BMI doesn't take into account muscle, or even gender
Let’s talk about obesity. Well, more specifically, let’s talk about the common tool for measuring and determining obesity: BMI (Body Mass Index).
Obesity is a lot like obscenity: you know it when you see it. Going by the hard and fast numbers, like matching up height and weight on a chart to determine how healthy or unhealthy someone is, is limited and, to some, insulting. Score above a 30, and you’re obese. But what if you’re heavily muscled? Or a curvy lady with a prominent backside/hips (hello birthing hips!)? BMI doesn’t care, fatty.
According to the BMI scale, I am obese. BULLSHIT. Some numbers for you: I wear a size 16, 18 on a bad day, but can honestly still fit into a lot of my 14s. I am 5 foot 10 and about, well… I’m over 200 (CRIES AND HIDES IN CORNER), however when most people try to ballpark my weight, they tend to be off by 20-30 pounds. Why? Because I am not obese, nor do I look that overweight. Yes, I’m fat, but I am actually less fat than most Americans (slightly sad for America, but oh well). I can still shop at normal stores (albeit I have to get the tall sizes online)…. and while I have some annoying as hell back fat, I’m not a jiggly hot mess.
But according to the Body Mass Index, I am obese. Really? My blood pressure is perfect, my heart rate is normal and my cholesterol is tip-top for someone my age. I walk 1-2 miles a day, every day, I eat whole grains and plenty of fruits and vegetables. I only eat fast food 3-4 times a year. Do I have a lot of muscle? Not yet, but what if I did? Muscle weighs more than fat, so BMI might call me obese anyway.
The BMI scale does not take into account any of these factors, let alone my gender or age.
According to the BMI scale (and a few silly doctors), I should weigh 135 pounds. I’m sorry, but I’d rather not be an anorexic model. I can only imagine how many people have been told by medical professionals (or a quiz in a magazine, or a quick Google search) that they should be 10, 20, 30 UNDER what would realistically be healthy. You can’t tell me that I should weigh the same as a supermodel, as normal human being, at my height. 160 – about a size 8-10 is my target. 135 is setting myself up for failure, or even BDD (body dysmorphic disorder). The short-sighted BMI scale has people aiming for ridiculous weights, and is also telling people who aren’t clinically obese that they are. The thing is, doctors and organizations such as my beloved Weight Watchers reinforce this scale with their patients/customers, and many of the less astute among them may have no idea they are being told inaccurate, short-sighted information.
Of course, one must consider the other side of the argument: there needs to be SOMETHING to measure obesity, especially in our American super-sized society. Something is better than nothing, yada yada. But are you really telling me there’s no way to factor in muscle mass and/or gender into the scale? Weight Watchers now decides points based on age, gender, height AND activity level in one’s job (ie: a desk jockey moves around less than someone who works a factory floor)… BMI can’t at least take into consideration gender and muscle mass/percent body fat?
Am I overweight? Yes. Obviously. Am I obese? No. So STFU BMI, and stop trying to make me feel bad about myself.
I’m not the only one out there — anyone else have thoughts? Anger? Think I’m a crazy fatty? XD
Having an unrealistic weight goal wouldn’t be setting you up for BDD. It’d definitely give you low body self-esteem and set you up for developing an eating disorder, but not BDD.
BDD is a an obsession with a perceived defect in the body that is not actually there. This obsession is caused by brain chemistry, not forcing some ideal upon yourself. It is a somatoform disorder. Additionally, people with BDD are completely obsessive. They suffer anxiety at the mere thought of leaving the house; they think others see them as a monster.
So, if you just decide because of a cultural imperative of BMI that you’re obese, you have a disordered body image, but you will not develop BDD.
I don’t think the clinical term “obese” actually has with it a judgement against you as a person. It isn’t an insult, it’s a medical term. It is an equation that takes into account height and weight and such.
People are built differently, so weights ranges can vary. But you shouldn’t weigh 135. If you weighed 135 at 5’10, your BMI would be 19. That is at the very low end of “normal.” Actually, it’s practically underweight. You could weigh as much as 170 and be considered in the normal range. Actually, even “overweight” ranges from 25-29, so even at 200 pounds or a little over, you are not yet obese.
