4 ms·

[flagged]

by b112 4y ago

[flagged]

ysleepy 4y ago
- ungamedplayer 4y ago
  BMI is a poor tool, especially shit to anyone who builds muscle. Bad tool, the metric measurement is only valid to the 'middle sized sedentary lifestylers'
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    It's also a poor tool for very tall people, since it divides by height squared, even though our bodies are obviously 3D objects. I see some research that supports using height^2.5 as a divisor: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215
- b112 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ysleepy 4y ago
  - topynate 4y ago
    That's true. I bought some body fat calipers recently for just that reason. They cost about $10.
  - buran77 4y ago
    I think people focused on the wrong metric, the BMI. They should have focused on the self-diagnosis that at 6'2" (1.88m) it would be "literally unhealthy" for you to weigh less than 100Kg. Even if you were a special case, like a body builder, to illustrate the weight we're talking about, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and 107Kg [0] in competitions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuilding_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuil...
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  BMI really is a poor indicator if your body shape is far from average size, and no amount of showing off your ignorance in the topic here is going to change that. I am 188cm, and I am firmly in overweight part of the scale according to general BMI graphs you can find anywhere. But we talk about a person who has cca 8% body fat according to various measurements taken (which is normal amount for sporty folks, and I am relatively extremely active). The thing is, I have very wide chest and shoulders far apart, also I think my overall torso length is above average but never checked that. That chest part is really bone/ribcage structure, not tons of muscles on top of that. I am not complaining, putting on a bit of muscles and straightening my stance had make me look like second Arnold when wearing t-shirt, at least for chest part. In the same vein, my legs are relatively thin (both calves and thighs), so my projected contour is far from some average male guy. BMI categories never worked on me.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Overweight (BMI 25~30) is statistically fine, even lower mortality than “normal” (18.5~25) BMI [0] > Conclusions and Relevance > Grade 1 obesity overall was not associated with higher mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality. BMI is a vague measure in the first place, and the ranges are pretty arbitrary, but even accounting for that only the “obesity” range is related to health issues. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1555137 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1555137
  - buran77 4y ago
    > BMI is a vague measure Height isn't though. > Most 6'2 men are 8" shorter when sitting beside me I know people don't have perfectly proportional limbs and body parts across the population but a 6'2" man is a 6'2" man no matter what length of torso they sit next to. And 1Kg of wool weighs just as much as 1Kg of iron. I agree that BMI is very vague. But at 6'2" (~1.88m) being under 100Kg can't be "literally unhealthy" unless you're a special case like a body builder. There's no scientific basis for the statement and no doctor will ever say such a thing. Definitely no doctor will diagnose someone with "long torso" that can justify that weight unless it's a severe deformity. Perpetuating such nonsense is bad because it encourages some people to justify bad eating habits with nonsense pseudo-science. To illustrate what kind of weight we're talking about, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and 107Kg [0] in competitions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuilding_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuil...
    - makeitdouble 4y ago
      > But at 6'2" (~1.88m) being under 100Kg can't be "literally unhealthy" Healthiness isn't just a height and weight though, and there is so many other things going on. People in these discussion have an image of a "standard" body type, with an "average" type of life, but realistically nobody actually fits that average. From my point of view I, I'm not even sure where the parent poster lives, I assume they are male, but have no idea of their ethnicity, nor age, nor what their life looks like. Depending on their exact circumstances, losing more than 10% of the body weight could have more detrimental effects than benefits (it could be "literally unhealthy") > Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and 107Kg [0] in competitions. Imagine he loses some muscle and gets 10kg of fat here and there. That would put him at probably 20% body fat perhaps ? He'd look sloppy as hell, but I don't think it would be a morbid body in medical terms.
- kolinko 4y ago
  For heights above 6 feet you should use a different bmi formula, with an exponent of 2.5 not 2. 2 is used commonly but only because it used to be easier to compute. Also, for people with large muscle mass, bmi will show overweight or obese for people that have normal (or even low) fat mass.
- criddell 4y ago
  BMI is for populations, not individuals.
Tade0 4y ago
> Yet now I am unwelcome in your home?!? One time I had to gently tell a friend that he was exceeding the weight limit of the IKEA kneeling chair he was sitting on. Really awkward for the both of us.
- muzika 4y ago
  If that was me, I would rather have let them break the chair instead.
  - jhartwig 4y ago
    For real. Fuck the $5 chair. Go get another one when it breaks. Famous quote... 'never risk a friendship over Ikea furniture.'
jcelerier 4y ago
.. unhealthy how? I'm 184 cm and I feel bloated at 72kg already aha, I don't see three more centimeters adding up to 25kg
arein3 4y ago
>Yet now I am unwelcome in your home?!? There are people that weight over 200kg, why draw the line at 100?
dang 4y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31882142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31882142.

