Message from @Brue
Discord ID: 650139414621585464
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
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
it’s a linear scale now