I am skinny fat. Please help.

Options
13»

Replies

  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    A really flat chested friend who does crossfit. At 31, she could literally still fit training bras before crossfit.

    She grew pecs not boobs.

    This.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    denelifet wrote: »
    71lx2fr9joo1.jpg

    My upper body is like the 6'1 lady and lower body is like the 5'8 lady. I want hips like the 5'10 lady. Lol.

    There is no 5'10 lady.
  • mburgess458
    mburgess458 Posts: 480 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    aub6689 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    aub6689 wrote: »
    BMI is supposed to approximate bodyfat, but it is very easily misclassified. It has high correlation for inactive adults in higher bmi range, but once someone lifts, bmi is unlikely to be a good representation of bodyfat.

    BMI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with bodyfat. There is no correlation between the two except perhaps by coincidence in the very obese. BMI is a simple number derived from one's height and weight. A 5'10, 160 lb. man would be at a BMI of 23 whether he was 7% BF or 30% BF. Obviously, the two would have a vastly different appearance and body composition.

    Actually BMi is used to approximate body fat frequently in epidemiologic studies because the two are highly correlated in upper BMI categories on population level data. As an individual measurement this approximation does poorly, but the 7% bf individual is usually the exception not the rule.

    Absolutely wrong. The absolute BMI number is never used as an approximation of bodyfat percentage. It is used as an approximation of overweight versus normal or underweight, but never as an estimate of bodyfat percentage.

    In other words, BMI is used INSTEAD OF bodyfat percentage in epidemiologic studies because BMI is so much easier to calculate and track. BMI is used as a totally different measure of how overweight or underweight a person is. No study ever pretends that a BMI of 20 means an approximate bodyfat percentage of 20%.
  • aub6689
    aub6689 Posts: 351 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    aub6689 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    aub6689 wrote: »
    BMI is supposed to approximate bodyfat, but it is very easily misclassified. It has high correlation for inactive adults in higher bmi range, but once someone lifts, bmi is unlikely to be a good representation of bodyfat.

    BMI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with bodyfat. There is no correlation between the two except perhaps by coincidence in the very obese. BMI is a simple number derived from one's height and weight. A 5'10, 160 lb. man would be at a BMI of 23 whether he was 7% BF or 30% BF. Obviously, the two would have a vastly different appearance and body composition.

    Actually BMi is used to approximate body fat frequently in epidemiologic studies because the two are highly correlated in upper BMI categories on population level data. As an individual measurement this approximation does poorly, but the 7% bf individual is usually the exception not the rule. While that does not mean that 20% bodyfat means the same as 20% bmi, they still are trying to measure the same thing.

    Absolutely wrong. The absolute BMI number is never used as an approximation of bodyfat percentage. It is used as an approximation of overweight versus normal or underweight, but never as an estimate of bodyfat percentage.

    In other words, BMI is used INSTEAD OF bodyfat percentage in epidemiologic studies because BMI is so much easier to calculate and track. BMI is used as a total different measure of how overweight or underweight a person is. No study ever pretends that a BMI of 20 means an approximate bodyfat percentage of 20%.

    So maybe I misspoke but they are both used to approximate adiposity. Simply put they are both used to try and get at a very similar thing and that is fat. I am not sure we are disagreeing on much more than word choice at this point.
  • mburgess458
    mburgess458 Posts: 480 Member
    Options
    aub6689 wrote: »
    aub6689 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    aub6689 wrote: »
    BMI is supposed to approximate bodyfat, but it is very easily misclassified. It has high correlation for inactive adults in higher bmi range, but once someone lifts, bmi is unlikely to be a good representation of bodyfat.

    BMI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with bodyfat. There is no correlation between the two except perhaps by coincidence in the very obese. BMI is a simple number derived from one's height and weight. A 5'10, 160 lb. man would be at a BMI of 23 whether he was 7% BF or 30% BF. Obviously, the two would have a vastly different appearance and body composition.

    Actually BMi is used to approximate body fat frequently in epidemiologic studies because the two are highly correlated in upper BMI categories on population level data. As an individual measurement this approximation does poorly, but the 7% bf individual is usually the exception not the rule.

    Absolutely wrong. The absolute BMI number is never used as an approximation of bodyfat percentage. It is used as an approximation of overweight versus normal or underweight, but never as an estimate of bodyfat percentage.

    In other words, BMI is used INSTEAD OF bodyfat percentage in epidemiologic studies because BMI is so much easier to calculate and track. BMI is used as a total different measure of how overweight or underweight a person is. No study ever pretends that a BMI of 20 means an approximate bodyfat percentage of 20%.

    So maybe I misspoke but they are both used to approximate adiposity. Simply put they are both used to try and get at a very similar thing and that is fat. I am not sure we are disagreeing on much more than word choice at this point.

    Fair enough. My only beef was that it sounded as though you were saying the value of a person's BMI was an estimate of their bodyfat percentage. Obviously that can't be true. A BMI < 18.5 is considered underweight for an adult... but a man with a bodyfat percentage of 15% certainly isn't considered too skinny.
  • aub6689
    aub6689 Posts: 351 Member
    Options
    @mburgess458 I understand my immediate keyboard response isn't always the best explanation, but I responded probably too quickly when I take people's reaction to sound like bmi doesn't estimate adiposity in studies when it has been shown to do so and is the cheapest, most reliable way to estimate adiposity in studies on the general population. I took the other person's response to be saying that it was by chance that bmi could be correlated to bodyfat (correlated as in high matching high, not 26=26).
  • SkinnyFatBGone
    SkinnyFatBGone Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    denelifet wrote: »
    71lx2fr9joo1.jpg

    My upper body is like the 6'1 lady and lower body is like the 5'8 lady. I want hips like the 5'10 lady. Lol.

    There is no 5'10 lady.

    5'11.