37

37.18 kg/m

but this sorta thing is supposed to be exponential not linear

so it makes sense i guess

27.97kg/m (lune) 37.18kg/m (luci) 68.49kg/m (ralin)

anyone else?

the taller you are the more volume you have exponentially

so 68.49 isn't correct then

more volume

its not by volume

this isn’t based on volume

its by height

in this case

this is weight over height

ah

bmi is exponential

this isnt

if it was volume it’d be kg/m^3

I'm always going to have a high BMI then because I weigh more than I look even when completely fit

fine just do a log e of your result and you have LuneBMI

like my ava pic as an example, my muscles are smaller there and I was 2 inches shorter but still weighed nearly 200 lbs

the height being squared is because there is a decreasing marginal change as height reaches a point past the average height of the population they used to calculate the 703 number

@Lucienne d'Anwyl

200 lbs is pretty heavy afaik

1.45 log(kg/m) (lune) 1.57 log(kg/m) (luci) 1.84 log(kg/m) (ralin)

but i have a different body type i gues

@Lucienne d'Anwyl yeah I was "obese" but I looked like my ava pic

how does that work?

what work

being considered obese without being fat

different people have different proclivity toward metabolizing, storing fat, and making muscles

well it depends

youd be termed medically obese if you were muscly

and while having excessive muscles is a detriment to your health

its a different detriment than normal obesity

all it does is make it impossible for my arm to full extend lol

like, I can't make my arm a straight 180 degrees

more like 130-140

1.45 log(kg/m) (lune) 1.57 log(kg/m) (luci) 1.71 log(kg/m) (us male average) 1.84 log(kg/m) (ralin)

log?

yes a log scale

to stop it being exponential