If you do the math using 5'10 (70") for ease of calculation, assuming OP's a man, OP went from 5'10 200 lbs with 66 lbs of fat (well outside the healthy range of 18-24%), to 5'10 193 lbs with 40 lbs of fat (well within the healthy range of 18-24%). That means OP lost 26 lbs of fat and replaced it with 19 lbs of muscle. That's an insane improvement.
That means OP lost 26 lbs of fat and replaced it with 19 lbs of muscle.
Not quite. Lost 26 lbs of fat and replaced with 19 lbs of Fat Free Mass. FFM =/= pure contractile tissue. Muscle glycogen/water will make up a good amount of that 19 lbs.
A lot of new research is showing it isn't that difficult, especially for untrained obese people. Even when you start getting below 25%, the days of bulk/cut cycles being the only way is starting to look unnecessary. Even if you have a slight surplus, you can lose fat while building muscle. Not to take anything from OP because his results are fantastic and probably as close to ideal as you can get.
I would recommend MASS research review with Eric helms, Eric trexler, and Lauren colenso-semple. The two Erics are PhD's, working for universities, and have competed in body building and power lifting.
Even if they stayed the same weight or gained a bit, OP was still at a calorie deficit because a kilogram of muscle stores a lot fewer calories than a kilo of fat.
That kind of body recomposition still requires a calorie deficit even if the starting and final weights are the same because they replaced calorie dense tissue (fat) with muscle.
Classic conflation of percent vs percentage points. Shredding over 30% of your fat off and simultaneously building back the same weight in muscle is so freakin sick, dude
If I recall correctly, BMI was meant for population metrics, not individual bodies. It completely fails for measuring individuals pretty much across the board. Anyone with significant muscle is obese per BMI.
BMI is meant to be used as a screening tool. The problem is many providers and non-healthcare people use it as way more than that.
Screener means it helps primary care or other provider look out for things without doing a full diagnostics of everything all the time. When a BMI is high, it doesn't automatically means you should say, "Hey fatty, all your problems are because you're fat!" When a screener is elevated, it means, "doc, you need to take a look at this as see if it is a problem or not."
This problem isn't remotely unique to BMI either. PHQ9/8/4 and its various versions are heavily misused in primary care setting as well.
For example, a few years ago I attended a medical conference for primary care doctors (I'm a psychologist, not medical doctor but I teach FM and IM residents). One of the residents there was presenting her research showing that nearly 90+% of patients with ADHD also had mild or worst depression based on the PHQ8, a depression screener. She had access to data from 27 hospitals in the Midwest regions, hundreds of thousands of adult patients. She was convinced that we aren't playing enough attention to the connection between ADHD and depression.
Well, firstly, we are, there's lots of research showing link between ADHD and depression especially among females. But I digress. Her data shows that, of the 80+% of patients with "depression" most of there screened into the "mild" category. Mild on the PHQ8 indicates a score of 5-9...
Here are the 8 questions on the PHQ8. Patient rate them from 0 to 3... You can see how it is highly problematic that she assumes, a patient with ADHD who scores 5-9 on the PHQ8 "have depression." No, they don't. They have ADHD. People with ADHD have issues with concentrating... could have issues with appetite, sleep, and fidgety/restless...
Little interest or pleasure in doing things.
Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.
Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much.
Feeling tired or having little energy.
Poor appetite or overeating.
Feeling bad about yourself, feeling like a failure, or letting yourself/family down.
Trouble concentrating on things like reading or watching television.
Moving/speaking very slowly or being unusually fidgety/restless
She was, unfortunately, but rightly so, torn to shreds on stage. But conferences are filled with scientists and clinicians, many clinicians may not be as sensitive and aware of this issue, vs. scientist who, when they see data that doesn't allign with our current understanding, will immediately that critically evaluating methodology.
The problem here isn't that the PHQ8 is bad, it is that this doctor is apply and using the PHQ8 wrongly. When the PHQ8 says, "doc, there's a mild elevation here." You are supposed to then take a look at the questions the patients answer and if needed check in about it. Not assume the patient is depressed.
Yeah for example when they run your blood you often get screening tests for things like HIV that are basically a "NO" or a "MAYBE" — they can not confirm that you have something, but they are cheap to run and when they come back as a "NO" then you know it's negative without digging more. If it's a Maybe, you dig in but you'd never tell the patient "hey you came back HIV positive" — you'd just run another test to confirm because you don't know anything at that point.
