Posted by Racer on October 26, 2006, at 13:22:57
In reply to Re: definitions » fayeroe, posted by NikkiT2 on October 25, 2006, at 3:31:58
> >>there is one new opinion that the BMI isn't as important as it was once thought to be, but i've not seen anyone else jump on that guy's bandwagon.
>
> The UK is strarting to follow the "BMI isn't important" idea.. My GP's no longer use it, and neither does my pain consultant
>
> NikkiThere's actually an awful lot on the internet saying that BMI is misleading if you use it as anything other than a convenient starting point. Athletes will have a much higher BMI than an average person, for instance, and yet they'll hardly be "overweight."
The BMI is nothing more than a mathematical ratio that provides a standardized starting place. The old height/weight charts did the same thing. Start with either BMI or a height/weight chart, but don't end there. Again -- it's mathematical, and it provides a sort of average of what might be an appropriate weight range. It's based solely on height and weight, with no allowance made for frame size, or muscle/fat ratio, or even gender in most cases. There are actually a couple of online BMI calculators that do offer different versions for men and women, but all the other issues still apply.
And actually, there's a whole lot written about those problems all over the internet...
As far as it goes, I like the BMI calculator offered here. It's easy to use, it offers a mathematical calculation to adjust for age, and it has that nifty little "if you're shooting for a particular BMI, here's how to calculate it" function. I like that. ;-) And, since I don't believe that BMI is the best judgement about weights, it's good enough for me.
poster:Racer
thread:696838
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/697925.html