One tool that health experts use to gauge health is the Body Mass Index. This tool (often seen as a chart in the doctor's office) is used to compare your height and weight to see how fat or skinny you are.

Here is a Calculator

Recently, it came out that over 50% of NFL players are "obese" and almost all are "overweight" using this scale.

In the NBA, nearly 50% of players are overweight, with a few percent "obese". Does NBA have a weight problem too?

Shaquille O'Neal is considered obese on this scale, even though he has 13% body fat.

On a personal level, my BMI is 24.4, which is near the upper end of the normal range. However, I consider myself too skinny and have always actively tried to put on weight. I'd like to add 10-15 pounds, which would put me in the overweight range (25.8-26.6 depending on how much I put on).

Questions for debate:

How useful is an Index such as the BMI if it does not accurately account for some segment of the population?

Should labelling someone "overweight" when they may not be cause us to re-evaluate our BMI system or at least the terminology?

What is your BMI and do you think it accurately describes you?

I think that the BMI is useful, but it's certainly not a magic tool that tells everything. As you have pointed out, it's not valid at all for very muscular people:



Source

From your description of yourself, it seems that you are very athletic and probably have a lot of muscle tissue, so the BMI is probably not a good tool for you. For folks like me, who have never been athletic and who will never be athletic, it's probably useful.

Obviously, from this, terms like "overweight" and not always valid. They are probably useful for many people, but not all. Take it with a large grain of salt.

My BMI seems to be right on the border between "normal" and "overweight." Heck, I'm an American who likes to eat, so this is certainly no surprise.

I am in a class right now called "fitness for life". I had a BMI of 34- putting me on the obese scale. I am, in fact, overwieght. However, when my actual body fat is hovering around 20%.

In my class of 30, a pretty good sampling of mostly young poeple (college you know) and very in shape young poeple at that, most had BMI that put them "overwieght" to "obese".

BMI also does nothing to promote health or actual healthy lifestyle at this point, I guess it is time to scrap it!

While athletes in their 20's and 30's may be able to weigh in excess of the norm and retain low body fat this does not mean that it is good for long-term health. I don't think many athletes maintain that low body fat after they retire. Look at Charles Barkley. I am betting those 300 lb offensive linemen have a lower life expectancy than the 180 lb wide receivers. I am betting soccer players live longer, on average, than either football or basketball players. Extra weight does stress the heart. One of the prime reasons women live longer than men is they typically weigh less.

Let me tell you from personal experience. If you are too skinny don't worry about it. Odds are by the time you are 45 that won't be a problem anymore. I went from 6'2 150 to 6'2 205 in a mere 25 years without ever making an effort to bulk up.

I completely disagree! Women don't generally live longer because of weight related issues. There are a multitude of reasons, such as stress, lifestyle, etc. It has little/nothing to do with sheer body mass.

Secondly, more "weight" doesn't necessarily stress the heart. Lean muscle can be beneficial to lowering blood pressure, etc. Americans tend to want to lay blame in the most obscure places. Heart disease and obesity can easily be traced back to our eating and exercise habits, as a general rule. People that work out and eat well are far less likely to have these problems.

This all relates to the BMI in that you rarely are going to find someone that works out regularly that fits into the BMI. I am far over the BMI...when I have a body fat % of about 12%, while being 5'9" and 190lbs. I have low cholesterol, great blood pressure, etc, etc. I just make staying physically fit a priority.

The BMI should be obsolete in my eyes... I'm in better shape than nearly everyone I know, but my BMI is 28.9!

Mr P is 25.6 BMI (supposedly overweight by that scale), and I am 18.6 (low end of average weight). He's in much better physical condition than I am, and not anywhere near fat.

The BMI scale seems to favor couch potatoes and smaller-framed people. I don't think it applies to athletes. Body fat is probably a more accurate guideline...but a lot more cumbersome to measure. If my husband was in the middle of average on the BMI scale, he'd be a stick and definitely WAY too skinny, IMO. Time will tell which of us lives longer...you never know, he might get struck by lightening while running his next marathon, while I'm safely watching with the kids, drinking a beer.