[flagged]

by b112 4y ago

[flagged]

ysleepy 4y ago

ungamedplayer 4y ago
BMI is a poor tool, especially shit to anyone who builds muscle. Bad tool, the metric measurement is only valid to the 'middle sized sedentary lifestylers'
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  It's also a poor tool for very tall people, since it divides by height squared, even though our bodies are obviously 3D objects. I see some research that supports using height^2.5 as a divisor: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215
b112 4y ago
[flagged]
- ysleepy 4y ago
- topynate 4y ago
  That's true. I bought some body fat calipers recently for just that reason. They cost about $10.
- buran77 4y ago
  I think people focused on the wrong metric, the BMI. They should have focused on the self-diagnosis that at 6'2" (1.88m) it would be "literally unhealthy" for you to weigh less than 100Kg. Even if you were a special case, like a body builder, to illustrate the weight we're talking about, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and 107Kg [0] in competitions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuilding_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuil...
saiya-jin 4y ago
BMI really is a poor indicator if your body shape is far from average size, and no amount of showing off your ignorance in the topic here is going to change that. I am 188cm, and I am firmly in overweight part of the scale according to general BMI graphs you can find anywhere. But we talk about a person who has cca 8% body fat according to various measurements taken (which is normal amount for sporty folks, and I am relatively extremely active). The thing is, I have very wide chest and shoulders far apart, also I think my overall torso length is above average but never checked that. That chest part is really bone/ribcage structure, not tons of muscles on top of that. I am not complaining, putting on a bit of muscles and straightening my stance had make me look like second Arnold when wearing t-shirt, at least for chest part. In the same vein, my legs are relatively thin (both calves and thighs), so my projected contour is far from some average male guy. BMI categories never worked on me.
makeitdouble 4y ago
Overweight (BMI 25~30) is statistically fine, even lower mortality than “normal” (18.5~25) BMI [0] > Conclusions and Relevance > Grade 1 obesity overall was not associated with higher mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality. BMI is a vague measure in the first place, and the ranges are pretty arbitrary, but even accounting for that only the “obesity” range is related to health issues. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1555137 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1555137
- buran77 4y ago
  > BMI is a vague measure Height isn't though. > Most 6'2 men are 8" shorter when sitting beside me I know people don't have perfectly proportional limbs and body parts across the population but a 6'2" man is a 6'2" man no matter what length of torso they sit next to. And 1Kg of wool weighs just as much as 1Kg of iron. I agree that BMI is very vague. But at 6'2" (~1.88m) being under 100Kg can't be "literally unhealthy" unless you're a special case like a body builder. There's no scientific basis for the statement and no doctor will ever say such a thing. Definitely no doctor will diagnose someone with "long torso" that can justify that weight unless it's a severe deformity. Perpetuating such nonsense is bad because it encourages some people to justify bad eating habits with nonsense pseudo-science. To illustrate what kind of weight we're talking about, Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and 107Kg [0] in competitions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuilding_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuil...
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    > But at 6'2" (~1.88m) being under 100Kg can't be "literally unhealthy" Healthiness isn't just a height and weight though, and there is so many other things going on. People in these discussion have an image of a "standard" body type, with an "average" type of life, but realistically nobody actually fits that average. From my point of view I, I'm not even sure where the parent poster lives, I assume they are male, but have no idea of their ethnicity, nor age, nor what their life looks like. Depending on their exact circumstances, losing more than 10% of the body weight could have more detrimental effects than benefits (it could be "literally unhealthy") > Arnold Schwarzenegger was 6'2" and 107Kg [0] in competitions. Imagine he loses some muscle and gets 10kg of fat here and there. That would put him at probably 20% body fat perhaps ? He'd look sloppy as hell, but I don't think it would be a morbid body in medical terms.
kolinko 4y ago
For heights above 6 feet you should use a different bmi formula, with an exponent of 2.5 not 2. 2 is used commonly but only because it used to be easier to compute. Also, for people with large muscle mass, bmi will show overweight or obese for people that have normal (or even low) fat mass.
criddell 4y ago
BMI is for populations, not individuals.

Tade0 4y ago

> Yet now I am unwelcome in your home?!? One time I had to gently tell a friend that he was exceeding the weight limit of the IKEA kneeling chair he was sitting on. Really awkward for the both of us.

muzika 4y ago
If that was me, I would rather have let them break the chair instead.
- jhartwig 4y ago
  For real. Fuck the $5 chair. Go get another one when it breaks. Famous quote... 'never risk a friendship over Ikea furniture.'

jcelerier 4y ago

.. unhealthy how? I'm 184 cm and I feel bloated at 72kg already aha, I don't see three more centimeters adding up to 25kg

arein3 4y ago

>Yet now I am unwelcome in your home?!? There are people that weight over 200kg, why draw the line at 100?

dang 4y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31882142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31882142.