BMI accuracy

[Ron Rizzardi]

How accurate is the BMI as a guide?
According to the chart my 6' 2" frame needs to weigh 180# in order for my BMI to be at the 24.5 in order to be just at the top end of the optimal weight. Right now I'm 198# with a BMI of 25.4. That puts me in the over weight column just barely.

I'm very literal. No gray area on this BMI nor any considerations for gender and age that I'm aware of. At my current hieght the least I've ever weighed was 165# when I was 18. I'm 42 now and I cycle at a moderate intensity at least 2 hours in every 24 - 48 hours, don't drink sodas, eat big breakfasts, very small dinners and moderate lunches. My diet restricts sodas and minimal saturated fats.

My wife says 180# on me would not look good. I have to agree. I really have no discernable flab to loose from my midline. So, the weight has got to come off from deep tissue fat - but that can't be good either. When I was 18 at 165# as I said I looked sickly - like the scrawny guy that got sand kicked in his face at the beach.

Of course, I'll talk to my family doc before proceeding too far but if any adjustments or considerations about the BMI are out there please advise.

[gobbla]

Think of it more as a guideline than a bible answer. BMI doesn't take anything into account other than height\weight so if you're weight is anything outside the "norm" in terms of muscle to fat ratio than it's obviously going to be skewed.

[Ron Rizzardi]

BMI is too generalized, that's what I'm thinking.

So is a measurement of body density required in order to check the muscle to weight ratio?

I think I had one of these done 15 years ago. My body's resistance to a small unpreceptable current from head to toe was measured.

The Air Force did this at the time and I'm not sure if they even do it anymore.

[Ogedei]

There is a hip/waist ratio that is probably a better guide, although I am not sure exactly how it works. I believe it's a ratio type deal, ie a rating of 1 would be your hips and waist are the same size, below 1 is good and above 1 is bad.
Below 1 would be your waist smaller than your hips and above would be waist bigger than hips.

It is also a pretty general one, but in my eyes better.

You are better off to do some sort of body fat analysis.

Og.

[Ron Rizzardi]

I'm thinking the hip/waist ratio is used unconsciously anyway in that your waist being more narrow than your hips is more visually appealing.

Of course, have you seen the beer guts on some guys where their frontal profile of waist to hips are good, but the side profile resembles a woman in her 8th month? I see it at the state fair here every year.

[gobbla]

calipers are basicly the cheapist easiest way to get tested...other than looking in the mirror. [img]smile.gif[/img]

assuming they're decent quality and the person knows that they're doing it should give you a pretty good idea. that can be done at most fitness facilities.

if you're still in the air force the HAWC used to do it...and depending on your base they might have a bodpod which is the next step up, using air displacement.

[Ogedei]

the hip to waist ratio is measured around the whole waist not just a width measure.

It is more than just physically appealing. In men at least it's pretty common that our excess fat is stored in our guts making our waist bigger than our hips.

However, anything such as this that takes 2 measurements from a human and trys to pigeon hole them into what their body composition is, is not gonna fly. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I still think hip/waist is more useful than the BMI.

I think Lou had mentioned getting his done in a new fantastical way using x-rays or something like that, supposedly accurate since it actually measured your composition instead of making a guess.

Og.