“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
    120
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months 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
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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. 😅.

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think there is a better one, it’s called a mirror. I look at it every day and cry, but there is no question lol

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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

      • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Height selection on metric side has jumps of up to 3 centimeters lmao.

        Too lazy to look, but given 1 inch = 2.54 cm, my guess is the tool is written in inches, and just rounds those values to the nearest whole cm, thus alternating between 2 & 3 cm increments.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Don’t Americans deal with differences smaller than 1 inch when it comes to height, is it just 2 footies 7 incherinos? I’m so used to it being per cm.

          Tbh I’ve never before seen a dropdown selector for height before either. It’s always just fill in thing.

            • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Partial inches are only used by people insecure about their height. “I’m 5’7.25” “, naw bud, you’re 5’7”.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                I was thinking that this was a bit like with age. Someone telling you online that they’re “25 and a half”, yeah I bet you are lol.

                But to me 3cm difference especially in this sort of calculations just seems surprisingly big.

                • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  In imperial, it’s in one-inch increments, which is typical. Must have been written in inches and translated for the rest of the world.

          • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Maybe to a half inch, but it’s not super popular (except for kids who ALWAYS are proud of that half inch they grew in x period of time). At least, that was the case before I moved to the sanity of metricland.

      • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It “works” for me, but if you want to put in xxx in CM, it might not be there because they stick to inches and you need to round up/down :/ For example, it goes 170cm to 173cm

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Hmm, that puts me at BRI of 2.1, and BMI of 35.4

      Those both seem incredibly off.

      But I do have extra dense bones apparently, which tends to be mostly what screws with my BMI, and my ability to float/swim. But they seem really hard to break, not that I try very hard… but none of them have broken yet. And I’ve been in situations that seem like they should have broken.

      Either way, I weigh alot more than I look like I should, not quite “Wolverine getting on a motorbike”, but a bit like that.

      Kinda makes me wish those “guess your weight” carnival experts were something I could see in real life, only ever seen it on TV.

    • Mojave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is giving me body fat percentages that are around double what I get from other methods. Not sure what’s up, but I don’t really believe my 5’8" 150lb ass is 30% body fat

    • Sirence@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
          ·
          2 months 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
              ·
              2 months 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
                ·
                2 months ago

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

  • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months 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?

  • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Interesting. Found a calculator and according to this I’m “very lean” (only just) while I’m overweight (again, only just) using BMI.

    Judging by the belly fat I can pinch, I’m gonna trust the BMI

      • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        How round one wants to be is easily influenced by external factors like culture, though. I think slim bodies look sleek and beautiful, but it’s probably healthier to have a bit of fat in the right places (for times when your digestive system is on the fritz)

        I like the effort for a body weight stat being more complete or useful for individuals, but my efforts measuring BRI came up kind of wack too :(. We decided it judged me too thin.