Since we were talking about antiquated, largely wrong metrics built on Victorian bullshit, here’s an appropriate video from Katy Stoll on BMI.
I think it’s generally true that any attempt to reduce an individual’s existence to a single, simple number is always going to be wrong.
Sounds like somebody’s jealous of my almost double-digit IQ divided by BMI! /s
Sorry but had to stop half way because it sounds like typical lefti anti-science bullshit. BMI is known to be not always accurate but it is an inexpensive and very convenient way to get a good estimate of your fat percentage and it is also used a lot in scientific papers because of that. I mean just open a few fucking papers and you will find BMI there.
lotharloo>
I’m sorry to hear this from you, because I recognize your handle as one of the regular and long-time posters that don’t strike me as a troll, which is, unfortunately, a rarity…
BMI is just a metric comparing someone’s mass versus their height. I believe it was initially intended to compare populations, not individuals. But it’s completely unfit to apply to individuals, as it doesn’t allow any compensating factors for the nature of the individual’s mass. As far as BMI is concerned, 180lbs of straight buttery fat is equivalent to 180lbs of lean muscle. Men tend to have a higher muscle mass, and overall higher weight than women of the same height, yet both are scored on the same scale. Shorter people tend to score higher, as they typically have shorter limbs, without actually having a higher body fat percentage.
When I was younger and more active, I could sink in salt water with my lungs full. Yet, according to BMI, I was “morbidly obese”. Sure, I was “heavy”, but it wasn’t due to excessive adipose tissue…
@3:
The issues with BMI are very much known. Here, I typed in “BMI calculator” in Google and picked up the first hit which has some info and then this:
Also, they anti-science bs refers to the middle part of the video where they do blatant cherry-picked studies and omitting all the other studies that establish a link between BMI and associated health risks. It is a leftie feel-good anti-science bullshit video.
Holyshit, the video is citing Lindo Bacon. Holyfucking shit. Yeah, citing a crank scientist, a fucking great sign. Here, Lindo Bacon using cherry-picked data and carefully phrased and misleading sentences to sell BS science to grift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CgDbM-vyh0
Open a few fucking papers and you will find IQ there, too. That’s not the great argument you think it is.
The NIH, CDC, Mayo Clinic, and NHS all seem to consider BMI a useful (and cheap!) screening tool, nothing more.
How exactly is detailing the history of a metric including what it was created specifically for and how it has been used over time is “lefti anti-science bullshit”? I can go to Google scholar right now and find dozens of scientific texts doing precisely that kind of stuff regarding metrics like the p-value or Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Are all Bayesians now pushing lefti anti-science bullshit? Why do you think something created specifically for eugenicist ends, like BMI, should be somehow beyond critique?
People really, really want to hate fat people. It’s a thing. I’m not entirely sure WHY they are committed to this particular thing, but as someone who has moved through the world both fat and thin and knows what my blood pressure/ cholesterol and other health metric numbers look like, they don’t actually give two fucks about anybody’s “health”. They want to be hateful.
BMI’s utility is based on bad data. A BMI-like measurement might be useful for populations, and therefore for broad social problems and solutions, but is probably unlikely to be useful for any one individual. And as far as actual science goes, here’s this one: You have no goddamned how healthy someone is by looking at them. None.
@2 “BMI is known to be not always accurate but it is an inexpensive and very convenient way to get a good estimate of your fat percentage”
That is a perfect summary of BMI in one sentence. And @9, no, BMI is not a way to “hate fat people”. If someone wants to do that, they certainly don’t need a number to help them along with it. Ignoring its use in population studies and just considering its use for individuals for a moment, BMI strikes me as a front-line tool for physicians. I go to my doc for my annual physical and they automatically compute my BMI. Might be useful if they see a trend going one way or the other. Certainly, the doc can tell if I fall into one of the extreme groups that have excessive (or too little) muscle mass. I don’t think anyone is saying BMI is a pass/fail, that’s a straw man argument. And I’ll add that it’s very easy to flip the “hate fat people” argument on its head by simply claiming that people hate BMI because it tells them that they might have a potential health issue. Shoot the messenger, right? Neither argument is particularly useful when it comes to helping people with their health.
In short, I see BMI as one of a constellation of relatively easy and painless data points that can help physicians do their jobs (blood pressure would be another, as would a lipid profile, although that is not nearly as easy or inexpensive). Look, if your BMI is high, that is in no way a definitive diagnosis of ill health, but hopefully, if your doc sees that you have a high BMI and some other factors, that might flag them to dig a little deeper.
jimf-
Here’s the problem with the idea of BMI being a “diagnosis of ill health”.
1) You can have a low BMI and still have ill health.
2) You can have a high BMI and still be in good health.
3) You can have a low BMI and still be in ill health with diseases that are considered “fat diseases”- high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, et cetera.
4) You can have a high BMI and be in ill health that has nothing to do whatsoever with your adipose tissue but doctors will say “it’s because you’re fat” and not look to any other causes. This happens frequently. It is not a “relatively easy and painless data point” if the “data point” is bad data and is often used as a stopping point.
BMI was first calculated using only Scottish men of a certain area. That isn’t exactly a representative sample to pull from in the first place, but it was also calculated in the early 19th century. It’s bad data.
Also, the argument “claiming people hate BMI because it tells them they might have a potential health issue” is some “you’re an atheist because you want to sin” nonsense.
antigone10 @11: It’s not a diagnosis. It’s a screening tool, among many.
