Do we have a skewed sense of what a 'healthy' weight is?

[KneesUp]

I've just done one of those on-line BMI checker things, and I was quite surprised.

I know all the limitations of the measure, but as I'm neither particularly muscular nor particularly weedy, and of an average kind of height, I thought it would give a fairly accurate reading for me - and in fact I have no reason to think it hasn't - but whereas I was expecting to be somewhere in the middle of the scale, I'm much nearer to the 'overweight' end than I was expecting. (BMI 23.7)

Of course the simple answer is that I'm in denial, but I wonder if this is a societal thing - that our expectation of what a healthy weight is is creeping upwards as the average weight of a person rises?

Thoughts?

 

[PK99]

BMI is a flawed index, invented pre the availability of electronic calculators.

Weight/height^2 is easy to calculate but the wrong model.

The height^2 term divides the weight by too much when people are short, and by too little when they are tall. The result is short people being told they are thinner than they really are while tall people are made to think that they are fatter than they are.

an alternative more rigorous model is:

• 
  BMI = 1.3*weight(kg)/height(m)2.5 = 5734*weight(lb)/height(in)2.5.

 

[Markymark]

I'll tell you as soon as I finishing my extra large mega-mac with fries, onion rings and 0.5l of diet coke (I'm on a diet you see).

 

[Drago]

Yes, BMI is rubbish. The basic datum was collected following WWII. when no one had eaten a decent meal in 6 years. It then sank, to be resurrected again in the 1980s by 2 Doctors who plugged it to death, and with little scientific basis the height/weigh BMI formula has become all pervading. According to BMI im in the low 30's. yet my chest is 18" bigger than my waist.

That BMI is rubbish I can accept. that so many organisations and services rely on it and accept it as the arbiter of all that is healthy I can not.

 

[Dogtrousers]

BMI is only really a tool for screening or for application to entire populations, not to specific individuals.

That doesn't mean you aren't in denial.

 

[Drago]

It's not even good for screening. It would screen me out immediately as being a porker North of 30, yet the last more medically oriented test I had put me a fraction under 16. It is of no genuine utility whatsoever. Its medically more telling to check your waist measurement against your height - if its more than half your height, you're a bloater. Waistline size has been directly linked to diabetes and coronary disease - BMI has not, for some strange reason...

 

[User6179]

I would need to start sawing limbs off to get to their recommended weight on the NHS BMI calculator .

 

[vickster]

It's not even good for screening. It would screen me out immediately as being a porker North of 30, yet the last more medically oriented test I had put me a fraction under 16. It is of no genuine utility whatsoever.

From how you describe yourself, your physique does not sound typical of the male population within your age group

My BMI puts me at the higher end of overweight and I would not disagree with that. However, I do think a 'normal' weight based on BMI would make me on the skinnier side given my height and musculature...however I have alsways been overweight or obese and might thus be just right at a a BMI of 24.9! I'd be surprised if I ever find out though without the intervention of a serious illness!

 

[snorri]

f course the simple answer is that I'm in denial, but I wonder if this is a societal thing - that our expectation of what a healthy weight is is creeping upwards as the average weight of a person rises?

Yes, I believe we are accepting overweight as 'normal' or 'healthy' nowadays.

 

[Drago]

From how you describe yourself, your physique does not sound typical of the male population within your age group

That's correct. I'm far sexier

That's me on the right BTW.

 

[vickster]

But you're follically challenged...so not sexy to me I'm afraid

 

[KneesUp]

BMI is a flawed index, invented pre the availability of electronic calculators.

Weight/height^2 is easy to calculate but the wrong model.

The height^2 term divides the weight by too much when people are short, and by too little when they are tall. The result is short people being told they are thinner than they really are while tall people are made to think that they are fatter than they are.

an alternative more rigorous model is:

• 
  BMI = 1.3*weight(kg)/height(m)2.5 = 5734*weight(lb)/height(in)2.5.

Would the answers lie on the same scale?

(Also, I'm 5ft 11, so pretty average I'd have thought?)

 

[Drago]

I'll have you know thats a solar panel for a love machine!

 

[KneesUp]

It's not even good for screening. It would screen me out immediately as being a porker North of 30, yet the last more medically oriented test I had put me a fraction under 16. It is of no genuine utility whatsoever. Its medically more telling to check your waist measurement against your height - if its more than half your height, you're a bloater. Waistline size has been directly linked to diabetes and coronary disease - BMI has not, for some strange reason...

Yay - height to waist ratio is 1:1.7 I like this measure

 

[vickster]

Would the answers lie on the same scale?

(Also, I'm 5ft 11, so pretty average I'd have thought?)

Does it matter if you are happy with yourself. I believe weight hip ratio is a more relevant measurement, especially when considering cardiovascular risk. The BMI scale goes from 18 ro 35+ so 23.7 is at the lower end and you are considered normal for your height...so depends if you are happy with normal. Has your doctor suggested you need to make changes to reduce blood pressure, cholesterol, stroke or heart disease risk etc? If not, with a 'normal' BMI I wouldn't worry too much

5'11 makes you taller than the average male too