PS: Seems like a "Recovering academic" would have more respect for independent research.

Oh, lets see the data to back up your assumptions. Muscle is genetic and highly heritable - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4816288/ -- people less genetically blessed can be consistent and still struggle, especially the more they are up against the genetic 8 ball. You are grossly oversimplifying a very complex matter.

1

"Skeletal muscle is a highly heritable quantitative trait, with heritability estimates ranging 30–85% for muscle strength and 50–80% for lean mass. That strong genetic contribution indicates the possibility of using genetic information to individualize treatments for sarcopenia or even aid in prevention strategies through the use of genetic screening prior to the functional limitations."

100

"As the principal tissue for insulin-stimulated glucose disposal, skeletal muscle is a primary driver of whole-body glycemic control. Skeletal muscle also uniquely responds to muscle contraction or exercise with increased sensitivity to subsequent insulin stimulation. Insulin’s dominating control of glucose metabolism is orchestrated by complex and highly regulated signaling cascades that elicit diverse and unique effects on skeletal muscle."

[-] fellowoneresearch@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Muscle is the key. But it is genetic and highly heritable. Some people are born with more, some less. And muscle fiber ratio matters. Some people put on muscle easily and maintain it easily, others not so much. Proper diet, exercise, and lifestyle are vital.

2006 - TOFI, 2016, normal-weight obesity.

Every article in the white paper is thoroughly referenced.

These are the current facts:

  1. There is no standardized way to measure total muscle tissue
  2. There is no standardized baseline average to compare #1 to
  3. There is no standardized baseline phenotype to compare #1 and #2 to
  4. There is no standardized way to measure total genetic muscle tissue from birth, or ever
  5. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is added via exercise – resistance or extreme cardio (hypertrophy)
  6. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is lost via poor diet, exercise, or lifestyle (atrophy)
  7. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is lost via aging (sarcopenia)

No one has been asked for anything.

[-] fellowoneresearch@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Getting cutting-edge science out to the world is very difficult. We are working on a dataset peer-reviewed paper, as well as a MRI Study (you can find on ResearchHub).

As scientists, we prefer to maintain privacy as much as possible, especially on social media where ruthless ire, hatred, derision, and bullying are common. All of our work can be reviewed at the links in the bio. Or feel free to ask any questions here.

No, it does not. Waist-to-height ratio does not measure muscle in any capacity. You have no idea how much muscle you were born with or without (skinny fat). You have no idea how your muscle compares to the average, because there is no baseline average to compare it to. You have no idea if your body falls within "normal" phenotype range, because there is no standardized baseline phenotype to compare it to. The next time you see your doctor, ask them how much muscle you were born with, how it compares to the average, and how it compares to the average phenotype...let us all know what they say...

Yes, BMI is a limited, inaccurate proxy measure. But it is the only currently NIH-accepted method, and has not been officially changed by the NIH since 1998.

Lean body mass (LBM) – DEXA, InBody, etc. – is a composite of all non-fat body tissue. it is also not a direct measure of muscle tissue. Like BMI and waist-to-height ratio, LBM is an inaccurate proxy estimate at best.

As of September 13, 2026 –

  1. There is no standardized way to measure total muscle tissue
  2. There is no standardized baseline average to compare #1 to
  3. There is no standardized baseline phenotype to compare #1 and #2 to
  4. There is no standardized way to measure total genetic muscle tissue from birth, or ever
  5. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is added via exercise – resistance or extreme cardio (hypertrophy)
  6. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is lost via poor diet, exercise, or lifestyle (atrophy)
  7. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is lost via aging (sarcopenia)

In terms of official literature, it was not first mentioned until 2006 - "thin outside, fat inside" (TOFI).

You ask questions to clarify things.

[-] fellowoneresearch@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, BMI is a limited, inaccurate proxy measure.

Lean body mass (LBM) – DEXA, InBody, etc. – is a composite of all non-fat body tissue. it is also not a direct measure of muscle tissue. Like BMI, LBM is an inaccurate proxy estimate at best.

As of September 13, 2026 –

  1. There is no standardized way to measure total muscle tissue
  2. There is no standardized baseline average to compare #1 to
  3. There is no standardized baseline phenotype to compare #1 and #2 to
  4. There is no standardized way to measure total genetic muscle tissue from birth, or ever
  5. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is added via exercise – resistance or extreme cardio (hypertrophy)
  6. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is lost via poor diet, exercise, or lifestyle (atrophy)
  7. There is no standardized way to measure how much muscle tissue is lost via aging (sarcopenia)
-25
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by fellowoneresearch@sh.itjust.works to c/science@mander.xyz

The last time the Standard BMI was officially updated through proper, official channels was in 1998 (1, 2, 3). At that time, the NIH changed the threshold for “overweight”, officially lowering it to a BMI of 25 and aligning it with World Health Organization guidelines. The only thing the Standard BMI does, via height and weight, is estimate body fat to assess health risks.

That is literally the only thing the BMI does, estimate body fat to assess health risks (4, 5, 1, 3). It does nothing else (no, it does not estimate health, only healthy weight). Yes, the accuracy of the BMI is debatable, for sure. However, the simple definition of the Standard BMI is not debatable — it is set in stone until changed via official protocol.

This is the current official Standard BMI scale:

18.49 or less – underweight, not a healthy weight due to too little regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

18.5 to 24.99 – normal weight, healthy weight due to no excess regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

25 to 29.99 – overweight, not a healthy weight due to too much/excess regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

30+ – obese, not a healthy weight due to way too much/excess regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

In 2016, the NIH released its first-ever (initial) definition for normal-weight obesity (skinny fat)(6):

“Normal-weight obesity syndrome is characterized by excess body fat in individuals with adequate body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2))”

Which directly contradicts the Standard BMI definition (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). No official change to the BMI happened – the BMI definition/scale did not change.

Read More

-23
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by fellowoneresearch@sh.itjust.works to c/everythingscience@lemmy.world

The last time the Standard BMI was officially updated through proper, official channels was in 1998 (1, 2, 3). At that time, the NIH changed the threshold for “overweight”, officially lowering it to a BMI of 25 and aligning it with World Health Organization guidelines. The only thing the Standard BMI does, via height and weight, is estimate body fat to assess health risks.

That is literally the only thing the BMI does, estimate body fat to assess health risks (4, 5, 1, 3). It does nothing else (no, it does not estimate health, only healthy weight). Yes, the accuracy of the BMI is debatable, for sure. However, the simple definition of the Standard BMI is not debatable — it is set in stone until changed via official protocol.

This is the current official Standard BMI scale:

18.49 or less – underweight, not a healthy weight due to too little regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

18.5 to 24.99 – normal weight, healthy weight due to no excess regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

25 to 29.99 – overweight, not a healthy weight due to too much/excess regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

30+ – obese, not a healthy weight due to way too much/excess regular white/yellow body fat (common adipose tissue)

In 2016, the NIH released its first-ever (initial) definition for normal-weight obesity (skinny fat)(6):

“Normal-weight obesity syndrome is characterized by excess body fat in individuals with adequate body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2))”

Which directly contradicts the Standard BMI definition (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). No official change to the BMI happened – the BMI definition/scale did not change.

Read More

view more: next ›

fellowoneresearch

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 weeks ago