You don't have ''big bones'' or a ''big frame''
Options
Replies
-
rainbowbow wrote: »
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
My point also.rainbowbow wrote: »For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Prove it. Show us scans that give actual bone length measurementsrainbowbow wrote: »Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
Wider frames require more weight to not look "bony". The difference isn't a lot, but is definitely there. That is why things like BMI give a range of ideal weights for a height, not one number. If everyone had the same frame size, everyone would look best at the same weight.rainbowbow wrote: »
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
[/i]
Yes, we get that.rainbowbow wrote: »
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Agreed that SHAPE has little to do with bones. SIZE has everything to do with bones, and by size I mean height AND width, just not height. Two people who are 5'6", have a pear shape, and weigh 140 lb will still look best at a different weight if one has wider shoulders and hips and longer arms and legs than the other.2 -
-
kshama2001 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »That's lovely, those women all have similar skeletons. Me, rabbit and kshama2001 are likely very different in bone structure to someone like onedimsim. No excuses, I am fat, I have a lot of body fat that I carry round my tummy. That's not my bone structure, that's my fat. When I was slimmer I had very little fat but still big wrists, head and shoulders.... The bony bits, not the soft bits
My point is that weight wise, it's your soft tissue that causes such variations. Even if you have a difference in frame size (compared to people of the same height) the difference in weight is so minimal it's not worth accounting for.
Even if you have a "large" frame size with maximal bone density, we are talking VERY small variations in total weight.
I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition. The variation we see in these people who are so called "big boned" (but not ACTUALLY big boned by being significantly taller/larger/giant, etc. aka people of Normal height) are a result of body SHAPE. This is not only fat but also muscle mass.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
Do you dispute that women with large frames can be at healthy weights at the very top of Normal in the BMI chart or even slightly into Overweight?
That's hard to say... If they were, i'd say they are most definitely the exception. I would be very surprised.
The likelihood of that happening is not very high, especially considering a normal BMI usually ranges between 30-40 pounds (and a small frame vs a large frame at the same height, as i stated, is a difference of MAX 10-15 pounds of WEIGHT difference).
If someone who you are insisting has a large frame falls into this category where BMI is *wrong* i'd say it's more likely that it's due to a higher percentage of muscle mass for their size. in this case, switching to another method such as measuring body fat would be applicable.
Again, the likelihood that your bones is skewing it to the point of pushing you into the other category? Not likely. Unless you would already be in the mid-range/high range of the normal category based on your current body composition.1 -
1
-
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"7 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
Thank you for putting
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
Thank you for putting this so much better than I could before finishing my morning caffeine, less thanks for making me inhale Diet Coke while laughing.2 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
You hit the nail on the head!1 -
What? You're asking me to find dexa scans, of people, of the same height, which shows how long their specific bones are, based on what? The fact that you think people of the same height have huge variations in bone size and may be "wider" or look "bonier" that others?rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Prove it. Show us scans that give actual bone length measurements
This is an unreasonable request and i don't have time to do so. The size of your bones determines things like height/breadth. The difference is not and cannot be too big or you would be a completely different size (height) than others.
A common understanding of evolutionary biology should give you allow enough understanding that if you find bones of a human being, they are going to be a certain size. The variations you're talking about here are like inter-species variations.
In humans, we commonly measure things like leg length and it's relation to height to see the variations in bone length/total height. but even there, we can see the results show LITTLE variation. We're talking up to a few centimeters.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2872302/#b45-ijerph-07-01047
"Even if specific genotypes are discovered, their direct contribution to normal ethnic (so-called “racial”) variation in human body shape may be relatively small. At 40 weeks gestation, fetuses identified as African-Americans have, on average, relatively longer legs than fetuses identified as European-Americans [23]. But the difference, as measured by (total length/crown-rump length) is less than 1%."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720514/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720514/figure/F1/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24401935
People of the same height simply don't have the variation you are implying.1 -
Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Re-read what i've said and hopefully that helps.
Body frame/height/width/etc of bones is not that different for people of a similar height.
edit: i feel like you and the others who have agreed with your post are not grasping what i'm saying. you cannot be 5 foot tall and 3 feet wide because of your bones. It doesn't work that way.
