BMI chart – What is all the fuss about?
I was reading a blog about the BMI (Body Mass Index) chart the other day and noticed that many people were saying that it’s not accurate and is an outdated measurement and needs to be replaced/revised.
Most 'athletes' can't build enough muscle to be outside of the 'normal' BMI range without steroids
So I started to think about why anyone would say this. The BMI chart was created over 100 years ago as a way of charting body ‘fatness’ or ‘thinness’. With the influence of Ancel Keys (visionary scientist way ahead of his time) BMI became a prominent tool in the 1970′s for assessing population health risks.
There is a criticism that the BMI doesn’t account for different ‘frame’ sizes of people (endomorphs and ectomorphs) or athletes who have built up their muscles to a much larger degree than the regular population. Both of these criticism’s seem to be weak as true ecotmorphic or endomorphic people are very rare…in other words, for MOST of the population the BMI works just fine, and that was the point in the first place.
The athlete argument doesn’t hold much water either, as they represent a very small percentage of the population and many of them at all levels use steroids and other drugs that artificially elevate their lean body mass. In other words, the BMI was never meant to be applied to people taking steroids and GH.
So what about ‘natural’ athletes and bodybuilders who don’t use drugs but just build lots of muscles? Surely they wouldn’t be in the ‘normal’ BMI range…right? Wrong!
A few days ago I posted pictures of myself after a 5 day fast (I weighed 176lbs in those pics…granted this was mostly a water reduction)…as of the moment I am writing this my bodyweight fluctuates between 180-183lbs. In both cases I am still within the normal BMI range. And this is where the argument about athletes being in the ‘overweight’ BMI range because of increased muscle mass falls apart for me.
In these pictures -> DO I LOOK SKINNY? I’m well within the normal BMI range…and I don’t think I look too small or lacking in muscle development. In fact I’ve spent the past 15 years trying to build as much muscle as I can…and I STILL fall within the ‘normal’ BMI range. If anyone was a candidate for being ‘overweight’ due to muscle mass I thought surely I would be it…but nope I’m still ‘normal’.
So the argument that athletes can build enough muscle to somehow push them out of the normal BMI range seems a bit wonky to me (unless of course they are using steroids or were true endormorphs to begin with…which is an exceedingly small portion of the population). Look at those pictures of me again, do I really look like I could possibly get bigger? Do I look like I NEED to be bigger? AND do I look unhealthy at the size I am?
The problem people have with the BMI is not the chart itself, but what the chart MEANS to them. The chart is meant to show ‘fatness’ and categorize it as normal or abnormal on both the high and low end. The key word here is ‘normal’.
What SHOULD be normal for a human body and what has BECOME normal in modern western societies are two different things.
The BMI chart shows what SHOULD be normal, not what is currently considered normal.
If most of the population is overweight (according to the BMI chart) the error in logic could be that the population is right and the BMI chart is wrong.
I think many people have a sharp emotional reaction to things like the BMI chart because it categorizes you in a way that feels discriminatory and prejudicial. Of course there is no emotion behind the BMI chart, it’s just a mathematical equation…but there is some thought and research into it, it’s not just a random idea, so you know there is some validity to the category you’ve been placed in according to the chart. And this is why it bothers people. If there is some good reason why you are categorized as ‘overweight’ then you’re faced with the following dilemma about your belief in the normalcy of your current body size:
Either the chart is wrong, or YOU are wrong.
It’s much easier to dismiss the chart as being inaccurate and not useful for your specific body shape and size or whatever excuse you like, than it is to accept the fact that perhaps you’re in fact simply overweight.
The final point on this topic is the view from being in the normal category vs the overweight or obese categories.
I used to be much heavier than I am now and I used all the same excuses explaining away the BMI as antiquated and outdated and didn’t account for the mountains of muscle I had built over the years. In reality, I was just fat.
Once I went through my cut down and got rid of all the excess weight I ended up right where the BMI chart predicted me to be at the high end of the normal range…which makes perfect sense as I’ve built as much muscle as I can without drugs.
If I’m currently in the normal category, and I’ve spent my whole life trying to build muscle, and all of my measurable health markers are in very good shape, and I’m happy with the look and shape of my body, and I have a golden Adonis Index ratio…then how is it possible for me or anyone with roughly my frame (which is average) to actually be in the overweight category without simply having more fat mass on their body and subsequently looking worse than I do right now?
In other words, if some people suggest the BMI cutoff for ‘overweight’ is too low, then what does that make me in these pictures? Underweight?
Or is it that people who don’t like the category the chart puts them in immediately react by dismissing the chart as being wrong instead of heeding the guidance it provides to lose some weight. This of course is cognitive dissonance at its finest.
