2 ms·
>it's likely underweight. The only way this can possibly be correct is if you think that the "correct" weight is whatever the population average happens to be
by MostlyStable 2y ago
>it's likely underweight.
The only way this can possibly be correct is if you think that the "correct" weight is whatever the population average happens to be which is just...wild to me.
If we assume commenter is male (a statistical likelihood), then 20% is the high end of normal, and could very safely be halved. In the less likely case that they are female, then it is right in the middle of the normal range, and could safely be reduced by 5-10% at least.
- toast0 2y ago> The only way this can possibly be correct is if you think that the "correct" weight is whatever the population average happens to be which is just...wild to me. The medical definition of overweight is basically if you're some number of standard deviations above the average from whenever they ran the stats, so population average = correct weight seems like as reasonable a standard.
- MostlyStable 2y agoI tried to find corroborating sources and couldn't, so take this for what it's worth, but Claude seems to think the cutoffs are based on epedmiological evidence for health impacts at various BMIs, which, even if that _wasn't_ how it was arrived at, seems like a better option.