BMI Test - Out of Touch Method?

[rasyob]

Having read the recent news of the introduction of the BMI test anually by the RAF it reminded me of the trouble I had with this inacurate method of measuring my fitness and general health. All it compares is a height to weight ratio and decides if you are the correct weight or not!. This was my sitiuation:
I was a rugby player having come from playing international school and college rugby who trained at least 45mins on the weights and 45mins CV a day, 6ft tall and 15.5st in weight. I had 14% body fat (at the bottom of the normal range) and was pleased with acheiving 15.7 on the bleep test 63/min press-ups and 45/min situps during OASC at Cranwell, Clearly not just muscle bound.
My jaw nearly hit the floor when the president of the medical board called me in and said i was, according to the BMI charts, clinically obese for a person with a large frame and was therefore unfit for trade. She insisted i lose 20lbs if i was to stand a chance when i asked how as i was already at the bottom of the fat percentage range, she advised me to STOP training so i could lose my muscle. According to the charts the way i was to become fit was to stop physical exercise and lose my muscle.

Going by the BMI charts a person who was tall and underweight be it not for the beer belly he had to balance it out and smoked 40 a day would be considered in the normal range and more suitable them myself.

Why is the RAF adopting this out of date comprimsed method? The best method of testing is obvious, body fat percentage measuring recognised world wide since it differentiates between the weight of muscle mass and that of the fat mass while BMI lump all masses into one figure.

[Runaway Gun]

The BMI method is well out of date - however I suggest it should probably be used as an initial guide, but then have 'Common Sense' applied if the patient should fall outside the normal ranges. Especially if the person is of muscular build.

Common Sense. But that will never happen.

[airborne_artist]

BMI is just an indicator, not an absolute pass/fail test. It is useful as an early screen of people who may have excess body fat, but that's all it does - highlight those who need further examination.

Two candidates could present with identical BMI - one can play a hard game of rugby for 80 minutes, and the other would struggle to get to the fridge from the sofa without pausing for breath, so it's then down to the assessor to work from there.

Using BMI as a pass/fail for an entry medical is crazy, and a very poor use of resources.

[Wrathmonk]

Saw a bit on the news earlier this week where the ratio between waist and hip size was a better indicator (can't remember the exact "healthy" ratio but if your hips are bigger than your waist then its a good start!).

My advice - try and lose the weight to get through the draconian entry requirements. Once your in (and you only have to look at the average state of most stations) and BMI seems to be ignored!

[shawtarce]

I wonder if a senior officer got promoted for bringing this in,
or has it just taken so long to get through the bureaucracy that by the time it's brought in its years out of date.....
Am I sensing a trend here?

[maxburner]

BMI is a good indicator for the population as a whole. But like all such indicators it breaks down for specific groups: rugby players are just such a group as they tend to have a higher muscle bulk than most.

Don't forget that total weight is also a big factor in the RAF, certainly if you want to fly on a bang seat. If my memory serves me 93kg nude weight is the upper limit for flying on the current range of MB seats if you want the zero/zero performance. Lots of very fit athletes will find staying below 93 kgs could be a struggle. Lots of couch potatoes will struggle too! I occaisionaly hit 93, but I'm not saying whether I'm the athletic or couch type.

Keep up the aerobics and leave out the weight training for a while.

[10enggone]

rasyob

I was initially told the same thing when joining the RAF as an engineeing trade, was in roughly the same position but the Doctor who carried out my medical used common sense and said what a crap method it was as he could visibly see I was not unfit but built for my sports (sprinting, rugby).

Going for aircrew from the ranks this was again just mentioned but was not an issue.

Guess some people are to straight laced to use common sense.

Also know that generally the OASC Docs use common sense, must have had an inflexible one.

But as mentioned ejection seats to have limits

[Runaway Gun]

Just a pity that some of the Admin chairs don't have published limits :E

[crabbo206]

just to add to this one the navy are now threatening that if your bmi is over 30 you've 3 month to get it down or you'll be grounded and lose your flying pay! fun and games

[Wrathmonk]

Which, if I've got the maths right, a BMI of 30 equates to...

1.7m (5ft 7) = > 86.7kg (191 lbs / 13 st 9)
1.75m (5ft 9) = > 91.9kg (203 lbs / 14 st 7)
1.8m (5ft 11) = > 97.2kg (214 lbs / 15 st 4)
1.85m (6ft 1) = > 102.7kg (226 lbs / 16 st 2)

:O

[Dan Winterland]

Most of the victorious England rugby world cup squad were clinically obese - according to BMI. I think I read somewhere that it was invented by a Belgian anthropologist in the 1920s to determine whether a population was undernourished or not. It wasn't designed to victimise individuals!

DW (BMI 27.4)

[Smudger552]

Jeez......I need to grow about 4 feet....:rolleyes:

[brit bus driver]

And there I was expecting some top interview tips.....
....obviously not that BMI?
:}

[tablet_eraser]

This Service is an embarassment sometimes; there are far too many persons of considerable bulk waddling around who think they're in some sort of uniformed office job, and who won't take ownership of their self-inflicted unfitness. BMI can be an inaccurate method for establishing someone's healthy weight, as the OP indicated, but at least it's going to draw the MO's attention to some of the genuinely overweight - let's just call them fat - people. That has to be a good thing.

