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?

The only bit I don't understand about BMI is how it accounts for boobs. I'm overweight at the moment, but my boobs have stayed the same size. Surely they must skew things a bit or am I being bonkers?

big boobs are mostly fat

but if I had implants I'ld subtract em from my weight

• real boobs, no, they are just another place to carry excess fat, someo people carry it there, some people carry it elsewhere.

I think that BMI is a reasonable way to assess obcesity unless you are exceptionally sporty and have lots of muscle. Having "big" bones is a myth as bones only make up a small amount of our weight.

I have a BMI 20.4 I don't look ill. I think a lot of people forget what is normal.

The BMI is just a tool, a very useful one for healthcare professionals, but it needs careful interpretation. If your BMI is under 30, you may be overweight but not to the point of causing any health problems for most people. Likewise you may have a BMI under 20 and still be healthy. The elderly tend to be healthier with a BMI that is towards the higher end.
It needs to be used with caution with different ethnicities, Afro Caribbean and African people have a higher normal range as they have denser bones and a higher muscle mass. Asian people tend to have a slighter build so the normal range is slightly lower. Clear as mud?
Either way, your ideal weight is one you feel comfortable with, can maintain with a healthy diet and reflects your bone structure. Ihave a BMI of 23 but look less, short legs, long body!

I've just measured mine and it's 20.4

Yet I still need to work on my stomach because the fat is creeping on there again.

YABU

I agree with everyone who says in today's society most people don't know what a healthy weight looks like. The rugby player argument is spurious, as it applies to such a small proportion of the population. For most people the research shows BMI is a good tool and good indicator of increased risk of health problems.

I say this as someone who is 5ft4 and has had a BMI between 27 and 30 for the last decade. When it's been at 27 I've been relatively happy with how I look, but I've still been overweight.

YABU BMI is a perfectly reasonable way to gauge whether someone is too fat, or too thin, for the majority of the population.

cherie Thought as much. Although back in the day when I was a size 8 I still had ginormous boobs so never dropped below 9.5 stone. I was gaunt otherwise though so must just carry it there.

ReallyTired Fri 13-Jul-12 21:21:42
I think that BMI is a reasonable way to assess obcesity unless you are exceptionally sporty and have lots of muscle.

I agree.

" Having "big" bones is a myth as bones only make up a small amount of our weight. "

I think, when people refer to frame, they are not necessarily saying that their bones way more, but that the bigger their skeleton is the more muscle/fiber/skin/blood mass etc etc there is to cover that skeleton? So it's not that big bones/frame weigh more, but that the bigger the frame the bigger (and therefore heavier) the stuff that covers it is?

That's not to say I disagree with your first statement - more that I believe that within a range of 2 stone you are more likely to be hrslthy at the higher end if you have a larger frame.

their bones weigh more, sorry.

A skeleton typically weighs 15Kg (from days when I did radiologcial protection calculations) for a man. Most mumsnetters would have a smaller skeleton.

A healthy person will still have a BMI within a range of 20 to 25 however "big" their bones are. It is why there is a range. Having big bones does not account for someone having a BMI over 25. Either they are exceptionally atheletic or FAT.

Isn't that what I just said, reallytired?

Sounds like you are fooling yourself OP. I'm about 5" 6 and about 10st 4 lbs and I know I need to lose at least about 7 lbs. We are just getting used to bigger people everywhere. Even kids clothes seem enormous. A pair of school trousers swamps my kids, they are so big round the waist, even with the adjustable waist bands.

I agree that the BMI does not take into account bone structure etc. i am 5'4" and weigh about 11.5 stone, size 14 on bottom, 16 on top only because of boobs, BMI 29. I have big bone structure, huge shoulders and GG boobs and my head/ hat size is the same as a large mens - 7 and 3/4.
MIL is same height, but pear-shaped and 10 top 14 bottom, with tiny hat size and small boobs and she weighs less than 10 stone.

