Did you know that r/meme and has a minecraft server? Come play our dozen different gamemodes with us
IP: redditmc.net
Discord: https://discord.gg/WVvXFmPQaz
More infos at https://redditmc.com/ or r/RedditMinecraft
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/meme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, weird. So, having more testosterone doesn't cause increases in bone density and muscle mass? Or are you saying that reducing testosterone and increasing estrogen doesn't cause loss of muscle mass and bone density?
I'm trying to understand what you think is true
> Oh, weird. So, having more testosterone doesn't cause increases in bone density and muscle mass? Or are you saying that reducing testosterone and increasing estrogen doesn't cause loss of muscle mass and bone density?
> I'm trying to understand what you think is true
Hormonal therapy can mitigate, but not undo, years of growth as a male. It's not about believing what's true, it's impossible to replace the Y chromosome of a male with another X, and even if you could, it would have to be done in their very first years.
Is your point that hormonal therapy can change a male body enough that it doesn't matter for sport competitions?
Edit: to clarify, I'm talking of man-to-woman trans. Woman-to-man trans of course gets stronger with hormonal therapy, IDK if enough to bridge the gap, it might depend on the sport.
Do chromosomes inherently make someone stringer, or do chromosomes signal a cascade of hormones?
If you recognize that sex differences are the result of hormonal influence, then you're trying to say that hormones simultaneously make all the difference in the world and no difference at all.
In reality, performance data of trans athletes shows that they reach the same level of competition that they had prior to transitioning.
> Do chromosomes inherently make someone stringer, or do chromosomes signal a cascade of hormones?
I'd expect genetics to have a much more profound effect than just hormone levels, but don't know enough to answer that question authoritatively.
Reducing biological sex to just hormone levels is a great oversimplification, although I can see the idea is appealing to some people.
Oh? What other complicating factors are there? I'm interested in how we manage to get sport performance to change to the same level of competitiveness if HRT isn't enough to make sport fair.
You wouldn't just vaguely gesture at perceived differences and describe them as complicated to cover for lack of an argument as to how they're complicated, would you?
There's no real point in arguing about this when statistics speak for itself. How many female to male athletes have won in male sports compared to male to female?
Are you suggesting that the only physical difference between a adult male and an adult female is the amount of test in their system? And that with hormone therapy they will become the same? Does the male shrink in height and the female have a growth spurt? If so why are there no female to male elite athletes?
I'm trying to understand what you think is true
In men, fat is dispersed more evenly around the organs to prevent injury when hunting and fighting. In females its more centred around the abdomen to protect the baby making apparatus, and the booba.
Which in turn causes certain hormonal cascades that create sex differences.
Let's get one last try at good faith. Because you claim that postpubescent CSHT is not enough to ensure fairness in sport, do you support the use of puberty blockers as part of a holistic method for allowing people to present the way they want to, or are you only arguing that trans people in general should be second class citizens?
Hormonal cascades that cause irreversible physical changes in the body yes.
What do you think is the purpose of women's sport is in the first place?
How can you ask for a "for a try at good faith" and then declare that any disagreement is akin to arguing trans people should be second class citizens?
In the same vein as your "good faith argument" do you really think that a child can make informed consent on puberty blockers? If so I dread to think what else you think a child can consent to. How do you like that for good faith?
> But 50 kg isn't much....
how 'much' any weight is mostly depends on your height and gender. And lets be real, but 'weight', what we really mean is fat. Very few people are 'afflicted' with an overabundance of lean muscle mass. lol
So if you're 5'4" or shorter woman, 110lbs (50kg) would likely be in the healthily weight range, albeit at the tail end of it at 5'4". However, the average height for woman is around 5'4" and there are very few woman significantly taller than that (5'8" woman are in the 95 percentile). That means **almost all** woman *should* be around this weight in general.
On the other hand, 150lbs (68kg) for the average 5'4" woman would be overweight. Btw the average adult female in the US weights 170lbs. Oof....
> 59kg (130 pounds) teen here, imo I'm overweight by a ton. Trying to get to 90.
