Weight Loss
Moderators: spoiled_candy, coach_k, Mollybygolly, devilish_patsy, nycgirl


I'm a male, 6' 2".  I consider 180 # a pretty healthy weight.  I am not big boned, nor do I have a large frame.  If I would target a BMI at the middle of my range, 21.7.. I would need to weigh a tad under 170. 

At 144 I would be in the "normal" range at 18.5.  I would scare the hell out of people if they saw me at 144.

What gives??? 

15 Replies (last)

It's being used in a way that it wasn't intended to be used, for one thing, and it doesn't take into account frame size and body fat percentage.  (144 would look OK on me and I'm a 5'7" female.  Big difference.)

Basically, don't get too wrapped up in it.  It's a loose guideline at best, but it wasn't meant to be used, or to be taken as gospel, the way it is now. 

My boyfriend is your height and a few pounds heavier, he looks healthy and active. He was 170 lbs when I met him, and looked underweight almost to the point of sickly. I can't imagine him at anything below that, even then his hip bones were sticking out. 

Also, take into consideration that bmi is meant for both females and males.  I'm sure there are women who are 6'2 who look fine at 144 simply because they don't have a lot of muscle.

They would be very tall women :X

I got down to 172 to do well at a marathon and looked like I just got released from a concentration camp.  Like you say, bones sticking out, etc.

I know for me personally, 180-185 is a healthy range.

 

At 6'2" and 180 you are well within the normal healthy range for BMI.  Just because you could weigh more or less and still be within the healthy range doesn't mean you should make that your goal.

BMI is a statistical tool used mostly by insurance companies and drs to determine who is at risk for health problems.  It is not a tool designed to let you know what weight you need to be to look your best.

Wow, I was going to suggest that we add a US variation in the BMI calculator, but that's already factored in.  Other countries already have BMI's that are calculated lower than we do.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index# Japanese_definition

I wonder if this has anything to do with a population getting larger and larger and therefore our sense of what's normal to be skewed.

I just saw that I could be as thin as 118 pounds at 5'6" and still be in the "normal" BMI range per the calculator.  Puts a different perspective on my "healthy" frame, eh?  I'm in denial too!   Yoiks.

 

 

What gives is that you are not sedentary, if you were then 170 wouldn't be so bad, atrophied muscles and some fat and you'd be at a normal weight. But since you work out and there's muscle volume - dense and compact - 170 is not possible anymore, you got low volume at high density and higher weight.

BMI is really a tool to guage a population, not an individual.  I suggest you get a Body Fat Percentage measurement if you are concerned about your maintenance weight.  And there is a range for that as well, 14-17% BF for men is a good fittness level, according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percent age

Good Luck! 

thhq
Dec 20 2011 19:26
Member posts
Send message
#9  
Quote  |  Reply
At 18.5 you'd look as normal as the average scrawny guy getting coffee in Portland OR. Not everyone strives to look good in pegged black levis, but some want that 29-29-29 appearance.

Another alternative to BMI is waistline, which might correlate better with health.

Well, according to BMI charts, you are at a healthy weight: a BMI of 23.  BMI is given as a range for this reason.  Some people will be healthier at the higher end of the range, and others will be healthier at the lower end.  Males tend to be healthier at somewhat higher weights than females (a generalization) because they have a higher muscle mass %.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bm i/

 

This is a pretty good resource to find your BMI.

Also if you are really worried about it check with your doctor.

#12  
Quote  |  Reply

I agree completely at 5'5" tall and 155lbs I am overweight according to charts and yet I wear a size 8 pant and measure 41-29-37.I have definition lines on my stomach ,legs and arms and Im overweight. Atrgghhhh!!!  They tell me its all relative but after loosing 60 pounds this year and once weighing 320 lbs. wearing an 8 and still being overweight does suck!

I find that BMI is not a very good measure for me.  I have a larger bone structure, but I'm short, so even at a very healthy weight for me, BMI still says I am overweight.  When I was on the swim team in college, I had 4 pack abs, crazy arm muscles - but according to the BMI calculators, I was overweight. 

BMI is based on a statistic; it isn't designed to assess overall health.  It's simply saying that the healthy weight for most people is somewhere between an BMI of 18.5 and 25.  That is not to say that every person would be healthy at every BMI in this range.

I'm 5' 11", 183 lb, BMI 25.5, classed as "mildly overweight".  Body fat is anywhere from 15% to 23% depending on the skinfold caliper formula I use.  Starting to see some hints of abs so I'm guessing the lower BF% is closer to correct, but still "officially" using the higher BF% estimate until I get a more reliable measurement. 

I'd have to be 170 lb to be at the upper end of the "healthy" range per BMI.   150 lb would put me in the middle, 135 lb would put me iat the lower end.  170 lb is quite  possible for me, 160 lb is just possible, 150 lb and below are realistically not possible - I'd look pretty bad.

So, my conclusion is that for me, BMI is not a very useful measure.  Body fat % will be more useful when I get it calibrated.  For now, I'm flying by the mirror and "pinch-an-inch" checks. 

 

 

15 Replies
Advertisement
Advertisement