So had 3.5 year old check for DD yesterday - she is 18.1kg so heavy (don't I know it) has a good 3kg on most of her peers. Of course they do the BMI thing and say she is in the overweight category without even looking at her. Now in my opinion she doesn't look overweight at all (no fat rolls, she has a big ribcage and head like her dad and she is not a delicate thing by any stretch of the imagination but you couldn't pinch an inch). I said I think she will always be classed as overweight according to BMI - both myself and my sister are always borderline even when we look skinny - it is a family trait on my side to be heavy boned, and on DH side to have a big ribcage and head so DD has it from both sides. She has also in terms of physical characteristics been behind the curve in terms of growing - my babies look like babies for longer than average - I grew taller later than everyone else etc - so she might grow into her heaviness but according to BMI will probably always border on overweight.

Previously I had a rant thread on the sensibility of 2 year old BMI checks, but am at peace with this now but it has led me to wonder a few things

Are there any issues with just being heavy? can it be indicative of anything problematic? (No broken bones in my family so maybe it can be a good thing)

How long do they go on checking these things - she is too young to understand what the nurse is saying really now but as she gets older I don't think is a great thing for her to keep hearing - although she knows her own mind so I can probably word her up ahead of time to tell the nurse what she thinks of BMI :-) Is there a more sensible way of gauging weight for little ones apart from the obvious visual? I am sure once upon a time you used BMI in combination with wrist measurement to take into account bone structure in some way.