How can I improve my body? (picture)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Andy98
OK then, news to me. Either way, from a guy with little to no medical knowledge, she looks amazing
Right :/
Right :/
Hey no worries sorry if that was a bit blunt. It's just, because a few rugby players and body builders make the BMI scale look stupid because they're classified as morbidly obese, it is still useful for a lot of people.
When you are recovering from an ED your BMI is extremely important as due to malnutrition and lack of calories for a sustained period of time you are likely to have very little muscle mass which is what skews BMI. Recovery often involves reaching a target BMI as weight is not as good a measure because of height variety. Especially when some girls are 4ft10 and some are 6ft2. Obviously girls are taller and shorter than that at the extremes but Yknow what I'm saying.
Original post by DiddyDec
So posting on a site where someone would get at the very least a warning from posting something other than positives is a much better plan?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Have people had warnings for all their 'positive' posts saying she looks hot and having no regard for she is actually thinking and feeling?!
Out of all the people saying positive but purely physical observations there are a couple who have genuinely given OP thorough and appropriate advice. And that is helpful if she can sift through all the people saying she's an attention seeker.
Original post by Emily.97
I dont quite understand how you can think you're chubby and all that nonsense- seems to me like you know what the responses on this thread are gonna be.
This ^^
Original post by EtherealNymph22
Shameless
Reported, is the word I'd use.
Original post by Mactotaur
Got sources and studies for that? It works unless you're very short, very tall, or have as much muscle as the Rock. None of which apply to the OP.
BMI is nothing more than a veerrrry rough indicator. It only considers height and weight when spitting a number back out at you.
Two people can be the same height yet one can be very thick jointed with a broad skeletal structure and the other can be very narrow with thin joints and bones. They might have to have a BMI difference of 3-4 points just to 'look' the same in terms of body composition.
Only need to take a short walk through any high street to see the vast variety in skeletal shapes people take even at the same height.
Original post by In One Ear
BMI is nothing more than a veerrrry rough indicator. It only considers height and weight when spitting a number back out at you.
Two people can be the same height yet one can be very thick jointed with a broad skeletal structure and the other can be very narrow with thin joints and bones. They might have to have a BMI difference of 3-4 points just to 'look' the same in terms of body composition.
Only need to take a short walk through any high street to see the vast variety in skeletal shapes people take even at the same height.
Two people can be the same height yet one can be very thick jointed with a broad skeletal structure and the other can be very narrow with thin joints and bones. They might have to have a BMI difference of 3-4 points just to 'look' the same in terms of body composition.
Only need to take a short walk through any high street to see the vast variety in skeletal shapes people take even at the same height.
Like I said, sources and studies, if you don't mind.
I'm not saying this just to make yourself feel better but I'm the same height as you and you're my ideal weight! Don't lose anymore weight just maintain it by exercise but don't go overboard with it 
Original post by Mactotaur
Like I said, sources and studies, if you don't mind.
You what mate? BMI is just weight (kg) over height squared (m) - nothing more than an arbitrary metric that, most of the time, gives a ballpark as to someones body composition.
No one wastes their time and actually 'studies' the relationship between bone structure and ideal BMI because it is entirely self evident- the thinner your bones and narrower your structure, the lower your 'ideal' BMI, the thicker your bones and broader your structure, the higher your ideal BMI.
Are you telling me two blokes at 6ft, one with 6 inch wrists and 8 inch ankles and visibly very narrow narrow clavicles, and one with 9 inch wrists and 11 inch ankles and a really broad clavicles have the same 'ideal' BMI just because they are both 6ft? Their ideal weights are probably a good 10kg apart!
Of course also muscle and fat are not differentiated by BMI which is another severe shortcoming.
In short, its a pretty **** metric, that was probably just intended as a very rough preliminary gauge, which then got some public limelight, and is now touted as the be all and end all by the masses who have no real idea what they are talking about.
Original post by In One Ear
You what mate? BMI is just weight (kg) over height squared (m) - nothing more than an arbitrary metric that, most of the time, gives a ballpark as to someones body composition.
No one wastes their time and actually 'studies' the relationship between bone structure and ideal BMI because it is entirely self evident- the thinner your bones and narrower your structure, the lower your 'ideal' BMI, the thicker your bones and broader your structure, the higher your ideal BMI.
Are you telling me two blokes at 6ft, one with 6 inch wrists and 8 inch ankles and visibly very narrow narrow clavicles, and one with 9 inch wrists and 11 inch ankles and a really broad clavicles have the same 'ideal' BMI just because they are both 6ft? Their ideal weights are probably a good 10kg apart!
Of course also muscle and fat are not differentiated by BMI which is another severe shortcoming.
In short, its a pretty **** metric, that was probably just intended as a very rough preliminary gauge, which then got some public limelight, and is now touted as the be all and end all by the masses who have no real idea what they are talking about.
