Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ixzebbr wrote



chazwomaq t1_ixzfaoy wrote

>From an evolutionary perspective, you want to grow to sexual maturity as quickly as possible,

This is not true. There is a tradeoff between reproducing early and growing a large body size. Both are advantageous, and so life history theory is all about managing such tradeoffs to maximise overall fitness.

Early sexual maturity (and small body size) is favoured when extrinsic mortality is high, and vice versa.


throwaway92715 t1_iy2atkj wrote

Honestly none of that makes any sense. Because even if being fat allowed you to mature faster and pass on your genes quicker, you would not be able to run fast enough to keep up with your potential mates. Unless the individual was able to somehow keep their sperm in a chilled storage unit of some kind, there is no way that they would ever be able to deliver on that promise. So, evolutionarily speaking, they would likely not be able to protect any children they had from mountain lions. It is more likely the case that the corellation between BMI and reproductive success came about during the Ice Age, when it was very cold and extra layers of fat were needed to survive the winter.


chazwomaq t1_iy2x2rc wrote

My argument is basic life history theory. It may not make sense to you, but there is plenty of material out there to learn about it.


Ragnarotico t1_iy14dfw wrote

>From an evolutionary perspective, you want to grow to sexual maturity as quickly as possible, so you can pass on your genes before you potentially get eaten by a predator or something.

This is such a false and generalized statement. This isn't true for all animals and certainly not for human females specifically who need to develop hips wide enough to pass a baby's head through.


cabalavatar t1_ixzf4iv wrote

Higher BMI does not necessarily mean more fat. I was a very athletic and naturally large kid even before puberty, with a high BMI and little fat. See also bodybuilders, US football linebackers, rowers, etc.

BMI is just bad science, and the medical field would do well to scrap its use.


Anachronism-- t1_ixzskip wrote

There was a group of doctors who got sick of hearing “BMI doesn’t apply to me because I’m so muscular”. So anytime they heard that they pulled out the body fat calipers. The vast majority of these patients had unhealthy levels of body fat.

Edit - I can’t find the article and don’t remember the specifics but the main takeaway was of people who claimed BMI didn’t apply to them the vast majority where overfat.


[deleted] t1_ixzsykx wrote



rymep t1_ixzu92b wrote

Why? if someone says "BMI is useless and doesn't apply to me" shouldn't they be happy the doctor is going to use another metric instead of just sticking to BMI?

That's what a good doctor should do, find another metric that the patient can relate to.


Anachronism-- t1_ixzt6lb wrote

What is pseudoscience? Body fat? Skinfold caliper tests? Being overweight is unhealthy?


ProofJournalist t1_iy08vv9 wrote

I bet you'd report a doctor for hurting your feelings if they accurately diagnosed you with cancer


rymep t1_ixzmxcg wrote

The medical field doesn't use BMI for children (under 18) and understands what population it's not useful for. It's popular to bash on BMI, but for population level studies it's still a reasonably useful metric.


DessaStrick t1_ixzvc79 wrote

Hah. Tell that to my pediatrician who was very focused on my BMI.

Also being an NP myself now, as an adult, have never heard of not using BMI below 18.