Well, there's not much to say about the calculator, so on "new BMI": I'm not sure it's doing all that much. The primary complaint seems to be that BMI does not scale cubically to the inverse of...
Well, there's not much to say about the calculator, so on "new BMI": I'm not sure it's doing all that much. The primary complaint seems to be that BMI does not scale cubically to the inverse of height, or at least that the quadratic scaling on height isn't accurate, but in the end that's only one half of the puzzle. The bounds of the categories of the BMI system are what give it meaning, and the bounds are non-linear.
It's like how applying a kernel to a linear model can allow it to model non-linear data.
Would it make a difference? Yes indeed. Roughly speaking, each person 6 feet tall would lose a point from their BMI reading, and each person 5 feet tall would gain a point. That's millions of people. If the new numbers gave a more accurate indication of actual health issues, this could be a significant change for the better.
Is that a big difference? One point isn't going to make or break your BMI reading.
Furthermore, the author has no evidence that this new metric is actually more accurate. He pulls the exponent 2.5 out of nowhere, and then introduced magic constants to make it fit the "average" case, but there's no like actual testing to see how these new magic numbers fit with medical data.
Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the author did not recalculate the bounds of the categories, and are just reusing the old BMI's bounds. Which seems very not sound, considering you changed the formula?
Like if I change the definition of "speed" for driving purposes to be distance^2 / time, you can't exactly just use the same speed limits...
I must finish by emphasizing that I am an applied mathematician, not a doctor or an epidemiologist. The new formulas proposed above are not based on epidemiological studies and they may not be a improvement, for all kinds of reasons.
With it being January and all, I wanted to find out the range of weights that are "healthy" for my height but couldn't find anything besides calculators that just return your score. Then I found a...
With it being January and all, I wanted to find out the range of weights that are "healthy" for my height but couldn't find anything besides calculators that just return your score. Then I found a better BMI calculation which is a little more effective for shorter or taller people.
Thank you for making this tool, and for discussion of the issues with BMI, that they don't take into account too many metrics. As someone who went from "severely underweight" with no one caring...
Thank you for making this tool, and for discussion of the issues with BMI, that they don't take into account too many metrics.
As someone who went from "severely underweight" with no one caring about it to "obese" with no one trying to stop it in the span of a year, and now struggling to get back to a "normal" level, BMI is such a hurtful topic, and one that too many doctors have relied on with no respect to the fact that I am more than just the number on the index.
An alternative to BMI that I've seen is the body roundness index. Time to Say Goodbye to the B.M.I.? While the calculator isn't pretty I prefer the original one because it contrasts the old vs the...
An alternative to BMI that I've seen is the body roundness index.
For me the difference is about one point, with a healthy range of 53 points. So this seems like a small adjustment, and I'm not sure it really addresses the concerns the same way the BRI does, having been validated against health outcomes.
Yeah BMI is historically awful for bodybuilders. One number can never represent something as dynamic as your health and it should only ever be treated as one factor among many.
Yeah BMI is historically awful for bodybuilders. One number can never represent something as dynamic as your health and it should only ever be treated as one factor among many.
As @mayonuki mentioned, there's several strategies and I've actually used some of those. I struggle with all of them - I felt dirty and awful trying to force feed myself so much. I just eat until...
As @mayonuki mentioned, there's several strategies and I've actually used some of those. I struggle with all of them - I felt dirty and awful trying to force feed myself so much. I just eat until I'm sated, which comes out to just enough to maintain a body weight of 135-140lbs (I'm 5'11" btw). I'm not a big guy, I'll never have big arms or a swole chest, but I feel healthy and can participate in almost any physical activity I put my mind to.
At this point in my life, as I'm nearing 40 years old, I think I'll just have to be content with who I am.
In my experience there is quite a lot of forums, subreddits, youtube videos etc. on gaining weight. There's clean bulking strategies, eat constantly strategies, take shots of olive oil strategies,...
In my experience there is quite a lot of forums, subreddits, youtube videos etc. on gaining weight. There's clean bulking strategies, eat constantly strategies, take shots of olive oil strategies, gallon of milk a day strategies and on and on. Generally when people start weight training to build strength they will more likely want to gain weight than lose it. It's not really possible in my experience to gain strength (after the initial beginner gains) and build muscle while losing weight.
Well, there's not much to say about the calculator, so on "new BMI": I'm not sure it's doing all that much. The primary complaint seems to be that BMI does not scale cubically to the inverse of height, or at least that the quadratic scaling on height isn't accurate, but in the end that's only one half of the puzzle. The bounds of the categories of the BMI system are what give it meaning, and the bounds are non-linear.
It's like how applying a kernel to a linear model can allow it to model non-linear data.
Is that a big difference? One point isn't going to make or break your BMI reading.
Furthermore, the author has no evidence that this new metric is actually more accurate. He pulls the exponent 2.5 out of nowhere, and then introduced magic constants to make it fit the "average" case, but there's no like actual testing to see how these new magic numbers fit with medical data.
Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the author did not recalculate the bounds of the categories, and are just reusing the old BMI's bounds. Which seems very not sound, considering you changed the formula?
Like if I change the definition of "speed" for driving purposes to be distance^2 / time, you can't exactly just use the same speed limits...
With it being January and all, I wanted to find out the range of weights that are "healthy" for my height but couldn't find anything besides calculators that just return your score. Then I found a better BMI calculation which is a little more effective for shorter or taller people.
Thank you for making this tool, and for discussion of the issues with BMI, that they don't take into account too many metrics.
As someone who went from "severely underweight" with no one caring about it to "obese" with no one trying to stop it in the span of a year, and now struggling to get back to a "normal" level, BMI is such a hurtful topic, and one that too many doctors have relied on with no respect to the fact that I am more than just the number on the index.
An alternative to BMI that I've seen is the body roundness index.
Time to Say Goodbye to the B.M.I.?
While the calculator isn't pretty I prefer the original one because it contrasts the old vs the new calculation.
Original calculator
For me the difference is about one point, with a healthy range of 53 points. So this seems like a small adjustment, and I'm not sure it really addresses the concerns the same way the BRI does, having been validated against health outcomes.
Yeah BMI is historically awful for bodybuilders. One number can never represent something as dynamic as your health and it should only ever be treated as one factor among many.
Looks like I'm on the low end of normal. I've always struggled to put weight on, so I'm fine with this outcome.
Is it challenging to find advice online about gaining weight? I imagine most advice is about losing it
As @mayonuki mentioned, there's several strategies and I've actually used some of those. I struggle with all of them - I felt dirty and awful trying to force feed myself so much. I just eat until I'm sated, which comes out to just enough to maintain a body weight of 135-140lbs (I'm 5'11" btw). I'm not a big guy, I'll never have big arms or a swole chest, but I feel healthy and can participate in almost any physical activity I put my mind to.
At this point in my life, as I'm nearing 40 years old, I think I'll just have to be content with who I am.
In my experience there is quite a lot of forums, subreddits, youtube videos etc. on gaining weight. There's clean bulking strategies, eat constantly strategies, take shots of olive oil strategies, gallon of milk a day strategies and on and on. Generally when people start weight training to build strength they will more likely want to gain weight than lose it. It's not really possible in my experience to gain strength (after the initial beginner gains) and build muscle while losing weight.