...According to BMI - new home page stuff
THe new home-page thingy all about weight loss and what not....
Well ive never actually calculated my BMI...but at present, I am RIGHT at the upper-limit of the 'normal' category (77kg & 179cm). Even when I put in 75kg...whcih I am some days, im still at the upper end of the scale.
Now I dont think I am overly porky, but I do like my cake. Im also not ridiculously heavily built, most people say I am fairly skinny (but are they just being polite?)
I know body fat % is probably a better indication, but I dont have a huge amount of that either I dont think....im sure I had it measured once and it was 12%...I think.
Am I just made up of particularly dense matter? (I know that statement is leaving em wide open to certain comments!)
.......Or am I simply a fat bloater in denial?!
Nick - you're skinny
Groan - I don't LIKE that sort of thing on the front page - it just fuels everyone's weight obsessions
...oh stump you're just SAYING that..... *blushes coyly*
Seriously though...I dont have a massive frame, I not carrying excessive blubber (i dont think)....yet I am within a fairy cake of being 'fat' - 24.3
How does that work...or how is that justified?
acording to BMI (whichisa pile of rosh) i was over weight when i did IMDE ...and i was in singl figure body fat then
21.8 normal, but Mrs NGL says I am too skinny. I am.
I don't know the answer Nick, but if thats a recent picture, then the BMI stuff is just wrong, unless you are a very strange shape?
Think about what its asking you for:
Height and weight.
Then think about how that weight can be made up... you could be all fat or all muscle, or somewhere in between. Clearly tendancy toward muscle is healthier than tendacny towrds fat, yet the BMI calculator doesn't make any allowances for this, so a 12st fat monster will have the same bmi as a 12st toned afleet of the same height.
.....yeah my arse is HUGE!
Then I would respectfully suggest you entered incorrect details when you said this:
Unless you were talking about yo ass. Or talking out of it.
Quote from the BMI site linked to from the home page...
So, as chocolate teapots go...
DoT....i see your point....and it makes sense. THing is I dont think I am either of those.
ANyhoo...I dont think the RW article stressed enough of the limitations of the measure of BMI, which could lead some people to worry overly. I know the context of the BMI....but it shouldnt be a universally accepted measure, which it generally is IMO.
Im not bothered with my weight...id like to lose about 1/2 stone, (so I could hopefulyl be faster!) but I cant see it happening (cos I cant be arsed). I was however a little surprised just how close to being considered 'overwieght' I am based on this measurement.
...posted previous comment before reading the one above it by DoT!
the other thing to consider is that if you run (which you do) and you consider yourself to be carrying too much excess fat (which apparently you do - I can't comment), then you will have the double wammy (weight wise) of muscle plus fat combining to give you a higher BMI.
If you continue to train for endurance events then your body fat percentage will probably come down (calories in permitting), eyt your muscle mass will probably also continue to grow slightly, so the reductiion in your bmi may not be proportional to the amount of body fat you lose.
As a tool for the sedate masses bmi is a useful indicator and no more, as an indicator of fitness for purpose in anybody who does regular exercise and wishes to improve competietively its about as useful mas the aforementioned chocolate teapot. IMO
At the rsik of starting a heated debate, I regularly use a set of Tanita scales to monitor bmy body fat and water content. These also make assumptions about body make up, but are more sophisticated than the bmi tables and allow you to define by sex and exercise habits. Since I train 10hrs a week or more in one way or another I qualify for the "athlete" setting - which gives me a good feeling in itself!!
I is an aferleet too DoT! I got a card in the post which says so from UK Athletics or something like that!
We can compare how lardy we are DoT at La Rochelle over a nice cake and coffee in a Patiserie! (well I can whinge and whine!) while you gloat over your new PB!
Maddy...I agree...load of carp!
My experience of BMI is that it is generally a better indicator with ladies than with men, but can be questionable for either. Nick - if your body fat is 12% then if anything it's on the low side. This suggests that a lot of what you think is excess weight is actually muscle, which weighs more than the same volume of fat. You also have to take into account body types - ectomorph is the lanky one, endomorph is the curvy one and mesomorph is the muscley one. Ectomorphs tend to look OK (i.e. not gaunt or ill) at the lower end of the 'healthy' BMI range. Endomorphs and mesomorphs tend to look better a little heavier. You are stuck with your basic type whatever you do diet and exercise wise.
There's something in the Competitive Runner's Handbook about weight and it reckons I should aim for something which I'm sure I'd feel and look pretty rough at to get my optimum time (I did weigh that much briefly once after a rather nasty tummy bug), and that's as someone who tends to stabilise at the lower end of the 'healthy' BMI range. And then we wonder why eating disorders are so prevalent among athletes...
I think looking in the mirror and how you feel more generally healthwise are much better indicators than scales.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Limited. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |