@Gladioli23
You realise most people look at W:H now as an indicator of health, BMI takes a back seat!
It’s a crude, non-specific measure which is pretty useless, but still used as one factor!
If you were being more specific, a female range would be used and you look at W:H and wc generally.
So it's a "pretty useless" tool that is inaccurately represented by both the Lancet and the NHS, but is nonetheless useful enough to show VB is not underweight in spite of being under the healthy weights for both the NHS and this article in the Lancet, and also useful enough to tell the OP she is overweight in spite of being within the healthy weight ranges for both the NHS and the Lancet, and in spite of the fact that the Lancet article is actually about the association of BMI with mortality with the life expectancy - but is still unreliable except when you want to use it.
Gotcha.
I have not once on this thread said that I don’t think VB is underweight!
I have commented on people scrutinising her looks and her food.
So ‘Gotcha’ right back (who actually uses this phrase in every day discourse?)
The comment using BMI (based on OPs own measurements) was about (inappropriately) discussing someone in public forum.
And yes, it is an OW BMI, but not knowing anything about the OP, is a rather pointless and not particularly insightful comment:
Rather the point I was trying to make really.
You can bang on about the Lancet all you like - BMI is mildly useful at a population level with other info, and not very useful at a personal level (without other info).
Scientist, after scientist says it, time and time again.