BMI - W/kg - what's yours (currently)?

I’m thinking i don’t eat enough…

Not sure if this is like comparing two similar metrics or not, but wondering if higher W/kg peeps have higher BMI’s … out of interest how are you?

Mine:
BMI 23 - 3.4W/kg

BMI is not a very useful metric. I measure body fat percentage.

My BF is 32%, my W/kg is 1.6 right now.

5 Likes

why’s BMI not a good metric?

I think BMI is a tricky metric to use in this instance (as in a lot of athletic ones) because it doesn’t differentiate the difference between someone with high lean mass, low body fat. Still showing them as having high BMI numbers.

I bet there’s a few high BMI high W/Kg riders, but I would suspect there’s a general correlation between high W/kg and low BMI.

W=TooLow
kg=Obese

W/kg=Embarrassing

I still have another ten pounds to go before I’m even comfortable in my kit riding outside. Once I get that 10 pounds off, I still need to get an additional 30lbs off before I get to a weight where I’m not ashamed of my BMI.

FFS…yeah me neither. Jesus.

8 Likes

My BMI is just 19.6 (just out of bed weight). According to that metric its ideal but Id say I am too light. It places me at 4.5w/kg according to AI FTP D although I am more confident in delivering 4w/kg at the moment.

BMI just correlates weight and height. Two people could be fat on one hand, or really muscular and lean on the other, and yet have the same BMI.

Body fat percentage says how much fat you have as a percentage of your total body weight. While no single metric ever tells the whole story, BF is IMHO better than BMI.

Also, let’s say you’re a chubby couch potato. You start training hard, losing fat and building muscle… and your weight hasn’t changed because you’re getting leaner but fitter. Your BF changes. Your BMI may not.

3 Likes

Feck I shouldn’t have asked.

You’re all geeks!

BMI- 20-25 is “ideal” supposedly :thinking:

Yeah but what’s your BMI compared to your W/kg?

If you’re purely after those two metrics, mine’s 20.7-20.9 and ~4.2W/kg.

1 Like

17.6 bmi, 4.7 w/kg. Raises a few eyebrows especially being a woman, but I don’t put too much stock into it. I feel pretty good and I eat like a linebacker so :woman_shrugging:

7 Likes

If I was 0% BF I’d have a BMI of 23 or so, the high end of healthy…

Garbage metric

1 Like

Agree that BMI is tricky and not the most useful. My weight doesn’t fluctuate more than about 5 lbs up or down in probably the last 15 years but it puts my BMI around 24-25.

Admittedly my diet isn’t great but I do think it would be tough to get under 23 or so.

W/kg also fairly consistent over the last 10 yrs or so between 3.6-3.9.

I should make some changes as I’m clearly pretty plateaued out but just enjoy the training I can get in.

FWIW withings scale body fat during this time period ranges from 10-12%

1 Like

I think it depends what site you look at but for me, I certainly don’t think it is ideal. At the other end of the spectrum it’ll class some big strong riders with a lot of muscles as obese. If that muscle was fat yes they would be but muscle :thinking:

BMI: 100
w/kg: 100

3 Likes

BMI: 25 and w/kg: 4.1

I’m a classic example of why BMI is a bad metric. Former weightlifter, heavy guy but fairly lean (by normal, non cyclist standards!) with around 18% BF.

1 Like

Not sure why everyone is hating on bmi in this context.

There’s little dispute about comparing weight and watts, op just wants to add height to that comparison as well.

It would clearly show a point if there’s loads of 4w/kg (or whatever level you would find impressive) 25bmi riders. That point being you dont need a bmi of 19. Bmi helps put it a 70kg rider into perspective if theyre 5ft6 or 6ft2.
Even the point of it doesnt tell you if the 70kf 5ft6 was a ball of muscle or ball of fat, theyre probably not an impressive w/kg if theyre carrying fat or if they are then it doesnt matter.

Op just wanted to see a trend in other metrics…

3 Likes

BMI - 24
W/kg - 3.7

2 Likes

@IL.Grillo yeah, exactly👍