Julianne Moore: I'm Watching
Republicans Have More Orgasms, And 10 Other Singles' Sex Secrets
Don't feel like your body mass index accurately represents your health? According to a recent article in The New York Times, more and more doctors may be on your side. Even though it's widely used to gauge whether or not a person is overweight, BMI -- which relies mostly on comparing your height to your weight -- may not indicate the whole truth of how you're built and whether or not you need to drop pounds.
The issue? BMI scores can't tell the difference between an overweight man who is 6-foot-2 and 250 pounds and, say, Christian Bale at his most "Batman" buff. And that's just a shame. Plus, people with the same BMI can have very different blood pressures, cholesterol levels and other gauges of physical fitness. So, how do we figure out if a person is actually healthy, beyond just being a thinner or thicker milkshake?
The real truth comes, doctors say, from measuring the percentage of body fat, which can be done a few different ways. One is a complicated DEXA scan, a type of X-ray that shows the amount of lean and fat body mass a person has, with a determination of "overweight" meaning body-fat percentage is over 25 percent for a man and over 35 percent for a woman. A simpler if less effective method is measuring waist-to-hip ratio, which is the circumference of the smallest part of your waist divided by the circumference of the largest part of your hips. (A man's ratio should be no larger than .90, and a woman's ratio should be no larger than .83.) Finally, body-fat percentage can be determined by the always-flattering "skin fold" technique, where calipers are applied to the sexy folds of skin in your thigh, triceps and hips.
Conclusion? Like anything else in life, something as complicated as health should never be reduced to just a number. If you're not working out and only eating a handful of Funyuns a day, you are not healthier than a person who is 20 extra pounds. Keep an eye on your numbers, but do it while working out and eating big green salads.
See how we're getting fit -- and getting pinched with calipers to determine our body-fat ratios -- in our 9-to-Fine program.
Comments:
Add a comment
Tuesday 07 September
By John
BMI is most likely the best system we have righgt now,
If don't know that you are over weight, when you have trouble tying
your shows. BMI is nost going to healp you.
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By Kili
No crap! My BMI says i shouldn't weight much more then 140lbs. My doctor laughed at me when I asked him if I should loose that much weight. He told me that if I got down much lower than 160 it would be unhealthy for me. I have a lot of muscle, and even though I should loose weight the BMI is just ridiculous.
Reply
Tuesday 07 September
By MattV
Wow. All of this has been painfully obvious to me for many years. It's pretty much common knowledge these days. It's amazing how little the general public actually knows about health and fitness.
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By meme
A lot of people have been saying BMI is the wrong way to diagnose obesity for years. And they're completely right! Going by BMI, just about all sport players and muscle builders are very obese. BMI is only your height on your weight. It doesn't distinguish fat, muscle, lean muscle, bones, or anything.
Now, why don't we all just get on board with knowing BMI is wrong and change it? Wasn't it only last week a woman didn't get a job as a fitness coach at Weight Watchers because her BMI was too high? Never mind, she had lost over 100 lbs. on the very system or that she was the average dress size or that she was completely healthy.
Reply
Tuesday 07 September
By SacWriterEditor
As a dancer, I was 117 pounds of solid muscle, not an ounce of fat on me. I've gained some weight since some health problems made it impossible for me to continue that level of exercise/calorie-burning. Muscle weighs more than fat, therefore, doctors who rely only on BMI or the number on the scale tell me I'm overweight, whereas those who have actually felt my quads/glutes/biceps agree that it's highly likely that the first 117 pounds is *still* solid muscle, so while I do have "some" fat on me now (I've grown bosoms after years of being flat!) that I didn't used to have, they don't think I'm really as "fat" as the BMI alone would indicate.
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By Gabby
Any validity you are trying to establish with your comment is invalidated by making a statement that "muscle weights more than fat." 5 pounds = 5 pounds. If you have 5 pounds of muscle, PLEASE NOTE: WEIGHS THE SAME AS 5 POUNDS OF FAT!!
The difference in 5 pounds of muscle is it takes up less space and looks better, makes you stronger and as a result you are healthier. The more lean muscle you have the more you burn fat.
Please stop making NON scientific facts bold statements of correct nonsense.
Articles such as these are politically correct to make anyone that is fat and FAT IS NOT HEALTHY!!! In abundance and surrounding your organs and heart.
This is a let's make someone feel good that is not HEALTHY. The BMI figures and Bodyfat percent figures may not be perfect but they are usually correct.
Stop the MISINFORMATION and just tell everyone to EAT LESS!!!! and EXERCISE MORE. It's a very easy recipe to follow.
Tuesday 07 September
By Jenp
Most people who have high BMI's and thick waists are not buffed out. They're fat. They try to use the "muscle weighs more than fat" excuse but then they get high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes. At least that's how it is at my workplace. Once a "stocky" person gets to middle age it's all down hill. I'm pretty sure this article is only talking about 1-3% of the high BMI population.
Reply
Tuesday 07 September
By clintnapril2
B.S. I am 6' and 250 Lbs. The BMI says I should weigh 195 and when I get below 225 my ribs stick out and I look like starvin marvin ......
Tuesday 07 September
By Big John
As everyone knows, the BMI was 'worldized' several years ago.
At 20 years of age, and all during one Summer, after working as a farmhand, mountain climbing and then attending military training camp, I weighed 211 pounds, at 6' 4". If you calculated the current day BMI with those figures, I am at the begining border of obese.... 55 now... ain't no 211, and never will be again. Still working a 48 hour week and walking around; the BMI can't be a true measure of health.
Reply
Tuesday 07 September
By Ophelia
BMI is bogus! Yes, I am correct for my BMI, but I also have great bones that weigh more, I am muscular and I am told I am in great shape. Well, there are far too many small boned fatty people who don't weigh that much. There are a lot of great boned muscular people in buff shape that just simply weigh more.
Bring back the tried and true Metropolitan Life height and weight scales that take into consideration the size of the all important bones. Remember those?
They were more accurate, because if you frame a house with thick wood, it will weigh more than if you frame a house with thin wood. I can look thin and boney with tight musc les, but I am going to weigh more than a person with tiny little bones, no muscle and a bunch of fat. I guess you would have to take an anatomy and physiology class to understand it, but I tried to explain it in laymens terms. Bring back the old height and weight charts, and throw the BMI crap out the window. It is just an average that a lot of people fall somewhere in. I am an athlete and I weigh more than a non athlete. Because I eat right, I fit into the BMI scale, but that's because I am very, very lean right now. I know a lot of people who are in perfect shape that are over their BMI and I know a lot of out of shape fat people with little bones and no muscle tone that fit the BMI.
If you categorize the size of the bones again, everyone will get a true idea of how much they should actually weight. Thank you Doctors!
Reply
Tuesday 07 September
By jlw
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the recent BMI table is pretty much useless except for those next to incapable of any physical activity...oh, and ultimate couch potatoes. Many people blew it off the day it came out...and rightly so. Why in the world did it take so long for medical professionals to admit it's not worth the paper it's printed on?
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By ty
The BMI was a quick and dirty calculation put together by a sociologist in the 1700s for quickly sorting people into categories. First it has nothing at all to do with health, its simply based on weight distributions in France in the 1700s. Second, it relates to the population in France in the 1700s, people were smaller back then, not just height but build as well. Most that were taller back then were of a much thinner build, like what you see in basket ball players today. Back then it was as rare for someone to be over 6 foot as it is someone to be over 7 today. If it had taken place in Denmark, Germany or Sweden the results would have been entirely different.
Wednesday 08 September
By Ty
The actuarial tables are better but are BS as well. My grandfather had to get down to 208 to keep health insurance, he still had a 55" chest and didn't look good with the stick legs and arms that it required to achieve that weight. Maybe they'll stop with the foolishness after a number of wrongful death suits.
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By Keith
This is old news. The medical doctors want to always try to seem as if they are the experts and know everything but the fact is, BMI comes from a different field in medicine. People with Kinesiology Degree (Exercise Science and Exercise Physiology) are the ones who study this subject. No other degree does. I have seen some jobs, and I am sure other places using these very readings, and are clueless to just how inaccurate they can be when blindly taken. The person doing the readings need to understand these differences to not to incorrectly make a false determination.
The bottom line is that BMI first came out when most people did not exercise. When you take a muscular person, the readings become far less accurate. That is why when you see the Federal Government’s readings on how fat America is; it is not to be taken accurate. There could be a state and/or city that just exercises more, and there for more muscular, and they will all read as being fat.
The statement they said about the hip and waist ration is incorrect as well. There are specific markers used to take measurements, and it is not based on the largest part of your hips, and the smallest part of your waist. However, for many people they both may be the same spot, this is not always the case, and the larger the person, the less likely it will be true.
The Hip measurements for both man and women should be centered on the Femoral Greater Trochanter, also known as the hip bone. The Waist measurements are always done one inch below the bellybutton. Keep in mind this is not the most accurate measurement to take ones body fat, and just slightly more accurate than the BMI. The more sights you use for circumference reading, the more accurate the test will be. Some studies suggest the standard deviation on hip to waist ration can be + or - 13%. This means your readings can be 13% off in the fatter or leaner direction.
The tool, just like any tool is only good if used properly and understanding it in its proper context. There are far more accurate readings out there, but they would not plausible to take over the phone as it would be in person.
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By Daniel I. Radakovich
The BMI index is, if not tempered with sanity, completely bogus. When I in 1991/2 weighed 187 pounds and was 5'9" in height, it (my BMI) was deemed "too high" to permit induction into the US Army as a volunteer, the recruiting Sgt. said-"go out and do a few situps" which I cordially declined (At the time I regularly walked 8 miles daily and did 3 reps of 300 situps daily, and had at the period rather cut abs :). The 2 ways they measured it were A) the BMI chart for weight alone and B) a neck measurement[mine at the time was 18"). My body shape was somewhat unusual being like a square box in the upper torso not the more usual rectangular one [i.e. I was as deep almost as I was wide] which by logical extension would alter the parameters by a 30 % increase in volume [which after all is what the height aspect truly measured] in which case I was then well under the desiderata. Now some 20 years later I weigh about 230 pounds and do have more body fat [along with type 2 diabetes] but the excess body fat is due to the diabetes and lack of exercise due to foot ulcers keeping me torpidly off them and inhibiting exercise, not vice-versa...ballooning from 193 pounds to this in 2 yrs. and 34" waist-38"
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By jen
Since kindergarten my daughter has recieved BMI notices from her school saying that she is obese or bordeline.I can't even tell you what great shape she's in, she looks awesome and is very active.I knew it was bogus the minute we recieved the notice.Schools are telling kids they're fat when it's not even accurate! She's 5'5'' and weighs 121 pounds is that considered obese?CRAZY!!!!
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By Anne
It sounds like your daughter is slim for her height and weight. What are they thinking. Dont they have any common sense. Although, as Voltaire once said, "Common sense is not so common". Being 5'1" and weighting the same 120, I wear a size 8. Far from obese.
Wednesday 08 September
By TdocT
1) there is no such thing as big-boned (truly, read the literature)
2) excess weight, muscle or fat, does severe damage to all of your joints, muscles, organs, etc. (read the literature).
3) there seems to be a lot of justification with little logic for being heavy (I don't care what your boyfriend thinks is sexy, if you weigh 200 at any height, unless you're a line backer, you're overweight and thus unhealthy).
4) it amazes me how ignorant the general public is to such common sense regarding health issues (read the literature).
5) read the literature. and then go take a jog.
Reply
Wednesday 08 September
By ty
My grandfather was 6'1", had a 55" rib cage and weighed 208 to meet actuarial table for insurance. His legs were smaller than my arms at that weight, he lived about 3 years after getting down to that weight. Just 2 years prior to getting down to that weight to keep his health insurance, he was working as a lineman for the railroad and was loading and unloading 3-400 lb spools of cable one handed. when he was in his prime he was doing like with up to 700lb spools and bundles. People comment on how big boned I am as my elbows are larger than most people's knees and I'm barely a shadow of what my grandfather was.
Monday 04 October
By Andrea
I agree with some of your points, but come on, the comment "if you weigh 200 lbs at any height....you're overweight and thus unhealthy" is just as broad and off the mark as the whole BMI chart being lamented. My husband is 6'4", lifts heavy weights 4 times a week and does cardio 5 days/week. He weighs 230lbs, and is in extremely good health.
Then there's me: I am only 5'4" and I have to tell you that when I weighed 195 I wore a size 14, did not have "lumps & rolls" had excellent blood pressure, cholesterol, triglyceride levels, blood sugar levels, and an EKG showed a great heart rate. I was 100% "healthy" The only thing telling me I was NOT was the number on the scale. Never mind I have a large chest that will never go anywhere outside of having surgery, or that I have strong, muscular legs.
In order to improve my health, I have lost almost 20lbs, and am working on more. But even so, the BMI tells me I am obese, yet I just ran my first 5K last month, with a 10 minute mile; am running 5 miles this upcoming Saturday in a race; I Zumba 3 times a week, and have done hour long classes back-to-back. I am more physically fit than most people I know, I just happen to weigh more. I'm in a comfortable size 12, yet until I lose another 3lbs, I am classified as "obese"
The ONLY true way, IMO to gauge a persons health is through true actual data for that specific person.