4 ms·
An outlier on a meaningless metric is a meaningless data point.
by rosser 7y ago
An outlier on a meaningless metric is a meaningless data point.
- neaden 7y agoTo expand on this, BMI was created as a population level comparison in the early 1800's, which it does a decent job at. It was not designed as something to look at a single individual with, let alone diagnose a health condition.
- Zenst 7y agoBut the way it is used to categorise people in a blanket way in many area's is one of concern however. I say this as somebody who is barrel chested, short legs (28 inside leg in inches) and large upper torso for somebody who is 6 feet 1 inch high and size 13 shoes (UK size, so size 14 in America). I always fall foul of many norm's in society. Always failed a BMI, even when you could count my ribs. Yet come across so many medical professionals who use it as gospel that it's almost religious with them. Same with calori intakes. But then society often loves to define normal and project that. Be that imposing lark hour mentality upon night owls and leverage disdain upon them, or just calling somebody obese because of some legacy data metric that does not take into account that nobody is perfectly normal. Equally ignores that muscle is heavier than fat, just picks an arbitrary weight based upon gender and height and fills in all the blanks with norm values. BMI as a metric needs improving - anybody aware of more refined and granular methods that can or are being used?
- nradov 7y agoBody fat content is a better metric for individuals. You can get an accurate DXA scan for about $50 in most cities now.
- neaden 7y agoSorry if I was unclear, I agree that using BMI to categorize people is a mistake. I think for it's original purpose of comparing two populations it has some value. In terms of a better model Body Fat Percentage is pretty easy to take now, at my last physical I just had to hold a little electronic device for around 10 seconds and it gave the result.