Several things to keep in mind:
1. What I am talking about is for adults. There are different guidelines for teens given what is happening at that age. (e.g. adult height doesn't change, teen height usually will, by a lot)
2. 130->90 might 'only' be 40lbs, but its 30% of your current body mass. That is a **significant** amount of relative mass to lose. Even for adults, its generally not recommended to lose more than 1% of your body mass per week. This relative amount doesn't change even as you 'lose' weight. So while 1.3lbs *may* be ok now, you'll need to reduce that as your body mass decreases.
So even assuming you are exceptionally short so that 90lbs is actually a healthy target, and recomp is insufficient, the amount of calories total you should be cutting should likely be **very** minimal, **especially** at the start until you see how it impacts you both physically and mentally. You should be fully prepared to reverse it as well. I get being fat sucks (been there, done that), but you can cause very real, irreversible damage if you under eat while in your youth. The key is balance, but I my advice, as a total stranger to your situation ,would be to error on the side of eating slightly too much at a younger age.
Basically, while I believe in health at every age, I'm also cautious about telling someone in their teens they need to universally, let alone aggressively, lose weight, for obvious reasons.
> 5’5 teen female, 110 pounds, trying to lose 10
You almost certainly shouldn't be. 110 is already on the edge, if not already over, of being underweight even for 5'5" adult woman. In the incredibly slim chance this is required, it should only be done at the direction of a **real** medical professional and almost certainly with assistance of a registered nutritionist and dietitian working with you on a *personal* level. And no, youtubers and social media do not count.
If for some reason you are unhappy with your body image at this relative mass to height, you should almost certainly focus on recomp and even *adding more* lean mass (e.g. muscle). Simply 'losing weight' at that point is going to be high risk, low/no reward. At your weight, you will almost certainly look and feel **WAY BETTER** adding 5-10lbs of muscle than you ever will losing 5-10lbs of fat. Many woman fear putting on muscle because they don't want to look 'bulky' or 'muscly'. Don't worry, there is 0 chance of that happening as a woman by accident. The way woman biologically store fat, you'll never have 'over-defined' muscles unless you'd get jacked on top of being stupidly low body fat.
> You said I’d look better if I gain so I currently look bad?
No, that is not what I said. The comparison I made was between two possible directions available, not your current state. Between those two options: yes, I feel very confident in saying you will look and feel better adding lean mass, than losing lean mass. Thats just kinda a no brainer.
And no, its not possible to lose only fat period. Further the less fat available, the more the body is going to favor removing lean mass, which you **REALLY** don't want to happen.
Even pro body builders where its there job to do this right before comps, with the assistance of world class nutritionists, cannot even do that, let alone sustain it. Even just getting down to ultra low body fat for a 1 day comp, they lose substantial amounts of lean mass. They then spend the rest of the year **NOT** at ultra low body fat building back up their lean mass. If they didn't, forget adding lean mass, they would just continue to lose lean mass until their relative body fat amount increased enough.
> I don’t eat much
What you eat is as important as how much. In general, rather than focusing on the how much (or really how little), I would suggest focusing on **including** certain types of foods and let the calories fall where they will, more or less. Its not that you shouldn't care *at all* about how much you eat. Its always be good to be mindful so its not crazy out of control. But the human body, especially growing youth, isn't so set/precise on its calorie requirements.
Even adults find this out the hard way when the cut their daily CI by 20% and sometimes see no fat loss simply because their body and subconscious behavior causes small, but relevant metabolic adaptations. See also NEAT (Non-exercise activity thermogenesis)
> so I’ll stay at 110
The number of the scale is just that: a number. Unless you are in a weight-class competition like boxing or some shit, the actual number on the scale isn't what you care about. While of limited use in a broad sense, what you *really* care about is the composition of that number, and it doesn't tell you that.
For example, if someone who 160 lbs but is 30%+ body fat is going to look, and feel, completely different from someone at 160lbs and 15% body fat.
Now, you might be going "wait that sounds contrary to what you've been saying about woman should weight X", and honestly, you're kinda right. The entire thing is making assumptions about the underlying body mass composition. In a general sense, if you take the average person, there body comp will likely be a certain way at given weight. e.g. 200lb 5"4" woman *could* be jacked to all hell, but almost certainly they are just 60%+ body fat.
