Anonymous #1 8w

It’s pretty accurate for ppl who don’t have higher muscle mass from weight training. It’s a great measure for the general population.

1

Anonymous #1 8w

BMI is just a height to weight ratio. It's good but it's very general. It's accurate to say you're "overweight" but it obviously doesn't account for other metrics. Think of it as a rough guideline more than a true standard

1

Anonymous #3 8w

Not really, because of a few reasons. A. Height and weight do not scale directly, as mass is 3 dimensional, while height is 1 dimensional. As such, as height increases, mass also increases, but at a greater rate, so the ratio doesn’t make sense. B. It doesn’t differentiate between muscle mass or fat mass, and doesn’t differentiate between MEN AND WOMEN. That should tell you right away it’s garbage C. BMI says that as a 5’10” male, i’m unhealthy at 175 pounds, but healthy at 130 pounds. Sure

5

Anonymous #1 8w

Hence why I said it's more of a rough guideline. If your BMI is 40+ or under 10 that's a pretty bad sign. I never said it was good, but it has a very surface level applicability

1

Anonymous #3 8w

Under 10? Dawg to be under 10 BMI at 5’10” I’d have to way 70 pounds lmao

1

Anonymous colorpalettesupremacy 8w

um… I wholeheartedly agree that BMI is bullshit and a bad scale, but 5’3” at 170 is still obese

1

Anonymous #1 8w

I’m 5’3 and 170 and it’s pure muscle. It depends on how u carry it. 170lbs of mainly fat, looks diff than muscle. But yea according to the BMI it’s obese lol

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Yes

1

Anonymous colorpalettesupremacy 8w

How fucking jacked are you?

1

Anonymous #1 8w

Not that jacked lol. You can see older pics on my profile thingy on here but I’ve leaned out since I’ve posted the stuff I had on here. My point is you can carry the weight differently the BMI doesn’t justify how it’s carried. I also have 34G/Hcup boobs which is about 10-11lbs of weight alone that I can’t loose without surgery right there

-1