Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Techygal9 t1_iuot4r5 wrote

This study comes from an opinion based idea of health: > Over the past few years, the Nutrition and Food Sciences Department at UVM has shifted away from a weight-normative mindset, adopting a weight-inclusive approach to teaching dietetics. The approach centers on using non-weight markers of health and wellbeing to evaluate a person’s health and rejects the idea that there is a “normal” weight that is achievable or realistic for everyone. If society continues to perpetuate weight normativity, says Pope, we’re perpetuating fat bias.

In other words they have a problem with the fact that people on TikTok advocate weight loss for health…. And they deny how large a factor that is in determining physical health.

106

Rainstorme t1_iupiqnh wrote

> rejects the idea that there is a “normal” weight that is achievable or realistic for everyone.

This is already included in the CDC definition of a healthy weight too. There's a BMI range for healthy, which at average height (5'9") encompasses 44 pounds. That seems like plenty of wiggle room to account for realistic weights for the vast majority of people at a height.

37

butane_candelabra t1_iupqr4a wrote

There's also the waist-to-height ratio, which should be between 0.4 and 0.5. I'm 5'10", so I should be around a 28-35" waist. 0.5-0.6 is increased risk and 0.6+ is danger zone.

17

Altruistic-Goose5114 t1_iuq3xtf wrote

Waist/height ratio is much better for determining individual health, BMI was originally meant for a population.

14

-downtone_ t1_iurh81t wrote

People really need to stand firmly on the ground. This is head in the sand behavior.

9

RhaenyrasUncle t1_ius6xu9 wrote

Which is why it is important that we carefully analyze the legitimacy of any call for "experts".

Unfortunately, facts are subjective in today's world. Objective truths are often considered "misinformation" by "experts" with an agenda.

4

espiritly t1_iut1515 wrote

Ummm, this sounds dangerously close to the rhetoric that anti-vaxers and flat earners use

2

bazoo513 t1_iurt976 wrote

Quite to the contrary, this is a fact based approach. Instead of using something as meaningless as BMI, one should assess parameters such as performance of cardiovascular, respiratory and locomotive system. In other words, put the subject on a treadmill and see is that "excess" weight detrimental or not.

Of course, anorexic or morbidly obese people can be recognized at sight, but beyond that, "normal" is not so simple.

2

Techygal9 t1_iurvxl6 wrote

I don’t know where people got this notion that bmi doesn’t work or is completely wrong. From some research I had to replicate it’s about 87% (using ARC) accurate on its own to predict metabolic disorders, likelihood of hospitalization, and premature death. But that accuracy goes up when you add measures like waist circumference for women and neck circumference for men.

There are different bmi measures that should be used for different racial groups or sex, but those bmi scales are LOWER not higher.

8

bazoo513 t1_iusod40 wrote

So, a marathon runner, waterpilo player and shot petter should all strive toward the same BMI? Good to know. Or are the latter two bound to live shorter?

−1

Techygal9 t1_iussqeu wrote

I think you’re being purposely obtuse about this. But bmi norms have ranges that can be 20 to 50lbs depending on your height. For athletes they may fall into the overweight category because of dense muscles. But their doctor would use bmi in conjunction with circumference of the neck/waist or body fat tests. That’s where the other 13% accuracy comes from.

2

bazoo513 t1_iusw64e wrote

Oh, 100% combined predictive accuracy? I see Nobel somewhere here

Don't be ridiculous. Then again, having worked with physicians and being acquaintances with their typical skills in experiment design, statistics and data reduction, I am not surprised.

−2

TH3BUDDHA t1_iusw4s1 wrote

If you look at the physique of many shotputters, they are absolutely statistically likely to live shorter.

2

bazoo513 t1_iusxzgv wrote

You conclude that "by looking at their physique", or by looking at actual data?

−1

espiritly t1_iut0vxx wrote

Except that research is showing that it's not actually as big of a factor as society tends to believe. Far from it. And, just like research had recently been realizing how skewed a lot of research has been because of racism and sexism, the same is true for fatphobia. But also, are people really advocating weight loss for health or to fit conventional standards of beauty? Like, if society as a whole wasn't so fatphobic, people would have much better attitudes towards food and their health in general. And, having a healthy mindset and approach to ones wellbeing is an incredibly important part of being able to effectively take care of yourself.

−2