... Do you know what BMI is? It's just a index made from the positive correlation of people's height, weight, and body fat%. It should be OBVIOUS that an actual body fat % value is better than using a table of indexes.
Regarding the constant argument that BMI is 'not accurate'.
How can a person get an accurate body fat percentage without stepping into a hospital and waiting in line? Purchase a DEXA scan machine? Pinch method is hardly accurate. There just isn't a way to obtain such numbers without visiting a hospital with the equipment.
And that is why BMI is good enough for the majority of a population. That's why it will continue being used. Maybe they'll add waist:hip, waist:height just to make you more insecure.
It's ironic you'd say that, because shoulder:waist:hip measurements would actually be a really good way to communicate the information that BMI is intended to communicate.
Body fat percentage. If you read studies about why BMI was invented it will tell you that it is not designed for individuals, but to get a quick idea of the general fitness of a group of people.
BMI is a great tool for the non gym going individuals or people that don't often work out.
The best indicator of the two choices listed above is body fat percentage. Although they are both flawed. BMI does not take extra muscle mass into consideration and body fat percentage does not take into to account cardiovascular health or "skinny fat" people.
Alone neither of them are very good but combined with each other and other tests they are very useful tools.
Definitely body fat percentage. BMI can be very misleading. According to BMI a body builder would be considered obese when the majority of their weight would be muscle and muscle weighs more than fat.
I think body fat percentage... I don't know but from what I can gather the BMI thing doesn't take muscle and bone into account, right? So it's not really a valid indication of health.
Body fat percentage is more reliable, and even though BMI can be misleading (buff guys can be considered obese), it's a good indicator of the amount of strain being placed on the heart.
body fat % my bmi tells me i'm underweight but then my body fat % tells me i'm good. bmi doesn't work for people with small or big frames
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
BMI doesn't show health, it is simply a measure of obesity. If you are above a cut off point you're overweight. Though it can have some correlations with health, for example as BMI increases so does the rate of heart disease and diabetes.
That makes sense, But how accurate it BMI tho? I recently had a conversation with someone and they were mentioning that based on BMI plus sized models are healthier than VS models.
BMI is very accurate for the average human. People who have a lot of muscle mass tend to throw it off but other than that as an exception it works relatively well for a quick diagnostic tool sort of like most other diagnostic tools which don't always belie immediate problems.
As for plus-sized models having healthier BMIs that is completely possible. Let's say the range for a woman is 14%~26%, right? So if the plus-sized model has 28% and the VS model has 10% who is further from the ideal range? Blah blah math, but you understand.
Possible? Yes. Rare? Very. Keep in mind that it's your height and your weight so if you are very tall but weight very little and aren't comprised of muscle maybe your best bet is having hollow bones.
Yep. Fat, thin, rich, poor, selfish, selfless, ambitious, docile, it all has changed over and over and over again. Light and dark, polkadots or stripes, friendly or friendless, rogue or knight, same old song in a different era.
The only constant are things untouched and impossible to hinder such as sexuality itself.
So you don't think there's any truth to the golden ratio masks? or that there are certian hip-waist ratios (for women) /shoulder to waist ratios (for men) that we naturally prefer?
We only like it because the media shows them to us? not the other way around? (the media shows them because we like them)?
In regards to weight, I remember reading something along the lines of... in times were food is hard to come by and people are hungry we will prefer bodies with higher boy fat %'s because that is a sign of thriving under those conditions and in time where food is easier to come by and people are well fed we prefer bodies with lower body fat %'s...
Those patterns would be biologically based. That would fall under the same notions as sexuality. The Golden Ratio is a discovery versus a decision. Also, one key thing to understand is there is no "The Media"; you are living media, I am, this website is, all the opinions, everything, because word of mouth is by far the strongest way to spread ideas and there is no actual distinction between when you begin and this mass media ends. In the case of the chicken and the egg it's the timewarped mushy nasty thing in between.
That I can't say anything about. I neither agree nor disagree because I am not certain this would be the case. The recent Victorian Era wasn't necessarily wrought with famine but the nobles still lived fat as that was proof of success and fashionable at the time. Also there are cultures today where food is plentiful but being fat for women is attractive. Two light counterexamples?
I know its a discovery but how definitive is it? Is it proven that we innately find faces that are closer to fitting the mask more attractive?
With "the media" I hear people say things like "the only reason we find certain faces and body types attractive is because advertisements, tv, and movies constantly use them". So it seems like they are implying the media makes us find those faces/bodies attractive.
Also If its true we find certain hip to waist ratios or shoulder to waist ratios more attractive then wouldn't that mean we would find certain body fat %'s more attractive since those ratios would be more likely to occur at certain fat %'s?
