to think BMIs are ridiculous?!

[HairTodayBlondeTomorrow]

I'm 5 foot 4 and after my kids ended up at 13st 9lbs,

I'm now down to 12 stone.

When I got married I was 11 stone and was in a size 12 dress and I think I looked lovely.

I'd like to get back to 11 stone. but according to the NHS at 11 stone and still be in the 'overweight' catagory.

Infact at 10 stone 7 i would be classes as over weight?

Surely it can be healthy to pus that on people?

I mean if i was 10 stone 5lbs i would be jussssst out of the overweight category.

And to be directly in the middle of the healthy range I need to be 9 stone?!

Have I just been over weight too long to remember what healthy is or does anyone else feel BMI is unrealistic?

YABVU, for the vast majority of the population it provides an excellent indication of whether you are a healthy weight.

If you really think you are exceptional for some reason, get your body fat measured - that will give you a clear idea of how healthy you are. Those rugby players will have high bmi's because of big muscles, but their body fat will be much lower than an average person - definitely not the case for most people with bmi's over 25.

As others have said there is a very wide range of weights within the 'normal' range of BMI which IMO does cover the vast majority of different body types/muscles etc (other than the specialised athlete examples of course).

By way of example I'm also 5'4", I was 8st 6lb before dc2, so at the lower end of normal, at 9mths pg I was 10st 6lb so right at the higher end of normal. I'm now, a few months later 9st and still feel over the weight I feel happiest & healthiest at. If I still weighed the same as I did at 9mths pg I would definitely consider myself overweight and not at a healthy weight for my height & build.

I agree with others that perceptions are skewed by the generally higher weights among most people which is why something like BMI is a useful way to gain some factual perspective.

Why is it always the people who are classed as overweight in BMI terms who claim it's a load of bollocks, and that it doesn't take rugby players into account?

I have a large frame - big hands, broad shoulders. I'm 5 foot 6. I don't think me weighing between 9 and 11 stone is unrealistic. When I was was 12 stone, with a large frame and at 5 foot 6 I was FAT.

It is ridiculous in that it is used as a be all and end all measure. When I was the fittest I've ever been I was only just light enough to be in the "normal" range. I have a broad bone structure - wide wrists and ankles and strong legs. Even when I was in the right range I was still of a fairly heavy build. Now, I've put on weight and am definitely a bit on the porky side, but whenever I tell anyone (including my GP) that my BMI puts me in the obese category they are shocked. It's a useful guide, but I don't believe it should be used to put people in boxes - condition scoring (like vets use for animals) as a second gauge would be helpful.

monkey - in my experience lots of overweight people refuse to acknowledge they are actually overweight....

I think yabvu in your circumstance OP.

I think having it drummed into our heads than size 16 is the average in this country has made it acceptable to be unhealthily overweight.

If you're in the overweight BMI section (and are not an atheltic person) & if you have a waist measurement of over 35 inches you're fat.

Do you have very large muscle mass and a healthy fat percentage on a large frame with very short legs for your height. If you do then perhaps the BMI would be bad a particularly bad measure for you. However I think that's unlikey and I'm afraid you are overweight enough that it has health costs.

BMI is a poor measure other than for comparing change in overall population changes (average BMI increasing is a pretty good indicator of a population getting fatter) and only then if there's not significant changes in the population - aging/immgration etc. But that doesn't mean it's completely wrong, it just means that two people with a BMI of 25 are not really the same.

YABU I'm afraid.

But I don't think it is used as a be all and end all measure, is it? I am sure any medical professional concerned by someone's high bmi would look further at their overall health/build/fitness and consider why their bmi could be less relevant than for others before simply instructing them to lose weight ?

I know a lot of rugby players and I've never heard any complain about the BMI

I knew a female rower who complained about it, everyone gushed about how its rubbish, she's obviously fit, and has wide feet/hands/shoulders... but actually she had FAT on her body, a lot of it!, as well as being able to row and run a bit and having a broad build. It is possible to carry an unhealthy amt of weight and be a regular to exercise

I'm not sure it is ridiculous. I grew up in Scandinavia where the received wisdom was that the ideal weight of adult men and women should be calculated using this formula: measure your height in cm (if you are 5' 7" for instance, you are approximately 170 cm tall) and subtract the number 110 (always 110, whatever your height). The remaining number is your healthy adult ideal weight in kgs (in the above example 170 cm - 110 = 60 kg). Although it may seem somewhat 'aspirational' these days, I'm pretty sure most adults I knew as a child and teenager were fairly in line with this guidance. I am avidly following The Men Who Made Us Fat, and it all makes sense...

BMI is very reliable at a population level, it may not be perfect for a given individual though. For an individual you may find waist size more accurate. If your waist is below 32" then you can be reasonably relaxed, if it's above 35" then you are a significant risk of (eg) diabetes.

