They interviewed 310 ppl, calculated their BMI, then found out around half skip breakfast. That half had BMI a little higher than the rest.
No discussion of what they eat.
What a waste of time for everyone involved.
No discussion of what they eat.
What a waste of time for everyone involved.
But on the other, so many people gloss over or are just blatantly unaware that NIH specifically doesn't endorse anything about anything published there, that they're just a clearing house. And then people either infer authority from the domain, or they use that to consciously or subconsciously push their belief.
The journal this article is from is from is Cureus: https://www.cureus.com/
Their tagline seems to be "publishing beyond open access" and to my eye at least looks like a 3rd tier journal.
But NIH really has nothing to do with it, they're just a catalog. Libraries have tons of bullshit in them. You are supposed to be the filter.
The authors found no correlation between skipping breakfast and HbA1c. That's also more relevant to people with Type 2 diabetes than the general population.
Managing type 2 diabetes can occupy a non-trivial amount of mental space. Though probably not as much as managing type one diabetes.
Not everyone is in everyone intended audience.
Can have higher BMI and lower bodyfat
I'm not convinced BMI is a useful metric
That might not be the case individually but with multiple people the few outliers don't matter.
It's not perfect, but it's a good metric.
I knew a guy who really wanted to join the fire service but couldn't meet the BMI requirements as he was in the 'obese' BMI bucket, In this case he was just very broad and very muscular (built like the colloquial brick shithouse). By their requirements jonah lomu would not have been able to join because he was 'obese'
If you’re not working out and fat, BMI is still not a good descriptor of “how fat” or “how consequentially fat”.
And yet you’ll still get scientists mapping out correlations and then it’s a shitty analysis because it does not show what the study assumes.
1. Being sub 12% body fat (the highest BMI that would be considered healthy) is arguably unhealthy in and of it's own
2. Being on the low end of healthy would be, if my math serves me, -2.5% body fat
3. BMI does not distinguish between unhealthy / overweight, and fit / healthy (which should be the primary goal of such a metric?)
4. BMI aligns the best outcomes with those that will minimize muscle mass
It's not that BMI does not have it's place, but let's call a spade a spade.
12% body fat isn't a BMI, what are you trying to say?
BMI is not supposed to bucket you into healthy or unhealthy. It is a ratio of your weight to height. You're right that there are a lot of people who are overweight but are perfectly healthy. I think your problem is that you're viewing BMI as some kind of blanket good or bad health number. It is what it is, and it's just one aspect of your physical health, which you probably shouldn't be trying to capture in a single number anyway.
Go get a physical exam from a doctor if you want something comprehensive. If you just want a general height/weight ratio, BMI is pretty good for most people.
it seems likely parent is talking about his* required body fat to be considered in the "healthy" BMI range (under 25 for males).
The musclebound people literally do not care about BMI because its irrelevant to them. Almost everyone else, should probably start eating less.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
How so? A couple years ago I was at 10% and running a ½ marathon three times a week. I felt pretty healthy.
Math reason: the square term for height is incorrect, people are three dimensional and a cube would be more appropriate (the formula is (lbweight/(inchheight^2 * 703))).
Check the BMI of tall and short people that you know in this chart:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/diet-physical-...
BMI and body fat are extremely strongly correlated. People with a very high BMI are all obese or morbidly obese. And people with a very low BMI are almost all underweight. BMI is a very simple, easy to calculate and useful metric. It works across countries and across time.
BMI is just one metric. It doesn't tell you everything and knowing only the BMI of an individual isn't proof of anything. But average BMI is higher in Texas than Vietnam despite Texas having way more more bodybuilders. People in Texas have higher BMI because people in Texas are fatter. That's the truth. BMI denialism confounds me.
That is tautological - obesity is defined in terms of BMI. BMI over 30 is obese.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is 6'2" and weighed 235lbs at contest (30.2 BMI) and 260lbs in the off season (33.4 BMI). So much for your "all" claim.
I'm about 16-18% body fat. I'm definitely muscular, but hardly in the .0001%. If I'm wearing a shirt, you can't really tell that I lift.
Hardly world class.
Most people aren't Arnold. Outliers don't count in studies, for very good reasons.
It is understood that when we say "all" we mean "close to 99%", and for 99% of the population with a BMI over 30, they are overweight.
I understand what you're saying, but I think a person that wins Mr. Olympia seven times is clearly a severe, severe, severe outlier. For a decade he was THE most well-built body on the planet. Literally ONE in 5 billion.
Obviously no measurement is "perfect" for "everyone", but BMI is a very good indicator for an extremely high percentage of the population.
For the average person that isn't doing something radical with their body for a specific goal (powerlifer, bodybuilder, olympian, etc.) BMI is a fantastic first pass indicator of how things are going general health/weight wise.
Congratulations on discovering that tail ends of distributions exist.
It doesn't invalidate anything in the comment you are responding to.
I'm far from a genetic outlier, but I go to the gym for 3-4 60-90 minute sessions a week. My program is efficient, I don't take steroids, and my nutrition is decent (but not great). I'm 5'10" and 202 pounds (29 BMI).
I find it disingenuous that people use the top performers as an excuse. There is a middle ground where a modest investment will reap significant returns.
If maintaining the healthy function of my body is skewing my BMI as to be useless, then perhaps BMI is a poor metric.
Even when you take a 1 in 5 billion outlier like Arnold he still doesn't come close to crossing this threshold, despite his high calorie body-builder diet.
"A metric have 0.1% outliers so it is bad metric" is a horrible take
There exist better metrics as well
BMI isn’t generally used as a picture of overall health anyway. More often, it’s used as a measure for health issue probability. As Texas BMI raises, it can be used to calculate the increasing chances of a huge variety of health problems.
You've already pointed out that it depends on what you're using it for, and that's it's not especially useful on an individual basis. Why the weird Holocaust association?
BMI isn't a great measure for a lot of reasons.
There's way too much variation in height and muscle mass. There's variation based on race as well, for example CMS has different standards for DPP eligibility if you're asian [1].
BMI was created in 1830, and has always been of limited usefulness. There are much better methods for measuring health in relation to total body fat.
It is completely reasonable to be critical of it [2] when it's used improperly (which is very common).
[1] https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/medicare-diabetes-preventi...