How about an annual body fat count? It's far more accurate, and the long-term benefits for health are considerable. Counting numbers on a BMI chart means little to those who don't consider their long-term health, but saying "23% of your body is fat and you're probably going to have a heart attack before you're 60" might kick some people into touch...

[Windbag]

From what I understand, BMI is a useful indicator of health through strain being placed on heart & other major organs (higher BMI more strain) but that the height/weight/obese charts were set up post WWII when there were shed loads of USMC hanging around trying not to slot each other. They were put through measurement and provided us with all sorts of physiometric info such as the percentile-man charts. This is one of the reasons that most houses, cars etc are designed to fit somebody that is 5' 8" as that was the 95%-man and anyone over 6'2" was a freak of nature. Also why somebody who trains a fair amount, is 6'2" (190cm) and 18 stone (115kg) can be "Class 2 Obese" (extra risk of coronary problems & diabetes etc) yet the Docs say nothing because "Oh but you train and play rugby don't you". I also recently read in a Fitness magazine that the height/weight & BMI should not be applied to those of an athletic build!

Rant Off:ugh:

[Windbag]

Why is it that the Club Swingers/Muscle Mechanics have better diagnostic kit than the Vets? In the last 5 years I have lost count of the number of times the PTIs have offered to connect me up to all manner of wonderful electronic gizmos to tell me all sorts of statistics. One machine even managed to work out my fat content, water content, muscle content and what should be my "perfect" stats - which would still have put me obese....But at least I drink more water nowadays!!

Some of these machines are scarily accurate nowadays, but I agree that the important thing is what is done with the info by both sides, if people are in trouble (or fat as T_E would have us call them) then councel them but make it a proper contract with some incentive (like keeping your job). No doubt with overstretch in both normal work and the Medical Services, this opportunity to tune up peoples health will be sadly missed:hmm:

[rasyob]

Thankyou for all your replies, Its seems we are all in agreement, the BMI method has it flaws, is outdated and should not be applied to persons of athletic build.

In fact it shouldn't be applied at all, what about those of slight build, who have a huge belly which bring them up to the top of the normal weight for their height, do no excercise, body fat 23% smoke 40 a day drinks heavily. On the BMI chart as long as they're in the normal weight for height range, no problem, PASS. They are suppose to be less likely to suffer a heart attack then a muscular athlete who acheives over level 15 on the bleep test and trains an hour and half a day whith a body fat of 14%.

As I said previous, and has been mentioned, the body fat percentage is perfect, it tells you how fat you are!, if you are above the normal you are too fat and need to lose it, simple. What's wrong cant we say you "you are too fat" to people. I only have an A-Level in sports science the PTO's all have read a BSc, they must be able to see the obvious?. Why doesn't someone point this out to the powers that be and get the system changed?.

[RAF_Techie101]

Smudger - How will having 4 feet help your BMI.....? Might make it easier to pass the fitness test I agree, but still...

[airborne_artist]

RAFT101 - I've just done the BMI for my Dobermann - like you say, he's got 4 feet, but he'd fail the BMI cut-off. Not sure I'd want to be the one to tell him that, or have to feel his b@lls and ask him to cough.

He'd hammer the lot of us on the bleep test, mind :E

[tablet_eraser]

Some of these machines are scarily accurate nowadays, but I agree that the important thing is what is done with the info by both sides, if people are in trouble (or fat as T_E would have us call them) then councel them but make it a proper contract with some incentive (like keeping your job). No doubt with overstretch in both normal work and the Medical Services, this opportunity to tune up peoples health will be sadly missed

Okay, my last post might have sounded a little more intractable than intended. I realise that not all overweight people are overweight because they're lazy or gluttonous; let's just say that many of them are.

I agree that this needs to be two-sided. There's no point in telling SAC Grubscrew that he's overweight unless that is backed up by giving him a plan to shed his excess pounds and by his agreeing to see that plan through. I have utmost respect for anyone who has a good attitude to fitness, no matter how heavy they are (I won't, for example, be arguing with Lawrence Dallaglio, who rates as obese on the BMI!). They're the people we need to support, at the expense, if necessary, of those who just don't care.

