Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_iup4lgs wrote

[removed]

283

[deleted] t1_iup8d8q wrote

[removed]

63

[deleted] t1_iuo00t8 wrote

[removed]

133

anotherdumbcaucasian t1_iup2oyu wrote

>Over the past few years, the Nutrition and Food Sciences Department at UVM has shifted away from a weight-normative mindset, adopting a weight-inclusive approach to teaching dietetics.

So this article was written by people who think a 50 BMI is perfectly healthy, normal, and that a 50 BMI person shouldn't be medically or socially encouraged to lose any weight whatsoever?

>the most popular videos glorifying weight loss and positioning food as a means to achieve health and thinness

Are they trying to say that having a healthy diet and eating at a caloric deficit to lose weight isn't healthy or the only way to lose weight that's supported by evidence? I'm not saying the fad diets a lot of these vids are likely pushing are good, but to suggest that health can't be improved through improving your diet or losing weight is ridiculous. Whoever wrote this article must be very flexible with all this stretching.

118

Altruistic-Goose5114 t1_iuq3po6 wrote

I'm going to give the researchers the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "shifted away from a weight-normative mindset, adopting a weight-inclusive approach to teaching dietetics" they mean that diets should be specifically tailored according to the individual. A 25 year old athletic man who's 6'8" will require a vastly different diet from a 5'1" 60 year old woman even if they're both the same BMI. Many of these videos push a one-size-fits-all approach which won't work for everyone.

24

morebass t1_iupxros wrote

> So this article was written by people who think a 50 BMI is perfectly healthy, normal, and that a 50 BMI person shouldn't be medically or socially encouraged to lose any weight whatsoever?

Is it? Can you define weight-inclusive and the weight-normative approachs to patient health as well as their outcomes with regards to weight, physical, and mental health?

17

Techygal9 t1_iuot4r5 wrote

This study comes from an opinion based idea of health: > Over the past few years, the Nutrition and Food Sciences Department at UVM has shifted away from a weight-normative mindset, adopting a weight-inclusive approach to teaching dietetics. The approach centers on using non-weight markers of health and wellbeing to evaluate a person’s health and rejects the idea that there is a “normal” weight that is achievable or realistic for everyone. If society continues to perpetuate weight normativity, says Pope, we’re perpetuating fat bias.

In other words they have a problem with the fact that people on TikTok advocate weight loss for health…. And they deny how large a factor that is in determining physical health.

106

Rainstorme t1_iupiqnh wrote

> rejects the idea that there is a “normal” weight that is achievable or realistic for everyone.

This is already included in the CDC definition of a healthy weight too. There's a BMI range for healthy, which at average height (5'9") encompasses 44 pounds. That seems like plenty of wiggle room to account for realistic weights for the vast majority of people at a height.

37

butane_candelabra t1_iupqr4a wrote

There's also the waist-to-height ratio, which should be between 0.4 and 0.5. I'm 5'10", so I should be around a 28-35" waist. 0.5-0.6 is increased risk and 0.6+ is danger zone.

17

Altruistic-Goose5114 t1_iuq3xtf wrote

Waist/height ratio is much better for determining individual health, BMI was originally meant for a population.

14

-downtone_ t1_iurh81t wrote

People really need to stand firmly on the ground. This is head in the sand behavior.

9

RhaenyrasUncle t1_ius6xu9 wrote

Which is why it is important that we carefully analyze the legitimacy of any call for "experts".

Unfortunately, facts are subjective in today's world. Objective truths are often considered "misinformation" by "experts" with an agenda.

4

espiritly t1_iut1515 wrote

Ummm, this sounds dangerously close to the rhetoric that anti-vaxers and flat earners use

2

bazoo513 t1_iurt976 wrote

Quite to the contrary, this is a fact based approach. Instead of using something as meaningless as BMI, one should assess parameters such as performance of cardiovascular, respiratory and locomotive system. In other words, put the subject on a treadmill and see is that "excess" weight detrimental or not.

Of course, anorexic or morbidly obese people can be recognized at sight, but beyond that, "normal" is not so simple.

