Body Mass Index question?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
try google, don't understand why people can't use a search engine sometimes. Same with making posts that are redundant like 10x over.
 
Originally posted by geldrop
try google, don't understand why people can't use a search engine sometimes. Same with making posts that are redundant like 10x over.
Didn't think of it at the time, thanks. Was being lazy thought someone would know off hand. I haven't done math in awhile so correct me if I'm wrong. Example 160 lbs, and 5 foot 10 inches. 160 lbs x 1kg/2.21lbs= 72.4 kg, and 5'10"=70in x 0.025m/1in=1.75m, 1.75m sqaured = 3.06m2. So 72.4kg/3.06m2= 23.66 BMI, is this correct this means I'm slightly overweight?
 
1 kg = 2.2 lbs
1 m = 39.4 inches
 
19<BMI<25 is normal
25 < BMI < 30 is overweight
30< BMI < 40 is obese
BMI > 40 is morbidly obese.

Conversion:
BMI = [weight in pounds / (height in inches)^2] x 703
 
Are you trying to calculate your BMI for your own info. or trying to figure out the math for an MCAT question? If you just want to know for yourself, go here: http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bminojs.htm
There are a million other sites that will calculate it for you as well.
 
Originally posted by Trizi
Are you trying to calculate your BMI for your own info. or trying to figure out the math for an MCAT question? If you just want to know for yourself, go here: http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bminojs.htm
There are a million other sites that will calculate it for you as well.
I was reading a high yield bio chem book to review some bio chem before school starts, and wanted to figure it out for myself. The book stated that 25 is overweight, and according to my calculations I had a 23.66 and rounded up that is a 24. I figured this can't be cause I'm like 8% body fat and can bench press double my body weight (UCLA IM bench press champ 1997). And I hope to never go anywhere near an mcat question again. Thanks for the link.
 
BMI isn't really meant to guage individuals. It is for looking at populations. Most of my friends, including myself, are athletes, and dispite being in great shape, we're all at least borderline overwight according to BMI, because it doesn't account for much muscle mass.
 
BMI doesn't really apply for athletes, especially those who lift much weights. It is really meant as a rule of thumb measure for the more general "couch potato" population. So I wouldn't worry about it at all.
 
Ma-bas has it right, almost. At UAB we have this nutrition crap stuck down our throat and the conversion factor is officially 704.5. So just take the height (in.) and divide by the weight (lbs)^2 and multiply by the conversion factor of 704.5 and there you have your handy dandy non-metric BMI number.

In addition, the newest BMI classifications are from 19.5 to 25 is considered normal. anywhere from 25 to below 30 is overweight, from 30 to 35 is obese, and anywhere above 35 is a fully insured Roux-en Y Gastric bypass operation (with at least two comorbities such as high blood pressure, sleep apnea, out of whack lipid panel, etc...). I know that's picky but values for every thing in medicine get tweaked by some "I know better than you" committee every few years.

To touch on what Deuce 007 said, yes your BMI does put you near a value that is conisidered overweight, but no self respecting nutrition would diagnose you as such. Your low percent body fat would easily be recognized just by looking at you as well as weighing you on a standard bioimpedance scale (the type that shoots a small current through your feet to give a pretty accurate measurement of % body fat). In addition, simple anthropometrics would de-classify the ultra beefed up athlete.
 
Whoops, just realized that I put it backwards. Shows you how much attention I pay to the nutrition uber-nazis here 😀. It is the weight (lbs) divided by the height (in.) ^2 times the conversion factor of 704.5. Sorry about the confusion.
 
BMI of 32....aiming for 33.3 by the end of next year...wish me luck!!!!
 
Top