Impossible BMI???

This should be a fast easy one for someone out there. We just went through our annual health screening process at work. A maybe 50ish female coworker, 5ft. 2 or so, 125 pounds, looking plenty trim to me, was told her BMI was 37. Is this possible? And no, no part of her is especially curvaceous. I don't know a huge amount about BMI, but this seems way, way off. She can just have her doctor sign off that her weight is fine, for health insurance credits, but I'm curious anyway. Thanks!

lmgtfy.com/?q=BMI+calculator#

Assuming those numbers for her height and weight are correct, that is not her BMI. BMI = wt (kg)/(ht(m)^2) so that would put her at 22.9 kg/m^2. BMI does have it's problems, but sounds like they calculated it wrong. 37 would put her in the obese category.

ErikaNW wrote:Assuming those numbers for her height and weight are correct, that is not her BMI. BMI = wt (kg)/(ht(m)^2) so that would put her at 22.9 kg/m^2. BMI does have it's problems, but sounds like they calculated it wrong. 37 would put her in the obese category.

This wasn't calculated, it was measured with an impedance (sp.?) device, held in both hands at arms length. They got her at 36 last year, and 38 or so will lose her wellness points. As I said, since she is clearly not obese, she should be able to go around this by having her doc sign off.

Old lady H wrote: This wasn't calculated, it was measured with an impedance (sp.?) device, held in both hands at arms length. They got her at 36 last year, and 38 or so will lose her wellness points. As I said, since she is clearly not obese, she should be able to go around this by having her doc sign off.

Whatever they are measuring is not bmi, it sounds like body fat %

redlude97 wrote: Whatever they are measuring is not bmi, it sounds like body fat %

You're right. My mistake (found my paper, it's body fat). Still seems like they got a high number. Thanks anyway!

I have some hangups with the accuracy of those impedence body fat measurements. Especially so if she uses it once a year. If she were to use it a few times a week at the exact same time every morning, it'd mean more to me.

Anyway though, 38% is not uncommon for a woman who doesn't get much exercise. If she's 5'2" and 125lbs and also an athlete, I'd expect her to be in the 20's.

At the same weight if she does yoga once a week and zumba class twice a month, then 38 is probably pretty accurate.

Body composition is very different than BMI - that makes more sense. She could easily be thin looking but have high body fat.

Edit to add: just read the post above - body fat also increases with age, so even if she is active she might have higher body fat % if she is on the older side.

Thanks! All interesting. I'm even shorter, and heavier, old for sure, and had a lower number, so it didn't make sense. Which is sorta dumb on my part. I know you can't judge fitness at a glance, and numbers can be one size fits all. I once knew an incredibly fit woman on the local university track and field team. Her height/weight blew the charts out of the water-she was one of their shot putters! : )

Old lady H wrote: will lose her wellness points.

LOL

Monomaniac wrote: LOL

Hey now, that shit aint no joke. I get 250 bucks and a paid day off every year if i get all my points. Oh yeah!

I guess this is a sober reminder for my old, short, self to work at keeping what I've got! Hope my friend gets the same message. I'm okay with who I am, and getting older, but some parts of it definitely suck.

Like that day off, slim. Ours is worth $4-500, applied to offset the insurance. Which is good, because at part time, my pay literally equals the insurance for our family of three. The only reason I have a paycheck is my employers half that they pay. And the credit, which isn't so much once spread out over a year.

Thanks, all!