No one wastes their time and actually 'studies' the relationship between bone structure and ideal BMI because it is entirely self evident- the thinner your bones and narrower your structure, the lower your 'ideal' BMI, the thicker your bones and broader your structure, the higher your ideal BMI.
Are you telling me two blokes at 6ft, one with 6 inch wrists and 8 inch ankles and visibly very narrow narrow clavicles, and one with 9 inch wrists and 11 inch ankles and a really broad clavicles have the same 'ideal' BMI just because they are both 6ft? Their ideal weights are probably a good 10kg apart!
Of course also muscle and fat are not differentiated by BMI which is another severe shortcoming.
In short, its a pretty **** metric, that was probably just intended as a very rough preliminary gauge, which then got some public limelight, and is now touted as the be all and end all by the masses who have no real idea what they are talking about.
Like me and your good self
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by In One Ear
You what mate? BMI is just weight (kg) over height squared (m) - nothing more than an arbitrary metric that, most of the time, gives a ballpark as to someones body composition.
No one wastes their time and actually 'studies' the relationship between bone structure and ideal BMI because it is entirely self evident- the thinner your bones and narrower your structure, the lower your 'ideal' BMI, the thicker your bones and broader your structure, the higher your ideal BMI.
Are you telling me two blokes at 6ft, one with 6 inch wrists and 8 inch ankles and visibly very narrow narrow clavicles, and one with 9 inch wrists and 11 inch ankles and a really broad clavicles have the same 'ideal' BMI just because they are both 6ft? Their ideal weights are probably a good 10kg apart!
Of course also muscle and fat are not differentiated by BMI which is another severe shortcoming.
In short, its a pretty **** metric, that was probably just intended as a very rough preliminary gauge, which then got some public limelight, and is now touted as the be all and end all by the masses who have no real idea what they are talking about.
No one wastes their time and actually 'studies' the relationship between bone structure and ideal BMI because it is entirely self evident- the thinner your bones and narrower your structure, the lower your 'ideal' BMI, the thicker your bones and broader your structure, the higher your ideal BMI.
Are you telling me two blokes at 6ft, one with 6 inch wrists and 8 inch ankles and visibly very narrow narrow clavicles, and one with 9 inch wrists and 11 inch ankles and a really broad clavicles have the same 'ideal' BMI just because they are both 6ft? Their ideal weights are probably a good 10kg apart!
Of course also muscle and fat are not differentiated by BMI which is another severe shortcoming.
In short, its a pretty **** metric, that was probably just intended as a very rough preliminary gauge, which then got some public limelight, and is now touted as the be all and end all by the masses who have no real idea what they are talking about.
Anything from an 18.5 BMI up to a 24.9 BMI is considered "normal". This is to account for differences in bone structure, muscle mass etc.
your body is fine, don't lose weight. Eat at maintenance calories and start lifting.
Original post by indigochild
I feel really uncomfortable in my own skin at the moment; to be honest I feel kinda chubby (I used to suffer from anorexia so a healthy weight feels strange to me still). I currently weigh 48kg/106lbs at 5'3.5" or 161.5cm. Part of me kinda wants to get down to 100lbs but then the other half of me wants to just be this weight and tone up ahaahh I'm just confused and would like a strangers honest opinion about what I should do regarding becoming happier in my body. Please don't try and sexualise this post. Thank you )
)Your have a respectably good body shape. Just stay on tope of it. I wouldn't loose too much if i was you!
Original post by anonwinner
Anything from an 18.5 BMI up to a 24.9 BMI is considered "normal". This is to account for differences in bone structure, muscle mass etc.
But there is both a population normal range and a normal range for a particular individual in the population and any quoted "normal" range cannot possibly always include both whilst giving accurate feedback to everyone in the population.
Say 18.5-24.9 is a good approximation for the variance in the population for a persons 'optimal' BMI for health.
Now take a person, for instance of exceedingly narrow and thin build who sits at the 18.5 BMI point for 'optimal' health. At 18.5 BMI this person is optimally healthy, but obviously this person has a range that goes above and below this BMI a bit, say 17-20, where the person is still classified as "normally" healthy.
So this individual, whos optimal BMI sits just within the lower bound for general population normal, could be healthy at a BMI below what is considered healthy for almost everyone else, so gets told they are underweight when actually considering his/her build they are fine. This could happen in reverse at the top of the range of BMI too.
Either the range of "normal" BMI is constructed as thus, or it already includes the lower and upper limits of acceptability for an individuals who are already at population extremes even at their optimal BMI, in which case it falsely gives the rest of the population readings of being "normal" when at the bottom of the range when actually they are too light, or vice versa with being too heavy and the top, because really, those numbers are only acceptable as the extremes for those who are already on the extreme edges of normal variance.
BMI also encourages nonsensical black and white thinking in the general population, whereby people view things such as 24.8 as 'healthy BMI, don't need to worry about anything' and 25 as 'omg I need to lose weight' when really its all just a gradual continuum either side of an optimal weight.
In short, its a metric that doesn't give a whole lot of information, and is overly abused. Thats why when people ask if they should lose/gain weight and provide a BMI, people often ask for pictures instead, because truthfully between a visual representation of the body and an honest introspective assessment of how healthy you feel, a lot better judgement can be made.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by indigochild
I suffer(ed) from an eating disorder - not too long ago I was at a bmi of 14 so of course gaining two stone makes me *feel* a bit chubby, simply because of the extra weight on my bones that I'm still not completely used to. I know I'm not chubby, there's a difference between saying I'm chubby and saying I feel chubby.
I understand that you suffered from an eating disorder.
I think comments such as this are slightly inconsiderate, when there are likely to be others who read that, see your picture, and are indeed "chubby" or "overweight" themselves. I cant help but look at your picture and wander whether you realise how much of a good position you're in compared to others who really do have a reason to be insecure.
But i dont want to compliment you because i sense that you're fishing for them
Original post by In One Ear
You what mate? BMI is just weight (kg) over height squared (m) - nothing more than an arbitrary metric that, most of the time, gives a ballpark as to someones body composition.
No one wastes their time and actually 'studies' the relationship between bone structure and ideal BMI because it is entirely self evident- the thinner your bones and narrower your structure, the lower your 'ideal' BMI, the thicker your bones and broader your structure, the higher your ideal BMI.
Are you telling me two blokes at 6ft, one with 6 inch wrists and 8 inch ankles and visibly very narrow narrow clavicles, and one with 9 inch wrists and 11 inch ankles and a really broad clavicles have the same 'ideal' BMI just because they are both 6ft? Their ideal weights are probably a good 10kg apart!
Of course also muscle and fat are not differentiated by BMI which is another severe shortcoming.
In short, its a pretty **** metric, that was probably just intended as a very rough preliminary gauge, which then got some public limelight, and is now touted as the be all and end all by the masses who have no real idea what they are talking about.
No one wastes their time and actually 'studies' the relationship between bone structure and ideal BMI because it is entirely self evident- the thinner your bones and narrower your structure, the lower your 'ideal' BMI, the thicker your bones and broader your structure, the higher your ideal BMI.
Are you telling me two blokes at 6ft, one with 6 inch wrists and 8 inch ankles and visibly very narrow narrow clavicles, and one with 9 inch wrists and 11 inch ankles and a really broad clavicles have the same 'ideal' BMI just because they are both 6ft? Their ideal weights are probably a good 10kg apart!
Of course also muscle and fat are not differentiated by BMI which is another severe shortcoming.
In short, its a pretty **** metric, that was probably just intended as a very rough preliminary gauge, which then got some public limelight, and is now touted as the be all and end all by the masses who have no real idea what they are talking about.
Give this guy a medal
Original post by In One Ear
But there is both a population normal range and a normal range for a particular individual in the population and any quoted "normal" range cannot possibly always include both whilst giving accurate feedback to everyone in the population.
Say 18.5-24.9 is a good approximation for the variance in the population for a persons 'optimal' BMI for health.
Now take a person, for instance of exceedingly narrow and thin build who sits at the 18.5 BMI point for 'optimal' health. At 18.5 BMI this person is optimally healthy, but obviously this person has a range that goes above and below this BMI a bit, say 17-20, where the person is still classified as "normally" healthy.
So this individual, whos optimal BMI sits just within the lower bound for general population normal, could be healthy at a BMI below what is considered healthy for almost everyone else, so gets told they are underweight when actually considering his/her build they are fine. This could happen in reverse at the top of the range of BMI too.
Either the range of "normal" BMI is constructed as thus, or it already includes the lower and upper limits of acceptability for an individuals who are already at population extremes even at their optimal BMI, in which case it falsely gives the rest of the population readings of being "normal" when at the bottom of the range when actually they are too light, or vice versa with being too heavy and the top, because really, those numbers are only acceptable as the extremes for those who are already on the extreme edges of normal variance.
BMI also encourages nonsensical black and white thinking in the general population, whereby people view things such as 24.8 as 'healthy BMI, don't need to worry about anything' and 25 as 'omg I need to lose weight' when really its all just a gradual continuum either side of an optimal weight.
In short, its a metric that doesn't give a whole lot of information, and is overly abused. Thats why when people ask if they should lose/gain weight and provide a BMI, people often ask for pictures instead, because truthfully between a visual representation of the body and an honest introspective assessment of how healthy you feel, a lot better judgement can be made.
Say 18.5-24.9 is a good approximation for the variance in the population for a persons 'optimal' BMI for health.
Now take a person, for instance of exceedingly narrow and thin build who sits at the 18.5 BMI point for 'optimal' health. At 18.5 BMI this person is optimally healthy, but obviously this person has a range that goes above and below this BMI a bit, say 17-20, where the person is still classified as "normally" healthy.
So this individual, whos optimal BMI sits just within the lower bound for general population normal, could be healthy at a BMI below what is considered healthy for almost everyone else, so gets told they are underweight when actually considering his/her build they are fine. This could happen in reverse at the top of the range of BMI too.
Either the range of "normal" BMI is constructed as thus, or it already includes the lower and upper limits of acceptability for an individuals who are already at population extremes even at their optimal BMI, in which case it falsely gives the rest of the population readings of being "normal" when at the bottom of the range when actually they are too light, or vice versa with being too heavy and the top, because really, those numbers are only acceptable as the extremes for those who are already on the extreme edges of normal variance.
BMI also encourages nonsensical black and white thinking in the general population, whereby people view things such as 24.8 as 'healthy BMI, don't need to worry about anything' and 25 as 'omg I need to lose weight' when really its all just a gradual continuum either side of an optimal weight.
In short, its a metric that doesn't give a whole lot of information, and is overly abused. Thats why when people ask if they should lose/gain weight and provide a BMI, people often ask for pictures instead, because truthfully between a visual representation of the body and an honest introspective assessment of how healthy you feel, a lot better judgement can be made.
Obviously someone's BMI won't always give a precise indication of whether they are at a healthy weight or not. However, if someone is >24.9 BMI or <18.5 BMI then they will almost definitely need to lose or gain weight to be healthy (unless they are extremely tall, short, or muscular).
Original post by indigochild
I feel really uncomfortable in my own skin at the moment; to be honest I feel kinda chubby (I used to suffer from anorexia so a healthy weight feels strange to me still). I currently weigh 48kg/106lbs at 5'3.5" or 161.5cm. Part of me kinda wants to get down to 100lbs but then the other half of me wants to just be this weight and tone up ahaahh I'm just confused and would like a strangers honest opinion about what I should do regarding becoming happier in my body. Please don't try and sexualise this post. Thank you )
)Lots of girls, if not all are so self-conscious about how they appear in society. Not really sure as to why (I'd assume boys or to fit in or something, don't bash me if I'm wrong) but you have a healthy body. Obviously I don't know you as a person on a personal level, however whatever's causing you to feel this way, try and overcome it because seriously, boys will find you attractive and probably do currently, girls will look up to you (some already in this thread) and things will hopefully turn out well. You'll have more self-confidence and positivity flowing through you which is always good. Embrace yourself!
Original post by Parkerpenny
My point is that you are clearly just looking for attention? Or fishing as another user posted. Not making a point so validity is not required. Just stating my oppinion which is what you have asked everyone for. You clearly know that you have a slim physique so why ask strangers for thier oppinions of improvement being aware that most people are heavier than you. i'd say its not your physical form that requires improvement its your psychological one x
Thing is, you don't actually know that? You're just assuming she wants attention. Please correct your grammar too before making sweeping statements and insulting others.
Original post by richpanda
Just lol at your life.
You know full well that you have an okayish body, yet you want attention so you ask TSR, which is mainly made up of sexually deprived males who worship anything above a 3.5673/10.
You know full well that you have an okayish body, yet you want attention so you ask TSR, which is mainly made up of sexually deprived males who worship anything above a 3.5673/10.
I asked for advice on how to better myself I don't see how that is in the slightest wanting attention? Pretty sure if I was wearing a tshirt and not a sports bra you wouldn't say this - its a stomach, get over it you misogynist.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Thoughts on weight loss progress?
- Sonographer
- Is getting surgery to improve dating life bad?
- Is it me or is it just him.
- 15 and confused about makeup
- Bleep test encouragement
- Very slim but not fit?
- CV help
- How can I deal with not being able to sleep early
- How to keep up with a 9 in GCSE Spanish?
- Tips to lose weight. Only serious responses please.
- Hypothesis Testing
- Weird Bump around nose piercing (not keloid or granuloma)
- English language paper 1 question 5 (pls read👍👍)
- Do boys have a problem with dating chubby girls
- i cant physically make myself go to college due to my severe social anxiety
- english gsce creative writing
- Can someone help me on this biology question?
- Gf mad over liking someone's picture
- I’m so insecure over my stomach
Latest
Last reply 12 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 16 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 19 minutes ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
LAWYERS: Can I bring an action against my old schoolLast reply 23 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 24 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 27 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 56 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1275
Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 hours ago
2023 ** Borders and Enforcement, Crime & Compliance - ICE - Immigration OfficersLast reply 2 hours ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
is it possible to go from a size 16 [L] to a size 12 [M] in five months?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
is it possible to go from a size 16 [L] to a size 12 [M] in five months?