[buoy15]

The BMI boll*cks system doesn't take into account frame size and bone structure - even a nurse can tell you that
My first aircrew medical at Biggin Hill, (circa 1970) the Doc had his own assessment chart
Right at the top was "physical appearance" - this was his 1st impression when you appeared in your shreddies
If you satisfied this initial check, the rest of the exam was easy peasy - vital signs etc, blah
Obviosly someone who knew his job based on his experience and not bound by PC cr*p and government targets
My BMI is at the lower end (24?) but is still less than the BMI of Carol Vorderman's arse!:D

[airborne_artist]

My first aircrew medical at Biggin Hill, (circa 1970)My first was for the RAF FlySchol at BH - imagine the shock when the doc who grabbed my b@llocks and asked me to cough was of the double-breasted, child-bearing type :}

Just did the Dobermann's BMI on NHS Direct website:

"Your BMI is 39.84 - If your BMI is between 30 and 39.9 you're obese. This means you're well over the ideal weight for your height. This could cause serious health problems (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/chq.asp?classid=13&ArticleID=848) and affect your life expectancy. Are you eating more than the recommended amount of calories (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/chq.asp?classid=13&ArticleID=1126) per day? Are you getting enough exercise (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/chq.asp?classid=13&ArticleID=1144)? Once you gain the confidence to start exercising regularly (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/chq.asp?classid=13&Articleid=1143) you'll notice a huge difference. See your GP for advice if you've tried to lose weight without success."

Yeah, right :E

[akula]

Do the quacks not carry out a PULHEEMS assesment, it takes into account the following
The PULHEEMS qualities are P (PhysicalCapacity), U (Upper Limbs), L (Locomotion), H (Hearing), EE (Eyesight), M (Mental Capacity), andS (Stability, reflecting the member’s psychiatric stability in the military environment).6.8PULHEEMS medical assessment. The standard of medical fitness in each quality is recordedon a scale of degrees from 1 to 8, with the exception of ‘EE’, which includes a degree of 9. The medicalclassification of a member is represented by a PULHEEMS medical assessment or profile (eg 2222 1/01/0 22) that indicates a member’s degree of medical fitness under each of the PULHEEMS qualities
That seems to give a broad overall check on a servicemans health and appears somewhat better than a BMI check.

ALWAYS assume NEVER check

[Yeller_Gait]

A_A,

I think that the NHS BMI webpage you talk about is perhaps a bit better than you give it credit for.

and affect your life expectancy

Given that your dobermann will be doing very well to reach his 20th birthday, then compared to the average human, the site is spot on!

Y_G

[Grumpy106]

I seem to recall in the dim and distant past having my body fat tested at IOT Cranwell with calipers well before BMI became trendy. In those days they still had height/weight charts and limits for aircrew/non-aircrew regarding weight. If I recall correctly aircrew had to be within 10% of their ideal weight and others within 25%. Body fat was measured but not taken into account - I think it was just done to emphasise how much fat we lost during IOT. There is no reason that the quacks cannot use body fat percentage; it would just mean buying an appropriate scale from Argos! The general consensus is that BMI is not a good indicator for anyone of an athletic nature.

[shawtarce]

They wouldn't buy one from Argos though would they?

It would mean setting up a committee of senior officers and opening the contract up to the civil sector.

In 4-5 years we'll probably end up with a machine that costs thousands and doesn’t work very well.........

:ugh:

[H5N1]

Many SMCs have set up weight management style courses, in one case invitations were set out to a select group of individuals all who had BMI's over 35 to attend for a lifestyle course. This would have involved the fat/water/muscle test previously mentioned, waist measurements, analysing food diaries, Phy Ed programme and even motivational techniques talks by the mental health team. Needless to say we only had 3 people turn up for the initial chat and then only 1 attend after that.

People want a miracle cure or magic pill that involves no effort on their part. As is common in many areas of life these days people's problems are always someone else's fault.

Distribution of body fat and cholesterol levels are possibly more important than someone with a slightly raised BMI. Skinny people can also have high cholesterol levels and research is showing that fat can also be held around internal organs.

Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation are placing emphisis on waist measurements for diabetes and coronary heart disease risk. If you want to find out if you're at risk

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/measure%2Dup/

http://www.bdaweightwise.com/lose/lose_waist.aspx

[rasyob]

Thanks for your replies again, seems we're going slightly off thread with the last post. The point im trying to make is that if a system of recording health is going to be imposed then don't use the BMI for the reasons discussed, use body fat percentage. I can well beleive that any voluntary testing or help would be ignored but this is to be part of selection and annual fitness testing. Can you not explain to the powers that be that the whole BMI recording should be replaced by body fat percentage, if we can all clearly see it why can't they?.

[H5N1]

Appreciate might have veered off of your original post but was just picking up on a few points since. I completely agree, why the dickens are we measuring BMIs?? There are many a BMI compliant person out there who couldn't run for a bus let alone pass a fitness test.

The RAF have always insisted on differences for males and females for the RAFFT but the bog standard BMI chart makes no differences for the sexes, even though males will generally have a higher BMI due to muscle mass.

[rasyob]

So with all this evidence mounting up against the BMI why do we insist on using it? can one of the PTIs or PTOs not just write a short paper and pass it up the chain detailing all this and explaining the alternative?. Can someone please question them why we are using this method and explain its many flaws?. Is it a case of some senior officer Dr refusing to accept the evidence and refusing change?

[buoy15]

rasyob
Two things
1. A PTI writing:hmm:
2. "write a short paper and pass it up the chain" :zzz:
Oh, how I larffed!
Tried getting a travel claim in? arharharharh!