Look PZ, you have shared a comedy YT video by some non-experts who have bungled basic concepts in body health, full with information that seem to come from Google university and the wiki page about BMI, as well as cherry-picked papers. It is unimpressive. Your comment about IQ might feel like a sick burn in your head but once you think about it, it falls apart. BMI is useful (since its predictive of metabolic syndrome as well as other health issues) thouth inaccurate in addition to being very convenient to measure, none of these points are true wrt to IQ. And unlike IQ research, nobody in health sciences pretends that BMI is the ultimate answer in nutrition and metabolic health, in fact it is quite the opposite.
The video you shared is stupid. Your particular bias is seemingly “not summing up a person with a number” thing which caused you to miss all the alarms and the warning signs such as citing Lindo fucking Bacon but it’s okay, it happens to all of us. This is just a YouTube challen, you shouldn’t be expecting accurate information from it anyways.
I am over here fascinated by the universe in which a “high BMI” is not a diagnosis. I mean, I guess in the strict literal sense it isn’t. The diagnosis is “obese”. How are you diagnosed “obese”? Why, that’s if you’re BMI is over 30.
I’m interested in this fairy world where fat people aren’t hated, and you don’t have to search for doctors who aren’t hostile to you if you’re fat, or handwave problems away if you’re “skinny” if they are “fat issues”. I surely haven’t lived there.
Lotharloo- I was going to ignore you, but you keep referring to her as “lindo fucking bacon” so I’m breaking down. Wtf is your problem? The only issue I know about Dr. Bacon is she is bad at understanding intersectionality with disability rights, race, and poverty. You merely linked to a video by Lindo Bacon, but no context in which I could see that she was selling anything.
BMI is also worse than useless when it comes to metabolic syndrome, fyi. Excess fat in the abdomen is one of the symptoms; BMI doesn’t say shit about where your weight is. The number is actually not predictive; high BMI or obesity is not one of the symptoms listed at the Mayo clinic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/metabolic-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20351916
Then, there’s Basal Metabolic Rate. Just a number.
And Body Fat Percentage, too. Just a number.
Age, of course is just a number. As is body mass.
(As is the number of their progeny)
I think it’s generally false that taking some measurement (however indirectly or by proxy) is in itself reducing an individual’s existence to a single, simple number.
@14 Antigone10,
Who here has said that BMI, by itself, is sufficient to diagnose potential health issues? No one, but you seem bent on accusing people of doing that. Multiple people have said that it is an easy/painless/inexpensive diagnostic tool that can be part of a doctor’s examination. It is also useful for studying populations. Regarding the four points you stated in 11, I agree completely. Those are examples of why BMI is not valid as a sole pass/fail. And regarding this: Also, the argument “claiming people hate BMI because it tells them they might have a potential health issue” is some “you’re an atheist because you want to sin” nonsense. Sure. But, did you not notice where I stated Neither argument is particularly useful when it comes to helping people with their health.
It appears that the sole item of disagreement is that several people assert that BMI has some use, and you insist that it has absolutely none. All I can say is, if your doctor reflexively blames any and all of their patients’ health problems on their weight simply because they have a high BMI, then the problem is that you need a new doctor.
Aubrey Gordon has good chapters in “You Just Need to Lose Weight” and 19 Other Myths About Fat People on BMI and the abuse and trauma inflicted on children due to the weight obsession. (She and Michael Hobbes also discuss this in episodes of Maintenance Phase.)
Maybe this will help illuminate my position: Cholesterol. Several years back, I had the usual test. My total cholesterol came out just over 200 which is classified as being too high (nowadays, borderline high). But when you drill down into the numbers, it was high because I tend to have a high HDL (good cholesterol) from years of doing endurance sports. I think it was mid 60s (not crazy high, but many men are 10 or 15 points lower). Now, if my HDL was closer to typical, say low 50s, my total would have been below 200. If you take the simplistic view, that would be good. But we also know that the ratio of total-to-HDL or LDL-to-HDL is important (a high HDL tends to cancel out a high LDL). So, if my HDL was lower, my situation would’ve been worse, not better. In fact, my most recent profile had a total-to-HDL ratio that was just below the typical lower bound. Not a problem, though.
In spite of this, I do not subscribe to the notion that a total cholesterol measurement is “useless”. It has use. It’s just not the end-all. It’s part of a constellation. Mizar is not Ursa Major.
I’ve also linked to this in the past – On the Media – “The F-Word”:
@10
No one said BMI is a way to hate fat people. But people sure to love to use BMI as a justification for the hate they already feel.
Also, @13, you do realize that in this entire thread you’ve merely made assertions without backing any single one of them up, right? Also, you do realize that you’ve summed up the entirety of that hour-long video to some critiques of BMI as if that was the only thing in that video, right?
kome, you’re being selective.
Not the only one; PZ: “here’s an appropriate video from Katy Stoll on BMI.”
@21
So what? I’m not responding to anything PZ said.
So, kome, “@13” as you put it is not the only person here who “summed up the entirety of that hour-long video to some critiques of BMI as if that was the only thing in that video”.
I don’t dispute that you didn’t intend to respond to something PZ wrote, so I suppose if it’s only about the person rather than their claim, you can console yourself that your selectiveness about whom you criticise is not at all informative to others.
—
FWIW. lochaber @3 summarised both my own view and my own experience perfectly.
Going by BMI, these days I’m in the normal range at 66Kg whereas in my 30s I was way obese at 83Kg. I was much leaner in those days, too, around 10% vs around 14% these days. And I reckon I’m not quite as tall as I was then, either.
Anecdotally, I have a friend who is a bodybuilder, and he takes measurements using skin-pinch calipers as part of his routine — also quick and dirty, but much more accurate for body fat proportion. He gets worried when he goes above 8%, and adjusts his diet and regime accordingly.