My point is that the variation in length and size of bones with people of a relative height is almost negligible. especially when it comes to total body weight (as stated).1 -
booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".
and yet, even if you did. We're talking max a few centemeters in length/weight and a few pounds variation.
To suggest that BMI is therefore worthless, is ridiculous.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".
Thanks. That's what I thought she meant.1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Re-read what i've said and hopefully that helps.
Body frame/height/width/etc of bones is not that different for people of a similar height.
edit: i feel like you and the others who have agreed with your post are not grasping what i'm saying. you cannot be 5 foot tall and 3 feet wide because of your bones. It doesn't work that way.
My point is that the variation in length and size of bones with people of a relative height is almost negligible. especially when it comes to total body weight (as stated).
I'm close to the average height of women in the US, yet I cannot wear standard bracelets, and have a hard time finding hats that fit. I buy men's sneakers and boots. Buying women's shoes is a nightmare.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Larissa_NY wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to call people out, but not one person on this thread who provided anecdotal evidence to how they are "really" big boned disprove my above statement.
That is because they are two completely different things. You are talking about what is on the bones, and others are talking about the bones themselves. Those scans don't give actual bone measurements, especially the width of the collarbone, width of the ribcage, width of the pelvis, and length of the long bones of the arms and legs. THESE are what determine if you are big boned or not, not the weight or density of the actual bones.
My point is that it doesn't MATTER if you are big boned or not. The WEIGHT difference in bones is almost non-existant.
For people of a relative height, the variation in bone SIZE is minimal even between small vs large "frame".
Blaming your weight being high on your bones is therefore irrelevant.
As far as body SHAPE it is not determined by your bones but by soft tissue which is attached to your bones.
I don't know how else i can say this so that it's clear that body shape and subsequently your total body weight has very little to do with bones.
Yes, thank you, everyone understands that. The reason you feel like you're talking past everyone is that you're not talking about the thing everyone else on the thread is talking about, which is difference in bone structure (measured in inches) and not difference in body weight (measured in pounds). So it's basically like:
Everyone else: "I wonder if that end table will fit into this niche."
You: "Of course it will because it weighs 57 pounds."
Everyone else: "But... will it fit into the niche?"
You: "I SAID IT WILL because 57 pounds is not materially different from 60 pounds!"
Everyone else: "Okay, let me rephrase this. That niche is about two feet across. I wonder if the end table is more or less than two feet across."
You: "Y U DISAGREE WITH ME!!???!"
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Re-read what i've said and hopefully that helps.
Body frame/height/width/etc of bones is not that different for people of a similar height.
edit: i feel like you and the others who have agreed with your post are not grasping what i'm saying. you cannot be 5 foot tall and 3 feet wide because of your bones. It doesn't work that way.
My point is that the variation in length and size of bones with people of a relative height is almost negligible. especially when it comes to total body weight (as stated).
I'm close to the average height of women in the US, yet I cannot wear standard bracelets, and have a hard time finding hats that fit. I buy men's sneakers and boots. Buying women's shoes is a nightmare.
Ok.1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".
and yet, even if you did. We're talking max a few centemeters in length/weight and a few pounds variation.
To suggest that BMI is therefore worthless, is ridiculous.
I didn't think many people were saying bmi was worthless just that different frame sizes mean that people of the same height can look their best at different points on it
On another thread I said that now I am closer to a healthy weight I was looking at probably stopping my weight loss at the top end of the bmi chart as I had a large frame and think if I went to the lower end I'd look unhealthy. I was flat out told 'you don't have a large frame, you just need to lose weight'' nowhere was I saying I still didn't have weight to lose (I have around 10lb to get to the top of the normal range for Bmi) what I and others are saying is that the reason a range exists in bmi is because of things like frame size1 -
Clearly there is anatomical variation in humans but it isn't usually enough to compensate for someone registering as "obese" or very "overweight" on a BMI scale or any other measure of height/weight ratio--those inaccuracies are more likely related to muscle mass or actually having a lot of excess fat.
I say this as someone who once thought they had a "big frame." I hit my original goal weight and actually had to set a second, lower GW because my "frame" is a lot smaller than I realized it was. So here we go-- round 2! Time to uncover my best self! Average/small frame and all with no excuses.0 -
caratayloruk wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".
and yet, even if you did. We're talking max a few centemeters in length/weight and a few pounds variation.