"recent Victorian Era wasn't necessarily wrought with famine but the nobles still lived fat as that was proof of success and fashionable at the time." Not wrought with famine but food wasn’t as abundant as it is now and hasn’t the preference for skinnier body types been more of a modern thing? Also do we know fat is what most people then actually found attractive? Or could it be that they found fat people desirable because they were nobles and not actually because being fat is visually appealing/arousing.
"there are cultures today where food is plentiful but being fat for women is attractive." Which cultures are you referring to?
Well, it's beauty, not attractiveness; we are more attracted to people who are similar to us but find people, objects, and art more beautiful when closer to the ratio. At least if I haven't lost my edge that is; I might be getting old and mentally decrepit. And those who talk about the media as if it were something they were not part of are fools; popular ideas are nothing more than the amassed acceptance by the majority, the meta, the core view or the principal philosophy. Communication is a reflection, not a deflection, of opinion and desire but mass comm often gets confused with personal comm so a person may say "I do not believe 100% of that! Only 2%!" but the message is an amalgamation of thousands of the same types of beliefs slowly puzzled together. Hence: Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey.
As for specific body fat ratios, no, because that's not tied to your physical shape. A pear shaped woman for instance may always have "wide hips" no matter her BF% and a thin woman may never.
As for the Victorian era that is all recent history so there are no needs to try and unravel the secrets of what's not that old. Status and whatnot was etched into journals that were in fine condition and written in English which is currently the primary language of much of the world. Being fat equated being of high status equated being sexy for some reason then; I am not one to worry where trends come from sadly so I can't tell you why that arose. Also, food, I can't say; I know they weren't starving but dietary standards have greatly changed in the past 300~400 years.
Finally: (https://www. marieclaire. com/politics/news/a3513/forcefeeding-in-mauritania/) It is a thing in Arabic and some African lands.
True, but I think there is somewhat of a link. Its possible to be beautiful and have people who are NOT attracted to you, however I think in order to be attractive you need to be at least somewhat beautiful.
Or in other words, having an appearance that fits the conventional beauty ratios does not guarantee that everyone will find you to be irresistible but it does increase the overall number of people who will be attracted to you. And those whose appearances significantly deviate from those ratios will be unlikely to be considered attractive by many people. Im not sure if I explained that clearly but I tried :/ You Disagree?
“I might be getting old and mentally decrepit” But that means Im only 5 years away from being old and decrepit :((
A pear shaped woman for instance may always have "wide hips" no matter her BF%
True, part of it is due to bone structure but the point was even if you have the right bone structure for those ratios, you also need to be within a certain body fat threshold for the ratios to be visible. So for those ratios to be visible, you need to 1. have the right bone structure AND 2. Be under a certain bodyfat %.
“Being fat equated being of high status equated being sexy for some reason then” What I am asking is: were they actually sexually attracted to those people because they were fat…or were they just attracted to them because they were nobles and nobles just happened to be fat. So was it the status of being a noble that made them attractive while being fat isn’t actually sexually desirable in and of itself.
Mauritania is an area known for drought and famine so I don’t see how it disproves the idea of fatness primarily being desirable in resource scarce environments. Also it just seems like they did it so they could fatten up their young daughter so they would seem more mature/fertile and also improve their value as status objects for the men who they would be married off to.
While I am not foolish enough to say that you are wrong relating to beauty and attractiveness I am not so certain that having a golden ratio necessarily effects the number of people who adore you. Many of the world's current models do not have the 16:10 and no one disowns them as lesser, some not even necessarily close. So I'd perhaps revise the weight of the ratio rather than the reality that it matters.
As you are "boring" the rate at which you will burn out is significantly slower. Congratulations!
As for there being a BF% limit that isn't so. Ratios are annoying because they can be scaled so a skyscraper can have 16:10 just as much a microscopic diorama. This means that a person when thin and a person when fat can, if they change in respective amounts, maintain the ratio regardless of size or fat content. It just isn't true. Unfortunately you can also gain the ratio at unhealthy BF% and lose it as you lose weight or vice versa.
I can't say anything about how the attraction system worked then. Not only was I not there but human behavior in attraction is rarely linear. No matter how good looking you are people being attracted to you solely based on your looks is going to be rather common bar abnormalities and deformities, so even the average joe will get stares, and usually preconceptions dictate much of this. Another long-winded subject for another day (Romantic Psych).
"Also it just seems like they did it so they could fatten up their young daughter so they would seem more mature/fertile and also improve their value as status objects for the men who they would be married off to." <- This.
"Mauritania is an area known for drought and famine so I don’t see how it disproves the idea of fatness primarily being desirable in resource scarce environments." <- Disproves that.
While thankfully the tradition is dying out it has nothing to do with scarcity and is purely cultural else it'd effect both sexes.
I don’t think it’s a perfect correlation but I do think that faces that are close to it generally would attract more people than those that significantly deviate from it. The mid face points probably hold the most weight tho..