(Mind you, he’s also had plastic surgery, probably not coincidentally — his driver is vanity first and health second)
kome @ #20:
Absolutely.
I know I often bang this drum, but it’s one of a handful of topics on which I feel like my knowledge and understanding haven’t just increased in recent years but grown by leaps and bounds. I’m not asking that people accept everything that people like Gordon and others in the fat justice movement say uncritically, but there’s a whole body of knowledge that’s been unfairly marginalized and maligned. And it’s critically important because it’s closely related to other social justice movements.
People will and do use pretty much anything to justify their feelings, SC.
(This is not a special case)
No one claimed otherwise.
No, SC, but the focus there is different to the OP, which is “talking about antiquated, largely wrong metrics built on Victorian bullshit”, as opposed to “a justification for the hate they [people] already feel”. That is to say, the nature of the metric, not its employment.
These aren’t easily separable/disentangled.
“The metric” is just weight divided by height. That’s it.
True, SC. As indicated, I think, by the nature and drift of this thread, where nobody disputes it’s but a proxy measure based mainly on typical sedentary people at best.
On that aspect, I will note I think the perniciousness of that number is much more about how people perceive themselves than about how they perceive others, and this is generally based on people accepting that it’s a scientific metric and a real thing.
[Pedantry]
Close, but not quite there, though it is indeed a function of weight and height:
“The BMI is defined as the body mass divided by the square of the body height, and is expressed in units of kg/m2, resulting from mass in kilograms and height in metres.”
That, of course, has to change if the measurement units differ, as they do in the USA, which is still using Victorian measurement units.
“The BMI is expressed in kg/m2, resulting from mass in kilograms and height in metres. If pounds and inches are used, a conversion factor of 703 (kg/m2)/(lb/in2) is applied.”
(Wikipedia)
?
Oh, sorry! “The BMI is defined as the body mass divided by the square of the body height” – much more scientific, then. Never mind.
Isn’t it very silly, John?
Yeah, I know, SC. After all, the moment one has their legs amputated, their BMI goes right up!
(And, of course, if one is getting their height measured, one tends to stand up as straight as they can — human nature and all)
Anyway — the thing is that health professionals don’t need to confront their patients with the claim that they are obese, they can instead say something like “your BMI is in the area where health issues may arise”.
(More of a distancing than a direct euphemism, but doubtless helpful)
I dispute that. A proxy measure of what?
Huh?
In the US, it’s used in the medical system, the insurance system, the child welfare system, and other areas with real impacts on people’s lives (see Aubrey Gordon’s book). But yes, “people accepting that it’s a scientific metric and a real thing” is a problem!
(I suppose I should add that it works both ways; some people’s BMI is way too low, and doctors can say the same thing to them. Different health issues, of course, but same line)
No, “obesity” has the same problems. Please read the literature (critically, yes!). Maybe start with my links above.
SC:
Of fatness. Or obesity, or corpulence, use whatever euphemism you prefer.
The baseline data.
Again, Wikipedia (saves me phrasing it, citation provided):
“BMI was designed to be used as a simple means of classifying average sedentary (physically inactive) populations, with an average body composition.”
(Basically, the same sort of thing as WEIRD studies — for example, not all countries’ population have the same distribution of height and weight, do they?)
I don’t think you are getting what I’m expressing; the problem is that ordinary people tend to stop at that point, being unaware of its basis and its applicability.
I refer you again to #3.
SC:
If health practitioners distance themselves by saying something like “this range of BMI is obese, you are well above that”, they mitigate that same problem.
(Or: it’s not a value-judgement on the person, as it might be perceived if they were more direct — no, no! It’s a sober reading of a chart and an evaluation of measurements and an application of medicine)
I am not uninformed, contrary to your perception.
Fatness is fine. Not even a measure of that, as discussed at length in the video. So that’s that, before anyone even attempts to demonstrate the usefulness of a measure of fatness (which, again, BMI is not). Again, it’s weight divided by height (squared).
“It’s a sober reading of a chart and an evaluation of measurements and an application of medicine” – LOL, this is the essence of your non-argument. But I mean if it’s sober, then whoa! Definitely not silly.
What concretely is the “application of medicine” here?
You very much appear to be, quite frankly. Perhaps consider that this is a subject like trans rights in which many of us are coming from uninformed and prejudiced backgrounds and should listen and investigate before we spout off.
[argh. SC, it was to kome, not you, to whom I earlier referenced #3]
—
That noted:
Again, it’s a proxy measure based on a typical sedentary set of people in a particular population, and it needs further steps (you know, conversion factors) if the measurements are other than in those metric units.
Well, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
Perhaps I should have written “application of medical knowledge”, instead.
In that particular example, it’s informing someone they’re very fat and their health is in danger based on a set of measurements and a chart, so that it’s not seen as a personal subjective judgement about their fatness, but rather as just medical advice.
I know you think that, thus my “contrary to your perception”, which you actually quoted.
What, you imagine this is about rights?
(heh)
SC @40:
‘weight divided by height squared’ does look sort of arbitrary. Another way of expressing the same value at least looks less so. It can also be expressed as
ρA/h
where ρ is density (roughly 1 gm/cc for humans), h is height and A is average horizontal cross-sectional area when standing. So for a given height, larger girth (roughly proportional to √A) gives larger BMI.
This is discussed in Gordon’s book, but the attitudes of medical professionals towards fat people are killing them (and others, but especially them).
But, SC, I did not write about the the attitudes of medical professionals towards fat people, I wrote about how medical professionals can inform fat people about their status without expressing their personal attitudes. Different thing.
