3 ms·
Somewhat related, I am puzzled that we still use BMI with a quadratic exponent for height. We are not flat creatures, but we also don't grow linearly either. Th
by c7b 4y ago
Somewhat related, I am puzzled that we still use BMI with a quadratic exponent for height. We are not flat creatures, but we also don't grow linearly either. The actual exponent is closer to 2.5 - this was even known to the creator of the BMI in the 19th century, but I guess that calculation was considered too tedious back then.
What it means is that people taller than the average are in fact less overweight than the BMI suggests, and shorter people more so. This mathematician suggests using 1.3*weight[kg]/height[m]^2.5 to align the corrected score with the established BMI scale:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
- notart666 4y agoActually there have been arguments that the standards are actually too low. And to prevent heart disease the score should be adjusted down by 3-5. In the categories.
- c7b 4y agoInteresting, do you have references? I am only aware of these discussions: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/ethnic-differences-in-bmi-and-disease-risk/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/ethni...
- jbms 4y agoWeight: 3D measurement Height: 1D measurement Better to use Waist circumference, since it's a 2D measurement, combined with one of the others if you want a linear scale. The Japanese fat tax uses waist measurement alone.
- c7b 4y agoTechnically, circumference is a 1D measurement. Waist circumference is a good metric for a different reason, because belly fat is the most dangerous type of fat (specifically visceral fat, which is stored between the inner organs and next to impossible to measure without lab-grade equipment, but the idea is that it correlates with circumference). Never heard of a fat tax, but it sounds dystopian.