When I was in my late 30s, stressed and studying as a single parent, I went down to 9.5 stone and was a size 6-8. Everyone thought I was ill, I looked so thin.
My son is 6'3" and weighs 12 stone, but he is so skinny, 38 chest but 28 waist etc...
As my mother says, he is like a gypsy's dog. (All ribs and dick). But he weighs heavy like me.

Freshletticia....sorry but you are also kidding yourself re bone structure. You may have looked too thin at 9.5 stone but you are almost certainly overweight at 11.5 stone and 5ft 4". Like I said previously, get your body fat measured and see what that tells you.

I was just thinking Freshletticia, I'm only an inch shorter than you and if I weighed 9.5 stone, there's no way I could physically fit into a size 6 or 8

As it is, I'm roughly 8st 7 at the moment and an 8/10 but with an ever increasing belly.

Surely 10 st 7 is overweight if you are 5ft 4?

I am 5' 1 and nearly nine stone and too fat, it's obvious to me that I'm too fat -- I have rolls of fat. Three inches and and extra stone and a half would seem obviously overweight. I suppose I'd have to say, yes a BMI is ridiculous if it is replacing what is quite obvious about the way you feel and the way your shape is.

There was a poster earlier who said it really only applies to normal people not heavily muscled people, and I think that must be true.

For the majority of people BMI is a good indication of weight you should be. That's not to say as soon as you go overweight you will get unhealthy. You may not but you are at a higher risk.

Being over weight seems to be getting more normal now that people don't even see it. No offence (if I can say this without giving any...) but you sound overweight to me at 12 stone for someone at your height.

I think it works fairly well.

I'm 5"5 and 11st so BMI 25 and just overweight. I need to lose about 2lb to get into the healthy range but more like a stone and a half to get (back) to a healthy mid range weight.

(I varied between 8-9.5st before kids - 8st was after a 5 week session of gastric flu which really was too thin for me.)

I will get there and am really making an effort to get fitter, eat less and eat healthier.

I think people should use a variety of tools. BMI is good, but another good indicator of health is hip to waist ratio. So, all those people with a big belly and skinny legs who have a 'good' BMI would have a 'bad' hip to waist ratio. Oddly, we have also not changed our perception of what an attractive hip to waist ratio is over time although we have with weight. Different cultures do tend to different hip to waist ratios though so note that if you are, for example, Japanese.

BTW, all those Rugby players, Brad Pitt and all those people who are quoted as having a high BMI, will all have a good hip to waist ratio.

My BMI is 24 and, at 5'10 I am in 12/14 clothes. I probably could lose a bit more though to be honest. I'd like to get down to 11 stone, as I think that would get rid of the stomach then

I get what the OP is saying. I'm a similar height. I did WW a few years ago and my weight plateud (sp?) at 11 stone. I stated there for over a year. I couldn't become a 'gold member' because I wasn't a healthy weight for my height and I found it very frustrating. Looking back I wish I'd just said I was happy with it because I quit WW in the end and have done the classic gained what I lost and more Now we are being told our best chance of conception is to have IVF but my PCT criteria says the woman's BMI must be under 30 - mine is 30. So it's the kick up the arse I've needed to lose the weight. The reality is with a BMI as high as mine the chances of IVF being successful aren't very different, but it's proven that women who are obese are more likely to miscarry or have complications so I accept the criteria. It's not perfect tool, it's rough and people come in different shapes and sizes but as it stands, it's about te best we've got.

sleepwhenidle - tell that to the NHS! I have no choice, if I want IVF, I have to be in the right BMI range, no ifs and no buts, general body type is irrelevant.

I'm in no doubt that I'm considerably overweight, but having a heavy frame makes it hard. Like I say, in the olden days when I was thin I was still just barely "normal" so I know it'll be a hell of a struggle to get to that point again. Still, I'm on my bike and trying to pedal the excess away - Le Tour is good inspiration!

Yabu. I am 5'2 and bang on 8 stone. I am by no means skinny or looking ill. I wear a six to twelve, depending on where I shop. I can't believe that I could put on another three stone and not be very overweight.