On 7 Jul 2009 at 7:41, Stuart Vyse wrote: > > The BMI is a useful measure because it takes data that is readily > available to most people (their height and weight) and turns it into a > rough (admittedly, rough) estimate of the appropriateness of their > weight. Better measures would require more cumbersome techniques
Being in an agreeable mood today, I would tend to agree, thus partially retracting my previous praise for the NPR piece attacking BMI. But as I noted, what I take issue with are the guidelines identifying anyone with a BMI of 25 and over as "overweight" and 30 and over as "obese". These purport to be scientifically based on evidence relating BMI to mortality, but in fact are arbitrary and certainly too low, thus inflating support for the claimed "epidemic" of obesity. I've actually tried to track the origin of these cut-offs but have found nothing scientifically justifiable in their original production. Yet they label millions of people as "obese" and "overweight", both terms implying unhealthy medical conditions requiring (usually futile) action. On the contrary, one can be both fat and healthy. And sometimes, as in the article I cited, being "overweight" can be healthier than having a just- right BMI. But you won't hear any of this from doctors handing out your yearly checkup advice. The real problem with elevated BMI isn't medical but social. I recall (which means I don't have a source) that the social stigma associated with obesity is second only to mental illness. Society is not nice to fat people. Stephen ------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
