3 ms·
I'm not so sure that I'm really an outlier, to be honest. I think the data that the BMI calculations are based on is outdated. It's the same numbers you see f
by douche 11y ago
I'm not so sure that I'm really an outlier, to be honest. I think the data that the BMI calculations are based on is outdated. It's the same numbers you see from New York Life actuarial tables from the 40s and 50s, when big chunks of the population experienced malnutrition.
Quite honestly, I have no idea how someone could be 6'2" and only weigh 148 pounds, which is the bottom end of "normal" BMI, according to the NIH[1].
[1] http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmi_tbl.htm http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmi_...
- paulojreis 11y agoAlthough the formula is (way!) older, the BMI was imported to public health in the 70s and the categories were devised by the NIH in 1985, slightly revised in 1998. I also feel the example you gave is extremely low, but less so if you consider the subject as a female, don't you think? It has a BMI of 19, which, on men, I feel most physicians would frown upon. Bear in mind national standards; I'm from Portugal, the normal here might be thinner. As a curiosity, in France and Spain fashion shows can't use models with BMI > 18. Your example minus 8 lb wouldn't even be allowed in fashion shows, where people are expected to be ungodly underweight. As such, I think a physician would also interpret this as dangerously low value. Also, it seems to me that this is a great example of how BMI can be very useful! Waist circumference, percent of body fat or other body composition indicators would actually be worse to indicate a underweight person in this case..