Is CC's BMI off?

CC says that under 20 BMI is underweight. Other bmi calculators say starting at 18.5 BMI is underweight.

I'm just trying to make sure my goal weight isn't underweight, CC says it is, others say its not.

Help?

As far as i know, diffrent countries have diffrent standards for defining BMI. I live in Norway and here under 20 is set as underweight (as per government guidelines) as far as i know in the states it's 18.5 which is the underweight standard?

Im assuming the guy's at CC feel 20 is a better cutoff then 18.5 :)

Yes, CC's BMI calculator is different from the others. If you are small boned, and you are doing it the healthy way, if you body lets you get to 110 and a BMI of 19.5 it is probably OK. You may want to consult your doctor.

I read your profile, and I see that you are working on body image issues. I really applaud your efforts. I have been through that and obtaining a healthy body image is the best thing I have ever done for myself. Regardless of your weight loss, I hope you achieve this goal. Good luck!

I think 20 is a better cut off than 18.5 too!

I am small framed, so I guess I'll keep my goal weight for now and I will ask my doctor, I have a check up soon. Thanks pgl6956 for the support!

The lower limit was shifted downward when health authorities in the US realized that people of some genetic backgrounds (esp. Asian) were healthy at lower body weights.

For everyone except those with really, really small frames, I think 20 is the better guideline. But some people are built so narrowly that you wonder how they'll ever have babies; they don't look skinny so much as naturally tiny, they wear kids' clothes for their whole lives, you know the type I mean. Those are the people for which the 18.5 was meant, as a safe lower limit for them. (This is why it bothers me when some people on here justify their under-18.5 goals as "but I'm smaaaall-boned!")

yeah, i noticed that, too!  i have a while to go still anyway...  i'm finally a 24.5 bmi  :D  and it feels pretty good!!!  i wasn't even on the chart before  LOL

my stats in cc's bmi say underweight, yet i still have a few pounds of flubbery fat (and dont think im imagining this because my doctor agrees with me).

i think the BMI calculator here is very conservative.  i'm quite small boned, but not as tiny as some women i know.  this site tells me i would be underweight at 130, but in my mid 20s i was as low as 122 and still perfectly healthy.  i have a friend who's my age (39) and height (5'8") and is one of the strongest, healthiest people i know at 120.

BMI is a pretty arbitrary figure anyway, and has little relation to health.

I personally don't think the whole BMI calculation concept is fair or accurate. I am a  5-foot-10 man and currently weigh 196, down from 221 since late December. I am still listed on the high end of "overweight" and, according to all BMI calculators I can find, I need to be between 170 and 175 in order to be in the "normal" range.

I think that if I got down to that weight I'd look emaciated.

And does that also mean that a 5-foot-10 woman would be considered a normal weight at 170? I think nearly every woman you talk to would think that would be too high to be considered "normal." They're more looking for under 150 at that height, I'd think.

Also, I would still be considered "normal" if I weighed about 135 on a 5-foot-10 frame. Yeah, maybe if I'd spent the last 4 years in a POW camp ... 

Original Post by pederfan:

I personally don't think the whole BMI calculation concept is fair or accurate. I am a 5-foot-10 man and currently weigh 196, down from 221 since late December. I am still listed on the high end of "overweight" and, according to all BMI calculators I can find, I need to be between 170 and 175 in order to be in the "normal" range.

I think that if I got down to that weight I'd look emaciated.

And does that also mean that a 5-foot-10 woman would be considered a normal weight at 170? I think nearly every woman you talk to would think that would be too high to be considered "normal." They're more looking for under 150 at that height, I'd think.

Also, I would still be considered "normal" if I weighed about 135 on a 5-foot-10 frame. Yeah, maybe if I'd spent the last 4 years in a POW camp ...

Exactly.  The BMI numbers as well as the calorie burn calculators are skewed badly for tall people and for people who are very overweight.  I am both, so I basically ignore BMI and use my own method of calculating daily caloric requirements (based on talking with my doctor).  And the taller you are, the more skewed the BMI numbers get.  When I got out of high school, I weighed 193, which according to BMI calculators, is a good weight for someone 6'5", but when I weighed that much, my ribs and hip bones were showing, I had very little muscle mass, and no strength at all.  I think a much better measure of fitness is percentage body fat.  If your percentage of body fat falls in the good range, I believe it doesn't matter if you are overweight according to BMI.

Actually, for a 5'10" woman, 170 would be a lovely weight. People might want lower than that for whatever personal reasons, but a woman of that size would not look overweight at all.