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

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 and affect your life expectancy. Are you eating more than the recommended amount of calories per day? Are you getting enough exercise? Once you gain the confidence to start exercising regularly you'll notice a huge difference. See your GP for advice if you've tried to lose weight without success."

Yeah, right :E

Do the quacks not carry out a PULHEEMS assesment, it takes into account the following
That seems to give a broad overall check on a servicemans health and appears somewhat better than a BMI check.

ALWAYS assume NEVER check

A_A,

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

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

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.

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:

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

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?.

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.

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?

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!