Oh no i'm OBESE !!!!

[postman]

Just passing a little time on the computer .I have been doing D.I.Y.

Just for a laugh followed a link on bmi-so i put in my weight 15st 10lb followed by my height 6' 4" and i was informed i am obese . Argh

Are we all supposed to be beanpoles .?

Sorry not for me . Going to hide under the stairs ,so my neighbours don't think i'm a lazy fat slob .


Should i book my Gastric band 'op now ,or wait till after Christmas .?


Fummy thing is i don't think i'm fat .

 

[twowheelsgood]

26.24 bmi is "just about" overweight, not obese.

 

[upsidedown]

Same here, 26.3

 

[Amanda P]

BMI should be a sigmoid curve, not a straight line relationship between weight and height. The straight line formula is just plain wrong if you're very tall (more than about 6'2", I think) or very short (under 5').

Postman, you're not obese. Just a big bloke, and the formula is wrong for people in the tails of the height distribution.

 

[twowheelsgood]

BMI should be a sigmoid curve, not a straight line relationship between weight and height

weight (in kg) divided by height (in metres)^2 is not a straight line. I've never heard of anyone using a straight line.

 

[cookiemonster]

I've done these tests before and because I'm 6ft3 and 86kgs, that makes me obese apparently.

Despite having a 32" waist

 

[vikingcyclist]

weight (in kg) divided by height (in metres)^2 is not a straight line. I've never heard of anyone using a straight line.

It's also fundamentally innaccurate, as weight rises as the cube of height, not the square. BMI would work a lot better if we were all two-dimensional.

 

[twowheelsgood]

I've done these tests before and because I'm 6ft3 and 86kgs, that makes me obese apparently

no it doesn't or the tests were done wrong. 23.7 is healthy normal, not even overweight.

It's also fundamentally innaccurate, as weight rises as the cube of height, not the square. BMI would work a lot better if we were all two-dimensional.

Only if you increased in width at the same rate as height. The square is a closer approximation (which is what it always will be) because most adults at a healthy weight have more or less the same waist and chest measurements between 5 and 6 feet, this is determined by your rib cage and hips and the fact your internal organs don't really differ much in size.

 

[vikingcyclist]

no it doesn't or the tests were done wrong. 23.7 is healthy normal, not even overweight.



Only if you increased in width at the same rate as height. The square is a closer approximation (which is what it always will be) because most adults at a healthy weight have more or less the same waist and chest measurements between 5 and 6 feet, this is determined by your rib cage and hips and the fact your internal organs don't really differ much in size.

It's still a flawed approximation for anyone outside a fairly narrow set of bounds of both height and fitness. If you're average, or close to it, then it'll be fairly accurate. If you're tall, short, heavily muscled etc then it's wildly out and can be incredibly depressing if you take it too seriously.

Body fat percentage is a better measurement of fatness/skinniness than BMI.

 

[twowheelsgood]

Well any approximation is by definition flawed, no argument there. Training as an athelete or being expceptionally tall or short will put you outside of the bounds of which the approximation was derived/correlated or whatever the process of fitting these rules is called.

However for most averagely active adults, the upper bound (25 or sometimes 26 point something) is a actually a pretty sound target not to exceed.

This best simple health indicator for men is actually "is your waistline over 40 inches" as fat distribution as well as fat percentage is a good long-term indicator.

I'm just under obese currently. :-(

 

[vikingcyclist]

Well any approximation is by definition flawed, no argument there. Training as an athelete or being expceptionally tall or short will put you outside of the bounds of which the approximation was derived/correlated or whatever the process of fitting these rules is called.

The problem is that there's not enough recognition for this, and the 'exceptionally' tall or short bias comes into play at only a few inches outside the average.

The worst bit is that many whom the approximation does work for ignore it because of the flaws they have heard about, while many who are fit and healthy pay too much attention to what they are told by people who subscribe to the model.

It took me a long time to recover from being told I was overweight according to the model - for perspective at the time I had a 32 inch waist and am 5'10". I was also training regularly in martial arts and practicing other fitness activities. The doctor who told me that I was overweight severely damaged my confidence in my fitness, enough so that I let my training tail off since I felt it was doing nothing for me and lost a lot of ground.

 

[vernon]

I'm just under obese currently. :-(

Despite my cycling, I'm just under spherical.

 

[mcshroom]

Despite my cycling, I'm just under spherical.

snap

 

[cyberknight]

The problem is that there's not enough recognition for this, and the 'exceptionally' tall or short bias comes into play at only a few inches outside the average.

The worst bit is that many whom the approximation does work for ignore it because of the flaws they have heard about, while many who are fit and healthy pay too much attention to what they are told by people who subscribe to the model.

It took me a long time to recover from being told I was overweight according to the model - for perspective at the time I had a 32 inch waist and am 5'10". I was also training regularly in martial arts and practicing other fitness activities. The doctor who told me that I was overweight severely damaged my confidence in my fitness, enough so that I let my training tail off since I felt it was doing nothing for me and lost a lot of ground.

I think i said this before to a similar thread, most of the BMI models do not take into account people who take sport seriously, a body builder eg will be clinically overweight etc even though they have no fat , etc etc.

 

[Muddyfox]

Body fat percentage is a better measurement of fatness/skinniness than BMI.

I had to do a body fat test a couple of years ago at the RD+E in Exeter and i only carry 4.9% body fat which apparently is not very good at all

Simon