For anyone who is in the ‘normal’ range the BMI chart seems to make perfect sense, or at least it does to me.
John
54 Responses to “BMI chart – What is all the fuss about?”
Leave a Reply
Blogs
Getting in your best shape for women
Building the perfect body for men
The most flexible diet you will ever find-
March 12th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Hey John,
Excuse me if I missed something along the way, as I’ve been following the posts, but have you explained somewhere why you were doing a 5 day fast to begin with?
Also, have you ever seen Clarence Bass at cbass.com? He’s ripped year round (even at 70) and has that “skinny” look compared to most bodybuilders.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Chris,
yes I did a 5 day fast a couple weeks ago. I’ll be posting about it next week.
Never heard of clarence bass, but good for him if he’s in good shape at 70 years old. Weight training and maintaining a lean body is probably the best thing we can do for our bodies as far as longevity is concerned.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Nice one, John. Very, very nice.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
how tall are you? I’m 5’10 180lbs which equals a 25.8 BMI.
Here are the BMI categories
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
I'm not extremely muscular or fat. just a normal athlete. And by the looks of your pictures you have more muscle than I do and are probably around 6 feet tall. 6' @ 180lbs gives you a BMI of 24.4 which barely puts you in the normal category.
The only sound part of your argument is that you and I surely spend more time in the gym than a normal person and I definitely agree that the BMI calculation is a remedial calculation for laymen to figure out just how fat they are. Nonetheless, I believe the BMI is outdated and flawed for athletes.
just my $.02
Mike
March 12th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
I’d say BMI Chart is correct. I’m 5’7″ and weigh between 165 and 168. My waste is 32.5 inches. According to the BMI chart, my measurements, and the mirror, I’m overweight. I think another 10 to 15 pounds will get me a closer to the AI ratio and a healthy BMI rating.
PS. I’ve been following ESE since Mid December 09′ and have dropped 20lbs. I’ve lost no noticeable strength in any of my lifts, and I’ve ceased to fuss over micro-nutrient ratios. I don’t believe dropping another 10 to 15 will crush my strength.
PPS. Clarence Bass is an inspiring individual and a great source of wisdom… along with you and the two Brad’s of course.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Misspelling: waste = waist
My (waste) is 32.5 inches. According to the BMI chart, my measurements, and the mirror, I’m overweight.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I think the problem most people have with it is it seems quite arbritary. There is a formula to make it appear legit. It’s not. I was in high school without a fat molecule in my body. I won my HIgh School’s muscle contest and placed 4th at the teenage mr. washington. In other words, fantastic shape. A few weeks after these contests, I would resume my more normal weight, a body response to high protein, low carb dieting. And I’d laugh because I was obese according to the BMI.
It turns out that it’s easy to poke holes in the BMI. Your body slips into the normal range. That’s great. But Tom Cruise is obese as is many other athletes.
The chart is probably useful for insurance companies to deny coverage, but other than that, it’s merely a loose guide. Your eyeballs are much better gauges of fitness.
Your pictures look great. You are not obese. Had the chart indicated obesity, you might get a chuckle or two from it and utterly dismiss it.
I’m sure it works fine for most people, in fact. But for some reason, there is a chunk in the short area (I’m 5’8 if I stretch myself) that the math falls apart.
I have eyes though, and I can see that clearly, most people are pretty chunky and if the chart indicates X, then they are probably X. Especially if they have little muscle tone.
By the way, with my 20-something inch waist and 6-pack abs in high school, I did have a heart doctor say I was obese as well. Weight is weight, he said. Maybe my bones are full of lead. I don’t know.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Art,
Totally agree with you that your eyes should be your guide. If you like the way you look, then who cares what some chart says.
My suggestion is that for most people who are not exceptionally muscular they will mostly likely look their best when they are in the normal BMI range.
You may very well be an outlier with exceptional muscle mass no doubt about it, in which case this chart is of little use for predicting anything about you. And any good physician should understand that from the simple eyeball test.
The only thing I will point out is that you are most likely an outlier and not representative of the broader population (as most high level athletes are also outliers)
Like I said the chart certainly doesn’t cover everyone (you are a great example). The convenient mistake is when the average person uses the exceptional person (like yourself) to disprove the rule for all when in fact the rule does fit for most.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Before I lost 27 lbs doing ESE, I liked to think of myself as one of the “athletes” that the chart “didn’t apply to.” In reality, it told me I was fat, and I didn’t want to hear that. I didn’t want to hear it from my girlfriend (now wife), doctor, friends, and especially some silly chart.