2

Techygal9 t1_iurvxl6 wrote

I don’t know where people got this notion that bmi doesn’t work or is completely wrong. From some research I had to replicate it’s about 87% (using ARC) accurate on its own to predict metabolic disorders, likelihood of hospitalization, and premature death. But that accuracy goes up when you add measures like waist circumference for women and neck circumference for men.

There are different bmi measures that should be used for different racial groups or sex, but those bmi scales are LOWER not higher.

8

bazoo513 t1_iusod40 wrote

So, a marathon runner, waterpilo player and shot petter should all strive toward the same BMI? Good to know. Or are the latter two bound to live shorter?

−1

Techygal9 t1_iussqeu wrote

I think you’re being purposely obtuse about this. But bmi norms have ranges that can be 20 to 50lbs depending on your height. For athletes they may fall into the overweight category because of dense muscles. But their doctor would use bmi in conjunction with circumference of the neck/waist or body fat tests. That’s where the other 13% accuracy comes from.

2

bazoo513 t1_iusw64e wrote

Oh, 100% combined predictive accuracy? I see Nobel somewhere here

Don't be ridiculous. Then again, having worked with physicians and being acquaintances with their typical skills in experiment design, statistics and data reduction, I am not surprised.

−2

TH3BUDDHA t1_iusw4s1 wrote

If you look at the physique of many shotputters, they are absolutely statistically likely to live shorter.

2

bazoo513 t1_iusxzgv wrote

You conclude that "by looking at their physique", or by looking at actual data?

−1

espiritly t1_iut0vxx wrote

Except that research is showing that it's not actually as big of a factor as society tends to believe. Far from it. And, just like research had recently been realizing how skewed a lot of research has been because of racism and sexism, the same is true for fatphobia. But also, are people really advocating weight loss for health or to fit conventional standards of beauty? Like, if society as a whole wasn't so fatphobic, people would have much better attitudes towards food and their health in general. And, having a healthy mindset and approach to ones wellbeing is an incredibly important part of being able to effectively take care of yourself.

−2

[deleted] t1_iuo4ejs wrote

[removed]

25

[deleted] t1_iuo7dsj wrote

[removed]

39

[deleted] t1_iuoa0b8 wrote

[removed]

22

[deleted] t1_iuod5fn wrote

[removed]

8

[deleted] t1_iuomaot wrote

[removed]

−1

[deleted] t1_iuomkma wrote

[removed]

5

[deleted] t1_iuon9xv wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_iuntpsh wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

tornpentacle t1_iuofhxh wrote

This whole fat acceptance thing is ludicrous. Obesity costs taxpayers several times more than tobacco use, including secondhand smoke. This is really messed up.

−1

[deleted] t1_iunve2j wrote

[removed]

−4

Wagamaga OP t1_iunu9u2 wrote

New research from the University of Vermont finds the most viewed content on TikTok relating to food, nutrition and weight perpetuates a toxic diet culture among teens and young adults and that expert voices are largely missing from the conversation.

Published today in PLOS One, the study found weight-normative messaging, the idea that weight is the most important measure of a person’s health, largely predominates on TikTok with the most popular videos glorifying weight loss and positioning food as a means to achieve health and thinness. The findings are particularly concerning given existing research indicating social media usage in adolescents and young adults is associated with disordered eating and negative body image.

“Each day, millions of teens and young adults are being fed content on TikTok that paints a very unrealistic and inaccurate picture of food, nutrition and health,” said senior researcher Lizzy Pope, associate professor and director of the Didactic Program in Dietetics at UVM. “Getting stuck in weight loss TikTok can be a really tough environment, especially for the main users of the platform, which are young people."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267997

−6

kittenTakeover t1_iunycsl wrote

>Published today in PLOS One, the study found weight-normative messaging, the idea that weight is the most important measure of a person’s health

I guess it really depends what you mean by "most important", but I think an argument could definitely be made that weight is the most important health measure. Compared to the difficulty of taking the measurement, weight has a high level of predictive value on most measures of health. Can you get a better picture with more effort? Sure. Is there a more predictive measure that can be generally applied for the average person? I'm not sure. Also note that saying weight is predictive of health is not the same as saying minimizing weight is predictive of health.

31