3 ms·
> Both are appalling. Both are also largely meaningless because they're based on BMI, which is literally just mass/height^2. No measure of percent body fat, no
by lolinder 2y ago
> Both are appalling.
Both are also largely meaningless because they're based on BMI, which is literally just mass/height^2. No measure of percent body fat, no measure of any other aspect of health, just mass by the square of height.
If you're comparing the BMI of two countries with very similar gene pools it's not a bad point of comparison (though the raw number still doesn't tell you much without more context about build types), but when you're comparing Australia to the US the gene pools of the non-European minority groups are sufficiently different to make BMI pretty worthless as a point of comparison for public health.
- pwillia7 2y agoHow do they even pretend that works when some South Asians are shorter and the Danes are so large? Are the Danish just 100% obese? This says it's <20% there[1][2] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_countr... 2: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/3/463/7058153 https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/3/463/7058153
- s1artibartfast 2y agoHeight is factored in, albeit in a very simple way
- lolinder 2y agoYeah, it's not height itself that's the problem, it's body shape. As just one example: some people have long torsos and short legs, others long legs and short torsos. Those two groups will have wildly different BMI curves even at similar health levels.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoBMI is a very crude measure. It is only useful in the extreme, and not particularly relevant for an individual. If you have a BMI of 40 you should think about losing weight, but exactly nobody need a composite number to know they are that fat. Similarly, you might have a normal BMI but an LDL of 300 or a strange lump on your thyroid. These things are vastly more important than your BMI