But you know what? The chart told me the truth about myself. And it was objective. And if one recognizes that it fits the bell curve of the population, not the outliers, then it can be very effective at truthfully telling people that they are fat. The BMI chart didn’t used to be my friend…but I’ve now learned to listen to it. It’s probably more truthful for most people than “real” friends.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I still dont think I ‘get’ BMI.
Okay, so its good for evaluating populations, but breaks down sometimes at an individual level?
Well, then it makes it just like any other population-based metric. But you would never see someone with Non-Hodgkins lymphoma saying ‘Screw chemo. Those survival rates are only valid on a population level. Im an individual who is going to die with chemo anyway! (or) Im an individual whos going to survive 5 years without chemo!’
You take the damn chemo.
:-/
March 12th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
John,
I mostly agree with you on this post and I think most strong reactions to the BMI are a purely emotional response to what the BMI tells them. I am, according to the BMI and my own judgement clearly in the overweight category, and I’m working very hard to change that fact, and succeeding quite well so far over the last two months.
That said I would echo to an extent what Mike said above. While you are clearly an outlier given how much time you spend at the gym, I would think that athletes in peak physical condition, especially ones that are not overly muscular, would fall somewhere towards the middle of the normal BMI range instead of, from what I gather, tending towards the very upper end of it.
Obviously BMI is just a rough and ready guide, and measurements such as body fat percentage are much better but I don’t wonder if a more sophisticated (and still relatively easily calculable) metric wouldn’t work better instead of BMI.
Following up on your comment on Somatotypes (I only first heard the word mentioned when I started reading your blog) is there good data out there on them and their relative proportions within the population? You claim “pure” endo or ectomorphs are rare I’m just wondering if there is any good data on this topic.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Hey John, here’s my perspective on BMI:
I feel that BMI is not a good metric for measuring your fitness because there is no action that you can take based on it unless you’re severely obese or underweight. If you’re in the “normal” category, it doesn’t validate what you’re doing…you could either be in great shape or terrible shape and still fall within the normal range. And if you’re overweight, you could either be a muscular athlete or just fat. Either way, I feel that BMI does not provide any meaningful information about whether you’re in good or bad shape. The only people it is useful for is people who are very fat or very skinny — and in their case, it should be very obvious there’s a problem even without BMI.
Also, in my experience the guys with the best looking physiques who are 5’8″ and below fall into the “overweight” BMI category. Of course this is just my subjective opinion of what looks good, but for short guys I don’t think someone who is “overweight” according to BMI is necessarily fat or overbuilt.
My current BMI is 27.4 which is slightly in the overweight category (5’6″, 170 lbs). Here is what my physique currently looks like:
My Physique — 27.4 BMI
Back when I was completely sedentary and never worked out, I weighed around 140 so my BMI was 22.6. I was skinny and overfat at the same time back then, and I didn’t have any athleticism whatsoever. But according to the chart, I was healthier back then then I am now.
I definitely agree with your idea that having too much muscle for your frame to carry can be a negative, but some shorter guys with stocky frames can have a BMI of 25-30 and still look great, and be healthy.
Just my two cents…and although I don’t agree with you on this one I do have to say I love your blog overall. I found it through Brad Howard and I’ve read through most of the articles, some really great no B.S. information here.
Dan
Six Pack Abs Blog
March 12th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Abbie,
I get what you’re saying in your example and I agree with you. I personally don’t think the BMI breaks down much at all…as far as I can tell there are some outliers with respect to body mass, but these people who would be considered true ecto and endomorphs are rare and probably 2 standard deviations from the mean. In other words they represent about 2% of the population on a whole. So from that standpoint BMI is good for a population based metric AND individual (assuming you’re not a freak).
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I find it interesting that, according to the BMI chart, I could still be in the low end of the normal range if I dropped about 50 lbs. I usually fluctuate between 182 and 187 and I’m 6’0″ tall. At 185, I am overweight by BMI standards even though the mirror says I look pretty good and at 182 the Bod Pod measured me to have 5% body fat. Surely, at 137 lbs., I would be a skeleton on the low end of the “normal” BMI class.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Dan,
Unfortunately the anthropometic data on humans is sparce and much of it is done on cadavers. Until recently the gold standard for body composition measurement was under water weighing. An lab that has such a contraption isn’t common, it’s cumbersome to maintain and rarely gets used to measure masses of people. It’s only in the past few decades that newer and more convenient body composition measurement tools have become readily available.
The next step is the will and the money to test a bunch of people and come up with more accurate measurements of body composition as they relate to health markers.
With all of that said, for such a simple tool BMI is still pretty damn good. I can’t imagine how much better any other tool could be. Perhaps specific calculations and correction factors could be studied for true outliers. But this is something only the TRUE outliers would benefit from.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
The most critical thing that is said in this post is that normal BMI is what normal SHOULD be, not what normal IS. To say that within a population, you are “normal” or that BMI doesn’t account for “normal” athletes within our current population is completely ignoring the point. For instance, the “average” or “normal” woman in the US is about a size 14-16 pant. This is certainly not what normal should be.
As much as we don’t want to admit it, most of the athletes in the gym probably still have 20-30 pounds to lose. It is these 20-30 pounds that put them outside of the BMI normal range. For example, John is now at the upper end of the “normal” range for two reasons. One, he has about as much muscle as a person could put on without drugs. Secondly, John (although he looks great now) will tell you that he probably has 5-10 pounds to lose to be really get lean. If you look at John’s before and after pictures, he would be the first to admit that he was “overweight” when he started his cut down. However, even at his before weight he would have been one of the guys that you’d see at the gym and say “that guy’s in pretty good shape”. Most people don’t want to believe that if someone in great shape like John gained a few pounds they’d be overweight. This is because a lot of guys would give their left arm to look like that “overweight” version. This is just proof of how far off the average population is from what they should be.
The point is that these calculations might not hold true for true outliers of the population, but they do give an extraordinarily large range. For example, in order for a 6’ person to be within the “normal” range for BMI they can weight anywhere from 137 to 183 pounds. This is a FORTY SIX POUND difference. It is completely absurd to say that any two guys of the same height should vary weight by more than 50 pounds if they were both in shape. The dissonance here is that unfortunately, a lot of people who think they are in shape because they work out more than the average population and are leaner than the average population are actually still overweight. The average population is just that fat.
Think of it this way. I’m a 5’2” girl and former varsity athlete. I was in what most people would say was great shape when I was at my heaviest (a whopping size 6). I still lost 20 pounds (and could lose 5-10 more) and am every bit as strong as I used to be. Even being on the upper end of the muscular range, at 116 I am right in the middle of the normal BMI. I can’t even imagine being any bigger and still lean. I used to tell myself the same thing, that BMI didn’t work for “athletes”. However, if I could lose that much weight, I think most of the big guys I see at the gym who are “athletes” could probably lose 30-40.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Dan,
Looking good buddy, you’re in great shape. To be clear, I never said that BMI was an indicator of “FITNESS”. Fitness and health risk markers are two different things. BMI was meant to be used as an indicator of “FATNESS” for average people.
You and I are not normal in that we probably spend significantly more time working out with weights that 99% of the population. In fact when I was working at a gym our manager explained that only 2% of all the people with a gym membership even bother to use the weights…this is an infinitesimally small number compared to the broader population.
Of course you are in no way shape or form unfit or ‘overweight’. You simply have a lot of muscle for your height. The interesting experiment from here would be to see if a group of average guys of your height could all achieve or even exceed your level of muscularity.
It may very well be that there needs to be two BMI scales (one for people who weight train consistently and one for people who never touch a weight) that both have correction factors for ecto and endomorphs. In both cases ‘fitness’ is not what is being measured but rather ‘fatness’.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
I’m 5’11″, ~240 lbs., with a BMI of 33.5, which obviously puts me in the obese category. No argument there! I need to get down to 214 to be in the overweight category and 178 to be in the normal category. I figure I need to weigh ~170-185 to look at my best, so this is right in that range.
Obviously some people are going to have problems with the very upper end of normal/ very low end of overweight. E.g., if they changed the starting point of overweight from 25 to 26, I would be in the normal category if I weighed 186 or less, rather than 178 or less. I bet a lot of people would like that! I might even like that when I get there. lol. So I think it’s close enough, and then we have to look in the mirror to finish the job.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Jeremy,
Another interesting thing that might be happening is the population on a whole is simply getting bigger overall due to better nutrition and more calories from one generation to the next.
I also think the north american population is getting taller from one generation to the next…and if you look through the background research on BMI its skewed to the overweight side as people get taller…in other words there might need to be a correction factor as people get taller.
Perhaps as a population we will literally outgrow (taller) this metric and need a new one that corrects for generational changes in overall size.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
I posted some personal information about myself in a comment
I made yesterday.
I am 5’0″ tall, and 115 lbs which gives me a BMI of 22.5
I am not muscular nor lean, nor do I wish to be.
I am in the 5th year of maintaining a large weight-loss.
I have found the BMI scale to be very useful
in online weight-loss and maintenance forum discussions,
to help a larger woman better identify with a smaller woman.
It seems like it is natural for many larger women to unconsciously assume that their own “normal” weight, is the ideal minimum weight overall.
