well considering a kg of muscle weighs more than a kg of fat your BMI could say you were obese if you were huge enough

>>35300331
To be fair if you are classifiable as obese due to muscle it would be pretty obvious at a glance that it is simply due to muscle.

File: 1385513158789.jpg (33 KB, 430x388) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 430x388

>>35300331
>a kg of muscle weighs more than a kg of fat

1kg =/= 1kg?

I have never seen an actually muscular person complain about BMI. They don't need to. It's obvious that they are muscular. The only people who complain about BMI are fat women who "totally have tons of muscle under a layer of fat unlike those skinny bitches" and that's the real reason they weigh two hundred and forty pounds.

>>35300331
wew

>>35300356
I think the Rock is classified as morbidly obese by the bmi scale

>>35300409
kek

>>35300409
oooooh shit RETARD ALERT>>35300304

>>35300442
I saw, kek

BMI works for about 80% of people.

The top ~5% are athletes that are lean and pro, and are better off than BMI suggests. The bottom ~15% are skinnyfat and worse off than BMI suggests.

BF% is a more reliable metric, but taking height/weight is a lot easier than finding the mass of someone suspended in water, and calipers are cumbersome.

The handheld BF% electronic scanners aren't accurate enough.

The average fattie in denial is just that. There is no hidden muscle all their layers of blubber. Just more blubber.

It's an excellent method of getting a general idea. Obviously, there are going to be outliers (which are extremely rare) like men who are extremely muscular, but fatties tend to build a mountain out of nothing and over-exaggerate the outlier to support their viewpoint. Hence their stance that "it's not accurate."

>>35300409
awww shit i fucked up, you have bested me good sir

>>35300474
OP here, my preconception is that they're in denial too.