Body Mass Index outdated?
It seems that Body Mass Index is outdated and not very accurate either. It does not really take into account frame size (only very generally ie small, medium, large frame), it does not take into account body measurements or muscle mass. Although my BMI is fine, when I calculated my actual body fat using an online body fat calulator, I found my body fat could be reduced to make it more ideal. What is the point of this outdated Body Mass Index, giving people an innaccurate idea of their true body fat composition?
Public Comments
- When you calculate your BMI, even if it says you are overweight, I am assuming that most people will know if that is muscle or fat, and if they don't, then they arent very smart. The BMI isnt suppose to be an exact thing, it is just a quick way to calculate wether you are overweight and obvisouly if it is muscle you will know and that is fine. Also there is no way you can calculate your body fat percentage online. That is an innaccuarate measurement. If you really want to know it go see a doctor.
- its still around because it is still applicable to most people, its simple to calculate, its associated with a lot of research(used in a lot of surveys for example) the best alternative now is the waist circumference , and the body shape. a lot of research shows that the pathologically significant fat is that which is around the waist(central obesity) so a person who is slightly built but has a protruding belly might have a normal bmi but his shape might be apple like(not good) and his waist circumference above average this tells us that he must lose weight to avoid long term complications like diabeted and hypertension. on the other hand a bodybuilder will for sure have a high bmi but looking at him we see a pear shaped body(good) and a slender waist circumference that way we know he is in good shape.
- The BMI is little more than a guideline, an easy to compute ratio of height and weight. It is useful because it is a guideline. And you are correct, there are many things it doesn't account for; most notable the things you mentioned. That said, it is a guideline and a useful one for general use. It is *not* by any means a measure of body fat, nor was it intended as such. If creating a healthy body were like carving a statue from marble, the BMI would be the largest tool in the case: great for rough work (beginning steps), but once you get the process started, there are smaller, more accurate tools available: files and chisels to help the sculptor get exactly what he is intending.
- I think it's good as a rough guide. Some people don't seem to know how fat they really are and it's a wake-up call. I was at 220 and thought I was okay but the BMI chart let me know I was "obese" and then some. It's not a pleasant thing to figure out but it was the incentive to get moving.
- The BMI does not give the "full picture" of a person's physical "shape". The correct way to use the BMI is to add on the person's BODY FAT PERCENTAGE to the BMI, making it a 3 or 4 digit value that has narrowed down the person's body shape. For example, my BMIBFP is 229, which means I have a BMI of 22 with 9 % body fat. Another person could be 2220, which means they have a BMI of 22 and 20 % body fat. You can see we are two different looking bodies. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY OR FITNESS COMPANY use this method TO DESCRIBE A PERSON'S PHYSIC. The BMIBFP (Body Fat Index Body Fat Percentage) is what I thought-up and use to rate a person's body shape/condition. I just don't have the money to "Patent" this rating system. I hope everyone reading this will remember that I brought this system to the public's attention when some BIG TIME company claims this BMIBFP is their Idea. Alton T. from HAWAII