However, the BMI calculation shows that 115 lbs on a 5’0″ woman,
is almost the same BMI as 140 lbs on a 5’6″ woman, and
I’ve found that I receive more “support” in an online forum
from people once they understand this concept.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
O.K. please explain this: I am (will be in July) 75 years old, I am 5’7, my weight is 163lbs, my BP 120/72. my RHR 67 and my BMI is 25.7
I am told this is entirely too high. Why? Or, is it?
CARDIO BIKE: VO2 max 31
GRIP STRENGTH: L 39 R44 (L=R=83)
PUSH UP TEST: 17
SEAT AND REACH: I 34, II 36 (36cm) PARTIAL CURL UP 20
Thanks for your comments and explanations (if need be)
This was done at my local YMCA where I go 3 times a week
March 12th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I’m over the BMI for my height and to be honest, i’m more defined than you are. What does that mean for me? Just to let you know, I don’t take steroids and I have never even tooken protein powder or any type of supplement except just normal food. I don’t even take protein bars so am I just a fatass?
March 12th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I got to use ESE in a political debate! transcript below:
Joe Qian Countries with Universal Healthcare have lower costs and longer life expectancies. Medicare recipients and Veterans are more satisfied than the rest of the population. What’s wrong with introducing a single payer alternative to compete with the current oligopoly?
2 minutes ago ·
Anthony Ramos first of all, they live longer b/c they eat less. period.
and nothing costs what they say. and corruption is most pervasive in entrenched bureaucracies that don’t have to compete. and individuals deserve a say in their care. and cost would no longer be a factor since someone else is always paying. and our country can’t afford higher taxes or we will shrink like Europe is doing.
March 12th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Jeremy made a good point. 133 lbs. would my lowest “normal” weight. No thanks!! Maybe the lower end is more appropriate for women…?
March 12th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
I just read Dan (six pack abs) blog. The 1st 3 advice is the exact opposite what you’re telling. 1. Boost the metabolism, have a nutrition plan and so on.
I begin to think of You John than a lighthouse, but still so strong the “ortodox” fitness views around. Your mission is damn hard
March 12th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
BMI is just an abstract number. One of many factors to consider. I have always said that it is more important to know % body fat….overweight vs overfat….or normal weight, still overfat….or overweight not overfat…..
March 12th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
June,
You’re one of the few who can actually be above the ‘normal’ BMI range while still being lean…it doesn’t mean anything more than you are rare!
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Richard,
I wouldn’t worry too much about what anyone at the YMCA says. Your numbers sound very good for you age.
The rest of your health markers such as cholesterol, lipids, triglycerides, LDL, HDL are of more importance than a few pounds on the BMI scale for you at this point. If those numbers all look good for you then dropping a few pounds to get within the ‘normal’ BMI range might not have much of an effect.
For most people who are very close to the normal range the issue isn’t so much about ‘health’ as it is about looks.
If most of your various health markers are good, and you like the way you look…then who cares what your BMI is. If on the other hand your health markers aren’t so good and you’re not exactly pleased with your look (and you actually want to do something about it) then maybe you try to drop some fat/build some muscle. That’s about as simple as I can say it.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Anthony,
That is awesome.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“Obviously BMI is just a rough and ready guide, and measurements such as body fat percentage are much better but I don’t wonder if a more sophisticated (and still relatively easily calculable) metric wouldn’t work better instead of BMI.”
I would suggest to you that there is indeed a more sophisticated metric, it’s called the golden ratio based on your ideal waist as being 45% of your height. I believe if we all used that metric, including the health profession, we would have a much better indicator of our overall health. And while it might not be realistic, or necessary for the entire population to have a perfect golden AI, it wouldn’t be a bad idea if everyone at least strived for an ideal waist!
March 12th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Yeah well what about me: 53, non-athlete, used to push weights, stocky meso/endo, present weight 98Kg, height 172 cm, @22% body fat = BMI 33.1 (Obese). At 0% body fat (ha!) BMI = 25.8 (Overweight!) At 5% body fat, BMI = 26.8.
What do you think of that?
Andrew
in the wilds of Australia.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
I had a look at your pictures John and I noticed , imho, that something’s not quite right with your body musculature. It’s a bit, flat? Have you used steroids before? If you did do you mind sharing with us how long you have used it for and how long ago was it? If I am wrong I do apologise.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Brad,
I used on and off for about 3 years between 1996-1999. Although I’m not sure what you mean by ‘flat’. I look pretty much just like anyone else…this is just not a studio caliber photoshoot.
JB
March 12th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
I’m going to echo a few of the things said above. First off, you’re BARELY in the “Normal” category. Simply drinking a little more water than usual could push you into the “Overweight” category, which you certainly aren’t.