To suggest that BMI is therefore worthless, is ridiculous.
I didn't think many people were saying bmi was worthless just that different frame sizes mean that people of the same height can look their best at different points on it
On another thread I said that now I am closer to a healthy weight I was looking at probably stopping my weight loss at the top end of the bmi chart as I had a large frame and think if I went to the lower end I'd look unhealthy. I was flat out told 'you don't have a large frame, you just need to lose weight'' nowhere was I saying I still didn't have weight to lose (I have around 10lb to get to the top of the normal range for Bmi) what I and others are saying is that the reason a range exists in bmi is because of things like frame size
My family would totally bring an eating disorder specialist and plans for hospitalization to an intervention for me if I were at the low end of the Normal BMI.1 -
caratayloruk wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".
and yet, even if you did. We're talking max a few centemeters in length/weight and a few pounds variation.
To suggest that BMI is therefore worthless, is ridiculous.
I didn't think many people were saying bmi was worthless just that different frame sizes mean that people of the same height can look their best at different points on it
On another thread I said that now I am closer to a healthy weight I was looking at probably stopping my weight loss at the top end of the bmi chart as I had a large frame and think if I went to the lower end I'd look unhealthy. I was flat out told 'you don't have a large frame, you just need to lose weight'' nowhere was I saying I still didn't have weight to lose (I have around 10lb to get to the top of the normal range for Bmi) what I and others are saying is that the reason a range exists in bmi is because of things like frame size
of course.
But the above poster said literally BMI is worthless if you have a "large frame".
As you said, there's a range which accounts for frame size, muscle mass, body fat, etc.. You (i mean people who claim this) aren't a special snowflake who doesn't fit into the BMI chart of body fat % scale simply because you have the belief that your "bones are bigger".
My point time and time again, is that regardless of whether or not your frame *is* actually bigger (which let's be honest, most people who make this claim, it's not) the variation is not SO large that it makes BMI worthless or irrelevant.0 -
Does that mean the opposite is also not possible? I've always felt, and been told, that I have a very tiny frame, teenie little bone structure (Tiny wrists, tiny ankles, tiny little clavicle, you get the pic;) When I was fat, I had a tiny frame with lots of fat on top of it.1
-
rainbowbow wrote: »caratayloruk wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »booksandchocolate12 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I am simply reaffirming the OP's initial stance, that we cannot use "frame size" "big boned" etc. as a crutch for our body composition.
I didn't think the OP's initial stance was "People shouldn't use frame size as a crutch for their lack of weight loss". I can agree with that.
I thought her stance was "There's no such thing as big frame/small frame", which I disagree with.
Perhaps she will come back and clarify.
When, on another thread, I referred a third poster to the wrist/frame size calculator and said I had a large frame, the OP flat out told me:
You don't have a "large frame".
and yet, even if you did. We're talking max a few centemeters in length/weight and a few pounds variation.
To suggest that BMI is therefore worthless, is ridiculous.
I didn't think many people were saying bmi was worthless just that different frame sizes mean that people of the same height can look their best at different points on it
On another thread I said that now I am closer to a healthy weight I was looking at probably stopping my weight loss at the top end of the bmi chart as I had a large frame and think if I went to the lower end I'd look unhealthy. I was flat out told 'you don't have a large frame, you just need to lose weight'' nowhere was I saying I still didn't have weight to lose (I have around 10lb to get to the top of the normal range for Bmi) what I and others are saying is that the reason a range exists in bmi is because of things like frame size
of course.
But the above poster said literally BMI is worthless if you have a "large frame".
As you said, there's a range which accounts for frame size, muscle mass, body fat, etc.. You aren't a special snowflake who doesn't fit into the BMI chart of body fat % scale simply because you have the belief that your "bones are bigger".
My point time and time again, is that regardless of whether or not your frame *is* actually bigger (which let's be honest, most people who make this claim, it's not) the variation is not SO large that it makes BMI worthless or irrelevant.
Well then we agree. I don't think bmi is worthless for the vast majority (of course athletes etc are outliers) just that the range needs to be applied and this is where frame size comes into it.
I think most people on this thread are arguing over what they actually agree on its just the wording that is causing such a discussion0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions