Aussagekräftige Bauchumfang Skala?
Ich bin auf diese Grafik gestoßen, die den Bauchumfang in drei Kategorien unterteilt.
Ich falle mit nur 90kg/180cm deutlich über 102cm Bauchumfang und frage mich wie das sein kann? Sind diese Angaben “outdated” und überhaupt aussagekräftig? Muss man solche Tabellen nicht neu überarbeiten für die heutigen Standards?
Heutzutage ist der BMI ja auch nicht mehr aussagekräftig und bei T-Shirts und Hosen muss man auch immer eine Größe höher gehen als man eigentlich hat, damit man reinpasst.
Danke für alle Antworten!
(2 votes)
Loading...
Because what you mean is to maintain medical data on the fatality of a society. And the next point is anyway: The scale is rubbish, and in many cases the BMI is more meaningful than your assessment or the one from the upper scale, which is why you should use it, but you don’t have to use it anymore, you know anyway that you can’t just revise a scale just because you feel too thick otherwise, right?
And a BMI of around 27,78 is very meaningful, at least if you are not just leaning out of muscle mass, which I do not accept.
No, I don’t actually train. But as I understand, you mean that the table is garbage?
As I mean, your assessment is garbage.
The table is rather side-by-side, do not let you distract from it, an alternative I called you above, so the solution is already there, so it is more about you and your overweight, which is almost reflected in a fatality.
Oh, I see. Overweight, however, only minimal. So I find the red area so exaggerated:p
How do you get over 100cm of belly with 90 kg? I can’t imagine
I’m surprised. But I was sober in the morning and measured as planned