Again, a proxy for what?
Quite.
Would have been equally vacuous.
I’m sure fat people would otherwise be totally unaware. As everyone knows, fat people have to be constantly reminded of how fat they are, otherwise…
Citations needed.
I do. There is, I’ll note once again, a great deal of research on discrimination against fat people and its effects. This fight is also connected to feminism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, trans rights, and other key struggles. I’ve provided some links above. Your snark is obnoxious and callous. I know you’re not like that in general, which is why I’m engaging with you on this subject.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, John.
(sigh — equine hydration problem)
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/overweight-obesity/overweight-and-obesity-an-interactive-insight/contents/measuring-overweight-and-obesity
“Body Mass Index
Body Mass Index (BMI) is an internationally recognised standard for classifying overweight and obesity in adults. BMI is calculated by dividing a person’s weight in kilograms by the square of their height in metres.
BMI does not necessarily reflect body fat distribution or describe the same degree of fatness in different individuals. However, at a population level, BMI is a practical and useful measure for identifying overweight and obesity. Figure 1 can be used to calculate your BMI.”
Vacuous to you. I mean, “quite”.
FFS. I quote myself, from whence you imagine I’m going on about constantly reminding fat people of their status (or anorexic people, but let’s not go there, eh?):
“Anyway — the thing is that health professionals don’t need to confront their patients with the claim that they are obese, they can instead say something like “your BMI is in the area where health issues may arise”.”
Almost an aside, noting one way it’s an useful thing. Because not needlessly antagonising people is usually a good thing.
You sure are needy. Equine Hydration Syndrome.
Ah, I see the problem. Here I am discussing BMI.
The post is about a video that PZ claims is about BMI and others claim only mentions that as part of the content, the claims go back and forth about whether BMI is meritorious or not, I mention it’s a proxy measurement and that I think it’s useful because one can talk about BMI without talking about fat, and you think it’s all about discrimination against fat people.
—
Anyway, whatever discrimination exists, I very much doubt it’s in any way attributable to the existence of the BMI.
And yes, here I was under the impression the topic was this video (which I shan’t bother watching) specifically and how it supposedly relates to antiquated, largely wrong metrics built on Victorian bullshit. But mostly about BMI.
—
On a more personal note:
Your snark is weak and ineffective.
(Not like it’s one way traffic, is it?)
SC, wow.
You: “There is, I’ll note once again, a great deal of research on discrimination against fat people and its effects.”
then: “JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, John.” regarding “how medical professionals can inform fat people about their status”.
But you already addressed that, no?
“I’m sure fat people would otherwise be totally unaware.”
To which I say, maybe not all, especially when their life is not noticeable affected thereby, but certainly some don’t think they’re getting to that point.
(Not like I haven’t lived in the real world, you know)
Again, this is just a stupid redefinition: “BMI/overweight/obese.” Not a useful proxy or measurement – just useless cultural categories. And BMI doesn’t even measure fatness, not that it’s relevant to anything.
I’m noting that health professionals are constantly, incessantly really, reminding fat people of their weight and (alleged) “status” and that the evidence very clearly shows that this is medically contraindicated and is killing people. You’re supporting this practice and you shouldn’t be.
My god. Do you think fat people are stupid?
This is the same bigoted bullshit in a transparent package. It is not useful. It’s awful.
“Here I am discussing skull measurements.” “It’s a sober reading of a chart”!
SC:
“The AIHW is an independent statutory Australian Government agency producing authoritative and accessible information and statistics to inform and support better policy and service delivery decisions, leading to better health and wellbeing for all Australians.”
No, that’s why it’s indirect. A heuristic proxy absent other information.
(Skin fold testing is a much better proxy)
You’re looping around some strange attractor.
Again: “But, SC, I did not write about the the attitudes of medical professionals towards fat people, I wrote about how medical professionals can inform fat people about their status without expressing their personal attitudes. Different thing.”
I think quite a number of them, especially those in the incipient phases and those who have only their habits as a causative agent, are in denial as to how they’re becoming ever more corpulent. And — depending on how you define “stupid” — some will be in that category. But no, in general. Nothing stops smart people from being in denial.
(or even from grasping a simple point)
Surely you’d not rather they wait until the sleep apnea and the diabetes and the struggling to do everyday activities and so forth come about before being informed by a physician of a causal factor for their symptoms?
Well, being in denial about the reality is even more awful than what you perceive.
(What’s supposedly bigoted about it is left unexplained)
How you keep conflating BMI — its very existence — to attitudes towards fat people is strange to me.
As I noted, it’s really only useful at population scales in a selected subgroup (obs, the elderly and the very young have different curves) when no other data is available.
I knew it was hardly applicable to me by my 30s, as I noted.
And again, a pinch test is much more accurate.
And again, for me as for others, it was way inaccurate — stupidly so.
But (again!) when used for purpose it’s an useful proxy, and it comes with the ancillary benefit I mentioned.
Now, you might personally think it’s voodoo, but it’s international voodoo if so — remember, an “internationally recognised standard”.
jeezus fucking christ, this is why we can’t have nice things
I mean…OK? This is amusingly vague and general, and I see no point in quoting it.
For the nth time, a proxy for what (specific medically relevant measure)?
A. Bullshit. B. Let’s pretend this is true. Describe the conversation that ensues and its medically beneficial results. Consider that the medical professional might be the one with the problem.
Citations needed. Also, I repeat the previous request.
(As a total aside, everyone would be way healthier if they just ate plants, and the evidence for this is growing by the minute. This is my free advice: eat plants.)
