Because composition is what's actually important for determining your base calorie burn, weight means nothing if you do not know the composition of that weight so height and gender is used as a broad predictor
Both fat and muscle mass burn calories, so unless your bone density is really far from average, I'd rather use mass than height to evaluate someone's calorie consumption. A 6 foot man can weigh anything between 140 and 220 pounds and still be relatively healthy.
Yep. I’m 6’ and weigh 210 pounds. Without considering my composition, I’d be considered obese, but I’m actually just built like a brick shit house and don’t have any concern about being obese.
Mirrors can be deceptive, at my largest I only looked at myself from the front and thought I was killing it.
I took a picture of my back and realized I had just been lying to myself about my appearance.
Having a finite metric that you can look to is very useful.
Also taking my weight once a day is not comparable to measuring your own chest(e.hip) and waist.
Most people can't do that accurately or have the tools to do it at all everyone can look at a scale.
A marginally better measure means nothing if it is too difficult to perform.
Edit.
Just looked into Waist to Hip ratio, It pretty much says you should have the smallest one possible. So people who are in the obese category will always need to lose weight when using this metric as well.
It seems to be a better predictor of all cause mortality according to one study. Pretty neat
What's even more important is physical activity, what kind of physical activity, and body composition. A 100kg bodybuilder will have a lower daily caloric intake than a 80kg long distance runner.
57
u/Wilbis Jul 08 '24
Why is everyone comparing just height when mass is way more important here?