• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I feel like you’re taking a grain of truth way too far. The diet-health connection is subtle and poorly understood, but being morbidly obese or eating a really unvaried, processed diet are definitely known to cause harm.

    BMI is shitty because it’s too coarse a measure at the individual level. Unfortunately a volumetric scan to measure internal visceral fat just isn’t as convenient.

    • sandbox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Having a very high weight is known to cause harm, but so is having a low weight, and so is skydiving. Dieting is more harmful to 90% of us than our waistline is, and yet we approve of dieting and refer to fat people as an epidemic.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yes, because there’s a sudden abundance of overweight people, not underweight people. Epidemic refers to any sudden population increase of a health problem. I don’t think public health people mean it to be stigmitising.

        Dieting is dumb though, you’re right about that. At least locally the authorities try to be clear that you’ve got to make a lasting lifestyle change.

        • sandbox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          There’s no real evidence that there are significant average weight differences between today and 70 years ago. Differences in the proportion of the population of “overweight” people is primarily due to changing the definition of what constitutes overweight.

          And being fat isn’t a “disease”, any more than having big feet is.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I’m guessing you’ll ignore any evidence I provide based on BMI, which is the only useful form of weight information available at the historical population level (given that it’s based on weight and height, which has also changed)?

            • sandbox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yes, because BMI is complete junk science. The BMI categories have been changed several times since it was created. It was also devised to work exclusively for white european men. It’s totally worthless for almost every purpose for which it is used.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Well then, congratulations, you’ve arrived at a stance you can never be argued out of regardless of it’s truth.

                • sandbox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Sure I can - find actual average weight, in lbs. of americans in the 1970s and compare them to today. It’s actually pretty easy to change my mind.

                  The problem is that you can’t find that evidence, because it doesn’t exist, because the studies we have show that average weight hasn’t changed very much.

                  You’re the person here who is zealously refusing to change their position based on facts, not me - my views are shaped on years of research and review of the scientific literature. Your views are based on your lifetime of being exposed to a media narrative based on pseudoscience. designed to push an ideological goal.

                  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Taller people are heavier. If you’re not adjusting for that your data will be funny. Guess what, if you adjust for that using the square of height you’ve invented raw BMI. The categories are probably arbitrary, but you don’t need them, and a different exponent will generally show the same trajectory if by different magnitudes.

                    Although come to think of it, the population got taller, so the trend would be even stronger if we weren’t factoring that out.

                    I’m willing to change my mind too, and I do indeed have a lifetime of exposure to media and experts behind this, although I don’t believe in conspiracy theories which seems to be what you’re suggesting by a certain ideology being pushed.

                    Here’s the first paper that comes up, using BMI, about the exact breakdown of how it increased: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30054-X/fulltext