Could you give examples of the models whose faces are not even close but are still considered very attractive?
But when I said I was boring you said I was a “lying bastard” and that the correct answer was that I am exciting which means I’ll burn out significantly faster :(((
“Unfortunately you can also gain the ratio at unhealthy BF% and lose it as you lose weight or vice versa.”
-That’s very true, but wouldn’t it be less likely to show up in individuals with really high body fat %’s? Like once you reach a certain threshold most people seem to have pumpkin shaped bodies.
“so even the average joe will get stares, and usually preconceptions dictate much of this.
-Really? I think only people who deviate from the norm (good looking or ugly) will get stares.
“Another long-winded subject for another day (Romantic Psych)” -Why not write a take on it :p
("Mauritania is an area known for drought and famine so I don’t see how it disproves the idea of fatness primarily being desirable in resource scarce environments." <- Disproves that.)
-Im confused… My original point was that fatness is primarily desirable in resource scarce environments. Then you said “ there are cultures today where food is plentiful but being fat for women is attractive.” And when I asked for an example you gave Mauritania which is allegedly a resource scarce environment :/
For an example: Angelina Jolie doesn't have a Golden Ratio face. IIRC neither did Audrey Hepburn. Two very famous models from different eras to show that it isn't something just discovered and conceived with layovers from the current generation. Keep in mind that "close" is subjective so minor deviations in the nose, eyes, or other elements may cause distortions that might bring about just discarding the variation. Esp. true considering what it measures which is only 4 elements of the face. If taking the body that could take hours since you've got models, male and female, all day to go through who don't match up.
However you are correct that the more ratios you have the more beautiful you'd be to a certain degree if considering the mask.
The correct answer was "exciting" however you are that gentle excitement. Slow burning. >_>
As for it's likelihood of showing up combined with BF% I'll say "maybe".
The reason I am going "maybe" is because there are no actual ways to tell unless we go completely blob-like how that would turn out. I mean what body fat % is really the limit between blob and non-blob? I've no idea. So within a certain frame you're just likely right.
Most people are attracted to people who are similar in "score" or looks, hence the population of the Earth, so while many beautiful or hideous persons get more attention they get fewer actual stares of interest. Basically people are hunting for realistic partners even if they acknowledge the extremes.
( www.cia.gov/.../mr.html ) It is nowhere as bad as you are making it out to be. People aren't just dying left and right there though the scarcest resources seem to be related to physicians and expertise rather than food or water since over half of even the most remote areas have clean (er) water. Death rate isn't exceptionally high either. Undeveloped countries are not hellholes lacking civilization.
I don’t think anyone has a perfect match to it, and as I said its not a perfect correlation but I do think it plays somewhat of a role in how attractive people find you, like those who score >6 will on average be considered more attractive than those who are below 6. Id also be willing to bet most of the people who are considered conventionally unattractive score within the 1-4 range.
- Im not sure but I think they currently count all ratios/points as being equally as important for the total score which is why Angelina lost points for face width and lip size but I feel like in application, certain ratios probably hold more weight than others, for example, eye shape/placement. Agree/disagree?
A slow burring excitement, wow :o
“So within a certain frame you're just likely right. ” -Finally! You agree with me on something!
“Most people are attracted to people who are similar in "score" or looks…”
-Well first, if you disagree with my position that there is a noteworthy correlation between beauty ratios and attractiveness then how is this score objectively determined? Second, I don’t think ugly people are attracted to other ugly people just because they happen to have “similar scores”. Or let’s say you had a good looking person who suddenly became disfigured in an accident, I don’t think they would have a newfound attraction to ugly people.
With your second point I guess it depend on what you mean by “stares of actual interest” but I do think it’s fairly common for people to be legitimately interested in people who are more attractive/in demand than they are. Sure most end up failing and eventually settling for more realistic options but that doesn’t mean they were never actually interested.
That being said I can see it being better to be slightly above average, like 7/10 rather than a 9 since you get the extra benefits of being above average but at the same time you aren’t soo attractive that you're intimidating or seem out of reach. Also if you're set on being with an equal, its easier to find people in your league if you're a 7 than it would be if you were a 9.
On the topic of fat bodies being more desirable in resource scare environments, why did you say “That I can't say anything about. I neither agree nor disagree because I am not certain this would be the case.” But as the conversation has gone on it seems more like you firmly disagree?
People aren't just dying left and right, but 40% is supposedly below the poverty line.
I surrender! My mind is just not able to focus atm and probably will be doomed to awkward short answers for a while. I mean talking about the State of Marituania and their poverty rate compared to the US which is 15.1% and then comparing populations to show that the US has many more than Marituania and so forth and so on with PPP and economics and then Brad Pitts face.
Most Helpful Opinions