Second, BMI doesn’t account for “skinny fat.” For some people, it doesn’t tell them anything about how fat they are. Someone with very, very little muscle mass, but a higher body fat percentage may fall squarely in the “Normal” range. In that case, as an indicator of “FATNESS,” it fails. Someone might be in this situation, but look at their BMI and think they’re okay.
I’m in the same boat as you are. I’m 5’11″, 179. My BMI is 25, which puts me at “Overweight.” I might be under 25 after a sporting event when I lose some water weight or something, but that’s not a “normal” condition. I already have a 6 (8) pack and visible, defined obliques, so I’m not sure how much lower I can get my bodyfat and KEEP it there. That’s really the only way to get myself back into the “Normal” range.
Now, I’m a practical guy. I understand that being barely into the OW category isn’t too bad. I know I’m not fat and I know I’m in fantastic shape. My sports performance, lifting performance, and measurable health markers show this to be true. To me, having to push myself to the ragged edge all the time just to get down into the “Normal” range tells me that something is wrong with the BMI measurement *for me*. “Normal” for me, would have to be adjusted.
I absolutely recognize what you’re getting at, though. For a lot of people, BMI is a perfectly fine marker of fatness. However, there are a LOT of exceptions. If someone isn’t educated about how the BMI is calculated, what exceptions exist, and how to accurately assess their own weight and health, it can be a very, very poor marker of overall “Fatness.” That is ultimately where the measurement fails. And that’s okay. Nothing that is meant to generalize about a population can ever account for specifics. But people need to be aware of the both the benefits and the drawbacks of the measurement.
People also need to be honest with themselves. I don’t know how you could ever call someone that is 20-30 lbs overweight an “athlete,” unless they’re an offensive linemen in the NFL who is being given more illegal substances than we even know about. People delude themselves and think that just because they go to the gym often that they’re not fat. This clearly isn’t the case.
And finally, I think that there are a significant number of lifters that complain about BMI measurement that are NOT all-natural lifters. So, of course they’re carrying more muscle mass than is normal, and are still fit. Of course the BMI won’t apply to them by a LONG shot. I think if people really knew how many lifters at gyms were on steroids or other substances, they would be in absolute shock. I can’t speak for every gym in America, and I certainly won’t claim to, but there are a very significant number of lifters and trainers at my gym that are definitely on something. So, when you have a guy that’s obviously an experienced lifter or a trainer, and they’re both on something, decrying the BMI as outmoded, people are likely to listen to and believe them. However, they don’t qualify their statements with the fact that it isn’t true for THEM because they’re carrying unnatural levels of muscle.
March 13th, 2010 at 5:53 am
I am 55 years old and have used weights for 30 years, I am 6ft 2ins tall and weigh 206lb that means I am overweight according to the bmi with one of 26.9, having struggled for 30 years to gain muscle and very little body fat am I to assume that I should now somehow shed muscular weight so I fit comfortably within a chart? My best friend is the same height as me weighs 14lbs less and is just within the maximum limit however, his waist measurement is 4 inches bigger than mine his chest is 6 inches smaller than mine and have no idea what his arms measure but they are very thin, when Evander holyfield won the world heavyweight title he was considered overweight using the bmi, so was Mike tyson, muhammed Ali even, if the bmi was accurate it would apply to everyone, it doesnt, a more accurate measure is height and waist measurement.
March 13th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Dave,
The BMI is a population based metric for measuring most people. Almost every population based metric we have is like this. There is always exceptions to every rule just like the elite athletes you mentioned…and yourself. You sound like you’re in great shape btw, good job!
I don’t think you should ever try to reduce your BMI just because the chart says so. Clearly your measurements are good. In fact I believe height/waist/shoulders are the new gold standard…of course this is a biased opinion because of our philosophy with the Adonis Index…but hey, I can be biased on my own blog can’t I!hehe
Yup the BMI definitely doesn’t predict everyone…in fact I think the people who made the BMI never considered the concept of weight training and that a person could actually become heavier from exercise…weight training only caught on as a lifestyle after the BMI was already in widespread use…so it makes perfect sense that it doesn’t accurately predict on guys who’ve built a significant amount of muscle.
JB
March 13th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Hey John,
An earlier post mentioned Clarence Bass. I read many of his books and I highly recommend you check one or two out. Quick reads. The great similarity I find between your teachings and this guy’s is the idea of treating your own body as an “experiment of one”. Clarence is almost fanatical about controlling the inputs and measuring the outputs and I think much of what he found mirrors things you discuss. Anyway, the “Ripped” series is a good start.
Thanks as always for the great blog work.