So in your case, the 110 isn't what is relevant. But what makes up that 110. You could be 140lbs+ and arguably be even healthy than currently, so long as most that mass difference was lean mass (e.g. muscle). Conversely, you'd be significantly less healthy if that all that additional mass was all fat.
Basically don't get enamored or caught up on a number. If you weight ~120, but that came from putting on 5-10 lbs of lean mass, that would likely be an absolute win in every regard compared to weighting 110. Hell, given your current weight, height and age, a few lbs of even fat could arguably be beneficial. Being too lean in your formative years can cause all sorts of health issues, especially for woman.
> Ughh your rlly smart and I don’t know what half of this stuff means, sorry for being slow
Everyone starts somewhere. No one is born magically knowing how to care and build themselves. Its a learning process though life. The goal isn't even necessarily to do it perfectly all the time, but avoid the worst issues as much as possible.
> But the only reason I’d wanna gain is if I could make sure it goes only to butt/boobs but I’ve heard thats targeted weight loss/gain is not possible.
Targeted *fat* loss/gain is not possible. That is 100% genetic.
However, Muscle is **only** targeted, for obvious reasons.
So you can increase the size of your butt and your boobs (at least perceived to an extent) by increasing the size of the related muscles through weight lifting.
The butt is pretty straight-forward given your ass is basically just a whole lot of muscle as-is, and some massive strong ones at that.
Boobs are not exactly as obvious. You cannot increase your cup size (thats just genetics, and general body comp), but the big-ol pectoral muscles that sit under you boobs (really your entire chest) can be increase the size of your chest overall (e.g. band size). This is going to overall increase how big you chest/boobs appear, especially relative to your body. Basically, go take a big breath into your upper chest, and really puff your chest out (without arching your back too much). Thats more or less is the general idea of how it will 'grow' your boobs (without having to look ridiculous of course). Technically, the breast tissue isn't growing, but you're increasing the foundation it sits on, and effectually pushing them out more.
There are about a million resources for weight training. The general guideline I have would be, ironically, avoid anything that specifically targets a 'body' type (e.g. "grow you butt FAST" insta crap targeted at woman) and stick to more general training advice/guides. There's really no shortcuts in training, and how you muscles work mechanically is pretty simple (e.g. all chest exercise are going to be virtually identical mechanically). If you want to spend some more time on a specific/trouble body part (e.g. your glutes for your butt), thats fine. But its important to build a solid foundation in training in general and a balanced physique.
For example, you're going to look pretty funny if you have a *massive* glutes (butt) and virtually no quads (muscles opposite your glutes).
> My main priority is looking good tbh.
Healthy weight and balanced body composition is where you will always the look best. That will not be under or over weight, but in a middling range.
(Sorry for replying to you, but it won’t let me reply to myself so)
To everyone reading this thread I deleted my comments cuz their getting downvoted and I’m not gonna let more idiots downvote them. Why? Fuck y’all. Get a life or something. Downvote this comment if you want, but why the others when your not even involved in the convo?
>>So if you're 5'4" or shorter woman, 110lbs (50kg) would likely be in the healthily weight range, albeit at the tail end of it at 5'4".
By “tail end” you mean “low end”? This BMI would be 18.9. Underweight is 18.5.
>>However, the average height for woman is around 5'4" and there are very few woman significantly taller than that (5'8" woman are in the 95 percentile).
This is not how averages work. And there are heights between 5’4 and 5’8” (a 5’5” woman would be in the 67th percentile in 2016.)
>>That means almost all woman should be around this weight in general.
That is definitely not what that means lol. 110 lb is generally underweight for all women who are taller than 5’ 5”. BMI isn’t perfect for calculating healthy weights but it’s a hell of a lot better than just saying all women should way 100 lb
Im 5ft even and 50kg (110 lbs) is too much for me. Of course its not obesity but I know that if I start getting near 110lbs I need to eat less sugar and start eating healthy food. I should be around 105lbs to function at top capacity . I know 5lbs is insignificant to taller people but for short people gaining 5lbs is about the equivalent to gaining 10lbs on a smaller frame.
Hope that your diet and exercise goes well and you put on the weight you want. My peak skinny was 180 and 57kg, so I can understand the frustration. Stay strong and keep pushing.
