Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that BMI calculations are crap in determining if you are over/underweight?

67 replies

GetOrfMoiLand · 12/04/2011 17:28

According to my BMI I am underweight. If you looked at me you wouldn't in a month of Sundays say I was underweight. I am fine boned that is all.

Just made me a bit annoyed because we did BMIs at the gym today (just out of boredom waiting for a class to start) after weighing ourselves - and the people I was with started saying 'ooh you're underweight' just because I number told them I was.

OP posts:
BikeRunSki · 12/04/2011 17:31

To have a normal BMI I have to be so skinny that my ribs stick out and my elbows are pointy.

TurkeyBurgerThing · 12/04/2011 17:33

It irritates me as it doesn't take bodyshape into account. I have ginormous heavy boobs (over a stone) and I know for a fact the weight of them pushes my BMI up. They won't get smaller even though I've lost 3 stone! My BMI would be under 25 if I were normal, but it's over 26, and therefore the NHS won't see me for even a consultation for a breast reduction. Yet someone with Varicose veins could have an op with a bmi of 30!

Even my doctor said it's stupid, and a little bit sexist.

NorfolkNChance · 12/04/2011 17:33

My BMI is rubbish because of my extremely ample bosom, I am small on the rest of my body but because of the chest area (which does not shrink despite BFing and dieting) I am classed as overweight.

nijinsky · 12/04/2011 17:33

Yes, if you have much muscle, you'd be overweight unless extremely tall. It only suits certain builds.

Original poster
GetOrfMoiLand · 12/04/2011 17:34

It's daft. It doesn't take into consideration body types at all.

A good way of determining if you are fine, normal or large boned is to see how far your thumb and index finger go round your wrist. If it overlaps, fine boned, if it touches, normal boned and if it doesn't reach you are large boned.

Your bone size I think can make a huge difference to your weight.

OP posts:
Sidge · 12/04/2011 17:35

It's a starting point, and can be a useful guide, but in isolation is pretty useless.

A BMI on paper means nothing, you need to actually have the person in front of you and take it in context. If my BMI is 25 (essentially normal) I am huge and would - for me - be really overweight.

Original poster
GetOrfMoiLand · 12/04/2011 17:36

One of the women at the gym weighs the same as me, 9 and a half stone, she is 5 inches shorter than me. her BMI is a lot higher, however she is very muscly in build, and has a very broad back and sturdy legs.

OP posts:
NorfolkNChance · 12/04/2011 17:37

Turkey i have the same problem about getting a breast reduction, I have tried everything known to woman to shrink the blasted things, what annoys me most is the amount they would take from them to reduce them to a D cup (am currently an L cup Shock ) would put me in the right BMI range but their hands are tied because of these damn BMIs. Cannot afford to have it done privately.

tyler80 · 12/04/2011 17:44

I reckon if I cut off my boobs I could just sneak into the normal BMI category Grin

Losing weight and boob size follows a sods law sort of principle. If you have an ample bosom it'll be the last place for the weight to disappear from, if you're less well endowed and wouldn't mind keeping the extra it'll be the first bit to shrink!

Original poster
GetOrfMoiLand · 12/04/2011 17:45

That is really unfair about the breast reductions.

L cup! Blimey.

They should apply a bit of common sense to such important decisions, not rely on an arbitrary set of numbers.

OP posts:
sassyTHEFIRST · 12/04/2011 17:48

I am in normal BMI range (24. something) but still can't get the 30Js reduced in NHS cos no "evidence of severe muscular-skeletal damage".

Postcode lottery innit. Gah.

Original poster
GetOrfMoiLand · 12/04/2011 17:51

Jesus christ you have to have suffered severe skeletal damage before they even look at you Shock

Have they not thought of the fact they will be preventing such damage in the future?

That is really awful.

OP posts:
winnybella · 12/04/2011 17:52

It's BS, I agree. I have a BMI of 21, so well in the healthy range, yet have rolls of fat around my stomach and hips- because I'm very small boned. When I was fit, my BMI was in the 'underweight' range.

Good as an indication, though.

sassyTHEFIRST · 12/04/2011 17:53

Shit isn't it Getorf. Bound to cost more in the longterm - I already get back problems. But heigh-ho, the NHS probably won't exist by that time so better get saving.

Original poster
GetOrfMoiLand · 12/04/2011 17:54

Yes Winny - I thought 'if I am so damn underweight, why are my thighs hefty and my stomach flabby?'

OP posts:
Librashavinganotherbiscuit · 12/04/2011 18:04

For most people a BMI is a good indicator, however much you may claim to be small/thin/normal/fat/large boned. For those people it is not a good indicator for (i.e atheletes) then they are aware not to use it.

chicletteeth · 12/04/2011 18:08

For women, if you're small person a healthy BMI ranges from 18-23. Does that make you in the normal weight range now?

tyler80 · 12/04/2011 18:11

I am not an athlete, I am not big boned, I am not deluded (i have a profile pic if you want to check). BMI still says I'm overweight

I am aware that BMI is not a good indicator for me, it's a pity health care professionals aren't as enlightened

TrillianAstra · 12/04/2011 18:19

I agree with Libras - for most people it is a good indicator of a healthy weight range. Not that you will be healthy at a BMI of 19 and healthy at a BMI of 25, but that your healthy weight is somewhere within the range.

You're clearly just a freak Wink

aceofcakes · 12/04/2011 18:21

Personally I think body fat is a much more reliable indicator. I worked in a gym and reguarly weighed and measured the members. I remember being amazed weighing two members who were both 5ft 4 and weighed around the same 9st 7lb, but one had a body fat percentage of 23% whilst the other was 30%. The 23% was toned and around a size 10 whilst the 30% was at least a 12 and carried alot of weight around her tum. BMI is defnitely not a reliable indicator.

NorfolkNChance · 12/04/2011 18:23

GetOrf they were just about manageable at a J cup but after having DD they have grown even more into an L cup but I am only a 30 back so it's all in the front IYKWIM.

My consultant surgeon is very sympathetic but not sympathetic enough to put me in for the op (unless of course I pay him privately - no surprises there then!)

Maryz · 12/04/2011 18:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pixielovescake · 12/04/2011 18:32

Its total rubbish. Its especially bad for children i think. Doesnt take into account that they might be about to have a rowth spurt or have just had one. My BMI is 16.7 or something stupid because i have a very very small frame. Nothing wrong with me whatsoever. but ive had to argue and arue with medical professionals who insist there must be because my bmi is too low. (i have had tests btw so i know this to be true.) Bone densisty is also something doctors should be able to factor in.

minipie · 12/04/2011 18:32

"For women, if you're small person a healthy BMI ranges from 18-23"

Damn, not doing as well as I thought then.

Where did you hear this chicletteeth?

Bucharest · 12/04/2011 18:34

As I am, of course GOML's twin, separated at birth WinkI too am fine boned, and am positively a skinnymalinks acc to BMI doodah.

Yet I can pinch more than an inch. And then some.

I'm just normal. And beanstalk tall, so it's got more space to spread out on.

Swipe left for the next trending thread