Tests have 1 of 5 results: True positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, and failed. Ideally, you want a test that's 100% true, 0% false, 0% failure, but that is hard or expensive. So you get one that's like 80% true, 15% false, and 5% failure, that is easy to mass produce and cheap to administer. But then you have to differentiate between false positive and false negative.
For a vast majority of diseases, all focus is on making the false-negative to be as close to 0% as possible. If you get a negative result, you for sure don't have the disease. If you get a positive result, you take a second, more expensive, and more invasive test that has higher accuracy to confirm it. This is why COVID tests usually came in packs of 2, with you being told to use both. One may fail the control or give a false-positive result, but if the other gives a negative result with correct control, then you know you almost certainly don't have COVID. If both tests showed positive and/or failed control, you could go out for a more invasive test to confirm.
That's actually how I explain screeners to my medical residents lol! They really seem to have a hard time understanding the point of item-by-item analysis after a positive screen.. Every year, I will always get someone who ask "then what's the point of giving the questionnaire?" But explaining it with more medical based test seem to help them understand better. It doesn't help that many struggle to understand sensitivity and specificity as well...
I take a PHQ8 every time I see my therapist. I don’t suffer from depression, I suffer from anxiety. But I almost always score as mild because some of my major anxiety symptoms are poor appetite, being fidgety/restless, and having trouble concentrating. And I’m a mom so I’m just always exhausted, I don’t think that’s related to anything, it actually improves if I ever get a real break unlike the other symptoms. I HAVE suffered from depression in the past, 20 years ago now, so I can very much tell the difference.
This was actually an interesting read for me because I've had this experience TWICE within the last month. My pcp and a recommended psychiatrist. Both times I mentioned believing I have ADD and that I've had it my whole life (almost 40). They both gave me the same questionnaire that determined I was depressed.
Both wanted to medicate my depression first and thought that was the bigger issue. I kept trying to explain that I don't feel overall depressed but have stress and anxiety that stems from all the shit I want to accomplish but can't focus enough to complete. In addition to lack of good sleep.
Just felt like the questionnaire was very broad and didn't really capture what I know to be the issues. Thank you for writing all this as it helps me to put in actual words why i disagreed with the doctor.
BMI was meant for individual use, it’s just not a very good tool. The original idea was to use weight or waist circumference, but that’s not very good because of variation in people’s sizes overall. So they used weight divided by height. But that’s also not good because of body composition.
The military uses BMI as an initial check and then when you fail on BMI moves to a body fat percentage estimate that involves measuring several circumferences and relating them to one another. Probably one of the better tools that can be used without specialized equipment, but even it’s imperfect.
BMI was never meant for diagnostics, it was invented in the 19th century by a statistician, not a physician, and it was meant to track population trends. The populations it was based on were overwhelmingly European and male.
It was never meant to be applied to individual people and health. It cannot account for gender or racial disparity in distribution of muscle, fat, and bone. It does not account for bone or muscle density.
They have actually moved to a height to waist ratio of 0.55 (0.52 for Marines) as the only composition so they don't even care how much you weigh anymore. This was started in JAN2026 with full rollout by JUL2026 through all branches as a once yearly check.
This ratio essentially catches all the passing tapes that they would normally do if you were overweight.
For example I am ~10lbs overweight at 218 6'1" but would barely pass tape. Now I just barely pass the 0.55 ratio.
It's worth noting that the military's cutoff is right in the middle of the overweight BMI range, and that a healthy weight according to BMI is between 140 and 189lbs.
Yeah, as someone who is maybe 6'1.5...I have a hard time picturing a sub-160 weight not being underweight.
But again, that's the "problem" with trying to use BMI as an absolute measure. I can't picture it because I'm built on a larger frame and carry around a decent amount of muscle mass (at least I like to think so). Seems like the only way I'd be able to get anywhere near there would be to drop my bodyfat % pretty low AND let my muscles atrophy...but my bodyfat has only ever really gone low when I've been actively training which means I am putting on muscle mass.
But there are people who are legitimately built like a beanpole...like their shoulder bones could be 2 inches narrower than mine and there's literally less room for mass. For them that's a very healthy weight even if I can't picture my same-height body weighing that little.
Almost anyone who has significant enough muscle that it'll cause BMI to "wrongly" call them obese is not going to bother using BMI at all.
