BMI is a poor metric at best and defining obesity by it is incredibly stupid.It should be based on body fat percentage. Historically, the argument was that this was too hard to calculate but now cheap scales with electrodes can measure it with reasonable enough accuracy at home.
>>77449394You're not so buff that BMI isn't good enough.
>>77449394lol another delusional fat fuck ranting against bmi because he thinks he's jacked under all that flabMany such cases
>>77449394Excess weight, whether fat or muscle, puts more pressure on your heart. If you're not leanmaxxing you're only harming your health and most likely chasing after the validation of others (probably men)
>>77449394>AI sloppadon't care what a lazy jeet has to say, didn't read
>>77449394It's very rare cases for BMI not to apply
>>77449394That BMI at 5'11 would be 198lbs, and to be 11.4% at that weight would be 175lbs lbm. If that's possible at all as a natty it would require many years of optimal training and dieting, more realistically it's just a roidtranny. Actually most realistically it's a deluded fat fuck who has no idea how to use a tape measure or what 12% looks like.Obesity equally applies to retarded roiders who can't sleep without a cpap and have a life expectancy of 52. Of course muscle is better than fat, but extra weight applies stress on your body no matter what it is.
>>77449440Body fat is still more important. It should be the standard quoted number, not bmi.
Doesnt matter because as this guy says >>77449435 it doesnt matter if you're 250lbs of flab or 250lbs of solid muscle, the cardiovascular risks are the same.
Saying BMI is a bad scale because it doesn't account for everything is like saying speed limits arent real because NASCAR exists. Are you Dale Jr? No? Then the speed limit applies to you. BMI is exactly the same
>>77449394Unless you're a freak of nature, BMI is completely accurate for natties. It's imposible to naturally build so much muscle with low body fat.Anyone that tells you otherwise is a roider that claims natty or a coping fatty.Proof: none of those totally not fat natties that claim BMI is bullshit will post belly (cause they're fat)
>>77449394BMI is still pretty accurate even for fit guys. I always see guys saying shit like, mine is 28 and I'm lean, but then they post body and they have a visible muffin top and protruding stomach even while flexing as hard as they can and trying to fraud by twisting their midsection. So they're fat, but fat with muscle. But still fatOnly very advanced lifters will get over 25 BMI whilst being actually lean. Fats are so delusional, constantly seeing dudes with massive bellies thinking they just need to lose 5-10lbs to get abs - most gym bros are carrying way more fat than they think, but most of this board has never even been close to 15% bf so they don't realize this
>>77449850There is still a huge difference between a guy with muscle at 28 bmi.and a guy who is just a sack of fat. Even if they aren't very lean they are much better off and it's retarded to classify their body the same way.
>>77449394Your body doesn't care if you have to carry 150lbs extra pounds of fat or muscle.
>>77449394BMI is so bad, yet there still isn't a replacement for it.I've heard FFMI for some reason, even when you still need a way to measure body fat.I'm sure no fatty wants a nurse or doctor to pull out calipers and measure their fat body.
>>77449850Millennial spotted,In theory, OP is right but fat measruing scales aree notoriously inaccurate. Eyeballing it is still the way to go, if you look slim you probably have reasonably low bodyfat. That was good enough for Arnold, Gironda and the other oldtimers, so it's good enough for me.
>>77450523Calipers are pretty exact but using them is basically a science.
>>77449394Why do powershitters keep making this thread
>>77449841i agree if we're talking about the 30 BMI (stage I obesity) cutoff, but the 25 BMI cutoff for overweightness really should just be done away with altogether. not only is it frequently enough a poor indicator of someone's actual health, there's plenty of evidence at this point that having a BMI of about 25 is actually ideal health-wise anyway
>>77450515>There is still a huge difference between a guy with muscle at 28 bmi.and a guy who is just a sack of fatYes, but the muscle guy is still fat though. Or maybe fluffy is the better word. He's healthier than the slob for sure 100%, but if he got lean and lost the muffin top he would be under 25 BMI. And this is almost always the case with regular gym bros who aren't athletes or anything.>>77450532I'm 26 not a millennial lol. I agree that eyeballing is the way, as long as your stomach is flat and you don't have a bunch of blubber hanging off your pants waistband you're good. Point still stands that BMI is still accurate for 95% of fit people though, most are delusional and think they're way leaner than they are, and would be under 25 BMI if they cut to the point their gut went away
>>77449719If the average person has an overweight or obese BMI, their body fat is higher than it should be. The correlation is direct. It applies to 99% of people. There's no need to change something that works.
>>77450523>you still need a way to measure body fat.these cost $25 and they are good enough
BMI doesn't matter when it's all about being at your natty peal <15% BF. That should be your end goal anyway.
>>77450523>BMI is so badit's pretty applicable to most of the population. High specificity, low sensitivity. It basically misses skinny fat people, but that's about it (ignoring any mention of bodybuilders/obviously muscle heavy gym goers)If you want a replacement, it's probably body roundness index. It takes a few more variables into account. I also like waist-to-height ratio, and weight-to-waist ratio can gauge pretty well how much fat you are losing vs. muscle when you are losing weight over time.
>>77449426/thread
>>77449394any intelligent person will factor in waist measurement at the very least but good luck finding an intelligent doctor in the west
>>77449404>>77449426I agree with this, buuuuuut, I also think modern medicine has come far enough that relying on mathematical formulas for shit like this is a joke. I mean, think about how absolutely fucking pathetic the military is... Even those sumbitches don't bother with BMI.
>>77451232came to mention this. I think your waist should be under half your height. Don't know if that is basically 30bmi level but i guess the point is it allows you to carry weight in less dangerous places than around your organs and i guess also it helps diagnose skinnyfat menopause figure blobs more easily. Idk if they have a more granular standard than the "ideally below half your height" thing though but you can look up waist to height ratio.
>>77449394>BMI is a poor metric at best and defining obesity by it is incredibly stupid.Agree in part but your pic is absolutely false. A male with a BMI >27% that is not fat makes 0,0000001% of the entire population on this floating rock called Earth.
>>77449394If you're doing BMI it's because you're fat anyway.
