3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.