March 13th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Evander Holyfield was in trouble for performance enhancing drugs a while back. So he’s not a good example. Tyson? Hmm…. Ali is a better example, probably.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Hi John, I have a few queries about fasting and I’m not sure if you’ve encountered them.
1) have you ever had constipation due to the inadequate fibre intake during your fasting days? I have found this to be a problem after 24h fasts – my bowel movements are not too good.
2) in your opinion, does consistent bowel movements cause greater active fat loss and why? Isabel sur dos rous (did I spell her name correctly?) thinks it does but hasn’t explained her rationale on this. I just wanted to know if you’ve researched on this stuff. It’s somewhat linked to the constipation problem.
3) when fasting, I sometimes feel lethargic as I skip breakfast. What should I do to alleviate this? If I do eat breakfast, I feel alert and rejuvenated but it’s difficult to fast after that as compared to a 6pm-6pm fast which I can plan my day around. Does this have to do with sugar regulation in the body as I’m not quite used to it? Should I press through with it?
March 13th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I am 6’1″ 220 lbs. with 8% body fat. I’ve never used steroids or performance enhancing drugs nor do I take any supplements of any kind. According to the BMI chart I am borderline overwieght/obese.
March 13th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
[...] BMI charts – what is all the fuss about? | JohnBarban.com [...]
March 13th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I think you’re all missing a point.
Even if you fat percentage is low, if you weigh a lot, that low fat percentage still equates to a lot of fat. In fact a small person with 15% body fat has less body fat than an heavy person with 9% body fat. That what they mean whey they say that if you gain muscles you gain fat as well. Yes, your body fat in percentage goes down but in term of pounds it goes up.
The reason for the BMI not discriminating athletes is that even if you’re very muscular or very athletic and your BF percentage is low, the excess weight and the higher fat still have the same exact effect they would have on an obese person. A huge bodybuilder suffer the same exact effects of overweight that an obese non-muscular person suffer. The body (and the joints, the ligaments, the bones, the organs) doesn’t know the difference between fat weight or muscle weight. Also the body doesn’t know the difference between 30 pounds of fat on a muscular person and 30 pounds of on a fat person. Fat is fat and extra weight is extra weight.
March 14th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Clement,
Not sure about constipation from fasting…it sounds more reasonable that because you’re not putting anything in, there isn’t much to come out. I’ve never heard of constipation from fasting.
Bowel movements have nothing to do with fat loss.
If you prefer 6pm to 6pm fasts then go with it. Each person seems to have a preferred fasting time that just works better for them.
JB
March 14th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Good article. I have mostly lean body mass (muscle) and very little fat, and I still all within the normal BMI range. My body is similar to an underwear models body. Underwear models have lean muscle and vasty majority fall within the normal BMI range. To be outside the normal BMI range and not be fat one would have to be a vain freak bodybuilder. It might perhaps be possible for me to fall outside the normal BMI range without steroids. It would take years of lifting very heavy weights at minimal reps and doing mostly compound lifts. Also I’d have to eat a lot of calories i.e. weight gainer. However, that would not make me ‘normal’ that would make me a vain abnormal natural bodybuilder that does not represent would the normal population is and should be. The bottom line is : the BMI is a useful and good measurement system.
March 14th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Sorry for posting this twice but the first one has typos even though most of you probably can read typonese
:
Good article. I have mostly lean body mass (muscle) and very little fat, and I still fall within the normal BMI range. My body is similar to an underwear models body. Underwear models have lean muscle and vast majority fall within the normal BMI range. To be outside the normal BMI range and not be fat one would have to be a vain freak bodybuilder. It might perhaps be possible for me to fall outside the normal BMI range without steroids. It would take years of lifting very heavy weights at minimal reps and doing mostly compound lifts. Also I’d have to eat a lot of calories i.e. weight gainer. However, that would not make me ‘normal’ that would make me a vain abnormal natural bodybuilder that does not represent would the normal population is and should be. The bottom line is : the BMI is a useful and good measurement system.
March 14th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
damn, the second one still contained an error : ‘would’ should be ‘what’. Oh, well, I’m not going to post it a third time because that would be annoying and bordering on OCD behavior.
