Now THAT would be a miracle drug. I’ll get my people right on it.
Indeed. My very athletic wife, who played on college teams coming 1st and 2nd in the nation, was denied a job as a flight attendant because her BMI marked her as overweight. She could have put a passenger over each shoulder and kicked the exit door open in those days.
Well, if it wasn’t reasonable, it wouldn’t be annoying, would it?
I could point out that body weight really isn’t as great a health issue as body mass, as one’s bone density probably adjust to the local gravitational pull of the earth, but I won’t.
I would have, if I’d thought of it last night.
I think that it isn’t reasonable. One needs to ask in what context is the question stated? The nitpick itself defines its own parameters: “A *pound * of fat…equals a pound of…” The nitpick didn’t say fat equals muscle, so the implication is that nitpicker chose his own context, and then stole the high ground in behaving as thought the OP was a complete jerk.
I think that the clear idea of the OP was density, because he writes in a density context.
Muy mean, methinks.
greatshakes
Indeed. It’d be a bit like complaining about “The Statue of Liberty weighs more than my desk” because a pound of the Statue of Liberty and a pound of my desk actually weigh exactly the same. Only, in that case, the disingenuousness of such reading is more manifest, and so no one would attempt it.
The OP’s assertion is correct, insofar as that a cubic centimeter of muscle weighs more than a cubic centimeter of fat. There’s no reason to read him as talking about pounds rather than cubic centimeters or whatever else; the latter is not in any way a less direct or more contorted or less logical or what-have-you reading; indeed, using some external knowledge, it’s rather the more preferable one, being clearly what the OP meant.
Setting aside the question of the densities of fat, muscle and bone, a major factor will be the distribution of fat verses muscle.
When you were out of shape and fat, most of that would be around your waist.
You redistributed the weight, as muscle into your legs and upper body.
Apparently you still have a higher muscle mass than at 28, so, because you weigh the same, you have less fat, and hence there is less around your waist.