38 ms·
> I'd rather the BMI figure be overly cautious than not cautious enough. I'd rather it be accurate. > Interesting how one of the measures was to raise the BMI
by paulddraper 1y ago
> I'd rather the BMI figure be overly cautious than not cautious enough.
I'd rather it be accurate.
> Interesting how one of the measures was to raise the BMI from 30 to 40 as one measure of being Obese.
Because they replace a course/inaccurate definition of obesity with a tighter/accurate one.
The overall effect isn't less conservative -- quite the opposite -- but they deprioritized a low-signal measure.
Any man that builds a decent amount of muscle almost certainly has an "overweight" BMI, unless they have extremely low body fat.
A 5'10" man has to be <174 lbs to not be overweight.
- kjs3 1y agoA 5'10" man has to be <174 lbs to not be overweight Well, crap...
- AngryData 1y agoEhh, that isn't that far off to me. You have to be pretty dang built to go over that without carrying a decent amount of fat, and im saying that as someone 6'1" and in the trades. Someone can both be built strong and still be carrying around a lot of extra fat, even if they appear well muscled; muscle in itself can hold/hide a decent amount of fat.