“The body mass index has long been criticized as a flawed indicator of health. A replacement has been gaining support: the body roundness index.” Article unfortunately doesn’t give the freaking formula for chrissakes; it’s “364.2 − 365.5 × √(1 − [waist circumference in centimeters / 2π]2 / [0.5 × height in centimeters]2), according to the formula developed by Thomas et al.10”

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Waist to height is the only proven metric. And the problem with BMI is not that it is overestimating fat, it’s that it’s underestimating fat because it completely misses skinny-fat people, and the number of those is much higher than the number of jacked overweight not fat athletes.

    Add to this the complicating factor that it’s really torso fat that is metabolically active and dangerous to your health.

    Waist should be less than half your height, you don’t even need a measuring tape. Get someone to cut a string as long as you are tall, and see if it can go around your waist twice, with at least some extra length. If so, you are good, probably don’t have too much torso fat.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    For all the time I’ve been told how bad BMI is, and how it classes top athletes as obese, I can’t help but notice how few of those people have the body of a top athlete.

    • kurcatovium@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 minutes ago

      OH, come on, I have body close to some professional shot putters or hammer/discus throwers! /s

  • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Replacing BMI with BMI2 is fine, but it’s doesn’t change the fact that most Americans are overweight or obese, and the tiny, tiny sliver of people who have a high BMI from weightlifting are insignificant relative to the ~70% that are just plain fat

  • deafboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It is one of the most widely used health metrics but also one of the most reviled, because it is used to label people overweight, obese or extremely obese.

    That’s like blaming the ruler for labeling you too short or too tall… Can’t we just use the tool for rough assessment, while being aware of its limitations, and be happy about it?

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Look at it this way, BMI is a cross section of weight and height. I was considered “overweight” for ages because I just had tree trunk thighs from hiking and weightlifting. Like, less than 16% body fat but told I’m ‘overweight’ every time I got weighed.

      The ruler was fucking wrong.

      Nowadays, I’m much more of a fat fuck so the ruler is right now but only just so… I’m still under 25% when using hydrostatic!

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      i think you’re taking that quote out of context a bit. a few sentences later, the article says

      Even physicians have weighed in on the shortcomings of B.M.I. The American Medical Association warned last year that B.M.I. is an imperfect metric that doesn’t account for racial, ethnic, age, sex and gender diversity. It can’t differentiate between individuals who carry a lot of muscle and those with fat in all the wrong places.

      “Based on B.M.I., Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was a bodybuilder would have been categorized as obese and needing to lose weight,” said Dr. Wajahat Mehal, director of the Metabolic Health and Weight Loss Program at Yale University.

      so the point they seem to be making is that, while BMI is controversial partly because people like to shoot the messenger, it’s also just not a reliable measurement in a medical context, even as a heuristic. the article also goes into more detail on its other shortcomings as well. the article also indicates how BMI was never intended to be used in a medical context. so, there are plenty of valid reasons for wanting a new metric.

      but i do think the sentence you quoted isn’t really doing the author any favors in terms of trying to communicate the central point of the article.

      • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Seems like a lot of the flaws just have to do with the fact that the real metrics you want to use, which would probably be body fat percentage, are hard to measure accurately at home.

    • cassie 🐺
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      my main beef is that “too fat” is a wildly varying scale from person to person because everyone stores and processes fat differently. and if you’re “too fat” that may not in fact be your most relevant health concern. my experience with health providers that focus on BMI during intake is that if you’re “overweight” many other health problems will be seen through that lens even if they’re unrelated… in my case, lots of dieting advice, being told to exercise more come to find out decades later I had an undiagnosed nervous/muscular condition. now that it’s treated somewhat, my weight stays pretty much in “normal” BMI with the same or lower activity. I’m kinda pissed it took this long to get treatment for an underlying condition because the ruler said “too fat.”

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      it’s easy to calculate but extremely rough. Efficacy varies immensely. Look, nobody’s forcing you to do anything, I’m just saying that BMI is way too rough to be seriously examined.

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    18 hours ago

    BMI is the best measure we have for statistical purposes (i.e., a population) because it’s been around for 50(?) years and is what is often used in studies, so you can compare one study to another using BMI.

    It’s also not terrible for a population because it averages out. But for an individual it is definitely not a good measure because there are way too many other variables that matter.

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I think there is a better one, it’s called a mirror. I look at it every day and cry, but there is no question lol

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Hmm, that puts me at BRI of 2.1, and BMI of 35.4

      Those both seem incredibly off.

      But I do have extra dense bones apparently, which tends to be mostly what screws with my BMI, and my ability to float/swim. But they seem really hard to break, not that I try very hard… but none of them have broken yet. And I’ve been in situations that seem like they should have broken.

      Either way, I weigh alot more than I look like I should, not quite “Wolverine getting on a motorbike”, but a bit like that.

      Kinda makes me wish those “guess your weight” carnival experts were something I could see in real life, only ever seen it on TV.

  • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Interesting. Found a calculator and according to this I’m “very lean” (only just) while I’m overweight (again, only just) using BMI.

    Judging by the belly fat I can pinch, I’m gonna trust the BMI