Absolute rot. Bigoted rot. “Weight realism.”
The assumption that fat people are/have a problem and can and should fix it and treating them as such.
But seriously, do you think fat people are treated equally to other people in all spheres of life? In medicine? Work? Housing? Education?…
Obviously, this silliness has no existence outside its social use.
Because you’re ignorant, despite the links I’ve provided.
Sigh.
Really, this is beneath you.
That said, International Voodoo would be a great band name.
So, even if this were true (which it isn’t), you’ve established no basis for using this at an individual level.
SC, a good long chewing of the fat has been some time lacking. Ta.
The point was that you called it “just a stupid redefinition” after selectively quoting it, and I was noting its source. Go ahead, look at USA sites. Look at European sites. Look anywhere else.
For the (n+1)th time: ““Body Mass Index
Body Mass Index (BMI) is an internationally recognised standard for classifying overweight and obesity in adults.”
(ibid)
I already told you I live in the real world.
But fine, if you want to hold that there are no people who gain weight year on year and at some point become unhealthy thereby that are in denial of their status, I can’t stop you.
A bit like Nerd of Redhead on one of his bad days.
But fine: how can I cite what you surely would not rather have, when you haven’t been explicit?
Because I’m at a loss otherwise as to what to cite to establish that “Surely you’d not rather [blah]” proposition.
As for your request for an imaginary conversation that supposedly sustains my claim, that’s also a bit of a silly, formulaic attempt to divert.
Seriously. Would you rather physicians kept mum about their patient’s weight problem when that’s a health factor? If so, would you not further prefer they were professional, clinical and (ahem) medical when so doing, instead of expressing personal opinions as to the merit of the condition?
(I kindly leave your aside aside, as it is wrong in its supposedly universal application)
Says the person who repeatedly and persistently writes “fat people” exactly in the same manner as I do.
(Really, you should have used two levels of quotation there, since you’ve elided some context by what you did; note I did not do the same to you earlier in this very response)
Shallow reading on your part. The knowledge that there are a non-zero amount of fat people (here we go both using the same term!) have a problem and can and should fix it and treating them as such. You know, the subset that merit physicians informing them of that, lest those physicians violate their medical ethics.
Again: I am not talking about fat people and how they’re perceived, but about this post and specifically about BMI.
But no. Neither are ugly people. Nor scarred people. Nor tattooed people.
(sigh)
(https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight)
Obviously. Some one should let international health organisations know that.
Mmmhmm. Ignorant. Bigoted. Callous. Beneath myself.
(Your subchannels are a bit loud)
Facts evoke suspiration. Got it.
Beneath You is an actual band name.
Oh dear.
It’s not my claim. It’s what I quoted from the official government site.
John – Being pedantic is not actually contributing anything to a conversation. Look, we get it, you’ve already made up your mind that you’re the smartest motherfucker in the room and you’re desperately angling to find some insignificant and irrelevant things to point out to prove it. No one cares, dude.
<
blockquote>Go ahead, look at USA sites. Look at European sites. Look anywhere else.
No one is arguing that people in governments and in the medical profession don’t take BMI seriously and believe it has value in a clinical and public health context. That is the problem, and that’s why many scientists and medical professionals continue to argue against its use, particularly in the way it’s often deployed (and as you’re recommending it be deployed): as a scientific-sounding concept to bash fat people, declare them to be unhealthy or diseased (or incipiently unhealthy or diseased) without evidence that they are, and demand that they become thinner.
Those aren’t medical diagnoses. They’re culturally defined weight standards for which BMI provides a medical-sounding gloss. That’s how the concept developed and has been used historically, in conjunction with the approval and marketing of weight-loss drugs. As Gordon describes (and I think the video in the OP mentions), for example, in the ’90s the NIH standards simply changed, making tens of millions of people “obese” overnight. Look at the basis for the original and changing BMI categories. They weren’t developed and haven’t been modified in response to developing medical knowledge, and in fact run counter to medical evidence, and this is evident in the response to the research done by people like Katherine Flegal.
I want you to cite the evidence for the various medical claims you’ve made about the health significance/consequences of fatness. See the discussion of Flegal’s work at my links.
WTF is a “health factor”? I think doctors should talk to their patients about actual medical conditions and issues they have, not act as yet another (and a particularly insidious and dangerous) vector for societal prejudice, which leads to worse outcomes for fat and skinny people alike and overwhelmingly leads to fat people being reluctant to see doctors at all.
The “merit” of the “condition”?
This is what I mean about your ignorance. The fat justice movement uses the term because they don’t see fatness as a failing or character flaw or problem.
Once again, see the work of Flegal and others. (Or just listen to the OTM episode to which I linked above. Could you just do that at least?) You’re suggesting that fatness itself is a medical condition, at least for some people, who need to be informed…that they’re fat? That it’s a problem? That it’s a medical condition? What, exactly? And do you suppose that this “medical” intervention has beneficial health results? Because health professionals have taken this approach for years, and the evidence shows that it does not. “But I want to tell people they’re fat and they shouldn’t be fat!” isn’t a sound basis for a medical intervention.
WTF?
People have been letting international health organizations know it for decades! See my links above. They should never have formed a fucking “International Obesity Task Force” in the ’90s or started this whole ridiculous health panic. The data don’t support it, and the interventions (including the medical profession “confronting” people about their weight and endlessly insisting with no scientific basis that they try to change it when the evidence clearly shows this isn’t possible for the vast majority of people and that attempting to do so itself frequently causes health issues) have been disastrous for public health and for people’s psychological well-being. Neither international health organizations nor individual health professionals should be involved with medicalizing or transmitting societal prejudices. International health organizations do a lot of great things. But they’ve also done many useless and harmful things over the years, particularly when corporate profits, patriarchy, and colonial legacies are in the mix, as here.
