BMI Test - Out of Touch Method?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: raf
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMI Test - Out of Touch Method?
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Why is the RAF adopting this out of date comprimsed method?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.
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.
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.
Common Sense. But that will never happen.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: middleofnowhere
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: in a house
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMI Rubbish
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CORNWALL
Age: 49
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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)
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)
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)
DW (BMI 27.4)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East Midlandshire
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Rant Off
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East Midlandshire
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Another Thing!
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: raf
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?.
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?.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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
He'd hammer the lot of us on the bleep test, mind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Windbag
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
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.