Could someone be healthy even if overweight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMI is just weird. It almost would make more sense to go by how a person looks to determine overweight v. not. My ds is basically the leanest, most in shape person you could think of, and he is "overweight" according to BMI.

I don’t think bmi is accurate for men. Women though, yes. There should be two different scales, one for men one for women

Well that's horseshit idiocy, if not outright misogyny. BMI does not take into account breast size/density (breasts actually weigh pounds that add up on the scale), or muscle mass, bone density, or loose skin. BMI is horseshit.

Unfortunately it isn't good manners for a doctor to make an assessment just by looking at someone (which is truly the best way to figure out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight, or obese). For a numerical measurement, weight can provide an outline - but there are too many inaccuracies.

Technically, I'm slightly overweight with a BMI of 25.4. But I also lost a chunk of weight, and have some loose skin. I also have large breasts. I also strength train and regularly kick my ass in the gym, and have great muscle mass. BMI is a poor measure for both men AND women.

So the metric is garbage because you don’t like the answer.

The metric is garbage for many reasons, like bone density/muscle mass/breast size/etc

Yes, all the middle aged women here are equivalent to 25 year old Olympic rugby players. We get it. Garbage indeed. We should just toss out all the studies and go by how people self assess.

… and the studies say overweight is healthier! 😘

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMI is just weird. It almost would make more sense to go by how a person looks to determine overweight v. not. My ds is basically the leanest, most in shape person you could think of, and he is "overweight" according to BMI.

I don’t think bmi is accurate for men. Women though, yes. There should be two different scales, one for men one for women

Well that's horseshit idiocy, if not outright misogyny. BMI does not take into account breast size/density (breasts actually weigh pounds that add up on the scale), or muscle mass, bone density, or loose skin. BMI is horseshit.

Unfortunately it isn't good manners for a doctor to make an assessment just by looking at someone (which is truly the best way to figure out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight, or obese). For a numerical measurement, weight can provide an outline - but there are too many inaccuracies.

Technically, I'm slightly overweight with a BMI of 25.4. But I also lost a chunk of weight, and have some loose skin. I also have large breasts. I also strength train and regularly kick my ass in the gym, and have great muscle mass. BMI is a poor measure for both men AND women.

So the metric is garbage because you don’t like the answer.

The metric is garbage for many reasons, like bone density/muscle mass/breast size/etc

Yes, all the middle aged women here are equivalent to 25 year old Olympic rugby players. We get it. Garbage indeed. We should just toss out all the studies and go by how people self assess.

… and the studies say overweight is healthier! 😘

It’s a singular study about the mortality of people with cancer. You have probably not even read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMI is just weird. It almost would make more sense to go by how a person looks to determine overweight v. not. My ds is basically the leanest, most in shape person you could think of, and he is "overweight" according to BMI.

I don’t think bmi is accurate for men. Women though, yes. There should be two different scales, one for men one for women

Well that's horseshit idiocy, if not outright misogyny. BMI does not take into account breast size/density (breasts actually weigh pounds that add up on the scale), or muscle mass, bone density, or loose skin. BMI is horseshit.

Unfortunately it isn't good manners for a doctor to make an assessment just by looking at someone (which is truly the best way to figure out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight, or obese). For a numerical measurement, weight can provide an outline - but there are too many inaccuracies.

Technically, I'm slightly overweight with a BMI of 25.4. But I also lost a chunk of weight, and have some loose skin. I also have large breasts. I also strength train and regularly kick my ass in the gym, and have great muscle mass. BMI is a poor measure for both men AND women.

The range for a heathy BMI is wide enough to account for your breasts.

It is not wide enough to account for large breasts AND high muscle mass AND high bone density AND loose skin. There are way too many variables that create a lot of variables.

There are also plenty of skinnyfat people who have a normal BMI, but high body fat.

[Anonymous]

A century ago being fat was seen as healthier than being skinny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMI is just weird. It almost would make more sense to go by how a person looks to determine overweight v. not. My ds is basically the leanest, most in shape person you could think of, and he is "overweight" according to BMI.

