But BMI is science. No matter that it’s shoddy science. It’s science. So we should still implement public health policy around it.
If she loses a pound or grows 0.3 inches she comes in as normal, maybe she could stand up straighter and stop slouching.
BMI is a guideline, it’s silly if people expect it to be some sort of exact science.
Even as a “guideline” it’s useless and mindless. Any “guideline that doesn’t differentiate between fat, bone and muscle is actually worse than useless.
I think it’s more useful than the common practice of judging your weight by your clothes size – and buying clothes 2 sizes too small.
You got a better system than BMI, for those who want to get an empirical measure in their own homes?
Not sure, but whatever it is should account for density. Maybe a bathtub or hot tub full of salty water and measure displacement? 🙂
The waist to hip ratio is considered better. Under 0.94 is considered good. Note: waist means around the navel.
Wouldn’t it be different for men and women?
The Body Mass Index is the least accurate metric used in medicine. It ignores frame size, age, sex, health, muscle development, etc. Yes, I have a much better system of estimating ideal weight than the BMI.
I am a mathematician specializing in wellness; I’ve developed a modern, scientific algorithm to replace the obsolete BMI ( http://www.weightzonefactor.com ) No ads, no spam – i’m retired. I’m also 100+ pounds lighter than I used to be.
Wouldn’t it be different for men and women?
Yes, good catch. It is 0.7 for women. Wiki also has 0.9 for men, but Men’s Health had 0.94 when I read it last.
I posted this several years ago, showing how ridiculous BMI is when used on athletes.
This looks like a statistical measure which has been misunderstood and misused (but I don’t know if is the history in the case of BMI). Changes in average BMI of a population might be quite informative about wealth development and changes in expected health.
But applied to one single individual, it is dominated by individual factors. A division is not enough to adjust for the single individual factor “body length” to make weights comparable.
But BMI is science. No matter that it’s shoddy science. It’s science. So we should still implement public health policy around it.
If she loses a pound or grows 0.3 inches she comes in as normal, maybe she could stand up straighter and stop slouching.
BMI is a guideline, it’s silly if people expect it to be some sort of exact science.
Even as a “guideline” it’s useless and mindless. Any “guideline that doesn’t differentiate between fat, bone and muscle is actually worse than useless.
I think it’s more useful than the common practice of judging your weight by your clothes size – and buying clothes 2 sizes too small.
You got a better system than BMI, for those who want to get an empirical measure in their own homes?
Not sure, but whatever it is should account for density. Maybe a bathtub or hot tub full of salty water and measure displacement? 🙂
The waist to hip ratio is considered better. Under 0.94 is considered good. Note: waist means around the navel.
Wouldn’t it be different for men and women?
The Body Mass Index is the least accurate metric used in medicine. It ignores frame size, age, sex, health, muscle development, etc. Yes, I have a much better system of estimating ideal weight than the BMI.
I am a mathematician specializing in wellness; I’ve developed a modern, scientific algorithm to replace the obsolete BMI ( http://www.weightzonefactor.com ) No ads, no spam – i’m retired. I’m also 100+ pounds lighter than I used to be.
Wouldn’t it be different for men and women?
Yes, good catch. It is 0.7 for women. Wiki also has 0.9 for men, but Men’s Health had 0.94 when I read it last.
I posted this several years ago, showing how ridiculous BMI is when used on athletes.
This looks like a statistical measure which has been misunderstood and misused (but I don’t know if is the history in the case of BMI). Changes in average BMI of a population might be quite informative about wealth development and changes in expected health.
But applied to one single individual, it is dominated by individual factors. A division is not enough to adjust for the single individual factor “body length” to make weights comparable.