Nienna_Lady_of_Tears
Veteran
- May 25, 2010
- 1,905
- 198
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It really depends on a lot of things what a healthy weight for you is. The BMI is totally nuts for many people.
There are genuinely people who can be a size 0 and look fine, but they're not the majority.
As I've said before, there are also women who cannot really get below size 14 without being underfat. UnderFAT, not necessarily underweight. Underfat for a woman would be below 16% body fat. My BMI is 29 but yet I'm calculated at 19% body fat. Anywhere from 19-25% is considered in optimum range. I'm short but I have the rib cage of a wildebeest and the bone structure of a gorilla. In other words, I'm just LARGE, not fat.
Does the person look LARGE or do they look FAT. That's the question to answer.
There are genuinely people who can be a size 0 and look fine, but they're not the majority.
As I've said before, there are also women who cannot really get below size 14 without being underfat. UnderFAT, not necessarily underweight. Underfat for a woman would be below 16% body fat. My BMI is 29 but yet I'm calculated at 19% body fat. Anywhere from 19-25% is considered in optimum range. I'm short but I have the rib cage of a wildebeest and the bone structure of a gorilla. In other words, I'm just LARGE, not fat.
Does the person look LARGE or do they look FAT. That's the question to answer.
Upvote
0