It barely worked when it was created and doesn’t really mean shit now.
It’s gives loads of people a false sense of security and then they latch onto it and just keep insisting it’s fine even in the face of multiple sources that show the scientific community thinks its shit.
I guess if people needed an example of that, your comment did serve a purpose.
Well first off that paper is from 2025, but data collection for the OP study is as far back as 2009.
second this is the first line of the paper you indirectly linked:
current BMI-based measures of obesity can both underestimate and overestimate adiposity and provide inadequate information about health at the individual level, which undermines medically-sound approaches to health care and policy."
This study is not information at the individual level.
And here is a quote from later on in the abstract:
We recommend that BMI should be used only as a surrogate measure of health risk at a population level, for epidemiological studies, or for screening purposes, rather than as an individual measure of health.
E: OP’s study actually cites the new obesity definition in it’s methods to justify it’s use of BMI:
Not all individuals with a BMI of 30 or higher will have impaired health or increased risk of death, and some individuals with a BMI below 30 may also have obesity.18 However, for population-level screening and surveillance, the use of BMI categories as a proxy for obesity in adults continues to be recommended.9,14
citation 14 is that study referenced in Scientific American!
So you also agree that studies point that BMI doesn’t work very well in diagnostics? Because you’re replying the statement with a boldened sentence agreeing with gp.
Or perhaps was the point that it’s not true that “it doesn’t really mean shit now” since the BMI still has some usefulness at the population level?
That’s fair, though I also think it’s fair to criticize the use of BMI and acknowledge all of its flaws. Perhaps mr givesofmefucks is just stating this position but with harsher wording.
BMI does work very well in diagnostics and statistical models, which is useful and trends to work better than separating the in inputs.
But I do agree it’s not some magic be all measure.
It does not …
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bmi-sidelined-in-new-obesity-definition-that-favors-health-evaluation/
It barely worked when it was created and doesn’t really mean shit now.
It’s gives loads of people a false sense of security and then they latch onto it and just keep insisting it’s fine even in the face of multiple sources that show the scientific community thinks its shit.
I guess if people needed an example of that, your comment did serve a purpose.
Well first off that paper is from 2025, but data collection for the OP study is as far back as 2009.
second this is the first line of the paper you indirectly linked:
This study is not information at the individual level.
And here is a quote from later on in the abstract:
E: OP’s study actually cites the new obesity definition in it’s methods to justify it’s use of BMI:
citation 14 is that study referenced in Scientific American!
So you also agree that studies point that BMI doesn’t work very well in diagnostics? Because you’re replying the statement with a boldened sentence agreeing with gp.
Or perhaps was the point that it’s not true that “it doesn’t really mean shit now” since the BMI still has some usefulness at the population level?
My point is that the op article and underlying paper is valid and valuable.
That’s fair, though I also think it’s fair to criticize the use of BMI and acknowledge all of its flaws. Perhaps mr givesofmefucks is just stating this position but with harsher wording.