“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”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    450 minutes ago

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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    114 hours ago

    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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54 hours ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      238 minutes ago

      I’m not a top athlete but I do lift weights and according to my BMI I’m .5 under overweight despite my body fat percentage staying in the 15-17 range. I’m not even that big.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      52 hours ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 hour ago

        I mean, I work in IT. It’s hard to take a bunch of sweaty Humpty Dumpties seriously when they tell you the issues with BMI…

        You lower it in the kitchen I think, regardless of your build. I think if you’re healthy, you know how much to pay attention to a single number.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          124 minutes ago

          Oh for sure. I proved that when I got out, stopped working out, and didn’t adjust my portion sizes. But the me that I am now, is all my fault and not anything to do with BMI measurement.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 hours 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.

    • AatubeOP
      link
      fedilink
      32 hours ago

      The problem is that it incentivizes fat over muscle.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 hours ago

        Well it incentivises neither.

        I’ll admit I was disappointed that I put on weight once I worked out a bit, but there’s still plenty of podge to go before I can blame BMI for me being slightly overweight.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 hours ago

      OH, come on, I have body close to some professional shot putters or hammer/discus throwers! /s

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    299 hours ago

    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

    • deadcatbounce
      link
      fedilink
      37 hours ago

      Help me out here. What’s BMI2 - searching gives me computer related stuff and running “BMI weight” just gives old BMI stuff.

    • AatubeOP
      link
      fedilink
      89 hours 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.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    158 hours ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      98 hours ago

      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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2011 hours ago

    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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      119 hours 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!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      710 hours ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        38 hours ago

        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.

    • cassie 🐺
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      my main beef is that “too fat” is a wildly varying scale from person to person because everyone stores and processes fat differently. and if you’re “too fat” that may not in fact be your most relevant health concern. my experience with health providers that focus on BMI during intake is that if you’re “overweight” many other health problems will be seen through that lens even if they’re unrelated… in my case, lots of dieting advice, being told to exercise more come to find out decades later I had an undiagnosed nervous/muscular condition. now that it’s treated somewhat, my weight stays pretty much in “normal” BMI with the same or lower activity. I’m kinda pissed it took this long to get treatment for an underlying condition because the ruler said “too fat.”

    • AatubeOP
      link
      fedilink
      311 hours ago

      it’s easy to calculate but extremely rough. Efficacy varies immensely. Look, nobody’s forcing you to do anything, I’m just saying that BMI is way too rough to be seriously examined.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    8117 hours ago

    This is the ideal male body. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    10020 hours ago

    BMI is the best measure we have for statistical purposes (i.e., a population) because it’s been around for 50(?) years and is what is often used in studies, so you can compare one study to another using BMI.

    It’s also not terrible for a population because it averages out. But for an individual it is definitely not a good measure because there are way too many other variables that matter.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1111 hours ago

      I think there is a better one, it’s called a mirror. I look at it every day and cry, but there is no question lol

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      100% this, plus it’s very easy to measure.

      For individuals the tg/HDL ratio is promising as a great marker for insulin resistance (lower is better). But it requires a blood test, for academic purposes it’s also good because most checkup blood tests have these two markers recorded.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        Yes! Thanks, I had started to mention that and ended up with a huge run on sentence and it didn’t make it through the editing process. 😅.

        • AatubeOP
          link
          fedilink
          613 hours ago

          we publishing peer-reviewed comments with this one

    • deadcatbounce
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Thank-you.

      I’m from the UK and grew up in the seventies. I can’t do metric or imperial without help!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Height selection on metric side has jumps of up to 3 centimeters lmao. Makes me doubtful about the accuracy since I’ve never before seen that

      I’m also pretty skinny and it says my BMI and body fat is great but that I’m too round. I don’t even have belly and it is showing me as quite rotund lol. I think there’s something fucky going on with my measurements or about inputting metric into the calculator.

