

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 19:18

Oh great. Maths homework. Just what I wanted for Christmas...

I'd rather stay fat thanks.

It's primary school arithmetic 🙄

ArthurbellaScott · 10/12/2023 19:31

pronounsbundlebundle · 10/12/2023 18:36

Completely with you OP.

Waist size it utterly shit as a health measure if the NHS has failed you in identifying and doing anything about your diastasis recti as is my case and many women I know.

I'm less fat and weigh less than I was when younger but have a bigger waist size because my stomach muscles are - I suspect at this point - permanently separated.

I only found out because I went to an exercise class about 5 years after having DD2 and was doing an exercise and the instructor said 'wait a second, your stomach muscles look.... weird'. Then went on to tell me to do all the same exercises and I have been ever since and bugger all has changed. Any advice from anyone who's managed to do anything about it very welcome.

Pilates can help with diastasis recti. You probably need to get a proper one to one assessment from a good pilates teacher.

And/or, a physio. Your GP should be able to refer you.

Original poster

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 19:18

Oh great. Maths homework. Just what I wanted for Christmas...

I'd rather stay fat thanks.

OP posts:

Minesril · 10/12/2023 19:18

It's also no longer asking how active you are! I do strength training five days a week so am not too bothered about my BMI being 26 as i pass the 'waist test' with flying colours.

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 19:09

OhcantthInkofaname · 10/12/2023 18:57

No, they have not always been the same. It was 20-27 norm. 27- 32 overweight, obese over 32. This all changed mid 1995.

Show quote history

As long as I'd known about BMI then, the past 25 years! It certainly hasn't changed anytime recently so I don't know what the OP is talking about.

If you use metric you don't need any website, just type weight in kg divided by height in m divided by height in m into any calculator. For example 55÷1.65÷1.65

OhcantthInkofaname · 10/12/2023 18:57

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 18:48

The thresholds have always been the same for men and women

Under 18.5 underweight
18.5 to 25 healthy
25 to 30 overweight
30+ obese

As far as I know it's only people of Asian ethnicity where there are lower thresholds for overweight and obese

No, they have not always been the same. It was 20-27 norm. 27- 32 overweight, obese over 32. This all changed mid 1995.

Pipistrellus · 10/12/2023 18:48

The thresholds have always been the same for men and women

Under 18.5 underweight
18.5 to 25 healthy
25 to 30 overweight
30+ obese

As far as I know it's only people of Asian ethnicity where there are lower thresholds for overweight and obese

OhcantthInkofaname · 10/12/2023 18:47

MilkChocolateCookie · 10/12/2023 07:28

I don't see why it matters? It's the same calculation for men and women isn't it?

Because naturally men's bones, muscles, organs, and body tissue are more voluminous in males than females. There is a difference. Using the old MetLife body composition tables is a better indicator than BMI.

pronounsbundlebundle · 10/12/2023 18:41

Yet again something that only affects women so we can fuck off, presumably, and don't count despite being the ones that by a large majority do all the unpaid caring and shit work, so it being quite significant for things like social care if our health gives out quite young.

pronounsbundlebundle · 10/12/2023 18:36

Completely with you OP.

Waist size it utterly shit as a health measure if the NHS has failed you in identifying and doing anything about your diastasis recti as is my case and many women I know.

I'm less fat and weigh less than I was when younger but have a bigger waist size because my stomach muscles are - I suspect at this point - permanently separated.

I only found out because I went to an exercise class about 5 years after having DD2 and was doing an exercise and the instructor said 'wait a second, your stomach muscles look.... weird'. Then went on to tell me to do all the same exercises and I have been ever since and bugger all has changed. Any advice from anyone who's managed to do anything about it very welcome.

Original poster

MarthaMayWho · 10/12/2023 18:22

Better than my partner.

Only one threshold and it's 'fine'.

If I left losing weight up to supportive family members and waist measurements I'd still be obese

OP posts: