(no subject)

[ajva]

Oh fuck *off*.

Everybody knows BMI is a shit measure anyway. Why does an entire profession, scientifically trained, ignore the evidence of the scientific method? Knowing that BMI is shit because it measures only weight with respect to height rather than anything else like bodyfat or muscle, still they persevere with it because they can't be bothered to do anything else.

Are they going to turn away athletes like Martin Johnson or Matthew Pinsent?

Cunts. Morons. I despair.

Comments

[djm4]

That's not what ajva said. She said no useful correlation existed (my italics). I think, if you're going to dispute this, you should at least have a working definition of what you mean by 'useful'. Your original comment suggests that you think BMI can be used in a useful way (well, OK, you said 'sane', but it seems to be in the same area) to decide whether or not to grant someone treatment on the NHS.

That's what I think ajva, asrana (and I, for that matter) take issue with. Not that a correlation between adiposity and weight exists (as you point out, it doesn't have to be 100% for it to be there) but that it's at all useful in deciding who's a priority for treatment.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

It's stupid to use it as a gate for treatment because, quite apart from all the other problems with such a gate, they have more accurate measures at their disposal.

I think I'm arguing that BMI is still a useful proxy for adiposity, and the best at our disposal since we don't have the equipment for better measures of adiposity at home. Some references suggest you classify your frame into one of three types, and use that when interpreting BMI; I'd guess that makes it a better proxy. It still has problems, but I'd need some convincing that it's too misleading to be useful.

Of course, that still leaves the question of whether losing weight/fat is good for your health, which is one I don't know the answer to.

Aside from the 'is BMI a useful proxy' issue:

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

It's not being used as a gate for treatment.
It's being used as a gate for referrals.

It's the PCTs (Primary Health Care Trusts, ie local doctors surgeries) saying they won't refer BMI30+ patients to hospital for such treatment, irrespective of the hospitals' referral criteria.

The hospital would judge if the patient was in a physical condition that made an operation too risky, decide where on the list to place them etc based on their own clinical findings.

[djm4]

Of course, that still leaves the question of whether losing weight/fat is good for your health, which is one I don't know the answer to.

I think that's because, as a general question applied to the population at large, it makes about as much sense as asking whether wearing a particular strength of spectacles would improve people's eyesight.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Yeah, obviously losing weight wouldn't be good for my health, for example. I'm just trying to reference in shorthand a whole bunch of questions that are part of the wider debate about what recommendations should be made with regards weight, adiposity, diet and exercise.

In longhand I guess it looks like: is there really a significant subset of the population who would enjoy better health if they reduced their calorie intake, and if so what measure most accurately indicates if you're one of them? Of those who exercise little or not at all, would some benefit from exercise far more than others and if so which ones? And that's still not a totally precise way of putting it.