At 215 you are just over the cusp of the medical (not societal) definition of obese. Again, this isn’t insulting, it’s a diagnosis that means your weight could be affecting your heart, lungs, fertility, etc. (I used the calculator from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.)
From this standpoint, one really should have a BMI lower than 30. However, if you don’t think that measurement reflects how your weight and health are connected, you should have a body fat analysis. That will give you a more accurate picture of how your weight distribution is affecting how your body functions. Obesity isn’t about how you look, it’s about how your body composition is affecting your body’s function and future health outlook. So, I wouldn’t call “bullshit.” I’d just look for different factors to see if it’s really something that should concern you.
Obviously, I have Stuff to Say regarding this issue and have told you most of it already. Here’s five bullet points of crap you probably already knew / listened to me blather about before.
1) yes, the scale is ridiculously dumb, what with not taking into account muscle mass, gender, frame size, etc. iirc, I am the exact same height and weight as my mother, but she wears clothes about 3-4 sizes larger. (actually, some is 5 sizes, but I attribute that to her compulsion for buying clothing that’s too large for her). BMI would tell me I’m a hamburger (mmm Counter Burger) away from being overweight when waist size, waist-hip-ratio, body fat %, etc etc would not. Same thing with my brother, who’s also a muscular workout addict. He’s just better at saying ‘fuck it’ to self-criticism in this regard.
2) in some ways I even question whether we need these definitions. yes, having more fat than necessary (or less, or too much muscle or too little bone, etc etc) is often correlated with poor health outcomes. But it’s often not, as well. The focus should be on the behaviors that in some people cause unhealthy-looking body shapes rather than judgment of people for the way they look. If public health is the concern, we should be encouraging EVERYONE to exercise regularly but not compulsively and eat mostly healthy foods in the quantities they require for everyday living with the occasional treat. Yes, there are better measures of excess adipose tissue than the BMI, but we shouldn’t even be focusing on that in the first place.
3) Major research (including a 200,000 person plus longitudinal study by the CDC) has shown that it’s actually healthier to be in the 25-30 BMI range than the so-called normal range. And that those who are underweight are at greater health risks than all but the most severely obese people (seriously, being a few pounds underweight is in likelihood of death the equivalent of being something like 200 pounds overweight). Pushing everyone towards the lower end of the BMI scale is seriously dangerous public policy, as those weights are really only healthy for those with small frames who aren’t prone to putting on muscle.
4) To go off of that further, while it would be technically okay BMI-wise for you to be 135 pounds, it’s probably not physically healthy for you. Just like how at 5’2″ I could, theoretically, be “normal weight” at 103 pounds. Which, um… estimating I’m at 22% body fat and 132 pounds (last measurements I recall, and I was lifting WAY less when that % was taken), means that I would be at 0% body fat (iirc 18% is considered the minimum a woman can maintain without serious side effects). Or, you know… 10% body fat and significant muscle and bone degeneration. Also healthy. But normal body weight, yay! Which is just to say that the lower bound is really only for someone without a lot of lean mass… for someone like me (or, I suspect, you) it is akin to being unhealthily underweight.
5) I’d maintain that the best idea is to not have any weight goals at all. Some people have a set point that is above the BMI scale. Some people have a set point below it (we’ve all known people who eat and eat and just stay super skinny… they’re rare but definitely exist). It’s not one number that determines how healthy you are. It’s a combination of things, some we can control and some we can’t. But exercise and healthy food certainly help. With healthy habits, most people’s weights settle into a healthy-looking body type. But in the long run, we have very little control over where they settle.
The BMI is based on an approximation of human body types from 19th-century Belgium. It was never intended to be a measure of fitness or health for anyone; it wasn’t even intended for that purpose in Belgium 150 years ago, much less today. It was merely intended as a statistical base for sociologists to use when correlating societal trends with body shape and size. The fact that it is the standard used by health insurance companies as a scam to overcharge and underinsure people is ludicrous and irresponsible, to say the least.
I recently took a bmi test on the livestrong website that used not only height and weight but also measurements. Guess what? I’m obese too! I guess my hip to waist ratio wasn’t tipical for what a woman’s body “should” look like. I’m an android/mesomorph body type and built like a square. I wear a size 6-8, and just ran 3 miles of mountainous terrain in 43 minutes yesterday. Obese? Really? BMI is BULLSHIT.