I don’t think bmi is accurate for men. Women though, yes. There should be two different scales, one for men one for women

Well that's horseshit idiocy, if not outright misogyny. BMI does not take into account breast size/density (breasts actually weigh pounds that add up on the scale), or muscle mass, bone density, or loose skin. BMI is horseshit.

Unfortunately it isn't good manners for a doctor to make an assessment just by looking at someone (which is truly the best way to figure out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight, or obese). For a numerical measurement, weight can provide an outline - but there are too many inaccuracies.

Technically, I'm slightly overweight with a BMI of 25.4. But I also lost a chunk of weight, and have some loose skin. I also have large breasts. I also strength train and regularly kick my ass in the gym, and have great muscle mass. BMI is a poor measure for both men AND women.

So the metric is garbage because you don’t like the answer.

The metric is garbage for many reasons, like bone density/muscle mass/breast size/etc

Yes, all the middle aged women here are equivalent to 25 year old Olympic rugby players. We get it. Garbage indeed. We should just toss out all the studies and go by how people self assess.

… and the studies say overweight is healthier! 😘

It’s a singular study about the mortality of people with cancer. You have probably not even read it.

No it’s not, hon. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2381121-having-an-overweight-bmi-may-not-lead-to-an-earlier-death/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMI is just weird. It almost would make more sense to go by how a person looks to determine overweight v. not. My ds is basically the leanest, most in shape person you could think of, and he is "overweight" according to BMI.

I don’t think bmi is accurate for men. Women though, yes. There should be two different scales, one for men one for women

Well that's horseshit idiocy, if not outright misogyny. BMI does not take into account breast size/density (breasts actually weigh pounds that add up on the scale), or muscle mass, bone density, or loose skin. BMI is horseshit.

Unfortunately it isn't good manners for a doctor to make an assessment just by looking at someone (which is truly the best way to figure out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight, or obese). For a numerical measurement, weight can provide an outline - but there are too many inaccuracies.

Technically, I'm slightly overweight with a BMI of 25.4. But I also lost a chunk of weight, and have some loose skin. I also have large breasts. I also strength train and regularly kick my ass in the gym, and have great muscle mass. BMI is a poor measure for both men AND women.

So the metric is garbage because you don’t like the answer.

The metric is garbage for many reasons, like bone density/muscle mass/breast size/etc

Yes, all the middle aged women here are equivalent to 25 year old Olympic rugby players. We get it. Garbage indeed. We should just toss out all the studies and go by how people self assess.

I cut my hair yesterday and lost 2 lbs. The hairdresser asked me to weigh myself before and after, she thought it would be a lb but it was 2.

Did you read the scientific america article?

It's funny because just this weekend I had people tell me I look like Sabalenka and the Rugby player.

Believe me looking like the rugby player was not easy in the 80's during heroin chic.

How much hair did you have cut?

Locks of love but I weight myself with wet hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A century ago being fat was seen as healthier than being skinny

Tell me you understand the difference between the amount of available food 100 years ago and today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMI is just weird. It almost would make more sense to go by how a person looks to determine overweight v. not. My ds is basically the leanest, most in shape person you could think of, and he is "overweight" according to BMI.

I don’t think bmi is accurate for men. Women though, yes. There should be two different scales, one for men one for women

Well that's horseshit idiocy, if not outright misogyny. BMI does not take into account breast size/density (breasts actually weigh pounds that add up on the scale), or muscle mass, bone density, or loose skin. BMI is horseshit.

Unfortunately it isn't good manners for a doctor to make an assessment just by looking at someone (which is truly the best way to figure out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight, or obese). For a numerical measurement, weight can provide an outline - but there are too many inaccuracies.

Technically, I'm slightly overweight with a BMI of 25.4. But I also lost a chunk of weight, and have some loose skin. I also have large breasts. I also strength train and regularly kick my ass in the gym, and have great muscle mass. BMI is a poor measure for both men AND women.

