3 ms·

> No There's no point to having further factual discussion if you aren't going to read the referenced papers. From the 2018 study I referenced you can see that

by lhl 4y ago

> No There's no point to having further factual discussion if you aren't going to read the referenced papers. From the 2018 study I referenced you can see that DXA-positive and BMI-positive correlation was 2,668/2,778 (Table 3), or simply look at Figure 2. And if you say "No" and then link to a 2004 paper using bio-electrical impedance, I don't really know what to say, since BIA is one of the least accurate methods and there's plenty of research comparing indices to gold-standard DXA already. Nickerson, Brett S. “Agreement between Single-Frequency Bioimpedance Analysis and Dual Energy x-Ray Absorptiometry Varies Based on Sex and Segmental Mass.” Nutrition Research (New York, N.Y.) 54 (2018): 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2018.03.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2018.03.003. In fact, here's a paper concluding recommending BIA shouldn't be used clinically from ... 2004: Buchholz, Andrea C., Cynthia Bartok, and Dale A. Schoeller. “The Validity of Bioelectrical Impedance Models in Clinical Populations.” Nutrition in Clinical Practice: Official Publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 19, no. 5 (October 2004): 433–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0115426504019005433 https://doi.org/10.1177/0115426504019005433. If you've used a BIA measuring scale at home, you'll see that it fluctuates wildly and serves more of a measure of how dehydrated you are during the day than any other health metric. Ultimately though, I think you're splitting hairs/missing the point. There are tons of bio-markers anyone case use to track their health progress directionally at home. Just pick one and use what you want and stop worrying about what other people are doing. Most people who argue the most against BMI or whatever as a marker already know that they're not as healthy as they should be. And if you don't want to measure anything, if you're an American adult, you can probably just safely assume that you're not (only 12% "metabolically optimal" from 2009-2016 NHANES data): Araújo, Joana, Jianwen Cai, and June Stevens. “Prevalence of Optimal Metabolic Health in American Adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2016.” Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders 17, no. 1 (November 27, 2018): 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1089/met.2018.0105 https://doi.org/10.1089/met.2018.0105.

makeitdouble 4y ago
You made 3 points: First one: > There's a lot of misinformation about BMI[...]It's actually quite accurate for men though. I replied with a detailed study from 2004 on how, no, it’ not quite accurate, even for men. (I didn’t push on it, but how garbage is a population wide indicator that would be accurate mostly for men?) Second one: > RFM as a new index that does a better job correlating to DXA measurements for all populations > Someone else mentioned waist-to-height-ratio (WHtR) as a better marker for metabolic health, and I tend to agree that it's superior to BMI Both are indexes based on external size measurements, from a body of subjects that has 70+% european american, 70% of the total with a BMI bellow 30. From CDC’s numbers, 40+% of the US population is above 30 of BMI (https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html) so the conclusions we can draw from these results are pretty limited (the lack of diversity in the panel is further mentioned as a limitation) WHtR is a different philosophy altogether and is used as a trigger value and not an indicator. > If you get an annual checkup, you should get everything you need to calculate your metabolic syndrome markers, which is an excellent way to assess metabolic health In an annual checkup I’m not sure how relevant metabolic assessment is. My point was indicators are useful to decide on further and potentially more costly/invasive analyses. If you’re already getting a full checkup with blood analysis, echo scans and all, a metabolic score won’t be the primary trigger for more action. > BIA I’m not saying it should be used in lieu of more accurate scans, but I see them as more reliable than RFM for instance. Variability throughout the day and weakness to water levels will also affect the other external measurement methods. > Most people who argue the most against BMI or whatever as a marker already know that they're not as healthy as they should be BMI reliance has real world impacts. Every year people will be sent to extra checkups, health programs etc. because of the BMI cutouts. It’s not some cute number people ignore or not, time and money and potentially extra things like company programs and insurance premiums will be affected depending on the bucket you fall in.

by lhl 4y ago

makeitdouble 4y ago

You made 3 points: First one: > There's a lot of misinformation about BMI[...]It's actually quite accurate for men though. I replied with a detailed study from 2004 on how, no, it’ not quite accurate, even for men. (I didn’t push on it, but how garbage is a population wide indicator that would be accurate mostly for men?) Second one: > RFM as a new index that does a better job correlating to DXA measurements for all populations > Someone else mentioned waist-to-height-ratio (WHtR) as a better marker for metabolic health, and I tend to agree that it's superior to BMI Both are indexes based on external size measurements, from a body of subjects that has 70+% european american, 70% of the total with a BMI bellow 30. From CDC’s numbers, 40+% of the US population is above 30 of BMI (https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html) so the conclusions we can draw from these results are pretty limited (the lack of diversity in the panel is further mentioned as a limitation) WHtR is a different philosophy altogether and is used as a trigger value and not an indicator. > If you get an annual checkup, you should get everything you need to calculate your metabolic syndrome markers, which is an excellent way to assess metabolic health In an annual checkup I’m not sure how relevant metabolic assessment is. My point was indicators are useful to decide on further and potentially more costly/invasive analyses. If you’re already getting a full checkup with blood analysis, echo scans and all, a metabolic score won’t be the primary trigger for more action. > BIA I’m not saying it should be used in lieu of more accurate scans, but I see them as more reliable than RFM for instance. Variability throughout the day and weakness to water levels will also affect the other external measurement methods. > Most people who argue the most against BMI or whatever as a marker already know that they're not as healthy as they should be BMI reliance has real world impacts. Every year people will be sent to extra checkups, health programs etc. because of the BMI cutouts. It’s not some cute number people ignore or not, time and money and potentially extra things like company programs and insurance premiums will be affected depending on the bucket you fall in.