On the other hand, most people are not that athletic so it's not surprising that BMI gets used as a measure of obesity because (I guess) 90% of people who are very heavy are more fat than muscular. I don't know of an easy way to measure that though, besides the labor-intensive ones of measuring the size of individual people's fat rolls, counting skin folds, or measuring body volume by displacement and deriving density.
For all that BMI is arbitrary, arguing about it doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people are obviously obese. It'd be great if people who object to the use of BMI would propose a more useful measure that's reasonably easy to compile, for both individuals and professionals.
BTW this is the original study vs the press release: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Higher end scales often have a sensor integrated. Takes like 2 seconds to get a reading.
I think those sensors being cheap-ish is new. I would expect to see a migration over to body fat percent instead of BMI over the next decade or two as people replace their scales.
The former resulted in yelling and crying. The latter got us to the gym, so I found "Obese" to be a useful word.
I don't think there is enough information quite yet to jump to the positive conclusion of greater abundance causing obesity.
"Drowned?" It was the stillsuit manufacturer's daughter.
Paul hesitated, then: "Yes. Immersed in water until dead. Drowned."
"What an interesting way to die," she murmured.
