Weight Talk: Fitness, Health and Society

52 readers

2 users here now

Discussion community about how weight is socialized, what weights are scientifically healthy, and what fitness really looks like for all genders.

founded 3 days ago

MODERATORS

fjpinns@lemmy.blahaj.zone

People say that the BMI scale is bogus. How true is that, health experts? (www.medicalnewstoday.com)

submitted 3 days ago by fjpinns@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/weighttalk@lemmy.blahaj.zone

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As I understand it, the current medical consensus is that fat protects muscle, and has health benefits when it is in moderation, but increases risks for bad outcomes when in excess. And muscle weighs more than fat, and aside from heart disease, generally protects against death of all causes. If muscle is generally good, and fat is good in moderation, why do we still popularly conflate skinniness as healthiness?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The idea makes sense I'm theory, but doesn't work in reality. I consider it a psuedo science that stuck around because it was just kind of accepted as true. The numbers just don't scale right for height or muscle.

I have an average height friend who had a doctor tell him he was obese. My friend has virtually no fat on him. Although he's muscular, it's not like he's a body builder or someone you'd look twice at for being out of the norm. Muscle is just dense.

I'm tall. When I was very poor and couldn't afford enough food, I weighed right in the middle of the 'healthy' zone. On multiple occasions a romantic interest saw me with a shirt off and tell me I should eat more. I remember the look well. My ribs were very prominent. BMI tells me I could weigh 30 pounds less and still be healthy! People would voice very serious concern if I got anywhere near that.

I do not trust BMI.

[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

BMI is used two ways; as a population tool to compare groups of people, and as a screening tool for indviduals to see if more detailed tests need to be run. I've given other examples of screening tests here - the sit/stand test and an alcohol screener. None of these form the basis of clinical recommendations. A positive finding is cause to ask further questions. "Oh you're very tall ok BMI doesn't work well then." Or "Oh you're muscular, that's fine".

As a personal example I was a serious runner at one point in my life and my resting heart rate slipped below 40 at the doctor's office. It set off an alarm. I confirmed that I ran about 70 miles a week and we all had a laugh about it.

The fact that you know some edge cases doesn't invalidate the measure. And let me point out that people have an amazingly distorted view of normal now. A 6'0" man weighing 225 lbs is obese. 225 seems like a typical weight but from a historical view that is very large. The fact that most of the North American population is overweight or obese and they don't like to hear that.

[–] fjpinns@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah, generally in science, things that are seen as true are true in all cases, unless in express exception. If weight per unit of height is the independent variable, and health outcomes are the independent variable, the unexplained inconsistencies tell a story that would accept the null hypothesis in all cases, except if we arbitrarily say "well it doesn't work for really muscular people, or really tall people" (It also doesn't work for little people, whose oppression lead this conversation away from them and towards the tall folk who it equally doesn't work for, but I feel its necessary they are mentioned and space is held for them in this conversation)