Why is it only appropriate for people with heart disease / mobility issues but not for someone who is merely overweight? This feels like finger-wagging for the sake of finger-wagging.
It isn't. 20% body fat is 6% below average. That isn't "merely overweight", it's likely underweight. No, I don't think underweight people should take appetite suppressants and I don't think that qualifies as a hot take. I think anyone who is medically overweight (which is a very modest BMI qualifier for anyone with any amount of muscle) should have the choice. Many US medical systems and insurers agree, which is a good place to be.
The only way this can possibly be correct is if you think that the "correct" weight is whatever the population average happens to be which is just...wild to me.
If we assume commenter is male (a statistical likelihood), then 20% is the high end of normal, and could very safely be halved. In the less likely case that they are female, then it is right in the middle of the normal range, and could safely be reduced by 5-10% at least.
> The only way this can possibly be correct is if you think that the "correct" weight is whatever the population average happens to be which is just...wild to me.
The medical definition of overweight is basically if you're some number of standard deviations above the average from whenever they ran the stats, so population average = correct weight seems like as reasonable a standard.
I tried to find corroborating sources and couldn't, so take this for what it's worth, but Claude seems to think the cutoffs are based on epedmiological evidence for health impacts at various BMIs, which, even if that _wasn't_ how it was arrived at, seems like a better option.
What are you smoking? 20% is a perfectly healthy bodyfat number and (for a man) anything down to 15% or so is fine. Sub 10% is when you pretty much need a crazy bodybuilder lifestyle to maintain it. And on the other side, 25% is around the lien where you start facing some minor health risks from excess body fat.
