That's what I was gonna say!

Yeah it is accurate for the overwhelming majority, sedentary population.

When you get to people who actively work out hard, regulary, (much of that 3% I would guess), then it is wildly inaccurate.

I think you're probably conflating obese and 'overweight' in regards to seemingly fit or athletic body types. BMI is still notoriously inaccurate when trying to define regulars at a gym or athletes. It often lables them as overweight due to muscle mass being more dense than body fat. But it's pretty difficult to have that body type and lifestyle but be labeled as obese. For example, at my height I would need to weigh 220lbs to be obese. It's doable considering the 3% figure but unlikly.

Yeah, that's a lot more accurate than conventional wisdom seems to suggest.

If BMI says you're obese, you only have a 3% chance of not actually being obese? That's a pretty accurate diagnostic.

The way to read that is: "there are more people with obese related health risks than previously thought." That's the takeaway.

Get a pinch test if you really want to know.

There's the relevant argument. /s I'm not morbidly obese, I'm just obese.

Good news for bodybuilders.

*white/caucasian body standards too

I was specifically referring to the enormous number of people who claim that they've only been diagnosed as obese due to the inaccuracy of BMI as a measure, not the (even larger) number of people who should be diagnosed as obese but aren't.

What about measuring bones? Because mine are probably big and I'm certainly not fat.

This is stupid, waist to height ratio has been around for decades, and they're just now saying this?

I could be wrong but your wording suggests you're misreading that.

Article states false positive rate is 3% and false negative is 5-9%

That's obviously not the same as wrong 3% of the time.

If we assume even tails then 8-12% of the time BMI incorrectly diagnoses.

Which is about what I'd expect. BMI is an approximate fit model, the further you get from the mean the less useful it is. If you are more than 1 standard deviation from the height mean you are much more likely to get a false positive (if you're short) or false negative (if you're tall).

In other words it's a line of best fit that doesn't work for outliers

Any improvement in diagnosis is certainly to be celebrated, but I was surprised to find out that BMI only wrongly diagnosed obesity less than 3% of the time.

Seems like it's already much more accurate than it usually gets credit for.

So there are even more obese people than we previously thought then? If, yesterday, you were overweight with a belly you are now obese.

You mean the thing testing people to the standards of 19th century peasants might be just a little outdated and inaccurate?

chuds will look at medical advancements, call it woke, and reject any progress

Good news! BMI has always been a limited way of measuring obesity. It's nice to see this advancement.

Oh, they finally acknowleded it. Good.

don't laugh, antivaxers have parties to get kids infected for "natural immunity", and naturally, 1% of those kids will get a brain infection or go blind.

You're good, I should probably stop being so sarcastic in text based mediums 😅

Whoops, my neurodivergence missed that it wasn’t a genuine question lol

I figured it was just some formality. My comment was more a critique of how stupid the phrasing is than a genuine question lol

So what do we need to do to loose measles free status???

Should we have a lick a pockmarked child day??

It’s about herd immunity more than being 100% free of measles in the country. I’m not an expert though so maybe someone can explain it better than myself.