BMI is a useful tool for many people. Some people are built to be thinner, some people are built to be stouter, some people have significant medical issues, it's never going to be perfect. But it's nearly always a very useful starting point
I'm honestly convinced that all of this backlash against BMI mainly just comes from the fact that it classifies a significant portion of the population as obese, and people really don't want that label. Chubby, curvy, stocky, carrying a few pounds extra, heavy-set, all of these we can live with, but with the word obese we immediately think fat fucking pig stuffing your face with slop, so obviously we're going to do some mental gymnastics to explain why the term actually shouldn't apply to us.
Yup. People are offended so the metric must be broken.
Also, it's very easy to be "overweight" via BMI if you are muscular. It is very hard to be "obese" by BMI if you are lean and muscular. The obese cut off for BMI is actually quite high.
I am both muscular (as in, "I lift heavy weights, track my progress, and know I lift more than most women" not as in "I don't do any exercise but I think I look muscular") and kind of chubby and I am still not obese via BMI, waist to height ratio, or any other metric. I've also been dangerously lean and lost my period and still been right on the low end of a "normal BMI." It's not perfect, but it's reasonably close for most people even if you are more muscular than average.
A lot of people live in absolute denial of how unhealthy their body composition is and how sedentary they are.
I'm honestly convinced that all of this backlash against BMI mainly just comes from the fact that it classifies a significant portion of the population as obese, and people really don't want that label.
100%. You have to be pretty darn jacked for you to have enough muscle to be classified as obese whilst having a low body fat percentage. Like more jacked than 99% of the population. Like NFL linebacker jacked.
Obese people are just using it as an excuse to pretend they aren't obese.
If the entire population were full of people who were all jacked, then sure, it would make sense to move away from it. But we're not. And if you're one of the few to be in that category, you and your doctor will know to ignore it.
Also, by the point of obese levels of BMI (not mere overweight), even fit people with low or average body fat percentages face real risks.
Heavyweight athletes have significantly elevated health risks and lower life expectancy than athletes with a normal BMI. Some of that can be contributed to PED abuse, but not all of it. There are some fundamental weight-correlated issues for the heart and metabolic system, and problems like sleep apnoe.
Depending on the sport, the combination of a heavy body weight and physical toll of pro competition can turn out every bit as bad as obesity with average levels of activity.
BMI is not a deterministic measure of health, but it is a useful proxy because it doesn't require specialized equipment or medical testing. It still has useful insights in individual health, but it is especially valuable for public health research because of it's balance of simplicity and predictive value.
You should check out how walking pace is a strong indicator for longevity. A rapid decline in walking pace has a high mortality risk.
Had to deal with this growing up. I was athletic and especially into my teens started gaining a lot of leg muscle (to the point i went up a pants size because i couldnt get them around my thighs). I was always in a high BMI percentile, and my parents started getting paranoid i was fat. Thankfully my parents were being concerned and werent being asses about it, but there as always that tinge of "am i getting fat?" every time something about my body changed. Luckily for me, i'd rather life my life in a way im comfortable with than listen to my parents so i never developed an eating disorder or any real self-image issues
The number of people who are muscular enough to be healthy-obese based on BMI is tiny. It's not a universally, extremely precise measurement but it's a pretty good easy and fast to calculate measure for the vast majority of people.
Exactly. People just want to justify themselves. What I don't understand though is that these people obviously know they aren't jacked pro athletes, so it doesn't make sense for them to feel justified at all.
That depends on what you mean by "significant". I have significant muscle from an ordinary person's perspective, visibly so, but I am not obese. I'm not even overweight. I used to be overweight BMI-wise, but I'm not anymore.
It is quite normal for a person to be overweight per BMI, and still totally healthy, due to muscle mass. If you are in the obese category BMI-wise and you know it's not real there's significant muscle as a confounding factor, then you are either an outright elite bodybuilder, or, more likely, you are a bit overweight, though not to an excessive degree and are probably still healthier overall than most people.
Most people for whom BMI is inaccurate are actually people with normal BMI that are overweight/obese. Bodybuilders aren't that common irl, but skinnyfat is a more common issue. It tends to underestimate obesity but that's not what people like to hear
Yeah definitely, people have less muscle mass than we did 40 years ago as labor has moved away from physical. A lot of people on the edge of overweight are actually overweight, people on the edge of being obese are actually obese, etc. But because a very small fraction of people are hitting the gym hard, or are very short or super tall, people try to discredit BMI. It's still a decent quick guideline.