–Kevin
March 14th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
“Now, I’m a practical guy. I understand that being barely into the OW category isn’t too bad. I know I’m not fat and I know I’m in fantastic shape. My sports performance, lifting performance, and measurable health markers show this to be true. To me, having to push myself to the ragged edge all the time just to get down into the “Normal” range tells me that something is wrong with the BMI measurement *for me*. “Normal” for me, would have to be adjusted.” –Andrew
Oh, you are in fantastic shape an an ‘overweight’ 25 BMI index due to muscle bulk ? Let us see you run a half marathon or even a full marathon and then we will see how in ‘shape’ you are both cardiovascular wise and endurance wise. I think you are delusion since in all likelihood you would be huffing and puffing and lucky to even cross the finish line let alone place among the significant runners who finished. The BMI index is a good measurement system and you are likely out of shape.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
“Now, I’m a practical guy. I understand that being barely into the OW category isn’t too bad. I know I’m not fat and I know I’m in fantastic shape. My sports performance, lifting performance, and measurable health markers show this to be true. To me, having to push myself to the ragged edge all the time just to get down into the “Normal” range tells me that something is wrong with the BMI measurement *for me*. “Normal” for me, would have to be adjusted.” –Andrew
Oh, you are in fantastic shape at an an ‘overweight’ 25 BMI index due to muscle bulk ? Let us see you run a half marathon or even a full marathon and then we will see how in ’shape’ you are both cardiovascular wise and endurance wise. I think you are delusional since in all likelihood you would be huffing and puffing and lucky to even cross the finish line let alone place among the significant runners who finished. The BMI index is a good measurement system and you are likely out of shape.
P.S. yes I posted twice again. I am screwing up all my messages on the internet today
March 14th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
You want to know who is in fantastic shape ? The NAVY SEALs and I would say the ideal NAVY SEAL would be 2.5 pounds for every inch he is tall or even a little lighter than that since that would make him faster. So an 6 foot man at about 180 or 178 pounds would be at ideal NAVY SEAL weight theoretically and that man would still fall within the normal BMI index range. Face it Andrew you don’t even know what to be in ‘shape’ even means. I bet you lack the flexibility, endurance, and cardiovascular to be in fantastic shape.
March 14th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
The above should have said “cardiovascular fitness” and “a” instead of ‘an’.
I dunno what is about today but I’m just making all kinds of mistakes trying to communicate here. My apologies to everyone here for that.
March 15th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Of course, this will sound like heresy, but is it possible that the negative health effects are correlated with weight whether it comes from fat or muscle? BMI is only correlated anyway. Not everyone who is in the overweight or above ranges will get the diseases associated with high weight, but the statistical probability is there. And, some people in the normal ranges will also contract heart disease and diabetes, etc.
Has anyone ever been able to study those who are overweight because of muscle and prove that they are necessarily healthier than those who are from fat? It seems to be objective, we need to entertain all the possibilites until proved wrong. Where is the data for the correlation between low bodyfat and health? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m just asking what it is. I haven’t spent hours on the net for this, but it just seems that whenever I do search for this on the regular net, everyone’s just backing each other up, rather than pointing to some longitudinal studies.
I’m just asking, remember. Not looking for a fight!
In any case, I agree with John that we are talking about a small percentage of individuals. And I agree that he looks pretty darn good.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Quoting Wood:
“I just read Dan (six pack abs) blog. The 1st 3 advice is the exact opposite what you’re telling. 1. Boost the metabolism, have a nutrition plan and so on.
I begin to think of You John than a lighthouse, but still so strong the “ortodox” fitness views around. Your mission is damn hard”
Hey Wood,
Right now I eat over 3000 calories per day, and I never gain any fat. Back when I weighed 140 lbs I would eat about 2000 calories per day, and I would constantly struggle with fat gain.
It’s hard for me to believe you can’t increase your metabolism when I eat more than almost everyone I know, and I’m also leaner than almost everyone I know.
Also if you’re a serious athlete and you’re not following a nutrition plan, you’re crazy. If you’re making decisions in the moment you’re relying on willpower, which is a recipe for failure. You need to plan a significant portion of your meals in advance and take willpower out of the equation.
Of course, I’ll keep an open mind to what you’re saying if you’re more successful than me. You don’t seem to think much of my advice, so why don’t you post a few pictures of your physique so we can see the results your advice produces.
If you either more functionally athletic or you look better aesthetically, then I’ll seriously consider what you’re saying. But if your physique looks significantly worse than mine, you should be trying to follow my advice rather than criticizing people who are more successful than you.
Dan
March 16th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I think what a lot of people fail to notice is that the category ‘overweight’ doesnt refer to fat or muscle – simply weight.
So if you are 6’1″ and 220 pounds and 8% body fat, guess what – you are still ‘overweight’ for your height.
John, here’s a topic for you:
Is carrying too much weight, regardless of whether or not it’s muscle or fat, have negative health consequences.
Can too much muscle be bad for you?
KK
March 16th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The metabolism can’t be raised much.
In studies were they measured the difference between high and low metabolism and also hyperthyroid and hypothyroid metabolism they found out the meax difference is 150 calories, certainly not 1000 calories.