Weight to Height Ratio

[EagleJCS]

I loathe using the BMI as any indicator of fitness! It doesn't take into account musculature, aerobic endurance or bone density. (I have a slightly higher than normal bone density, as shown in various x-rays I've had. Several doctors have remarked on it.)

I stand a little under 5'7", and have since I was 14. When I graduated high school, I weighed about 147, which gave me a BMI of 23.0 (in the middle of the healthy range). I wore a size 38 sports coat, with some room to spare.

Then I started weightlifting - concetrating on my upper body - and riding my bicycle. (When I graduated high school my biceps were about the same size as my wrists and I didn't have a lot of upper body strength - I couldn't even do 10 push-ups.) Over the course of four years I gained 20 pounds and increased my chest size by 6 inches, but my waist only increased by 2. That's a BMI of 26.2. I would have been considered overweight even though I had about 10% body fat.

I still have that 44" chest, and most of the muscle tone in my extremities. I can do 20 push-ups without any problems. While I know my weight is currently higher than it should be, my doctor says I'm still fit enough to participate in any activity I want to - within reason. I wouldn't expect to be able to run a marathon tomorrow, but I don't get out of breath taking the stairs. The majority of the excess fat is right around my middle (not a good thing, I know). My BMI says I'm obese, though to look at me, I think most people would say I'm just overweight.

[punk_lawyer]

I loathe using the BMI as any indicator of fitness!

I wouldn't expect to be able to run a marathon tomorrow, but I don't get out of breath taking the stairs.

I am right there with you on thinking the BMI is a poor indicator of general fitness. I am 6' tall or a little over and at my lowest weight in the past 10 years I was at about 205.

I ran my first marathon when I weighed about 205. When I started doing 'boot camp' workouts I began building more upper body muscle mass than I had ever had in my life. My second and third marathons were completed when I was weighing anywhere from 210 to 220. While my BMI was higher in the 2nd and 3rd marathons (29), I can assure you that I was in far better physical condition.

My take on BMI is that it has application to a general overview of someone's condition but that it only scratches the surface. As a side note, I have also been told by doctors that I have a high bone density...that may explain why everyone keeps trying to get things into my 'thick head'.

[McElmurry]

I loathe using the BMI as any indicator of fitness!

Because nobody has gone to the social group to read my post and are taking issue with BMI, which is exactly to the point, I will repost it here.

Recent studies indicate waist to height ratio (WHtR) may be a better indicator of overall health than BMI. This is because WHtR is an indirect measure of visceral fat, the fat around your organs. Visceral fat is implicated in the onset of type II diabetes and heart disease. So if you are setting a fitness goal you might consider setting a waist measurement goal rather than a weight goal which is influenced by increases in muscle mass.

Here is a link to a handy calculator.http://home.fuse.net/clymer/bmi/#willoughby

Again, sorry about the thread title which was supposed to be waist to height ratio.