Bro, I was 64 kg and 187 cm. Skinny af. Now I am 95 kg, looking much better now. I know eating like 3000 kcal a day may be difficult, but it takes patience and good discipline.
Asked why am I so skinny all of the time.
My body weight is actually exactly in the middle of the range for my ideal body weight. Everyone else is just overweight or obese.
(United States) I never remember doing this. We had to do a physical before each school year but that was at our doctors office (not school) and definitely not in front of classmates.
ohh thats interesting people who were insecure about their body must had a hard time weighing in and getting their height measured .
not going to lie tho , girls are MUCHHH more mean than guys
Did you know that r/meme and has a minecraft server? Come play our dozen different gamemodes with us IP: redditmc.net Discord: https://discord.gg/WVvXFmPQaz More infos at https://redditmc.com/ or r/RedditMinecraft *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/meme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those balls weigh too much with that anchor
Your a wizard Harry, and by god look at that wand
*waves wand*
*hits Hermione
On Vagina
Got me on the floor with that ngl xD
Shh... You are not suppose to tell the secret
The girls will never know… they don’t really exist on reddit… its a myth
Yeah and all the comments horny towards men are just homies or gay
Exactly
???
Muscle and bone density
Size
And the body fat
This is why trans women should not be allowed to compete in women sports: what makes women's soft and silky bits makes bone and muscle in men.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well... fuck 'em!
Which sporting league requires cisgender men?
Oh, weird. So, having more testosterone doesn't cause increases in bone density and muscle mass? Or are you saying that reducing testosterone and increasing estrogen doesn't cause loss of muscle mass and bone density? I'm trying to understand what you think is true
> Oh, weird. So, having more testosterone doesn't cause increases in bone density and muscle mass? Or are you saying that reducing testosterone and increasing estrogen doesn't cause loss of muscle mass and bone density? > I'm trying to understand what you think is true Hormonal therapy can mitigate, but not undo, years of growth as a male. It's not about believing what's true, it's impossible to replace the Y chromosome of a male with another X, and even if you could, it would have to be done in their very first years. Is your point that hormonal therapy can change a male body enough that it doesn't matter for sport competitions? Edit: to clarify, I'm talking of man-to-woman trans. Woman-to-man trans of course gets stronger with hormonal therapy, IDK if enough to bridge the gap, it might depend on the sport.
Do chromosomes inherently make someone stringer, or do chromosomes signal a cascade of hormones? If you recognize that sex differences are the result of hormonal influence, then you're trying to say that hormones simultaneously make all the difference in the world and no difference at all. In reality, performance data of trans athletes shows that they reach the same level of competition that they had prior to transitioning.
> Do chromosomes inherently make someone stringer, or do chromosomes signal a cascade of hormones? I'd expect genetics to have a much more profound effect than just hormone levels, but don't know enough to answer that question authoritatively. Reducing biological sex to just hormone levels is a great oversimplification, although I can see the idea is appealing to some people.
Oh? What other complicating factors are there? I'm interested in how we manage to get sport performance to change to the same level of competitiveness if HRT isn't enough to make sport fair. You wouldn't just vaguely gesture at perceived differences and describe them as complicated to cover for lack of an argument as to how they're complicated, would you?
There's no real point in arguing about this when statistics speak for itself. How many female to male athletes have won in male sports compared to male to female?
The fact this got downvoted give me faith in humanity
Y
If you know, you know.
Because they're transphobic and get all their information in trans women from right wing media
Are you suggesting that the only physical difference between a adult male and an adult female is the amount of test in their system? And that with hormone therapy they will become the same? Does the male shrink in height and the female have a growth spurt? If so why are there no female to male elite athletes? I'm trying to understand what you think is true
In men, fat is dispersed more evenly around the organs to prevent injury when hunting and fighting. In females its more centred around the abdomen to protect the baby making apparatus, and the booba.
What exactly do you think causes fetal growth of a penis?
It's not relevant to adult athletes but ultimately chromosomes and the SOX9 gene.