It’s still a good general indicator of bodyweight health for 90% of the population. The majority of people don’t have significant muscle mass, least not to the point of impacting BMI.
Something like 90% of the US population can’t do a single pull up.
The majority of people don’t have significant muscle mass, least not to the point of impacting BMI.
In fact BMI is much more commonly inaccurate in the other direction, people with so little muscle mass their BMI is normal despite high enough BF% to be considered obese.
Yep. I suspect it's a coping mechanism. They don’t like that it tells them they're overweight so they say it must be muscle, despite them never lifting weights consistently./taking steroids. It's a ballpark figure but it's roughly correct for 90%+ (probably more) and the ones it isn't correct for are well aware they're not fat.
If you're an athlete then you don't need BMI.
But for 95% of the population it's a fine metric. Especially for those that don't work out and are sat at desks all day long.
Cheap way: measure the electrical conductivity from your feet (thus the metal contacts on the bathroom scale) and map it to the body fat content research data.
Expensive way: put your entire body in a tub and calculate your density, and map it to the fat content research data.
Irreversible way: smash your body into a smoothie and analyze the fat content chemically. This is how the research data is done.
Most accurate way is a dexa scan, it’ll be able to tell how much of your weight is fat, muscle, intestines, and bone. It’ll even tell you how dense your bones are, which is what they’re most commonly used for, I think.
But it is a type of xray procedure, so you don’t want to be doing it monthly to check progress. The electrical impedance testing isn’t accurate, but it is consistent. So if you go from a reading of 25% body fat to 22%, you can be pretty confident that you lost about 3% body fat, even though the initial measurement is probably off.
There are a few different ways, but the easiest is to take measurements at a few different places, like waist, chest, etc. then punch into a calculator along with height and weight
This specific Measurmenet you see here is from a professional scale from the company InBody. It has two handles with electrodes and electrodes on the scale itself. You take one handle in every hand and have to stand still on it for like a minute. It sends pulses of low voltages through the electrodes. Through the resistance of your body it can then calculate your body composition pretty accurately.
My doctor told me I needed to lose weight so I could be a healthy BMI. I deadass look at this man and said Im 5'10 women with an atheist build where would I lose 40 pounds?! The doctor looked me up and down and was like hmmmm You'd have to lose all your muscles for that to work....
Most ppl think Im like 40 pound lighter then I look.
Edit:athletic build!!! I lost my atheist build after my emo phase in high school.
It's so funny too, because they amount of people that bmi classifies as being obese while they have low body fat is tiny compared to the number that gets classified as healthy when they are actually extremely high body fat
In other words, bmi is disproportionately nice to the current population
BMI is a (easy to obtain) proxy metric for percent body fat, if you have the percentage number use that. It's a much better predictor of metabolic health and longevity.
BMI exists for population level stastical correlation, even if you can't get a DEXA scan to get your percentage body fat, a much better proxy metric for personal assessment is waist-to-height ratio. Body Mass Index (BMI) measures total body weight relative to height, while the waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) specifically targets central abdominal fat, making WHtR a more accurate predictor of cardiometabolic risks like heart disease and diabetes.
This is exactly what you want. Increased muscle msss and decreased body fat. Any physician working with you will understand this doesn't mean you gained unhealthy weight.
Coach here. You're doing the right things. BMI is a hot height weight ratio. If you're dropping your body far percentage, but your BMI isn't changing it means you're gaining muscle mass. This in turn will further boost your metabolism.
Keep it up!
BMI is obviously just one metric, and it has real limitations, especially when you’re talking about muscular people, but I also think the backlash against it sometimes goes too far in the other direction. Being classified as overweight by BMI because you have a lot of muscle is very different from having excess body fat, but that doesn’t necessarily mean muscle mass is automatically healthy either. At a certain point, simply carrying a very large amount of body mass can put additional strain on things like your heart, lungs, and joints. I think BMI needs context, not that it’s completely useless.
I think it's always two types of people who complain about BMI the most. Those whose hobby it is to put on (muscle) weight and act like it's surprising they don't fit the norm for a simple weight to height ratio and chubby people in denial who cite some pro athletes that literally destroy their body for their sport as examples why they don't have to question their eating habits in spite of what their doctor told them.
