“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”

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    23 days 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.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days 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.

      • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days 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. 😅.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days 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

    • Sirence@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      It’s incorrect, it claims my body fat is 19% when I know for an absolute fact it’s 22%.

        • Sirence@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          I think interestingly enough it’s inaccurate in the other direction. While BMI is will call people unhealthy if they have a lot of muscles, this will call people healthy if they are like me severely underweight.

          My roundness index claims it’s in the healthy zone while in reality my weight is unhealthy.

            • Sirence@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 days ago

              I’m currently receiving treatment for onset osteoporosis caused by malnutrition. Also it’s kinda obvious your weight is probably not healthy when your ribs are sticking out.

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 days ago

                looking it up, BRI ranges from 1 to 16, but somehow there isn’t an accepted definition of underweight

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days 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.

    ETA I don’t understand why they need that complicated formula, why not just a ratio? The only inputs are waist and height. Never understood the point of squaring height to get BMI either, it’s also just a mass to height comparison, why not a simple ratio?

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    At 198cm (6’6") and 111kg (245lbs) BMI states that I’m on the high end of “overweight”. My waist is 96cm (38"), which makes my RFM “average”. I like that better.

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      Wonder if I’m doing it wrong? I have an athletic build similar to a soccer player, surfer, etc.

      It puts me in the average range but close to obese. I have a six pack LOL.

      I’m interested in other people’s experience with the tool.

  • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days 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