That’s pretty wrong. The BMI cutoffs were established in the 90s when people were less sedentary than today. Sure, if you’re a bodybuilder it’s wrong. For the vast majority of the population it’s wrong the other way.

It’s not the most accurate thing, but it’s close enough for most people.

This is correct. BMI is only wrong if you have pro athlete or bodybuilder levels of muscle. None of us internet armchair jockeys have that. If you're within two standard deviations of the mean (95% of the population) for muscle mass and general body structure, BMI is accurate enough, and if it says you're overweight then you are. Everyone wants to think they're exceptional but hardly anyone actually is.

It's pretty shocking how little food the human body actually needs and how little weight you actually need to carry, and anything over that is just stressing the circulatory and muscle systems. (And providing more cells from which cancer can potentially start, and more energy to feed it if it does.)

I’m 6’4”. According to the CDC, I should be 202 lbs. I’m 248 and look skinny, but obese per BMI table. I have muscle, but not a bodybuilder physique. Stomach is flat, I run 8-10 miles every other day in my mid 40s. I wear size large athletic wear and wear a 58 jacket.

Losing 40 pounds on my frame… I’d look like death. I think BMI as estimated by the simple formula is a useful guide for the median height and build person, but it’s used as a health designation whose meaning is frankly bunk. I lay higher insurance rates, for example because of supposed risk of diabetes.

My wife was even worse. She had big boobs, so was declared obese. She was a runner, cyclist, and was a competitive swimmer, but was labeled a fat girl by her doctor.

Stupid things like this turn people off from medicine and delay being treated for real problems.