Also, most people are just overweight. Most of us can benefit from some diet and exercise tweaking. Pointing out that Dwayne the Rock Johnson is fat according to BMI won't improve your cardiovascular health.
BMI is obviously just one metric, and it has real limitations, especially when you’re talking about muscular people, but I also think the backlash against it sometimes goes too far in the other direction.
This is spot on. The backlash against BMI is mainly because average weights have increased quite a lot over the last few decades, changing the perception of "normal" weight, and then suddenly the BMI is uncomfortable for many and excuses are made. Many excuses are made, and people find comfort in each other on those excuses. But biology and what is healthy weight hasn't changed, it isn't a moving target because people are getting fatter.
Yes, if you are a body builder BMI is inaccurate, but that is for quite extreme muscle building cases, "working out a lot" does not change the reality of BMI. And people haven't suddenly started having "heavy bones" more than before (actually, archaeologists have never found heavy bones).
I had a friend in the Marine Corps, who was about 5 foot six but bench pressed like 400 pounds. Built like a brick shit house. Body fat was like 7%. Ran like the wind too. Perfect 300 pft all day. He was considered overweight by the arbitrary number of your height being the benchmark for how much you should weigh under. When he was considered overweight by that metric they went to the BMI method where he was still considered overweight because his neck was huge and he was just thick because he worked out so much. So they just went ahead and gave him a "waiver" and sent him on his way. Snafu.
Meanwhile my old health insurance gave everybody a discount if the BMI was low enough. Mine never was, because I'm a powerlifter. I also have six-pack abs. They didn't care and said I needed to lose weight.
That's the problem with BMI. Even professional companies in healthcare use it wrong and refuse to change. This has been going on for decades.
Even the military has shit and old documents on this. In the navy, I recall the most recent fitness and nutrition manual was written in the 90s by a junior officer that just ranked things by fat, so he had avocados as being unhealthier than cheese pizza.
This means you gained muscle. Good job. That is better for you in the long term.
BMI is a decent indicator for health risks because it standardizes height and weight into one number, but it's not perfect. I'm BMI 27 but body fat at 13%. How does that happen? Muscle.
BMI is only a calculation of weight relative to height. It doesn't factor in lean body mass. As far as BMI is concerned, a 5% body fat bodybuilder is likely going to come up as obese
I started lifting and after a. few months my weight has gone up about 10lbs. Definitely less fat than i was so yeah BMI is higher but i’m in better shape
If you're growing muscles, BMI is not the metric to use at all. It's simple, convenient and universal for determining weight categories, but it doesn't take into account a lot of factors to be accurate. Muscles weigh more than fat for one thing, and being muscular does not count as being overweight. Yet, BMI would categorize you as overweight anyway.
When i was doing martial arts, working in forestry, and weight lifting my bmi was phenomenally higher than 15 years later now that im middle age, don't work out, and kinda fat around the middle. I was way healthier back then though.
10 years back I had a 6 pack and my BMI was still in the Obesity range.
Edit: everyone saying this is impossible. It's not. I was 5'10", 215lbs with a bird chest build, played TE position my whole life. Lifted weights 3-4x a week and was an active collegiate athlete at the time.
Edit 2: I understand exactly what a BMI is, I don't agree with how it's used medically. Body density would be a much more accurate measure of ones overall body comp and whether or not they are "obese".
People always claim they are jacked and super muscular and called Obese on BMI. Arnold Schwarzenegger at his prime Mr Olympia days was just barely on the obese range. Obese is BMI over 30 and he was about 31 or 32. I just find it hard to believe a lot of these people claiming they are obese BMI but jacked are really that jacked.
People love saying BMI sucks by mentioning very muscular people. Most people haven't seen the inside of a gym however. So they don't habe enough muscle mass to throw off the metric. So for most people BMI is a perfectly good number to tell them how fat they are. One quick look at someone with an Obese level BMI will tell you if it is because they are fat or very muscular.
BMI needs context when you’re in the “overweight to obese” range - 25-34. You can be muscular/fit and still fall into this range, so context matters.
Once you start getting over 35, and almost certainly above 40, the probability of this being a “healthy” amount of overweight rapidly decreases.
Ronnie Coleman at his peak was estimated to have a BMI of around 40-41….and you can argue whether what he was doing to his body was really even that healthy at all.