Clearly there is no single factor that controls longevity. Let me quote from:

New studies show excess weight shortens life expectancy
By MARIAN UHLMAN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

PHILADELPHIA - Packing on too many extra pounds can shorten your life.




Later same article:



You would think a director of cardiology would not say "you worse" but let us assume his medical knowledge exceeds his knowledge of grammar. The problem I have is that 10, 12, 20 percent body fat figure may creep up as you age. If you let that excess muscle convert to fat you will likely have problems. I find it highly probable that a group of 1000 5'9" 160 lbers with a 12% bodyfat figure will outlive a group of 5'9" 190 lbers with the same body fat figure. The BMI is a general guideline. It has it's use. I can't remember the last time I saw a 90 year old 300 lber with 13% body fat. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw a 90 year old 300 lber.

Of course if the 190 pounders, in the above example, engage in arm to arm combat with the 160 pounders the 160 pounders are going to get their rear ends kicked.

Many argue Shaquille O'Neal has dominated the center position like no one since Wilt Chamberlain. Wilt Chamberlain 1936-1999 RIP

Everything you said there is true Hugo- with an important caveat left out- those that maintain a slightly or some overwieght status, remain active, and do not lead a completely sedentary lifestyle, but kind of just maintian that overwieght status without really continuing to gain and gain, are healthier than those that "yo-yo" diet thier entire lives- and live longer. So, if you are overwieght, but not really regulated to the couch in obesity, you will probably be just as healthy as those whose wieght is in constant fluctuation. Sorry I don't have a link to the study- it was a handout in my fitness class LOL

The sincere problem with your logic is that you believe that muscle turns into fat. That's like trying to make chicken salad out of feathers.... it just doesn't work that way. If you're a relatively fit person (like you mention the 5'9"/190lb man, i.e. me!) with 12% body fat, the muscle only "atrophies" without use. Muscle cells and fat cells aren't the same. As long as you maintain cardiovascular fitness, you'd just lose weight (& mass). It's a common American misconception. It's like saying that if you don't use your leg it will turn into fat!!! However, people believe this because if you don't work out in the same fashion but consume the same # of calories... you know what happens. I'm the best example. I train for a marathon in the late summer/fall and fall down to about 175-177lbs... but am still by no means fat/out of shape.

From my own observation, most of us start out fairly thin, get somewhat overweight in middle age, then start losing it back in really old age. It appears to be, dare I say it, a NORMAL physiological process.
Lately, it does seem that the overwieght part of the cycle is more extreme. I blame that on high calorie/low physical exertion lifestyle.
As far as BMI, the last time I got measured, I was deemed only a bit high, while a person who can outrun me, do more situps, run faster, farther, etc. was told he had to lose weight. We figured he would have to have some of his muscle removed. The man was of Samoan ancestry. Age and ethnic background should be taken into consideration.

How useful is an Index such as the BMI if it does not accurately account for some segment of the population?

BMI is basically useless. It is a classic attempt to create a 'one-size-fits-all' solution. This type of thinking is why the medical industry lags so far behind modern diet concepts. Think about it...for the BMI to be useful, we'd all have to have the same body type. Yet the one thing you can say about us is that we're all different. This should be thrown in the trash heap. There is an adjustment for the MBI that includes your hip measurement, which essentially adjusts the BMI for muscle mass. I think helps make it more useful, but body fat percentage is a better measurement.

Should labelling someone "overweight" when they may not be cause us to re-evaluate our BMI system or at least the terminology?

No need to reevaluate. BMI is useless, and should just be discarded. Why use it, when there are so many more accurate instruments out there?

