Body Mass Index

Wants a sign in, but yeah 40 is big, those guys have bigger (ha) problems then a sleep study.
 
I'm a short statured guy (5'6") and would have to get over 250 to get there based on the web calculator on the cdc site. That's a whole lotta' me! I've always been just shy of 150 until this year where I'm up to 153. It sounds like a joke but those 3lbs are noticable, I couldn't imagine another 100.
 
I'm close. I'm 5'10" and this morning was 274 lbs. I wear a 52in coat and 40in pants. I've flown a 152 with an instructor so not sure I agree with the idea that I'm limited.

I agree that extra screening is appropriate and am actively losing weight. Best part about it is I can fix my situation with exercise and money. Guys like Climbnsink are stuck with their condition for life.
 
So some one explain how this formula / chart works.
 
It's not hard to hit 40. I was at 38 few weeks ago. People who have met me can tell you, I'm not a small guy, but I'm not shaped like a beach ball. I'm comfortable enough in a 172 or an RV-7, even with another guy my size.

My youngest son has topped 40 when he was playing college football. 6'2", over 3 bills, and held (still holds) every weight lifting record at his college and high school. I think he's down to about 290 now, and is a recreational power lifter. That would put him in the upper 30 range.

Just for comparison, when I graduated basic training I was lean, fit and in the best shape of my entire life. According to the current BMI chart, I'd have been well over the midpoint of the "overweight" range with a BMI of about 28. I was not carrying any excess body fat.

BMI is a stupid way to gauge a person's size and shape. That's why the military quit using it decades ago. Under the old Army height/weight chart I was constantly hassled about my weight (at 5'11" and 201#). When they were switching to the newer standards using a couple of measurements I went from several pounds "overweight" to several pounds under the limit. Didn't care, by then I was getting out anyway.

Tom-D said:
So some one explain how this formula / chart works.
Click to expand...
Not very well, IMHO.
 
Tom-D said:
So some one explain how this formula / chart works.
Click to expand...


Which one you looking at. Google finds many ways to present the data.

The best ones show height on a column and weight on another. You just slide your finger along one...

;) ;) ;)

Google "BMI calculator" if confused. Type in height and weight. Change weight to see when the result hits 40.
 
Tom-D said:
So some one explain how this formula / chart works.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it's a linear relationship. I already knew I was about 20 so I guessed and doubled my weight to put in the calculator and it came out to 40.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm pretty sure it's a linear relationship. I already knew I was about 20 so I guessed and doubled my weight to put in the calculator and it came out to 40.
Click to expand...

I use actuals and it came out 24.5
 
Here is a table:

body-mass-index-chart.gif


bmi_Table.jpg
 
Everskyward said:
Then you fit in the normal category, at least according to the calculator I was using.
Click to expand...


Yep,, I was curious how the chart worked and as usual the page came thru.

I wasn't worried about me, to get to 40 I would have to be 300 pounds and not able to get out of this share let alone in a Cessna. :)

So it is pretty much self limiting, I wonder why the fuss with the FAA. an GA
 
Tom-D said:
Yep,, I was curious how the chart worked and as usual the page came thru.



I wasn't worried about me, to get to 40 I would have to be 300 pounds and not able to get out of this share let alone in a Cessna. :)



So it is pretty much self limiting, I wonder why the fuss with the FAA. an GA
Click to expand...


Sorry I misunderstood your question.

As far as the fuss goes, there's a number of us wondering that. The best answer so far was Docs who said one of the guys in the airliner that overflew MSP a while back had OSA.

Didn't really address the full reason, since there was a lot more screwed up in a two-pilot pro crew environment to cause that, and no one was hurt other than the ringing in their ears from either the lead FA or the controller hollering at them to wake them up, but I suspect it's like most other government stuff these days...

"Because we can. We don't have to show a good reason. Any reason we can tie however loosely to 'safety' we can do pretty much whatever we want. If we don't trust you and your personal Doc we'll just mandate that you must be 'healthy' and we can change that definition ad nauseum until you just obey."
 
Tom-D said:
Yep,, I was curious how the chart worked and as usual the page came thru.

