Training & Nutrition - BMI versus BFI

Hi folks, I have a question about BMI (Body Mass Index) and BFI (Body Fat Index). I'm 6'4" and 210, giving me a BMI of about 26. I also use a scale that measures body fat, which yields a 21% BFI.

Is BFI and BMI supposed to be an equivalent comparison? Or are they really different measures? If they are basically the same, then I suppose the scale is more accurate (or at least I hope it is!!) because the BMI calculators I've seen do not take in to account things like overall fitness, etc.

A BMI of 26 puts me in the "overweight" category but 21% BFI puts me smack in the middle of an "acceptable" range, according to various Web sites I've seen.

Thoughts?

Hi,
think about it. If two measurement standards disagree then one, or both, or inaccurate. The only thing resembling an accurate measurement is the one where they
do it in water. Focus on your long term goal, and then choose short and medium term goals that will get you there.

I dont know much of the details of the BMI but my understanding is it measures total mass not distguishing between muscle and fat so someone with significant muscle is going to rate high or unacceptable on the index.Focus on actual bodyfat if trying to lose weight because gaining muscle when trying to lose fat is usually a good thing.

Olympic-standard athletes are often overweight on the BMI scale, because of their muscle weight.

I think they measure athletes in a pool so they can calculate their mass and volume, and then they can calculate their fat/muscle levels (because a high volume but low mass indicates higher fat levels cos fat is lighter than muscles).

However, top-level athletes are not very 'healthy' anyway, and the BM indicator for most people is the standard for 'healthy' weight levels.

Try this site for an explanation:

http://www.mrtrainer.com/bodyfat2.html

Olympic-standard athletes?

Are these only the weight-lifters and throwers or does it include runners, cyclists or all of them?