McDonald's and BMI

[Coito ergo sum]

I think you need a larger sample size if you want to test those theories and extrapolate the results to the broader population.

And not use the BMI given how poor an indicator it is of someone's physical health.

BMI was never intended for that. It's a tool to measure national health levels. If youbreach a certainnaverage ratio then you have a national problem.

Not being Japanese, for instance. Of course they tend to treat it as more of a 'high score' than a range of good values, but that is that.

It's a reasonably clumsy tool that has been horribly overused, the point where I wonder if it causes more harm than good.

Given that 67% give or take of the US population is overweight by most measures, I should say it's been horribly UNDERUSED. If more people took note of their BMI, they would be shocked at how fat they are. There's another thread around here about "What's your BMI?" or some similar title - some folks here were shocked to fall into the "overweight" category. It is an eye opener, and if more people used the easy to determine number as a rough guide, they might take a bit more care about what they eat.

[GreyICE]

Given that 67% give or take of the US population is overweight by most measures, I should say it's been horribly UNDERUSED. If more people took note of their BMI, they would be shocked at how fat they are. There's another thread around here about "What's your BMI?" or some similar title - some folks here were shocked to fall into the "overweight" category. It is an eye opener, and if more people used the easy to determine number as a rough guide, they might take a bit more care about what they eat.

Look, body mass increases proportional to volume. BMI increases proportional to height squared. While certainly volume does not appropriately scale to cubes in humans, I don't really need to explain why this measurement works best over a small range of heights, do I?

Really, arguing for stupid measurements because you like the results is not a good argument. Methodology is process-oriented.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

McDonald's is one of those restaurant that sucks until you're in a foreign country where you really, really don't trust the food (hi Mexico, we were talking about you). need to have a shit in a toilet that is more than just a hole in the ground. Therefore, I forgive them a lot of things.

And it is the only place I would shit in Cairo!

[Coito ergo sum]

Given that 67% give or take of the US population is overweight by most measures, I should say it's been horribly UNDERUSED. If more people took note of their BMI, they would be shocked at how fat they are. There's another thread around here about "What's your BMI?" or some similar title - some folks here were shocked to fall into the "overweight" category. It is an eye opener, and if more people used the easy to determine number as a rough guide, they might take a bit more care about what they eat.

Look, body mass increases proportional to volume. BMI increases proportional to height squared. While certainly volume does not appropriately scale to cubes in humans, I don't really need to explain why this measurement works best over a small range of heights, do I?

Really, arguing for stupid measurements because you like the results is not a good argument. Methodology is process-oriented.

What range of heights are you talking about? The range in which the vast majority of humans find themselves growing to?

[Woodbutcher]

Sonuvagun, my BMI is 24!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Last time I looked, all of my body was made of mass.

[GreyICE]

Given that 67% give or take of the US population is overweight by most measures, I should say it's been horribly UNDERUSED. If more people took note of their BMI, they would be shocked at how fat they are. There's another thread around here about "What's your BMI?" or some similar title - some folks here were shocked to fall into the "overweight" category. It is an eye opener, and if more people used the easy to determine number as a rough guide, they might take a bit more care about what they eat.

Look, body mass increases proportional to volume. BMI increases proportional to height squared. While certainly volume does not appropriately scale to cubes in humans, I don't really need to explain why this measurement works best over a small range of heights, do I?

Really, arguing for stupid measurements because you like the results is not a good argument. Methodology is process-oriented.

What range of heights are you talking about? The range in which the vast majority of humans find themselves growing to?

Hey Coito. Do a quick check yourself. Going from 60 to 72 you get a 20% variance. Oh and exponents? They grow... exponentially.

[Meekychuppet]

Just because you cannot apply the calculation properly does not invalidate the method.

[Trolldor]

The method is invalidated if it measures 'weight/height' correlation without looking at components.

Some people are 'heavier' without being unhealthy for a number of reasons, hence why the 'waist size' is what is being advocated as a more accurate measurement of health.

[Meekychuppet]

The method is invalidated if it measures 'weight/height' correlation without looking at components.

Some people are 'heavier' without being unhealthy for a number of reasons, hence why the 'waist size' is what is being advocated as a more accurate measurement of health.

[GreyICE]

Just because you cannot apply the calculation properly does not invalidate the method.

No, the method invalidates the method.

Think about how the BMI works for a second, then facepalm. Why would it be height squared, and what does mass increase by?

[Pappa]

The method is invalidated if it measures 'weight/height' correlation without looking at components.

Some people are 'heavier' without being unhealthy for a number of reasons, hence why the 'waist size' is what is being advocated as a more accurate measurement of health.

It's only meant to be a rough guide and it is a pretty useful rough guide for the majority of people.

[Tigger]

The method is invalidated if it measures 'weight/height' correlation without looking at components.

Some people are 'heavier' without being unhealthy for a number of reasons, hence why the 'waist size' is what is being advocated as a more accurate measurement of health.

It's only meant to be a rough guide and it is a pretty useful rough guide for the majority of people.

Exactly. My sister is a GP (medic, doctor, whatever you all call them), and she reckons that folk with higher BMIs are more likely to need medical treatment than those who lie within the "accepted" ranges. Plus, she has some tales about not being able to palpate abdomens and efficiently undertake other examinations because of flab, and moving aside heavyweight beef curtains to perform smear tests is one of her least favourite things to do. Er,

[Warren Dew]

Think about how the BMI works for a second, then facepalm. Why would it be height squared, and what does mass increase by?

It would be height squared, because that's the integral exponent giving the closest approximation to actual human correlations between height and weight.

You might think it should be height cubed based on an assumption that humans scale with geometric similarity, but that assumption turns out to be incorrect.

[Meekychuppet]

Just because you cannot apply the calculation properly does not invalidate the method.

No, the method invalidates the method.

Think about how the BMI works for a second, then facepalm. Why would it be height squared, and what does mass increase by?

It doesn't matter. It's a ratio whereby, if a global application returns abnormal results then a population may have a problem. In the same way that humans have no ideal height per se, yet if fifty percent of a population is in the ninety fifth percentile then something is wrong.