I know that BMI is a one-size-fits-all measurement and doesn’t account for things like above-average muscle mass and the like. What about women cursed with truly back-breaking amounts of boobage? Can someone end up marked overweight merely because she’s overendowed?
It would require a special kind of woman. A kind that currently only exists in the teenage boys doodlings.
I don’t think it’s any of your business how I doodle myself.
Yes.
Wiki Breast - Wikipedia sez a small breast is around a half-pound whereas a huge one is implied to be 3ish lbs. So that’s a 3 lb swing from small to huge. Times 2 breasts = 6 lbs. For a 5’3" woman 6 lbs is very crudely worth about 3 BMI points.
So yes, for somebody within 3 BMI points of a BMI category cutoff, large or small breasts might make the difference. OTOH, setting aside implants, there’s a pretty strong correlation between breast size and body fat. So truly huge boobage probably comes with truly huge body fattage. Which in and of itself is enough to move most such women into the overweight or higher BMI category.
I looked for, but did not find, any good cites on breast fat percentage. It’s commonly said that breasts contain a relatively small amount of functional tissue; A-cups can feed babies just fine. And that the rest of the volume is just fat or connective tissue, albeit not necessarily all overeating-type fat. But I wasn’t able to come up with a trustworthy cite or more details for this “common knowledge”.
You must be doing something screwy with your math there, LSLGuy. For a 5’3" person, a change in weight of 6 pounds corresponds to a change in BMI of about 1.
As a sanity check, if 6 pounds corresponded to 3 points of BMI at 5’3" in height, a person with a healthy BMI of 20 would weigh 40 pounds.
What starting point are you using for that “sanity check” calculation?
I have major boobage. I have to special order my bras, because stores rarely carry my size, and when they do, they nearly always have underwire. I hate underwire. I was always above average, but when I was nursing a baby, they got huge, and didn’t shrink back down to pre-nursing size when I was done.
According to my doctor, by BMI is fine for my age. I am not anyone’s definition of fat, but I am not so thin, that I have thinness compensating for big boobs. They look a little out-of-proportion, but not comic-book out-of-proportion. So the big boobs are not throwing off my BMI.
Anyway, if big boobs that were not the result of implants did throw off a BMI, I’m pretty sure mine would. And they don’t. They are, however, the reason I wear size 10 jeans and XL shirts.
I have a long back and short legs in addition to the big boobs. I have not worn a dress that did not have major alterations since I was 10.
Your boobs are the reason for your size 10 jeans? THat sounds exceptional.
note to self: buy wife size 10 jeans, observe 
next note to self: first find a wife
I thought it was obvious, but if you must, my starting point was the definition of BMI, which struck me as a reasonable place to start:BMI = mass/height[sup]2[/sup] measured in kg/m[sup]2[/sup].Because BMI is directly proportional to mass, if 3 points of BMI <=> 6 pounds, then 20 points of BMI <=> 40 pounds. Since a BMI of 20 is meant to be healthy and 40 pounds is an unhealthy weight for someone 5’3" tall, LSLGuy must have goofed. No? That or he’s using nonstandard units, which I grant is possible but seems unlikely.
In fact, the right answer is, as I said: 6 pounds ~ 2.7 kg, 5’3" ~ 1.6 m, 2.7/1.6[sup]2[/sup] ~ 1. And this is basically sane, inasmuch as it claims that someone 5’3" tall weighing 120 pounds is of a healthy weight.
You’re right. I was eyeballing it and goofed.
I was working from this wiki chart Body mass index - Wikipedia and chose the 5’3" height line as being near average for women, then looked at the BMI “overweight” range.
That’s a BMI range of 25-30 points = 5 points. And corresponds by eye to about 25 lbs. weight range which gives 5 lbs per point. So 6 lbs of breast is 1 [del]slightly[/del] well rounded (:)) point.
The first time I did it I think I fouled up both the X axis *and *the point range.
Good catch. Thanks.
One of my ex’s BMI was 26 but she didn’t look overweight at all (IIRC 25 and above is considered overweight), she just happened to have really huge boobs, 36HH’s. Her explanation was that her boobs were about 10 pounds total and if you subtracted the boobs from her total weight you got about to a 24 BMI which is considered normal weight. Considering she was a nurse I’d believe her.
My BMI is, IIRC, 24.5, so it’s on the high side, but it’s normal. My boobs are 40H, which means they could conceivably weigh 6lbs total. Discounting them would take me down to 24, but that’s not that much of a difference. And if the scale were a little more discriminating (it automatically truncates at .5lb), it might be a little more.
I will say this about BOUS though. Back in the days before BMI was the thing, you used to hear, “Stand up straight with your back to a wall. Look down. If you can’t see your feet, you are fat.”
Well, I couldn’t see my feet. It always made me feel like the fattest 100-lb. woman ever.
BOUS?
Like rodents but with boobs.
Breasts of Unusual Size? I do think they exist!
Sorry, that reference whooshes right past me. My fault, not yours.
Thank you. FTR, what’s the full cultural / media reference?
Back to Hilarity N. Suze: Cute. Very cute.
R.O.U.S.es are from The Princess Bride. They’re giant rats.
The clip is safe for work (and everyone has seen it), but it could be a bit loud so watch your sound (but keep the sound on, the phrase ‘ROUS’ is used at the very beginning).