So the metric is garbage because you don’t like the answer.

The metric is garbage for many reasons, like bone density/muscle mass/breast size/etc

Yes, all the middle aged women here are equivalent to 25 year old Olympic rugby players. We get it. Garbage indeed. We should just toss out all the studies and go by how people self assess.

… and the studies say overweight is healthier! 😘

It’s a singular study about the mortality of people with cancer. You have probably not even read it.

No it’s not, hon. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2381121-having-an-overweight-bmi-may-not-lead-to-an-earlier-death/

Man, people here are really dense.

This was the original statement

… and the studies say overweight is healthier! 😘

Even the HEADLINE OF THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED ABOUT THE STUDY YOU DIDN'T READ DOES NOT SAY THAT. The headline is what the conclusion of the study was - Having an 'overweight' BMI may [/b]not lead to an earlier death - In conclusion, our findings suggest that BMI in the overweight range [u]is generally not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality[b].

There is a massive gulf between that and "overweight is healthier." People really want to do backflips over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BMI is just weird. It almost would make more sense to go by how a person looks to determine overweight v. not. My ds is basically the leanest, most in shape person you could think of, and he is "overweight" according to BMI.

I don’t think bmi is accurate for men. Women though, yes. There should be two different scales, one for men one for women

Well that's horseshit idiocy, if not outright misogyny. BMI does not take into account breast size/density (breasts actually weigh pounds that add up on the scale), or muscle mass, bone density, or loose skin. BMI is horseshit.

Unfortunately it isn't good manners for a doctor to make an assessment just by looking at someone (which is truly the best way to figure out if someone is underweight, normal, overweight, or obese). For a numerical measurement, weight can provide an outline - but there are too many inaccuracies.

Technically, I'm slightly overweight with a BMI of 25.4. But I also lost a chunk of weight, and have some loose skin. I also have large breasts. I also strength train and regularly kick my ass in the gym, and have great muscle mass. BMI is a poor measure for both men AND women.

So the metric is garbage because you don’t like the answer.

The metric is garbage for many reasons, like bone density/muscle mass/breast size/etc

Yes, all the middle aged women here are equivalent to 25 year old Olympic rugby players. We get it. Garbage indeed. We should just toss out all the studies and go by how people self assess.

… and the studies say overweight is healthier! 😘

It’s a singular study about the mortality of people with cancer. You have probably not even read it.

No it’s not, hon. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2381121-having-an-overweight-bmi-may-not-lead-to-an-earlier-death/

Man, people here are really dense.

This was the original statement

… and the studies say overweight is healthier! 😘

Even the HEADLINE OF THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED ABOUT THE STUDY YOU DIDN'T READ DOES NOT SAY THAT. The headline is what the conclusion of the study was - Having an 'overweight' BMI may [/b]not lead to an earlier death - In conclusion, our findings suggest that BMI in the overweight range [u]is generally not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality[b].

There is a massive gulf between that and "overweight is healthier." People really want to do backflips over this.

This isn't some shocking headline because it's pretty obvious that plenty of overweight and obese people aren't dropping dead. This is why it doesn't work when doctors tell morbidly obese patients they will die if they don't lose weight. It is not going to motivate them bc common sense tells them it isn't true. They can look around and see plenty of morbidly obese people living.

I think there are definitely genetic health conditions that can be made worse by being overweight but that weight alone isn't going to not make the health condition not exist.

[Anonymous]

People started being fat about 10,000 years ago. When farming and raising livestock became a thing.
Food preservatives in 19th century really got it going.
In America, people became obese in the 70s and it kept rolling.

So being overweight now is probably not a big deal. If we roll back the clock 10,000 years
Or so there probably were no fat people at all, they either could not hunt/gather enough to be fat - or if they were fat got eaten by something.

Fat people will never make it in the military or anything; but should be able to live normally like people in shape.