What is your BMI and do you think it accurately describes you? I can't remember the exact number, but it put me into the obese category. Most people who know me would say I'm in pretty good shape. BMI essentially treats muscle the same as fat...so if you work out, its probably not for you (and if you don't, the first thing you should do is start....so what really is the tool good for?).

as far as the BMI scale goes--it considered Evander holyfield overweight.

Just like the silly food pyramid it is a useless gauge of anything health related.
Just look at vegetarians. They lead a "healthier" lifestyle yet are some of the most unhealthy "looking" people i have met.

As for my BMI I don't need one to tell me I have put on too much weight. because of my advanced age--35 , I am done with weight training that promotes bulk--don't need the extra weight or the free radical damage. Plus I can no longer afford the extra money on food--protein--to maintain the size. So I have switched to a strength training regimen and am making a very sad and hilarious attempt at some gymnastic based training--various stands and bodyweight exercises. I always have maintained around 225--am now 260+, but would like to get down to 190. I will however keep my shoulders.

It might not be perfect, but it may still be a useful way to gauge where one might fall and where one should be ideally. It's true that this is a shot at finding one way to categorize everyone, and while there's always exceptions to the rules, I think this system works well enough. It's near impossible to create some system that captures everyone; perhaps the best method would be to employ several BMI type scales that measure different things and and come up with some number from those. Just curious here, what other instruments are out there that are more accurate?

How useful is an Index such as the BMI if it does not accurately account for some segment of the population?

I think it's as accurate as it probably needs to be. Like I said, there's always going to be exceptions to the rule so it might be fine for the general population, as has been pointed out.

I think one problem people have with the BMI is that there is a difference between medical perspectives and cultural perspectives. One medical definition of overweight is: an increased body weight in relation to height, when compared to some standard of acceptable or desirable weight.

NOTE: Overweight may or may not be due to increases in body fat. It may also be due to an increase in lean muscle. For example, professional athletes may be very lean and muscular, with very little body fat, yet they may weigh more than others of the same height. While they may qualify as "overweight" due to their large muscle mass, they are not necessarily "over fat," regardless of BMI.
myDNA.com

Alternatively I think there is a cultural view of what overweight is defined as. I don't consider myself overweight, but according to the BMI I'm on the verge, and depending on the week I could be overweight or just on the high end. I think that in the past 20 years the idea of what overwight is has changed. The incidence and prevalence of obesity is outragous. So when people see so many obese people, overweight looks closer to normal. It's all relative, and when you've got something large to compare oneself too, then things don't seem as extreme.

I would say that it's out of whack.

I am in the military and I stand a solid (not cut) 5'10 and weigh 205. This is over the limit that someone in the military can have so I am always automatically tape tested. It is obvious that I am not fat. I am just broad and I have the typical farm boy build complete with the inflated upper torso and trunk legs. My bodyfat is always in the 13 to 15 range which is pretty good and way below the 20% or so that army personel are allowed to have. The army is also the 1 institution that can discriminate against how to put it....."heavy" people. You can get kicked out of the army and refused promotion for having too high of a body fat index.

It is a stupid system for military people I think. Everyone knows that I do not have an inflated fat content, yet each drill I have to waste an hour getting taped because I cannot get under the 185 or 190 that is the limit according to the army of how someone my height should weigh.

I just calculated my stats and apparently im nearly obese

Yeah this system stinks. Is this meant entirely for Korean people or something?

Anyone who lifts weights apparently isnt fit. What a paradox.

I think that all the arguments on here as to why BMI is a blunt tool and doesn't work in this scenario or that one kind of miss the point.

Sure, Conan-era Schwartzenegger would get put down as morbidly obese when any fool looking at him with his shirt off would be able to tell that wasn't the case.

Most of the reasons people on here have given for their own BMI being misleading have been from men saying variations on "that's not fat, it's muscle". I'm not disputing anyone's views, because (like everyone else here) I can't see any of you and come to a judgement on whether or not you're kidding yourselves.

The problem we have with this issue is that, increasingly, larger and larger proportions of people are heavy enough for it to be a health risk. "Heavy" (or "fat", as it used to be called) is gradually becoming normalised.

