BMI is not a good indicator at all...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php? storyId=106268439

I don't think many will argue with that, even without the article!

Interesting quote taken from the comment section of the story..

This story is a perfect example of why we should never get our health advice from a mathematician or from a news radio program. Keith's story misses the point entirely -- the BMI is a useful measure because it is an inexpensive way of identying people with obesity (BMI greater than or equal to 30). Keith's "reason #9" is dead wrong... BMI costs nothing; it's the alternative measures that cost money.

Next time you see your doctor, ask him or her about your BMI. Your doctor can tell you if BMI is a relevant measure for you. For most Americans (who generally aren't professional athletes) it is.

By the way, Keith, are you going to tell us that people with a BMI over 30 -- which is currently 1/3 of all US adults -- shouldn't worry about their weight? I hope not!

David Arterburn, MD, MPH
Group Health Center for Health Studies
Seattle, Washington

BMI is a quick and dirty method of determining if someone is within a healthy weight range. If you know that you are particularly muscular, it clearly isn't going to be a good guage for you.

But while I've heard of plenty of people who, by the BMI scale, are overweight, when clearly they are not, I don't know of an example of someone who is considered underweight by BMI, but in fact isn't - either they don't have enough fat or enough muscle, but either way, they need more mass for their height.

BMI is certainly not something to live by, but then again, neither is the scale.

Original Post by bmfan77:

Next time you see your doctor, ask him or her about your BMI. Your doctor can tell you if BMI is a relevant measure for you. For most Americans (who generally aren't professional athletes) it is.

BMI is a pretty lousy indicator of health for just about everyone, not just professional athletes. And your doctor probably doens't know as much as you (or your doctor) wish.

I'm in total agreement with you. I have heard about the BMI at health fairs and from doctors for years, yet they cannot tell me the science behind the measurements. As a matter of fact, they have a machine that you squeeze out in front of your chest that reads your BMI. That's totally absurd. I like the waste to hip ratio. If your waste is larger than your hips, then you may need to reduce. This is not to say that 5' 200 lbs. is healthy even if your waste is smaller than your hips. But science has proven that large midsections do lead to more health problems. This is a pill I can swallow. Thanks for the post!

The BMI scale is far from perfect. But as far as non-athletes go I think it's a good starting point to work from. Athletic people are probably are lot more informed about the effect of muscle/bone mass and the limitations of the BMI scale anyway. The obesity rates in some countries are getting so ridiculous, anything which might indicate to someone that they are overweight is a good thing in my book.

I think a lot of people just want to dismiss the BMI scale because they don't fit within its healthy range and don't have a reason not to, other than that they're overweight or underweight.

I completely agree with number 8. Because of my BMI I was UNABLE to get health insurance. I got denied by even the state ones that aren't supposed to deny anyone. My bmi wasn't even THAT high at the time. Stupid America :(

I don't want to weigh within the healthy range for my height because I have large hips and I feel I'd look way too thin at 150. I'm aiming for 160-165 instead to see how I feel at that weight

i don't think bmi has much to do with health, but statistically it's a good predictor of the likelihood of making a health or life insurance claim.  ask an actuary.

edited to add: my mother was in the low-healthy range her whole life.  she also smoked for over 50 years and rarely exercised.  then she had a stroke.  but she'd already retired, so she wasn't eligible for any disability insurance benefits.  that's probably pretty typical.  if she'd been a smoker and obese, she'd have been disabled before she retired.

BMI is just one indicator... that's all.   Has to be taken in conjunction with all the other indicators... blood pressure, cholesterol levels.   If your BMI is in the 20 - 25 region you are statistically more likely to be healthy long-term than if it's way over or way under.  If someone presents to a doctor with a BMI of 33 (and they're not the mythical professional athlete) that's a cue for the doctor to ask more about their lifestyle, diet, exercise... and suggest they make improvements.  However, if someone presents to a doctor with a BMI of 22 but they're coughing up blood after a lifetime of smoking 20 a day or their liver is packing up due to excessive alcohol consumption..... they may be a 'healthy weight' but they're not 'healthy'.

i'd be willing to wager a whole bunch of bucks that bmi originated in the insurance industry.  it's not a measure of how healthy you are but of how likely it is that your policy will pay out.