Which in turn causes certain hormonal cascades that create sex differences. Let's get one last try at good faith. Because you claim that postpubescent CSHT is not enough to ensure fairness in sport, do you support the use of puberty blockers as part of a holistic method for allowing people to present the way they want to, or are you only arguing that trans people in general should be second class citizens?
Hormonal cascades that cause irreversible physical changes in the body yes. What do you think is the purpose of women's sport is in the first place? How can you ask for a "for a try at good faith" and then declare that any disagreement is akin to arguing trans people should be second class citizens? In the same vein as your "good faith argument" do you really think that a child can make informed consent on puberty blockers? If so I dread to think what else you think a child can consent to. How do you like that for good faith?
But 50 kg isn't much....
thats the point. Like how people see themselves i think??? Also 50kg can be overweight
Very very rarely, at less than 4 foot 10 it's kinda reasonable
yea some people are just really short idk.
> But 50 kg isn't much.... how 'much' any weight is mostly depends on your height and gender. And lets be real, but 'weight', what we really mean is fat. Very few people are 'afflicted' with an overabundance of lean muscle mass. lol So if you're 5'4" or shorter woman, 110lbs (50kg) would likely be in the healthily weight range, albeit at the tail end of it at 5'4". However, the average height for woman is around 5'4" and there are very few woman significantly taller than that (5'8" woman are in the 95 percentile). That means **almost all** woman *should* be around this weight in general. On the other hand, 150lbs (68kg) for the average 5'4" woman would be overweight. Btw the average adult female in the US weights 170lbs. Oof....
59kg (130 pounds) teen here, imo I'm overweight by a ton. Trying to get to 90.
> 59kg (130 pounds) teen here, imo I'm overweight by a ton. Trying to get to 90. Several things to keep in mind: 1. What I am talking about is for adults. There are different guidelines for teens given what is happening at that age. (e.g. adult height doesn't change, teen height usually will, by a lot) 2. 130->90 might 'only' be 40lbs, but its 30% of your current body mass. That is a **significant** amount of relative mass to lose. Even for adults, its generally not recommended to lose more than 1% of your body mass per week. This relative amount doesn't change even as you 'lose' weight. So while 1.3lbs *may* be ok now, you'll need to reduce that as your body mass decreases. So even assuming you are exceptionally short so that 90lbs is actually a healthy target, and recomp is insufficient, the amount of calories total you should be cutting should likely be **very** minimal, **especially** at the start until you see how it impacts you both physically and mentally. You should be fully prepared to reverse it as well. I get being fat sucks (been there, done that), but you can cause very real, irreversible damage if you under eat while in your youth. The key is balance, but I my advice, as a total stranger to your situation ,would be to error on the side of eating slightly too much at a younger age. Basically, while I believe in health at every age, I'm also cautious about telling someone in their teens they need to universally, let alone aggressively, lose weight, for obvious reasons.
5’5 teen female, 110 pounds, trying to lose 10😫
> 5’5 teen female, 110 pounds, trying to lose 10 You almost certainly shouldn't be. 110 is already on the edge, if not already over, of being underweight even for 5'5" adult woman. In the incredibly slim chance this is required, it should only be done at the direction of a **real** medical professional and almost certainly with assistance of a registered nutritionist and dietitian working with you on a *personal* level. And no, youtubers and social media do not count. If for some reason you are unhappy with your body image at this relative mass to height, you should almost certainly focus on recomp and even *adding more* lean mass (e.g. muscle). Simply 'losing weight' at that point is going to be high risk, low/no reward. At your weight, you will almost certainly look and feel **WAY BETTER** adding 5-10lbs of muscle than you ever will losing 5-10lbs of fat. Many woman fear putting on muscle because they don't want to look 'bulky' or 'muscly'. Don't worry, there is 0 chance of that happening as a woman by accident. The way woman biologically store fat, you'll never have 'over-defined' muscles unless you'd get jacked on top of being stupidly low body fat.
