File :-(, x, )
BMI Anonymous
Yo /fit/

What do you think of the BMI? Is this a reliable way of determining weather you are fat or not? See link below!

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/english_bmi_calculator/results_normal.htm?pounds=215&a
mp;amp;inches=78
>> Anonymous
Not in any way.
>> Anonymous
It's good for a guesstimate if you're average. If you're athletic they're garbage.
>> Anonymous
Yes and no. They're just supposed to give you a rough estimate at what is a healthy weight for your height and bone structure. Part of the reasoning behind BMI is that, regardless of fat levels, the skeleton of someone at height X should not exceed weight Y because it's not a natural build and it can put unnecessary strains on your bones.

Weight is still weight. You might be healthy in most aspects being 5'7" and 220 pounds of muscle, but it's not what your smaller frame was intending to carry around for most of your life, for example. Not that it's going to kill you or anything.
>> Moonmauler !!LgNbdvCFAuN
     File :-(, x)
According to the BMI this man is obese. What more do you need to know?
>> Anonymous
>>170192
No, your rationalising is bullshit. BMI was simply created for average builds to give an easy indicator of bodyweight.

Having an ideal BMI doesn't mean you're healthy.
>> BMI Anonymous
OP here, I'm 6'6". For me to get to normal weight according to the BMI I would need to weigh 215. The last time I weighed that, I was in 8th grade.

What bugs me about this is that the US CDC uses this to determine obesity. It looks like they are misclassifying a lot of athletes as being obese.
>> Anonymous
>>170226

Funny, cause it isn't my philosophy at all. That's really part of what the BMI scale was intended to estimate.

And I never said having an ideal BMI made you healthy. Being muscular doesn't mean you're healthy, nor does being skinny.
>> Anonymous
BMI doesn't calculate fat% at all, it calculates the ratio between your height and weight... there's no correlation between the two
>> Anonymous
>>170194

According to the BMI, he's also carrying more body weight than his frame was naturally intended to carry. Only time will tell if he has bone problems when he's older because of that.
>> Anonymous
>>170296
no.
>> Anonymous
>>170296
That doesn't make sense. People who lift weights have lower incidences of bone disease.
>> Anonymous
>>170292
I don't believe so. Provide some proof pls.
Having 30lbs extra of supporting tissue on your frame generally means you don't need help to wipe yourself when you hit 70.
>> Anonymous
>>170330

Bone density goes up after doing high intensity weightlifting. (unless you're over 30 years old)

in after troll'd
>> Anonymous
>>170336

You won't have that supporting tissue at 70, pal. You'll be a flabby, short piece of shit with bad posture and overalls and one foot in the nursing home.
>> Anonymous
>>170344
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>170344
Listen, buddy. Having more when you're younger means it lasts longer. You'll have far less at 70, but more than the average frail pensioner.
>> Anonymous
>>170344

FATTY FATTY FATTY FATTY
>> Anonymous
my BMI is 25.5

i have a full six pack.


BMI is stupid
>> Anonymous
>>170292

LOL if you are muscular without AAS, and generally lean (8-14& bodyfat). you are healthy as fuck
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>170567

i believe these belong to you, fatty
>> Anonymous
>>170296

You sir, are an idiot.