3 ms·
Not having seen the full paper, surely the range of values that belong to "optimal" is arbitrary and if measurement error or understanding were improved, the op
by sacrosancty 4y ago
Not having seen the full paper, surely the range of values that belong to "optimal" is arbitrary and if measurement error or understanding were improved, the optimal range would shrink, excluding even more people. So doesn't that make the percentage meaningless?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lisper 4y agoExactly right. The claim is absurd on its face because of its very form.
- loeg 4y agoYes. But the actual title is "Trends and Disparities in Cardiometabolic Health Among U.S. Adults, 1999-2018" and the major conclusion was "Between 1999 and 2000 and 2017 and 2018, U.S. cardiometabolic health has been poor and worsening." The HN title is editorialized to focus on a relatively insignificant and easy-to-quibble-with detail.
- throwthere 4y agoWould you have to assume the researchers and journal editors were wantonly naive to make that kind mistake?
- Dylan16807 4y agoNot "surely". For something like body fat, we have a pretty good understanding and very precise measurements but the optimal range is much much bigger than that precision.