Let's be honest - all you really need have to know if you're too fat is a full-length mirror.

However, we are supremely good at self-deception (and some of us are too fat to fit in front of a mirror without standing so far from it we can't really make out the reflection). We are tending towards South Park's Cartman - whining "I'm not fat, I'm big-boned". We do everything we can to rationalise away all external evidence - those kids that called us fat at school were just being nasty; we can't buy clothes at regular stores because the fashion industry is run by body fascists; that woman (or man) we like who snubbed us has unresolved personal issues which mean they fail to recognise our inherent worth and just focused on our superficial appearance; we're not fat - we're muscular/big-boned/stocky. Anything except admit to ourselves that we are less than perfect and we can do something about it, but only if we can be bothered. These days people will admit practically anything, except that we are too lazy to change our habits.

So we need abstract measures like the BMI or body fat percentages (ideally, all of the at once to get a full picture) to give some kind of objective picture. Otherwise it's just a person saying "you're fat", and the playground memories come back and we just ignore it and make ourselves feel better by eating stuff like this (thanks Mike!)

BMI was invented as a guideline for the medical profession, who would be able to use their judgement and common sense to decide whether or not an elevated or lowered BMI was a clinical problem for a particular patient, or just a natural reflection of their build or exercise habits.

BMI was not originally intended as a editorial tool of the consumer press to generate readership that supports advertising of dieting products.

Yet I would put cash money on the fact that most of us who know what our BMI is have had it brought to our attention not during the course of a medical consultation, but in a magazine, newspaper or on a TV magazine show. In between advertisements for SlimFast.

It's not the measure that's the problem here. It's not even the medical profession. It's us, with our seemingly infinite powers of denial (in this case the diametric opposite of self-denial), and, at the other end of the tug-of-war rope, our endless ability to exploit the tiniest opportunity for commercial gain.

What is your BMI and do you think it accurately describes you?
26.6 - I'm "overweight." This despite being in the best shape of my life in terms of overall fitness. I ran 6 miles yesterday and I'm going to the gym for cross-training and weightlifting at lunch. I think that this index is for people who are not actively training and who don't have much muscle mass. Which, given the prevalence of sedentary lifestyles, is probably a good thing. There are much better measures for fit people and athletes to use.

All that said, my being "overweight" makes me think that the scare numbers about American obesity given by CSPI are just as silly as their expose of Chinese food or whatever. Just looking for an excuse to sue McDonalds I guess.

I'm inclined to agree with Julian:

I disagree with Julien to a degree but I am sure that some people lie to themselves as well. This fat calculated ratio/procedure I think was established before people began to really lift weights. I know people who are about 5' 8 and weigh 225 who are not fat.....who are not even chubby. People who can bench press 440 pounds. To an older person or for someone who isnt in the weightlifting or Creatine world these dimensions may seem impossible and you may be inclined to think that people simply cannot admit that they are heavy. You need to look no further then American baseball to see the effect that weight training and lifting suppliments have had on body mass. As was stated 50% of basketball players are considered overweight. Anyone who watches basketball would laugh that off.

Two bizarre things are happening. As the world gets fatter on 1 side it is also getting bulkier on the other. This is because of weight training. Now me even without weight training I would still weigh about 200 pounds because of my body structure and I would not be fat or even pudgy. (Self denial is not a luxery military personel can have) If your too fat (as some friends are) you get flagged. I have the 1 professional in this country where you cannot lie to yourself on body fat.

I've read a lot of posts that say the BMI classifies them as overweight but yet they're still in good shape. I too believe that BMI is not really that useful of tool however, weight is only one aspect of fitness. Obviously someone who is over weight will most likely be considered out of shape but just because you don't have a lot of body fat doesn't mean you are fit. If you really want to know if you're overweight or not, then you probably need a way to test body fat percentage. If you want a way to test if you're in good shape and fit then you're going to have to go through multiple tests.