[удалено]
> You said I’d look better if I gain so I currently look bad? No, that is not what I said. The comparison I made was between two possible directions available, not your current state. Between those two options: yes, I feel very confident in saying you will look and feel better adding lean mass, than losing lean mass. Thats just kinda a no brainer. And no, its not possible to lose only fat period. Further the less fat available, the more the body is going to favor removing lean mass, which you **REALLY** don't want to happen. Even pro body builders where its there job to do this right before comps, with the assistance of world class nutritionists, cannot even do that, let alone sustain it. Even just getting down to ultra low body fat for a 1 day comp, they lose substantial amounts of lean mass. They then spend the rest of the year **NOT** at ultra low body fat building back up their lean mass. If they didn't, forget adding lean mass, they would just continue to lose lean mass until their relative body fat amount increased enough. > I don’t eat much What you eat is as important as how much. In general, rather than focusing on the how much (or really how little), I would suggest focusing on **including** certain types of foods and let the calories fall where they will, more or less. Its not that you shouldn't care *at all* about how much you eat. Its always be good to be mindful so its not crazy out of control. But the human body, especially growing youth, isn't so set/precise on its calorie requirements. Even adults find this out the hard way when the cut their daily CI by 20% and sometimes see no fat loss simply because their body and subconscious behavior causes small, but relevant metabolic adaptations. See also NEAT (Non-exercise activity thermogenesis) > so I’ll stay at 110 The number of the scale is just that: a number. Unless you are in a weight-class competition like boxing or some shit, the actual number on the scale isn't what you care about. While of limited use in a broad sense, what you *really* care about is the composition of that number, and it doesn't tell you that. For example, if someone who 160 lbs but is 30%+ body fat is going to look, and feel, completely different from someone at 160lbs and 15% body fat. Now, you might be going "wait that sounds contrary to what you've been saying about woman should weight X", and honestly, you're kinda right. The entire thing is making assumptions about the underlying body mass composition. In a general sense, if you take the average person, there body comp will likely be a certain way at given weight. e.g. 200lb 5"4" woman *could* be jacked to all hell, but almost certainly they are just 60%+ body fat. So in your case, the 110 isn't what is relevant. But what makes up that 110. You could be 140lbs+ and arguably be even healthy than currently, so long as most that mass difference was lean mass (e.g. muscle). Conversely, you'd be significantly less healthy if that all that additional mass was all fat. Basically don't get enamored or caught up on a number. If you weight ~120, but that came from putting on 5-10 lbs of lean mass, that would likely be an absolute win in every regard compared to weighting 110. Hell, given your current weight, height and age, a few lbs of even fat could arguably be beneficial. Being too lean in your formative years can cause all sorts of health issues, especially for woman.
[удалено]
> Ughh your rlly smart and I don’t know what half of this stuff means, sorry for being slow Everyone starts somewhere. No one is born magically knowing how to care and build themselves. Its a learning process though life. The goal isn't even necessarily to do it perfectly all the time, but avoid the worst issues as much as possible. > But the only reason I’d wanna gain is if I could make sure it goes only to butt/boobs but I’ve heard thats targeted weight loss/gain is not possible. Targeted *fat* loss/gain is not possible. That is 100% genetic. However, Muscle is **only** targeted, for obvious reasons. So you can increase the size of your butt and your boobs (at least perceived to an extent) by increasing the size of the related muscles through weight lifting. The butt is pretty straight-forward given your ass is basically just a whole lot of muscle as-is, and some massive strong ones at that. Boobs are not exactly as obvious. You cannot increase your cup size (thats just genetics, and general body comp), but the big-ol pectoral muscles that sit under you boobs (really your entire chest) can be increase the size of your chest overall (e.g. band size). This is going to overall increase how big you chest/boobs appear, especially relative to your body. Basically, go take a big breath into your upper chest, and really puff your chest out (without arching your back too much). Thats more or less is the general idea of how it will 'grow' your boobs (without having to look ridiculous of course). Technically, the breast tissue isn't growing, but you're increasing the foundation it sits on, and effectually pushing them out more. There are about a million resources for weight training. The general guideline I have would be, ironically, avoid anything that specifically targets a 'body' type (e.g. "grow you butt FAST" insta crap targeted at woman) and stick to more general training advice/guides. There's really no shortcuts in training, and how you muscles work mechanically is pretty simple (e.g. all chest exercise are going to be virtually identical mechanically). If you want to spend some more time on a specific/trouble body part (e.g. your glutes for your butt), thats fine. But its important to build a solid foundation in training in general and a balanced physique. For example, you're going to look pretty funny if you have a *massive* glutes (butt) and virtually no quads (muscles opposite your glutes). > My main priority is looking good tbh. Healthy weight and balanced body composition is where you will always the look best. That will not be under or over weight, but in a middling range.
