back
10 comments
Interesting how one of the measures was to raise the BMI from 30 to 40 as one measure of being Obese. Yet its also mentioned that you could have a BMI under 30 but be obese. And yes they're adding in a different measure to pick that up, but I don't see why it should be raised from 30 - 40, unless there is a large cohort of people who present with a BMI of 30 but have significant muscle mass to make the label of obese incorrect.

I'd rather the BMI figure be overly cautious than not cautious enough. I'd say if most people have a BMI of 30 it not because of muscle mass, but due to a lack there of.

> I'd rather the BMI figure be overly cautious than not cautious enough.

I'd rather it be accurate.

> Interesting how one of the measures was to raise the BMI from 30 to 40 as one measure of being Obese.

Because they replace a course/inaccurate definition of obesity with a tighter/accurate one.

The overall effect isn't less conservative -- quite the opposite -- but they deprioritized a low-signal measure.

Any man that builds a decent amount of muscle almost certainly has an "overweight" BMI, unless they have extremely low body fat.

A 5'10" man has to be <174 lbs to not be overweight.

Ehh, that isn't that far off to me. You have to be pretty dang built to go over that without carrying a decent amount of fat, and im saying that as someone 6'1" and in the trades. Someone can both be built strong and still be carrying around a lot of extra fat, even if they appear well muscled; muscle in itself can hold/hide a decent amount of fat.
A 5'10" man has to be <174 lbs to not be overweight

Well, crap...

BMI isn't a good indicator for obesity for individuals with higher muscle mass, this issue surfaces multiple times a year, because a lot of manual labor professionals and law enforcement shows up as obese in their annual checkups.

The solution is not to change the BMI scale but use alternative ones that takes the muscle mass and subliminal/visceral fat accumulation into consideration. We're supposed to forecast someone's likelihood for weight related issues, and muscle is not the problem there.

Yes I am well aware of that and I did mention that in my comment as we've been saying that for decades that BMI isn't a great indicator.

My point is that the article suggests experts were going to change the BMI scale from 30 to 40 for the classification of obese. Which is exactly what you're saying they shouldn't do and I wrote that I agreed they shouldn't increase it.

Not every reply is trying to rebuke what you said, some can add context that not everybody knows.

Using the broken BMI as a system everywhere is the problem, numbers don’t mean anything particularly complex and doesn’t lead to good decisions to begin with.

When a metric is overused, it leads to its being abused and that’s what we’re seeing here because people keep submitting complaints that volunteer firefighters are all obese even though these guys/gals can almost lift a car.

Is that higher or lower than under the old definition? I feel like basically everyone I know and interact with, probably is considered at least overweight and likely obese.
Not to be conspiratorial, but I'm reminded of when recommended cholesterol levels were reduced significantly, right around the time statins became widely available. Are we now seeing something similar with the availability of GLP-1 drugs? I wouldn't be surprised if the pharmaceutical industry, which stands to sell more drugs as a result of this change, is using its influence here. But I also recognize that the changes might be entirely beneficial. Are there studies that compare (1) outcomes that result from weight loss with the new drugs with (2) outcomes of weight loss without the drugs, and also with (3) outcomes without weight loss? I can imagine that outcomes for (2) could be superior if they're the result of better nutrition and more exercise.
What’s the word for “a good thing that happens for a bad reason”?