From Health Affairs (a few hours ago!) – “Igniting A Paradigm Shift In Obesity Policy And Treatment”:
The parallels between the arguments of the “BMI is too an important and valuable metric of individual
worthhealth” crowd and the “science does too prove that some races are inferior to others” crowd is fascinating, if not surprising. This thread offers a very long-winded proof of antigone10’s statement at #9:Oh, sorry, I’m sure no one here hates fat people; they’re just concerned about their health! And also how much the continued existence of fat people undermines normal humans. On the plus side, they have the same half-a-dozen “solutions*” to the problem of the existence of fat people that fat people have heard thousands of times, so why can’t we fatties just shut up and cease to exist already?
*Hey, they work for 5% of fat people, so why haven’t we disappeared yet?
Ah, now it’s clear. I hate fat people. Glad we sorted that out.
SC @57:
Not in the slightest. I’m being descriptive, not prescriptive.
And I don’t pretend to be a health professional or that I know better than health organisations.
Again, tell that to international and national health organisations, not me.
I’m quoting them, not advising them. No input on my part.
This time I’ll quote the CDC, since the WHO and the AIHW don’t do it for you, so USA it is this time:
“People who have overweight or obesity*, compared to those with healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions. These include:
All-causes of death (mortality).
High blood pressure (hypertension).
High LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, or high levels of triglycerides (dyslipidemia).
Type 2 diabetes.
Coronary heart disease.
Stroke.
Gallbladder disease.
Osteoarthritis (a breakdown of cartilage and bone within a joint).
Sleep apnea and breathing problems.
Many types of cancer.
Low quality of life.
Mental illness such as clinical depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders4,5.
Body pain and difficulty with physical functioning6.
*Overweight is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or higher. Obesity is defined as a BMI of 30 or higher. See the BMI calculator for people 20 years and older and the BMI calculator for people ages 2 through 19.”
(https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/index.html)
I reckon there’s your problem; you’re seeing this through a purely sociological lens, and take it as an article of faith that the only use for BMI is to medicalise or transmit societal prejudice.
BMI is a screening tool, not a diagnosis.
PSA level is a screening tool, not a diagnosis.
Discuss.
(Or just listen to the OTM episode to which I linked above. Could you just do that at least?)
@ #19.
Fuck you, John. I presented multiple links above that show this to be untrue. You’re ignorant and arrogant about this subject.
SC, I know, I did read the thread.
“On the Media dives into the fictions, feelings, and fraught history of fat”. was the inviting title.
For you’ I’ll take a peek.
“1. Dr. Yoni Freedhoff [@YoniFreedhoff], Associate Professor of Family Medicine at University of Ottawa, on what we do and don’t know about the relation of weight and the severity of a Covid infection.
Katherine Flegal [@CeriseFlegal], epidemiologist and former senior scientist at the Centers For Disease Control, on our flawed understanding of the data around weight and death, and Katie Lebesco [@KatieLeBesco], researcher focusing on food, pop culture, and fat activism, on why the “obesity epidemic” is a moral panic hiding behind a thin veil of scientific language.
Sabrina Strings [@SaStrings], sociologist at the University of California, Irvine, on how European attitudes about fat dramatically changed in the 18th century. and set the standards Americans still see today. ”
I’m sure you think that without reading about the relation of weight and the severity of a Covid infection or why the “obesity epidemic” is a moral panic hiding behind a thin veil of scientific language or how European attitudes about fat dramatically changed in the 18th century. and set the standards Americans still see today I am severely uninformed.
Presumably, so is everyone else who has not perused (reading is far quicker than listening, and there’s a transcript available) this material can’t really talk about BMI meaningfully. And, by meaningfully, you mean sociologically.
But I’ve been discussing BMI, and responding to your repeated questions about how it is a proxy and in what sense is it a proxy and for what is it a proxy and using reputable sources to do so.
I quote the CDC again: “BMI is a screening measure and is not intended to diagnose disease or illness.”
And again: “Why is BMI used to measure overweight and obesity?
Because calculation requires only height and weight, BMI is an inexpensive and easy tool.”
(Simple as that)
You @49: “Again, this is just a stupid redefinition: “BMI/overweight/obese.” Not a useful proxy or measurement – just useless cultural categories”
You can assert that they are “useless cultural categories” all you want, but obviously the actual medical profession worldwide thinks otherwise.
(Maybe they can rename it, like they did MRI from NMR :) )
—
And seriously, please be aware that you are imputing attitudes and beliefs and actions to me that I have neither professed nor possess.
I expect the typical punter to do that, not you.
I am not advocating its [BMI] use. I am not advocating its retirement.
I am not advocating doctors use it as a distancing mechanism, nor am I advocating they don’t. I am not in a position to cite sources for and sustain the claims of governmental and intergovernmental health agencies.
And so forth.
(Not an activist, I, nor an ideologue — and you should know that by now)
You see yourself as erudite and humble about this subject. I get it.
You are quite uninformed, yes. And evidently wish to remain so, since you’ve read the description of the episode (one episode of one podcast which is obviously just an introduction to the accumulated knowledge on this subject and only one of the links I’ve offered on this thread alone) and noted that a transcript is available, but you don’t appear to have engaged with the material in any meaningful way if you read or listened to it at all, and have shown no interest in looking at anything else. None of which is stopping you from sharing your uninformed viewpoint (while at the same time periodically attempting to distance yourself from it).
The BMI has developed and is used and discussed by humans in particular social settings. Science and pseudoscience are social. There is no way to understand this cultural artifact without addressing its social context. This includes but of course isn’t limited to analyzing the research on weight and heath outcomes, the history of ideas about weight in medicine and the broader culture, the basis for and effectiveness of various medical approaches and interventions related to body weight, the role of corporate interests in shaping narratives about and research into weight and health and the work of national and international organizations, the physical and psychological effects on people of anti-fat bias in society and medicine, and the work of fat justice movements and how it relates to that of other social justice movements.
On this last point, you’ve been ignorantly dismissive of the idea that the medical deployment of the BMI you describe is a social justice issue at all, much less one related to other issues you care about. You also seem to be under the impression – or feigning to be so – that a “purely” sociological approach to this subject wouldn’t include an examination of scientific or pseudoscientific research or claims, despite the fact that several of my references above directly and explicitly address them. I’ll note two things: First, this is noticeably different from how I’ve seen you proceed when it comes to trans and other issues, so it’s a bit surprising. Second, it’s very similar to conversations I remember having here years ago with people suggesting that genetic science supported the existence of biological races. I was trying to discuss the research, but because I was citing sociologists the responses went something like yours in this thread – my approach was rhetorical, ignored the scientific facts, etc. So that’s something to consider, perhaps.
LOL, when I was looking for the old link in #67 I happened on a rhetorical analysis of the 2002 genetic-clusters article: Melissa Wills’s 2017 “Are Clusters Races? A Discussion of the Rhetorical Appropriation of Rosenberg et al.’s ‘Genetic Structure of Human Populations'” (which can be found for free by googling). Its take is maybe a bit more generous than mine, but it’s interesting, especially the section on “Worldwide Cluster Distinctiveness.”
Again, I’m talking about this post — BMI, not about societal attitudes to fatness.
For people to judge someone as obese, they just need to look at them; no BMI is required for that. That is, those attitudes don’t rely on whether or not BMI exists.
You could make some sort of argument that BMI exists because fat people exist and many people have negative attitudes towards them, but instead you’re arguing that negative attitudes towards them exist (or are mediated) because BMI exists.
(A question of ontological dependence)
You perceive it thus, I’m not disputing that.
But no, it’s the very same me, and I’m proceeding exactly the same as I normally do.
Now, were someone to come along and claim fat people are worth disrespect purely because they are fat, or deny their existence, or restrict their rights, you’d then see I proceed in exactly the same manner as you see me do about trans and other issues.
@antigone10:
Lindo Bacon is basically a grifter who misuses scientific facts to sell BS to vulnerable people (i.e., obese people who are suffering systematic injustices). This should be obvious from the video I linked. E.g., in the video Bacon mentions that “Does fat kill?” and then proceeds to cherry-pick information that implies it doesn’t. There is by now an uncontroversial evidence that obesity correlates at the population level with various health effects and so no scientist or scientific paper will ever say something ridiculous as “Fat kills” so Lindo Bacon’s argument is completely strawman. However, nowhere in their writing you will find the mention of such findings. This pattern of dishonest and misleading representation of scientific data shows up over and over and over again. E.g., Lindo Bacon maintains that diets don’t work, can never work for anyone. They promote the “weight set point” by giving the example of rats maintaining a healthy weight even if given unlimited access to food but they ignore the evidence that doing a similar experiment with “junk food” given to rats gives the exact opposite outcome. They minimize the role of exercise and still healthy eating (e.g., vegetables and so on) in maintaining a healthy body and so on. It is basically a shameless abuse of authority and scientific research to grift the vulnerable people. Ironically, it is also what they’ve being accuses of directly doing recently.
I’ve already responded to this willfully obtuse argument @ #67.
Were someone to come along?! Anti-fat bias and active discrimination are extremely well documented, especially in health care. Gordon cites extensive research on it in her book (but you can find it simply by googling relevant terms), and all of my links above discuss its connection to other forms of prejudice and discrimination. This has terrible effects on people’s health (and not only fat people’s). From my quote @ #58:
Among those surgical procedures fat people are often prevented from getting on the basis of their BMI is gender affirming surgery desperately needed by some trans people. These problems aren’t neatly separated.
It’s not an argument, it’s an assertion.
You are talking about societal attitudes to fat people, I am talking about BMI.
So was PZ in the OP: “Since we were talking about antiquated, largely wrong metrics built on Victorian bullshit, here’s an appropriate video from Katy Stoll on BMI.”
Yes, were someone to come along on this very thread, where there has been no anti-fat bias or active discrimination hitherto, I would seem my usual self to you.
Your own claim is very clear, and very wrong:
““BMI/overweight/obese.” Not a useful proxy or measurement – just useless cultural categories. And BMI doesn’t even measure fatness, not that it’s relevant to anything.”
Medical categories, not just cultural, contrary to your belief.
Useful for medical organisations, as documented by them and cited by me.
—
The CDC:
“How is BMI used?
BMI can be a screening tool, but it does not diagnose the body fatness or health of an individual. To determine if BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider performs further assessments. Such assessments include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, and family history.”
(https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html#Used)
Again: “it does not diagnose the body fatness or health of an individual”.
But yeah, any GAS provider that exclusively uses BMI to determine the health risks of medical intervention is doing it wrong, that’s for sure.
“The BMI has developed and is used and discussed by humans in particular social settings. Science and pseudoscience are social. There is no way to understand this cultural artifact without addressing its social context. This includes but of course isn’t limited to analyzing the research on weight and heath outcomes, the history of ideas about weight in medicine and the broader culture, the basis for and effectiveness of various medical approaches and interventions related to body weight, the role of corporate interests in shaping narratives about and research into weight and health and the work of national and international organizations, the physical and psychological effects on people of anti-fat bias in society and medicine, and the work of fat justice movements and how it relates to that of other social justice movements.”
“The BMI has developed and is used and discussed by humans in particular social settings. Science and pseudoscience are social. There is no way to understand this cultural artifact without addressing its social context. [etc]”
Yeah, but this is true of every single thing developed and used by humans ever, not just BMI.
Because the harmful medical and public health use of an “antiquated, largely wrong metric built on Victorian bullshit” has nothing to do with societal attitudes to fat people. This is fractally stupid, and I’m done responding to it.
First, you have several times on this thread discussed the use of the BMI in medical contexts. (Read the article to which I linked @ #71 and explain how everything there involved is “a sober reading of a chart and an evaluation of measurements and an application of medicine” with no relation to societal attitudes toward fat people.) You’ve contended that nonprofessionals are just unaware of the concrete usefulness of the BMI in the medical context, but I’ve provided multiple links citing or to medical professionals pointing to its (historical baggage and) limited/non-usefulness and arguing that it should be used, if at all, in very narrow and confined ways both to avoid discriminating against people and contributing to stigma and to avoid harming people’s health. You can quote organizations’ statements (and many of them are fortunately beginning to change their approach in response to social activism and to a growing body of work on weight, bias, and the social determinants of health) all you want, but the argument from authority doesn’t cut it in the face of the actual evidence I’ve provided.
Second, you’re taking a very literal approach. If this were a while ago and the medical concept at issue were, say, homosexuality as a mental illness, and people in the thread were arguing that, whatever general societal prejudices might exist it’s just a helpful psychiatric diagnosis correlated with suicidality and disease and necessary to get people the treatment they need, I don’t think you would be demanding that people would need to overtly say “gay people are worth disrespect purely because they are gay” before recognizing that the support of the diagnosis itself is bound up with societal prejudices. Nor, for that matter, is the prejudice ordinarily that explicit on the threads about other societal biases. So, no, not consistent.
Our categorizations of other humans (and other animals) are very obviously susceptible to our societal biases and should be approached with the most critical perspective. Especially those given the imprimatur of science and medicine and used in a scientific/medical/public health/policy-informing context, which can literally have a life or death impact. And most especially ones used in that context that aren’t based on rigorous research and whose use historically has emerged in a social context of bias and oppression. It’s astonishing how unseriously you’re approaching this.
Well, yes. After all, that’s the ostensible purpose of BMI, as noted by all those quotations I’ve adduced. It would be very stupid to discuss BMI without including medical contexts, no?
No, I have not.
I quoted them because you repeatedly kept asking about what BMI is.
And I do like how you think me quoting CDC is argument (what argument?) from authority while simultaneously claiming it’s trumped by your own authoritative citations.
(heh)
Well, being very literal is quite unlike me, as you note.
The subject at hand is “Since we were talking about antiquated, largely wrong metrics built on Victorian bullshit, here’s an appropriate video from Katy Stoll on BMI.” — implication being that BMI is an antiquated, largely wrong metric and that the featured video is about BMI.
So that’s what I’m talking about — BMI.
You are talking about societal perceptions of fatness. Different topic.
As for your attempted analogy, it’s not very good.
A better one would be if the OP was about, say, the penile plethysmograph and then you would be talking about societal attitudes to homosexuality where I would be talking about, you know penile plethysmography.
You’re off into the weeds, again. I don’t demand anything of anyone, for starters.
And I brought that up because you claimed I’m not being my normal self.
Just like me telling you I’m talking about BMI is to you an argument on my part, my telling you I’m just doing my normal thing is to you a delusion on my part.
—
Ah well, look on the bright side, SC.
Your frustration with me aside, you’re getting to put all that stuff down for people to see, so you’re raising awareness about a topic that clearly is important to you.
From my link @ #71:
Something to think about for people who unlike John wish to develop a better understanding of what the BMI means in people’s lives.
Alright, I’m done with you.
Oh, fuck off.
Sour grapes are sour.
My favorite quote.
For the record, I have no idea what is being alluded to here.
Morales: “I’m being descriptive, not prescriptive.”
I remember lots of Jordan Peterson’s fanboys saying the same thing about his blithering.
Jimf @10: I go to my doc for my annual physical and they automatically compute my BMI. Might be useful if they see a trend going one way or the other.
The operative word here is “might.” I suppose a doctor MIGHT repeat MIGHT choose to use BMI as a starting-point for a conversation about the client’s overall health. However, as antigone10 said @11, said doctor would have to look at other factors anyway — especially those the client reports — so even there BMI has VERY limited usefulness. So BMI is a useful-looking metric, but it gets discarded really quick when it comes down to actual diagnosis and treatment of individuals. Sort of like IQ…
Raging Bee:
I’m sure it’s been said uncounted times, but bad comparison, not just a vacuous one.
The proper comparison would be to Jordan Peterson saying the same thing.
More to the point, since I did describe, and since I did not prescribe, it follows that the proposition is true. You can see it for yourself, if you care to peruse the thread.
—
Presumably you are aware that now you contradict one of SC’s claims (my emphasis):
“Among those surgical procedures fat people are often prevented from getting on the basis of their BMI is gender affirming surgery desperately needed by some trans people.”
BTW, RB, here, for you: https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/fanboi-vs-fanboy
(Describing, not prescribing)