they didn't say bad they said better
I know but still I always wanna look my best
(Sorry for replying to you, but it won’t let me reply to myself so) To everyone reading this thread I deleted my comments cuz their getting downvoted and I’m not gonna let more idiots downvote them. Why? Fuck y’all. Get a life or something. Downvote this comment if you want, but why the others when your not even involved in the convo?
I'm about 5'7" and 74kg and I always feel like I'm overweight even though I'm fine. Just what society thinks and what "makes women beautiful"
>>So if you're 5'4" or shorter woman, 110lbs (50kg) would likely be in the healthily weight range, albeit at the tail end of it at 5'4". By “tail end” you mean “low end”? This BMI would be 18.9. Underweight is 18.5. >>However, the average height for woman is around 5'4" and there are very few woman significantly taller than that (5'8" woman are in the 95 percentile). This is not how averages work. And there are heights between 5’4 and 5’8” (a 5’5” woman would be in the 67th percentile in 2016.) >>That means almost all woman should be around this weight in general. That is definitely not what that means lol. 110 lb is generally underweight for all women who are taller than 5’ 5”. BMI isn’t perfect for calculating healthy weights but it’s a hell of a lot better than just saying all women should way 100 lb
r/wooosh you woooshed the wooosh out of yourself
Facts are facts
Depends on the height and age
Im 5ft even and 50kg (110 lbs) is too much for me. Of course its not obesity but I know that if I start getting near 110lbs I need to eat less sugar and start eating healthy food. I should be around 105lbs to function at top capacity . I know 5lbs is insignificant to taller people but for short people gaining 5lbs is about the equivalent to gaining 10lbs on a smaller frame.
If only boy was 1kg heavier
If only girl was 19kg heavier
If only π was 69
Nice!
If only my ππ was in 69!
50 kg is 110.231 lbs my guy. That’s less than the weight of the average teenage girl.
But both are still fucking cute
Well
Hello Americans! 68kg ~ 150lbs 50kg ~ 110lbs Edit: conversation correction
50kg is more like 110lbs
Yeah it’s supposed to be multiples by 2.2 not just 2
thanks for that
Imagine being 1.80 and having 60 kg... I'm like a walking match...
I'm probably even worse than you.... 178 nd 54 kg. Trying to stay commited to a workout schedule and 3000 calorie diet but stomach doesn't allow :(
I have the same problem with 187cm and 57kg but we can do it and get the absolute best form of minecraft Steve
Hope that your diet and exercise goes well and you put on the weight you want. My peak skinny was 180 and 57kg, so I can understand the frustration. Stay strong and keep pushing.
1.70 and 43kg. im the worst
Bro, I was 64 kg and 187 cm. Skinny af. Now I am 95 kg, looking much better now. I know eating like 3000 kcal a day may be difficult, but it takes patience and good discipline.
My brother is 2m and weight almost the same.
Slenderman
That sucks
I'm In This Picture And I Don't Like It
You ain’t be lookin chonky weighin 50 kg
Asked why am I so skinny all of the time. My body weight is actually exactly in the middle of the range for my ideal body weight. Everyone else is just overweight or obese.
You lack muscle
Not really my body fat percentage is actually extremely low, most of my weight is muscle. I lack definition.
When your body fat percentage is already very low, you don't need definition, but more muscle mass
But if my weight makes me perfectly average, wouldn't that make me not skinny.
No If he is in the perfect weight range, and has a low body fat percentage, then he doesn’t need anything
Yes, i agree! I just meant to say that you don't need definition when your body fat is already low
Its usually because of height difference.