FWIW I'm 5'4" and 9 stone 7 is on the solid side of normal for me.

peaceful that's interesting. I am 5'6 and consider my ideal weight to be around 60kg or just under, so pretty much in line with that rule of thumb.

I think BMI is a reasonable measure for most people to apply. The line that is always trotted out about top level sports people is irrelevant to 99.9% of the population.

I think BMI is far too generous

It's perfectly possible to have a big fat belly and still have a 'healthy' BMI

The best tools for checking your weight are your eyes and your honesty.

But giraffe, I was still overweight at about 11 1/2 st, even though I was running half-marathons in less than 1hr 50m. You can be fit, but still fat.

you can exercise tonnes, but the calories in Vs calories out still applies no matter how much you exercise - it doesnt cease to apply once you're fit, some people exercise a hell of a lot then eat a hell of a lot and so still carry too much unhealthy belly fat!

I don't go on BMI at all, I think its crap.
My mother is a size 16-18, my sister a bigger size 12 - same height, same weight = same BMI.
My mum knows its ridiculous and says that it cannot make sense as she is far bigger than DSis.
People can be same height/weight but have completely different builds.

at my biggest I was walking about 5k a day, pretty much every day. whilst pushing a pram at that! and on hilly ground. And doing exercise classes and swimming.

I was still eating too much of the wrong food so still unhealthy

do they wear the same brand of clothing Kate?

WorraLiberty unfortunately people aren't very honest or don't look with a good enough eye, I have a BMI of 22 or so, so supposedly very healthy, but I still have quite a bit of fat around my middle - it's where I store it by preference, and I know I'm still overweight. Not that I actively do anything about it as my weight is really much more linked to depression and sleep quantity but I know I am.

YABU and deluding yourself.

I know, because I've done it too.

More adults are overweight now than are within the 'normal' category. We are becoming sicker and sicker.

If you want to minimise your chances of facing chronic illness, stay within BMI, excercise, eat loads of fruit and veg.

It is not easy - if it was then we'd not be in this state.

That's exactly it Fred. A couple of years ago I was carrying far too much weight on my belly. It was plain for anyone to see and yet my BMI was very much in the healthy range.

Cherie yes, but also you can see that they are just completely different. Mother knows she is overweight and can't understand how they can both have same BMI.
Mother carries it all around stomach and bust, and has tiny legs, whereas sister is just in proportion all over.

I had a work colleague that banged on about how when she was 9st she looked "ill". She was barely 5 foot; really 9st would have been a better weight than the 11 and a half or pushing 12 she was - she was pretty dumpy, lots of weight round her middle etc, and she was 50, so she may have been pertaining to the "face/arse" dilemma - but in reality, at BMI 22 or whatever you may look like shit in the face in which case, tough, you are either ugly or haggard or your face doesn't suit being thin (!) (I think I probably fall into this category to an extent btw) but in actual fact your body is probably healthier and your organs are not layered in a visceral blubber-fest.

I am no fat phobic and battle the bulge myself, but am under no delusions that MEDICALLY you are probably better off at the mid/lower end of the BMI scale, whether that makes you aesthetically better off is sort of irrelevant as BMI tends to be a medical indicator. Bear it in mind, but don't live your life by it, necessarily...to an extent I do believe in "health at any size" in that not all overweight or raised BMI people are decaying arteries and not all skinny minnies are uber healthy...but we all know that really...its just a "risk factor"/indicator...

most overweight ( over BMI 25) people are not that fit, but there is also the problem of those whose weight is healthy but are unfit as they stay thin by drinking lots of tea and not eating much of the right sorts of foods like avoiding dairy and most carbs completely and can end up with osteoporous thinning bones etc, weight/ height is a good guide but not the answer to all things but a BMI of 20-25 gives an almost 2 stone range for any given height

i have always hovered around BMI 24-27 ( was once up to nearly 30 but that was not good) today about 26.5 and trying to get back down I just need to get fitter not helped by having sprained foot so even walking is a bit painful. I have ligamnet problems with ankles and i have sprained ankle so many times that I am not supposed to land on my foot so no jumping skiing and no running on hard or uneven surfaces; should use hiking pole when coming down steep or uneven hills

but that doesn't make your sister NOT overweight,
yes there are worse places to carry it, all out front is the worst health wise (where I do ), but someone who is carrying the same amt of fat all over so looks "smoother" can still be carrying too much

this is the HUGE problem we have in the UK, people looking around them and saying "look I'm not fat compaired to everyone I can see" - but they ARE! "normal" does not = "healthy" any more, the average is often very very overweight, so overweight people who are maybe overweight to a lesser extent feel that they must be fine!

Just because your mum is carrying more belly weight to your sister, does not mean your sister is out of the woods health wise if her BMI is unhealthy!