I wasn't worried about me, to get to 40 I would have to be 300 pounds and not able to get out of this share let alone in a Cessna. :)

So it is pretty much self limiting, I wonder why the fuss with the FAA. an GA
Click to expand...

Because being fat gives one a very very good chance of having apnea, having apnea means you always operate with diminished mental capacity. That is fact. How this affects aviation and what if anything should be done about it is what the squawking is about. That and fat people aren't used to being called out for being unhealthy.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Because being fat gives one a very very good chance of having apnea, having apnea means you always operate with diminished mental capacity.snip
Click to expand...

If operating with diminished mental capacity were the case half the pilots would be walking.

I'm 73 and can fall asleep almost anywhere. it ain't just being fat.
 
denverpilot said:
Sorry I misunderstood your question.

As far as the fuss goes, there's a number of us wondering that. The best answer so far was Docs who said one of the guys in the airliner that overflew MSP a while back had OSA.
Click to expand...
BOTH of them (and untreated at the time of the overflight). AND the controller at Washington National who fell asleep in the cab.
Didn't really address the full reason, since there was a lot more screwed up in a two-pilot pro crew environment to cause that, and no one was hurt other than the ringing in their ears from either the lead FA or the controller hollering at them to wake them up, but I suspect it's like most other government stuff these days...

"Because we can. We don't have to show a good reason. Any reason we can tie however loosely to 'safety' we can do pretty much whatever we want. If we don't trust you and your personal Doc we'll just mandate that you must be 'healthy' and we can change that definition ad nauseum until you just obey."
Click to expand...
If anyone cares, BMI is weight in kg/(Height in meters)-squared.

Think about units. If it were height in meters cubed, the ratio would be the density of humans.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Think about units. If it were height in meters cubed, the ratio would be the density of humans.
Click to expand...
Essentially. No wonder heavier set people would like it to be defined that way -- the higher your body fat content, the LOWER your BMI would be.
 
I can get two people with a BMI = 40 and full fuel in my LSA without going over gross.



if they are both 5' 4.3" tall or shorter.
 
BMI of 28 ,it's not easy keeping that number down.
 
BMI is to true "weight analysis" as Tic-Tac-Toe is to Chess.

For a true understanding of your body fat you need to do an underwater weight analysis. It is actually not that difficult to do on your own but much easier with a scale setup specifically for the measurement.

When I was in college (about 30 years ago) I played outside linebacker was 6'1", weighed 210lbs and wore a 46 jacket and had a measured (underwater) body fat of less then 5%. According to the BMI I was overweight bordering on obese.

Today at 50 I am still 6'1" and weigh 215lbs; certainly no where near 5% body fat. I certainly am not "skinny" but I still wear 34" waist jeans and now a 44 jacket. I figure I'm about 10-15lbs heavy. The BMI says I'm borderline obese. My doctor has never told me that I'm "fat" or even mentions the need to loose weight.

The BMI is only relevant for those who fit precisely under a narrow mid-point +/-standard deviation from the distribution of body types.
 
Morne said:
Is a 182 a GA single? Because I flew one with a BMI of 43 for awhile and carried pax well within the plane's weight limits.

Actually the 182 is the perfect fat guy plane.
Click to expand...

Or just flat out big guy, I'm BMI normal (but only just) yet I'm still to big for many GA planes.
 
Rant on.

BMI is a crock. At 6' I'm around 35 on their scale. It doesn't take into account that I leg press over 1000 lbs, enjoy the mud/obstacle runs, eat healthier than most, work out regularly and have quite a lot of muscle on board to go along with the bodyfat. Am I heavier than I would like? Yep, but muscle weighs more than fat. Being slotted into the same segment on someone's chart as the pear-shaped, triple-chinned, beer-guzzling couch potato that gets winded walking to the refrigerator is a hill of beans...

Rant off...I feel better now
 
Hobobiker said:
Rant on.

BMI is a crock. At 6' I'm around 35 on their scale. It doesn't take into account that I leg press over 1000 lbs, enjoy the mud/obstacle runs, eat healthier than most, work out regularly and have quite a lot of muscle on board to go along with the bodyfat. Am I heavier than I would like? Yep, but muscle weighs more than fat. Being slotted into the same segment on someone's chart as the pear-shaped, triple-chinned, beer-guzzling couch potato that gets winded walking to the refrigerator is a hill of beans...

