3 ms·

> Yes, everyone realizes this already, and nobody who is in that position is going to be mislead into thinking they are obese. No, but someone who works out th

> Yes, everyone realizes this already, and nobody who is in that position is going to be mislead into thinking they are obese. No, but someone who works out the numbers and realizes that the BMI doesn't match them well, or their circumstances well, realizes it calls the study and what it represents into question. Using controversial metrics because they are easily available is counter-productive in the long run, because once people realize you were misrepresenting your credibility is lost. At best it's lazy. Right now I'm obese. In high school according to the BMI I was almost half-way through overweight edging towards obese, and that was with very little fat, a very active lifestyle, and a visible six-pack. How do I consider studies that make claims about percentages of people that fit into those categories? As extremely ambiguous in what they are actually indicating. Do Americans have a problem with weight? I think so. Does using false numbers to overestimate the problem help? I don't think so, especially when people realize the metrics leave a lot to be desired.

viraptor 6y ago
The measurements don't have to be precise to show a trend, relation, or infer a number of valid results. If someone calls the study into question based on using imperfect methods, rather than using those methods incorrectly... That's their opinion, but it's not useful.
- kbenson 6y ago
  They don't have to be precise to show a trend, but there needs to be some assurance that the measurements affects subgroups similarly and a measurement of how it affects those subgroups to infer a number of valid results. How does BMI accuracy scale with age? How does it scale with different ethnic groups? How do these interact? How do you infer an accurate number without knowing these variables and accounting for them and the relative sized of those cohorts? If the measurements to create the BMI were taken from a statistically valid cross section of the current makeup of Americans, then I would have no problem. But how was the BMI generated? When? With what type of participants? This article itself notes that Asians experience relatively more problems at a lower BMI. Without knowing what the BMI is tuned to, how an we interpret how it applies to a cross section of Americans for a singular study? As a measurement of similar studies seeing a change over time, I agree it's less problematic (but could still be affected by trends in physiology over time, possibly from immigration).
worik 6y ago
The fallacy of applying statistical measures to individuals. That fallacy has a name, which I cannot recall
tasty_freeze 6y ago
We have an epidemic of overweight people. We can worry about misleading BMI stats when we have an epidemic of bodybuilders who worry they might actually be overweight.
- kbenson 6y ago
  Isn't that exactly what I'm addressing? How using misleading or bad metrics can lead to a mistrust in what is being conveyed? Think "Reefer madness" and all the bunk science out about Marijuana in the 80's and 90's. Did anyone trust the information coming out at that time? I would hazard most in their teens and twenties didn't, which is exactly who that information was intended to sway. Trust is important. If people don't trust that what you're saying is accurate because it's easy to point out the shortcuts taken that muddy the results, I think eventually they are going to look at most results about that subject with a grain of salt. At that point they've been trained to do so. The best ammo against a problem is clear and accurate information. Not fear-mongering and FUD, or even something adjacent that's just imprecise enough to be easily called into question. All that does is cause confusion and arguments over veracity.

viraptor 6y ago

The measurements don't have to be precise to show a trend, relation, or infer a number of valid results. If someone calls the study into question based on using imperfect methods, rather than using those methods incorrectly... That's their opinion, but it's not useful.

kbenson 6y ago
They don't have to be precise to show a trend, but there needs to be some assurance that the measurements affects subgroups similarly and a measurement of how it affects those subgroups to infer a number of valid results. How does BMI accuracy scale with age? How does it scale with different ethnic groups? How do these interact? How do you infer an accurate number without knowing these variables and accounting for them and the relative sized of those cohorts? If the measurements to create the BMI were taken from a statistically valid cross section of the current makeup of Americans, then I would have no problem. But how was the BMI generated? When? With what type of participants? This article itself notes that Asians experience relatively more problems at a lower BMI. Without knowing what the BMI is tuned to, how an we interpret how it applies to a cross section of Americans for a singular study? As a measurement of similar studies seeing a change over time, I agree it's less problematic (but could still be affected by trends in physiology over time, possibly from immigration).

worik 6y ago

The fallacy of applying statistical measures to individuals. That fallacy has a name, which I cannot recall

tasty_freeze 6y ago

We have an epidemic of overweight people. We can worry about misleading BMI stats when we have an epidemic of bodybuilders who worry they might actually be overweight.

kbenson 6y ago
Isn't that exactly what I'm addressing? How using misleading or bad metrics can lead to a mistrust in what is being conveyed? Think "Reefer madness" and all the bunk science out about Marijuana in the 80's and 90's. Did anyone trust the information coming out at that time? I would hazard most in their teens and twenties didn't, which is exactly who that information was intended to sway. Trust is important. If people don't trust that what you're saying is accurate because it's easy to point out the shortcuts taken that muddy the results, I think eventually they are going to look at most results about that subject with a grain of salt. At that point they've been trained to do so. The best ammo against a problem is clear and accurate information. Not fear-mongering and FUD, or even something adjacent that's just imprecise enough to be easily called into question. All that does is cause confusion and arguments over veracity.