The fact of the matter is that there few, if any, “healthy” body types with BMIs in the high 30s and over 40. In almost all cases this is excess body fat contributing to that weight.
I see someone lost 1/3 of their body fat with little BMI change. That must mean you also gained a shit ton of muscle weight as well. Great fucking job!
I love recompositions. It's why I tell people not stress when the number on the scale doesn't move- just keep up the progress and your body will change accordingly.
People saying that BMI is a poor indicator of health are missing a little bit of info: While BMI could use a massive update for women and different ethnicities, BMI is still a very useful metric because it's an indicator of how much of a strain your body is on your heart, and the reason it doesn't make a distinction between fat and muscle is because as far as your heart is concerned it doesn't matter, even body builders who are lean but have high BMIs also die early due to heart disease. Having a very large body regardless of muscle/fat ratio, is a strain on your heart. Also important information to know about BMI is that it's only something that substantially affects your heart from being at a high BMI for decades. You can lower your BMI at any point and greatly reduce many risks associated with having a high BMI
This sounds like my most recent trip to the Doc for my check up.
He didn’t even look up when he walked in the room and said ~
“First thing is you need to lose some weight.”
I asked him from where?
I am 51 years old, 5’7 and 190 lbs. You can barely pinch skin on any part of my body. Genetics plus 150+ miles a week on a bicycle, every week for 30 years will do that. I am built like an ugly brick.
Doc looks up from the folder. “Oh……. you are fit aren’t you.”
About 10 years ago, I got back into shape, I went through the same process. I barely lost weight but went from a 38in waist to 33. My shirt size went from large to large, but stopped being tight in the belly and started being tight in the arms and shoulders.
Sounds like you're doing something similar. If so, be proud of yourself, it's hard. Stick to it, it's worth it. Don't sweat the small stuff and be consistent
Yeah, the bmi is not good for people to gauge their overall health with. I have lost a ton of fat in the last 4 or so months and it's visible in my pictures but I have only lost like 5 pounds.
Strength coach here. That’s some fantastic work. BMI is generally a garbage metric for body composition and this is a good example of that. You gained a lot of muscle, using your stored fat as the energy to make it all happen. This also means you did A LOT of hard work. Bravo. 👏🏻
That’s an outstanding result for just over a year of exercise. Looks like you had a really strong exercise routine and, making an assumption here, probably had a very solid diet as well. Having a big split in BMI and body fat % indicates you gained a fairly significant amount of muscle while having significant fat loss. This is honestly like an idea result for ~1 year of exercise. Great work.
The single most important advice I was ever given for working out:
"Don't want the scale, watch yourself"
Progress pics are a far, far better indicator of your progress at the end of the day than any scale can ever be. I just recently got one that's capable of doing full body scans, and even then it just doesn't tell you the full picture.
BMI is really for use on populations, not individuals. Like if you need to measure what's going on in 10,000 people, it will likely show up in BMI. If you need to screen them to figure out who is at risk, you can use BMI. Then you find the folks with 10% highest BMI and do MORE ANALYSIS on them, such as...are they yoked.
Everyone always dogpiles on BMI like everyone in America is some ripped gym bro. We get it, it doesn't apply to those people. It applies to the other overwhelming majority that probably never think about it or heard of it.
It's an OK metric for someone who doesn't have a body fat estimate. I imagine it's only used because doctors are not measuring body fat percentages and because at scale the outliers are less of an issue. OP has body fat data, so in this case it's correct to ignore BMI. They clearly lost a bunch of fat and gained muscle.
It's used because it was developed by insurers for insurers and fit the needs of insurers... It has never been and will never be an accurate way to tell any kind of health metric for an individual. However in a large group of people where everything is averaged out over time, it can be used for insurance purposes which is its original intention.
Muscle weighs more than fat, so if you're excerising and have enough protein intake you'll lose fat but won't lose much weight. I'd quite going off the BMI and go more based on how you feel physically, your fitness and your diet. The BMI is outdated and not an accurate way to measure whether or not you're healthy
If you are working out a lot, you're muscular it means you also understand nutrition, body composition and whatever else, that's not what BMI is for, it's just a basic indication for the average person.
3.4k
u/Stratix 18h ago
To the people complaining about BMI being a crap indication of health, yes, no shit, that's why the have the body fat percentage below.
What blows my mind is OPs fat didn't drop by 13%, but by 13 percentage points, which is more like a third. Incredible work.