      E: Tried it again and now I’m out of healthy zone for being too lean. Hmm. I’m not sure if I measured wrong or they’re saying I should have a bit of a belly. Which is the sort of medical advice I actually want lol

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        912 hours ago

        Height selection on metric side has jumps of up to 3 centimeters lmao.

        Too lazy to look, but given 1 inch = 2.54 cm, my guess is the tool is written in inches, and just rounds those values to the nearest whole cm, thus alternating between 2 & 3 cm increments.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          312 hours ago

          Don’t Americans deal with differences smaller than 1 inch when it comes to height, is it just 2 footies 7 incherinos? I’m so used to it being per cm.

          Tbh I’ve never before seen a dropdown selector for height before either. It’s always just fill in thing.

          • tiredofsametab
            link
            fedilink
            21 hour ago

            Maybe to a half inch, but it’s not super popular (except for kids who ALWAYS are proud of that half inch they grew in x period of time). At least, that was the case before I moved to the sanity of metricland.

          • AatubeOP
            link
            fedilink
            411 hours ago

            They don’t. At most just 1/4 inch sometimes.

            • Clay_pidgin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              411 hours ago

              Partial inches are only used by people insecure about their height. “I’m 5’7.25” “, naw bud, you’re 5’7”.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                311 hours ago

                I was thinking that this was a bit like with age. Someone telling you online that they’re “25 and a half”, yeah I bet you are lol.

                But to me 3cm difference especially in this sort of calculations just seems surprisingly big.

                • Clay_pidgin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  110 hours ago

                  In imperial, it’s in one-inch increments, which is typical. Must have been written in inches and translated for the rest of the world.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      212 hours ago

      This is giving me body fat percentages that are around double what I get from other methods. Not sure what’s up, but I don’t really believe my 5’8" 150lb ass is 30% body fat

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          47 minutes ago

          I went from Anorexia in the military to getting out and doing calisthenics for years now. I am quite a bit smaller than average. Usually between 13-17%, primarily using Navy Body Fat measurement scale to determine it.

      • tiredofsametab
        link
        fedilink
        12 hours ago

        It “works” for me, but if you want to put in xxx in CM, it might not be there because they stick to inches and you need to round up/down :/ For example, it goes 170cm to 173cm

        • Dragon "Rider"(drag)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -116 hours ago

          Drag tried on mobile and PC. Every time drag clicked metric, it reloaded and switched back to imperial.

    • Tarquinn2049
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Hmm, that puts me at BRI of 2.1, and BMI of 35.4

      Those both seem incredibly off.

      But I do have extra dense bones apparently, which tends to be mostly what screws with my BMI, and my ability to float/swim. But they seem really hard to break, not that I try very hard… but none of them have broken yet. And I’ve been in situations that seem like they should have broken.

      Either way, I weigh alot more than I look like I should, not quite “Wolverine getting on a motorbike”, but a bit like that.

      Kinda makes me wish those “guess your weight” carnival experts were something I could see in real life, only ever seen it on TV.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    3821 hours ago

    Can’t tell you how disappointed I am that isn’t just a chart of increasingly tubby kittens.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    18
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Interesting. Found a calculator and according to this I’m “very lean” (only just) while I’m overweight (again, only just) using BMI.

    Judging by the belly fat I can pinch, I’m gonna trust the BMI

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      211 hours ago

      This is fascinating because I got a BRI of 1.9 and it’s saying I’m in the healthy zone. So I don’t really know what to believe here

    • vovo
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Wikipedia has a chart:

      I would be healthier if I were 1.4m.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      416 hours ago

      Yeah not sure how I feel about BRI. It’s telling me my BRI is fine, but I’m rounder than I’d like to be.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        214 hours ago

        How round one wants to be is easily influenced by external factors like culture, though. I think slim bodies look sleek and beautiful, but it’s probably healthier to have a bit of fat in the right places (for times when your digestive system is on the fritz)

        I like the effort for a body weight stat being more complete or useful for individuals, but my efforts measuring BRI came up kind of wack too :(. We decided it judged me too thin.