5'9 160 Pounds 23.6 BMI. A funny thing about this system is a person could be 5'9 and 126 pounds and be "normal," while someone 5'9 and 170 would be overweight. To me, it seems like a 170 pound person would be a lot more normal that a 126 pound person.
Normal doesn't mean fit. The average American (i.e. "normal") is nowhere near fit. Having said that, the BMI is by no means a 100% accurate way of measuring anything, but its a good generic guide for nonathletes.
Manny, mine's a 26.4. Yeah, the flaw is that it assumes that extra pounds = fat. That's just silly. For people that do little exercising, this tool may be useful, but that's about it.
I think I'm around 25, right on the border. I would like to get this down a little. I'm pretty tall and have a fair amount of muscle mass, as well as female curves (if those count as an excuse ), so it could be worse. I have a fairly medium body shape, though I'm not going to ever look like those bags of bones they use as models and actresses.
I'm guessing TJ's BMI is thrown off by the disproportionate amount of weight he carries on his right side.
What about a combination of BMI and waist size? That would separate the fatasses from the athletes BMI = 24.4 5' 9" 165 lbs 33" waist I'm "normal weight", but I could stand to lose a few pounds around the belly. That's where all my fat goes.
this thing is going to be of no use to an athlete or a bodybuilder. you could have less than 10% body fat and still be considered overweight by your body-mass index.
5'6"; 140 (give or take a few); BMI is 22.6 That's surprising. I expected it to be a few points higher. All throughout jr high and high school we'd do this in gym class and I always came out between 25 and 27... Oh well, I guess I should be happy.
Mine is 26.4 5'10'' 184lbs ding According to the BMI tables it would be normal for me to weigh 129lbs, that just would not be right.
