3 ms·

Considering: - a century ago a greater percentage of people were "normal" weight - human physiology has not changed much over the past century - our current

Considering: - a century ago a greater percentage of people were "normal" weight - human physiology has not changed much over the past century - our current definitions of overweight/obese correlate with negative health outcomes I think the classification is largely correct even if you can haggle over some of the smaller details. (EDIT: That said, people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question, sorry that happened)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question I didn't downvote. But if you're asking a question, ask it. Don't phrase it as a statement while pretending it's a question. And if you're making a statement, substantiate it. Ending a question with a period is borderline intellectually dishonest.
Izkata 2y ago
> - human physiology has not changed much over the past century With improved nutrition, people are several inches taller than they were a century or so ago.
- fallingsquirrel 2y ago
  That isn't a change of physiology, it's a change of our external environment. AFAIK there's no evidence to show humans living 100 years ago would respond any differently to modern nutrition than we do. If the cause of being taller were internal, such as genetic changes: that would be a change in physiology.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    There are only two inputs to BMI, and height is one of them.
    - fallingsquirrel 2y ago
      That's a complete non-sequitur. If you cut off your feet and get shorter, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed. And if you eat more calories and get taller, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Yep, and it's not like there is a mysterious lack of cardiovascular and health consequences that would make us question the belief that high BMI is bad
      - Izkata 2y ago
        Even that is relevant, because it would mean the measurement is now wrong.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question I didn't downvote. But if you're asking a question, ask it. Don't phrase it as a statement while pretending it's a question. And if you're making a statement, substantiate it. Ending a question with a period is borderline intellectually dishonest.

Izkata 2y ago

> - human physiology has not changed much over the past century With improved nutrition, people are several inches taller than they were a century or so ago.

fallingsquirrel 2y ago
That isn't a change of physiology, it's a change of our external environment. AFAIK there's no evidence to show humans living 100 years ago would respond any differently to modern nutrition than we do. If the cause of being taller were internal, such as genetic changes: that would be a change in physiology.
- Izkata 2y ago
  There are only two inputs to BMI, and height is one of them.
  - fallingsquirrel 2y ago
    That's a complete non-sequitur. If you cut off your feet and get shorter, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed. And if you eat more calories and get taller, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Yep, and it's not like there is a mysterious lack of cardiovascular and health consequences that would make us question the belief that high BMI is bad
    - Izkata 2y ago
      Even that is relevant, because it would mean the measurement is now wrong.