59
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] saigot@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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!

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] saigot@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

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

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
59 points (98.4% liked)

Canada

10172 readers
832 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