Rant off...I feel better now
Click to expand...

It's well known that BMI is not a realistic measure for someone who has a lot of muscle mass. Like you said, muscle weighs more than fat and this simplistic scale does not take that into account.
 
Hobobiker said:
Rant on.

BMI is a crock. At 6' I'm around 35 on their scale. It doesn't take into account that I leg press over 1000 lbs, enjoy the mud/obstacle runs, eat healthier than most, work out regularly and have quite a lot of muscle on board to go along with the bodyfat. Am I heavier than I would like? Yep, but muscle weighs more than fat. Being slotted into the same segment on someone's chart as the pear-shaped, triple-chinned, beer-guzzling couch potato that gets winded walking to the refrigerator is a hill of beans...

Rant off...I feel better now
Click to expand...

Guys like you are exceptions, bmi works for the vast majority of fat muricans. Don't help them live in denial of their sloth.
 
BobThePilot said:
It's well known that BMI is not a realistic measure for someone who has a lot of muscle mass. Like you said, muscle weighs more than fat and this simplistic scale does not take that into account.
Click to expand...
And that has no bearing on the correlation coefficient between BMI and the prevalence of SA.

Maybe you'd feel better if we did the starbucks thing....where we just rename the "small", into "TALL".

So maybe "morbidly Obese" becomes "large and beautiful"?
And Obese becomes, "Bonus Sized"
and Overweight becomes "undertall" ??

Who cares. The correlation is with the number, the BMI number. It's pretty good and runs from a prevalence (over the age of 45) from 30% to 90% from BMI 33 to BMI 40.

So let's just sanitize the whole thing and call, BMI 32-40, "bonus".

There. Do you feel better? OR do you actually believe that statistics do not apply to you (in which case this is my last post on the topic).
 
bbchien said:
There. Do you feel better? OR do you actually believe that statistics do not apply to you (in which case this is my last post on the topic).
Click to expand...

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Without examination of the underlying data the statistics are not conclusive. Perhaps folks care to believe otherwise...
 
Clark1961 said:
There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Without examination of the underlying data the statistics are not conclusive. Perhaps folks care to believe otherwise...
Click to expand...

You are aware that statistics can be " conclusive" and there can also be outliers that don't invalidate the conclusions in any way, shape, or form?
 
bbchien said:
So maybe "morbidly Obese" becomes "large and beautiful"?
And Obese becomes, "Bonus Sized"
and Overweight becomes "
....
There. Do you feel better? OR do you actually believe that statistics do not apply to you (in which case this is my last post on the topic).
Click to expand...
The problem, Doc, is not the statistical correlation, it's:
There are folks like Greg who would simply deny a medical to anyone over a certain BMI.
There are folks who make assumptions about people based on BMI without understanding the population is a bell curve, and some of do live at the right edge.
Even your word substitution game above implies that people over a certain BMI are unhealthy.
The word obese has multiple meanings, the one you are using is BMI over the statistical ideal range, but the one most people infer when they hear the word is "extreme, unhealthy, excess fat"

There are some of us out here who do not fit the statistical model, who could not reach our "BMI ideal" without clinical malnutrition, and have been dealing with assumptions about us based on height and weight our entire lives.
 
The apnea correlation works for muscle as well, this is one case where the nonfat bmi exceptions do not matter. If you are big 90% chance you have apnea, bodybuilders included.
 
ClimbnSink said:
The apnea correlation works for muscle as well, this is one case where the nonfat bmi exceptions do not matter. If you are big 90% chance you have apnea, bodybuilders included.
Click to expand...

And while being big certainly correlates with many health problems, being trim and fit doesn't automatically exempt you from hereditary issues.
 
Bill Jennings said:
And while being big certainly correlates with many health problems, being trim and fit doesn't automatically exempt you from hereditary issues.
Click to expand...

We'll measure for those next. DNA sequencing for a class 3 medical is right around the corner. I didn't drive Murca to where we are, but I'm having a good time gawking at the train wreck.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top