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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Hip-to-waist ratio or lower RHR (resting heart rate) are better indicators of health than BMI.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1050173822000731

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1050173822000731-gr2_lrg.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM is so first world.
Most people would assume morbid obesity not 10 pounds.
Get perspective.

This thread is specifically about “overweight “…. See subject line.

Start one about morbidly obese

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.