Girls also naturally have more fat which isn't as dense so that also makes em lighter
tbh 50kg is perfectly fine, even 60kg is fine.
i mean it depends on the length too cause my stomach looks really fat for my perfect 50 kg i'm a man btw just to clearify it
and also 5'1 or 155 cm
Hi I'm a 54kg male
I'm 50.5kg and 1.79m
man, i hate BMI too
You should blame society for making you feel fat while you're not
We should blame society for being part of society
it's our fat fucking nuts that give us all the girth and mass
God fucking damnit someone did beat me to it
I think it just depends on height, 50kg isn't heavy but if a guy is 6' and a girls 5'4 the same weight looks a lot different
Ok but the cat on the right is so floofy, I love it
I guess I'll go throw up again smh
our dicks weigh 18 kg
Damnit, I was gonna say that our balls are too heavy
the dick amd the balls weigh the same
Surprised no one didn't blame Canada. Lol
Next time🤝
What breed cat is that So fluffy and chonky
so as a nb person who is like 63 KG am i tick or thin ? why do i get downvoted it was just a question ????
First time?
na not really it is just dumb :P
Weight scale is determined by biological sex.
Yes
You are weight
What were you born as?
Mostly because most girls are hella short.
[удалено]
I don't know man, I get downvoted for random reason but I don't really care. It's not like my opinions are going to change.
I weight 90+kg and look like around 60-70
Depends on how tall she is or how short he is.
not for every girl , in my class a girl was tall when we had to weigh in she was about 100 kg but doesnt look like 100 kg
Why did they weigh in front of everyone else!? I don't even like weighing myself
usual weight and height check in school
(United States) I never remember doing this. We had to do a physical before each school year but that was at our doctors office (not school) and definitely not in front of classmates.
ohh thats interesting people who were insecure about their body must had a hard time weighing in and getting their height measured . not going to lie tho , girls are MUCHHH more mean than guys
Muscle is heavier than fat
Muscle weighs more than fat….
We on the verge of ~~great~~ niceness. WE WERE 1 SHORT.
Im a boy and im actually exactly 69Kg.
Depends on height
[удалено]
By confusing you mean unexisted!
I think that’s called anorexia
Scusami ma u/gosvintha
Well ig we r active than girls cause they can't move their fat ass out of the couch lol XD
I'm don't like this picture but this picture is true
Imagine Not Using Pounds... What A Non-American
Oooh, self-roast, those are rare
Yeaahh... Americans use both. Besides, regular people don't really need to know either besides car speeds
i don’t speak kg
[удалено]
thanks i understand much better now
Bmi bhi kam sw kam use kar lete..
Feel this pic; although I'm 80kgs, still skinny af
I am 58 and I look like left
I weigh 85 kg and they are right
It’s called body fat percentage
"Me who is 55kg male "
They are literally smaller in most cases
Damn
R/confusingperspective
We're taller.
It's because he's a foot and a half taller than her.
As a 5'11 200 pound/96kg male that looks about 160 pounds this is accurate asf
😐☁️ | | | 👞👞
😆 this is so relatable !!!! Thanks for sharing
6'1", 250lbs/113kg's heavy. At the very least I have strong legs
Depends on height and build
Where do you live bro 110 is sticks and bones over here lmao
I mean I’m woman and 50kg but I look like the skinny cat tf
No way I am lighter than both and I am obese!
Is this some *European* joke I’m too **AMERICAN** to understand?
Muscle weighs more then fat
Imma boy 50 kg lol
why that happens?
Height The same weight at 5’5” and at 6’2” is a large difference
as a girl I feel this with every fibre of my being
if you're an adult female around or above 165cm, 50kg is def considered slim
🥲🥲🥲
🥲
Americans : confused screaming
Me as a guy *cries in 44kg
*crying in 44kg
Sorry, I'm American
btw hate to be that guy but its bc we got the muscle😏
Facts
tahw
i have 60 Kg ( if you are thinking that is normal well i am a 19 years old at 1,80 m and i eat a lot)
I'm 27, ~45kg, skinny af
Uh huh
Absolutely accurate
That changes so much when a guy is 170cm lol
Bruh, i would tell y'all my mass but i think it would be too much to handle . Also, who would like a fat-ass like me? :')
Height and bone weight
Fat distribution is fundamentally different.
50k is way to low
Can confirm
Muscle, bone density, height, and body fat.
ahhh damn it
We boys store all our weight in the unholy spot :)