this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
59 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10141 readers
762 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Misinformation is not welcome here.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (16 children)

To study this, Anderson and her team looked at the most recent self-reported body mass index (BMI) data from 746,250 Canadians who were 18 years or older between 2009 and 2023.

Maybe because BMI was never intended to be an indicator of health and is just a simple and dirty math formula invented by a Belgian astronomer 200 years ago?

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/publications/health-matters/is-bmi-accurate

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-02/the-problem-with-the-body-mass-index-bmi/100728416

BMI is just weight and height, a pound of muscle, a pound of fat, a pound of bone...

Doesn't matter, a pound is a pound.

I failed BMI everytime I got measured in the military, they had to "rope and choke" which is a more time consuming method where waist/neck measurements were used. If I had still failed that, I'd have been given a buoyancy test as well for an even more accurate tests.

But it's hard to call someone obese after you just measured the circumference of their abs...

When used as an average of a population BMI isbetter but it was made based on what weights were considered healthy for a white man 200 years ago, way before protein and weight training. And when the average person was like 5'6.

Lots of clearly healthy white men are labeled obese because of that. And no one else was even involved in coming up with the system, so they've always been getting wrong results.

It's fucking insane we're still using this ancient flawed method when we have so many better ways. Especially since the largest determiner of height back then was access to enough calories when young. Pretty much everyone is getting that now. And reaching their max height which is where BMI has always been the most flawed.

Like, obesity is an undeniable problem. But BMI is the least scientific metric we could be using short of some bullshit like astrology signs. The obesity epidemic too serious to fuck around like this

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

BMI does work very well in diagnostics and statistical models

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My point is that the op article and underlying paper is valid and valuable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)