this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
331 points (95.1% liked)

You Should Know

32952 readers
9 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"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"

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 6 days ago (5 children)

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

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 10 points 6 days ago

There's also a lot of people who had essential muscles replaced with fat, thus evading the overweight designation while having an imminent risk of diabetes. This reflects that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

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.

ETA I don't understand why they need that complicated formula, why not just a ratio? The only inputs are waist and height. Never understood the point of squaring height to get BMI either, it's also just a mass to height comparison, why not a simple ratio?

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

...people...have...waists...that're...half their height‽‽‽‽

[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I’m a normal sized human.

72inches tall (6’) 32inch waist

I could easily see a fat dude having a 40 inch waist at 6’ tall.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 5 days ago

Oh shoot I conflated wrists with waist😭

[–] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

6' fat dude here... 46" I think... maybe only 44...

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Right, you are proportionate, waist to height as a measurement means a 7' tall guy would be healthy with a 40" waist, but a lady (or man) who is 5' tall really does need smaller than 30" to be in shape.

[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

What if your torso is large because your large liver because alcoholism?

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

Well, it turns out they both tell me I'm a little too fat.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 17 points 6 days ago (9 children)

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.

[–] suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's because BMI is actually pretty good as a screening tool. It's easy, simple, and pretty damn accurate when combined with an eyeball test. To the extent that it misclassifies people it is far more likely to underclassify obesity than overclassify. The people complaining just don't want to hear it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 10 points 6 days ago

That's an extreme case, but the point still stands. For example, right now, I'm pretty fat, because I haven't shifted the weight I gained over COVID. Even though I'm visibly way larger than I was, I'm not much heavier than I was pre-covid, because I've lost a heckton of muscle. It's insane to me that BMI will look at me pre-covid, and look at me now, and say "that's the same picture". Especially because I personally found that the best and safest way for me to lose weight was to focus on getting strong and fit first.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

We ran into it a bunch in the Army. As well as the fat over abs phenomenon. Very few of our BMI failures were actually fat. The Army test was really problematic because they measure your waist and neck. So you're simultaneously trying to lose belly fat, build neck muscle, and maintain energy levels for infantry training. Which is just a bit of a nightmare to be in. Meanwhile every week you're running 30-35 miles, putting 15 hours in the gym, and doing 10 hours of field exercise, all on top of any infantry training.

I think it's one of those things you either run into a lot or very little.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

I bike and rock climb, I walk long walks and overall in a good shape, not great, not terrible. When the doctors see my bmi without other metrics, they immediately tell me to lose weight and don't take anything else seriously. I missed very serious illness because of that, every symptom I had was thrown into a pile of "your bmi is bad, lose weight", until one doctor was smart enough to check on me for real.
BMI is incredibly oversimplified and gives lazy or overworked doctors easy way out of doing their jobs, which kills people.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago (5 children)

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 13 points 6 days 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 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago

Or just make a better ruler?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Seems like a good idea. Whenever I'm actively bodybuilding, my BMI is always shown as obese, and my weight shown as overweight, despite the fact that I'm 12% body fat. It's annoying, especially if it has an impact on things like insurance costs.

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (2 children)

yeah, been weightlifting for years, and the only time the BMI chart says I'm "healthy" is when I'm at my absolute shreddiest. Looking like I'm starving myself to shoot a nude scene in a movie. And I hate that. I know that when I'm at that weight, I may look great, but I'm also at my weakest. So I hate that this chart subconsciously bullies me into trying to maintain some ridiculous 9-12% body fat range, when that's more of a body building competition range.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] lurklurk@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If you're frictionless too, physicists will love you

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Especially if he lives in a vacuum.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

The hard part will be inelastic collisions

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Now tell the doctors because as recently as this year one that I went to was talking about BMI.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

It's not doctors that need to know. It's the insurance companies. They wrote the policies that pay doctors based on the BMI metric. Until those policy changes happen nothing will change.

Insurance companies quietly control so much and most people don't realize it.

[–] Chewget@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

BMI has been antiquated for like 15+ years, so my guess is it'll change when they die

load more comments
view more: next ›