In the bad old days there was one 'ideal weight'.... that's what doctors judged you on.  At least now there's a range of healthy weights reflecting body-shape and musculature.  I'd say that was an improvement, personally.  BTW.... in the UK where health-care is provided through taxes and not dependent on insurance premiums, doctors also use BMI as a springboard for further discussion on health.

I am an example of someone who the bmi is not great for.  At a bmi of 19 I looked full blown anorexic.  Every doctor I go to weighs me at least twice and looks confused.

I am also an example of one whom BMI is a bad indicator for.  I have both Scoliosis and Kyphoscoliosis.  My foward curve is about 75 degrees.  I have no idea how tall I would be if my spine was not curved so badly.  If I utilize the BMI tool, at my current height, I would have to reach 178 pounds, which is rediculous for me to even imagine, let alone actually reach.  I would be unhealthily thin.

Gonna have to agree with everybody here. I say this cause my brother who does weight lifting is 178 pounds, 5' 7" but his BMI puts him in the overweight category. Dude has almost no body fat and very muscular and wears a large shirt. Dude is fit as anybody in his situation should be but once again his BMI says he's  overweight and he needs to lose some.

I guess the BMI scale wants him to lose that muscle and just be skin and bones.

I think of the BMI as being a population wide tool -- as in, how much more obesity is there in the US now compared to 30 years ago?  Or, as GI-Jane said, as a springboard for a discussion with your doctor on an individual basis.  Or, in my case (obese) as a guideline for setting a goal weight.  Once closer to goal, I can revise my plans based on how I look and feel, and I won't be tied to any particular BMI number, but plan to be in the (very broad) healthy weight range, since I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that I will be some kind of outlier like a super fit athlete might be.

It seems to me that on an individual basis, obese people actually know they are obese, and underweight people know they are underweight, although knowing something and changing it can be difficult.  It is the broad range of "normal" weight people who seem to have the most questions about what their own personal "ideal" weight should be, and I would certainly agree that BMI is probably not going to be a very helpful tool.  Better tools might be clothes size, general health and energy, body fat % to decide on a final goal weight.

hrm about doctors, they usually have a very good idea on whether someone is overweight or not, and through experience of doing caliper body fat tests can tell if you're overweight and are pretty damn good at guessing your bodyfat percentage.

BMI is absolute nonsense!

Problem is so many people actually do swear by it, including many doctors.

Original Post by gi-jane:

In the bad old days there was one 'ideal weight'.... that's what doctors judged you on.  At least now there's a range of healthy weights reflecting body-shape and musculature.  I'd say that was an improvement, personally.  BTW.... in the UK where health-care is provided through taxes and not dependent on insurance premiums, doctors also use BMI as a springboard for further discussion on health.

public health care is just another way of delivering insurance, jane.  same thing, different vendors.

omg.  bmi is a statistical tool.  if you read a stat that says 80% of people will be affected by cancer in their immediate family, do you leap up and wave your hands around and say it's wrong because you're part of the other 20%?

statistically speaking, people who have a bmi in the healthy range are less likely to experience a wide range of health problems.  you cannot argue with that, and listing individuals who don't fit doesn't change the statistics.

"less likely" does not mean nobody; "more likely" does not mean everybody.  you don't think bmi applies to you?  don't apply it to you.  but don't pretend that invalidates the tool.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by gi-jane:

In the bad old days there was one 'ideal weight'.... that's what doctors judged you on.  At least now there's a range of healthy weights reflecting body-shape and musculature.  I'd say that was an improvement, personally.  BTW.... in the UK where health-care is provided through taxes and not dependent on insurance premiums, doctors also use BMI as a springboard for further discussion on health.

public health care is just another way of delivering insurance, jane.  same thing, different vendors.

 They can't deny you treatment in the UK.  They have universal healthcare...So your BMI is not used "against" you.