turtle4499

turtle4499 t1_j55h6ux wrote

Reply to comment by OrneryLawyer in The Benefits of Taking Vitamin D Might Depend on Your Weight | A reanalysis of a large trial found overweight and obese people might metabolize vitamin D supplements differently, leading to lower circulating levels by Hrmbee

And when you make a study where you don't get pictures of the 10k people in it just using BMI doesn't give you the visual information. Congrats you figured out the problem.

BMI has a variable positive predictive value understanding what ranges are good for what situations is important. You would not want to use the same scores for screening patients that you would for measuring risk factors of obesity.

The closer you are to the lower bound there is a reduction in confidence. Which is why in research associating things related to being fat you don't use the 25-30 cutoff because it has too many false positives. Which systematically biases that population to have understated risks of being overweight. Studies that use better adjusted obesity numbers have confirmed this effect.

BMI at a cutoff of 25 is not intended to have low false positive rate its intended to have low false negative rate. Thats why its called a SCREENING TEST. Because almost 100% of people with obesity will have a BMI above 25 that includes many people particularly in the 25-30 range that are not obese. The range that is used is purposefully over capturing because that leads to better screening.

I am really invested in stressing the proper use of BMI. Because using it incorrectly is what causes people to ignore the number out of hand. This is a science sub where people discuss science like proper understanding of the statistical meaning of a BMI score.

1

turtle4499 t1_j54omxc wrote

Reply to comment by Hugh-G-Rection-Jr in The Benefits of Taking Vitamin D Might Depend on Your Weight | A reanalysis of a large trial found overweight and obese people might metabolize vitamin D supplements differently, leading to lower circulating levels by Hrmbee

>Uh a BMI of 25 is the cut off where you are no longer in the normal range and get overweight and not obese, obesity starts at a BMI of 30.

Again no its not. That's what I am telling you. BMI does NOT tell you if an individual is obese or not obese it tells you the percentage chance that someone is obese or not obese. The number is a gross oversimplification and always has been. Obesity is defined by body fat percentage. Sources that define obesity via BMI are 99.999999% of the time misquoting there usage in population studies.

At a population level because we know MOST people with a BMI of 35 are obese you can use that to separate out obese and non obese people. The 25 cutoff range is used because its very hard to be obese and have a BMI below 25.

As I stated this is something drs get wrong all the time and it causes this nonsense.

Here is the CDC who is properly describing BMI.

>BMI can be a screening tool, but it does not diagnose the body fatness or health of an individual.

And

>The accuracy of BMI as an indicator of body fatness also appears to be higher in persons with higher levels of BMI and body fatness. While, a person with a very high BMI (e.g., 35 kg/m2) is very likely to have high body fat, a relatively high BMI can be the results of either high body fat or high lean body mass (muscle and bone). A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks.

BMI is thus a indicator of odds of being obese and not a indicator of being obese except at the high ranges because at those ranges the odds of being obese increase high enough that few who get by are rare. At 35 you would be passing someone like brock lesnar/ dwayne johnson as obese. They are roided to the gills and would be a low percent of people with a BMI of 35 or above.

−1

turtle4499 t1_j52a609 wrote

Reply to comment by Lionscard in The Benefits of Taking Vitamin D Might Depend on Your Weight | A reanalysis of a large trial found overweight and obese people might metabolize vitamin D supplements differently, leading to lower circulating levels by Hrmbee

Probably because we gear too much math education on calculus and not enough on basic statistics. While you may need calc to derive stats you don't need it to understand stats.

5

turtle4499 t1_j527kdx wrote

Reply to comment by Hrmbee in The Benefits of Taking Vitamin D Might Depend on Your Weight | A reanalysis of a large trial found overweight and obese people might metabolize vitamin D supplements differently, leading to lower circulating levels by Hrmbee

>BMI over 25, the threshold for overweight and obesity

That is not what a BMI of 25 is. A BMI of 25 is the cut off for where there is a LOW PROBABILITY of being obese and having a bmi lower than that number. I really cannot understand why this is so damn hard for Drs and the general public to get correct.

2

turtle4499 t1_j5164an wrote

Reply to comment by StuartGotz in [OC] US Opioid overdose deaths from 1999 to 2018 by hcrx

>Hs in the later 1980s. Heroin was unheard of.

Heroin has been a popular drug in the US since the 1800s. The heroin overdose spike in the 2010 is from synthetic opioids. Synthetic opioids like fent weren't being pulled into there own column until 2014 and I don't believe it was in full until later.

The CDC isn't classifying data in a way people are using it. The groups are non exclusive. If you OD while on heroin, fent and vicodin you land in all 3 groups.

https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/data/analysis-resources.html

>Given the surge in availability of IMF starting in 2013, the CDC Injury Center began analyzing synthetic opioids (other than methadone) separately from other prescription opioids for 2014 mortality data. This analysis provides a more detailed understanding of the increase in different categories of opioid deaths.

0

turtle4499 t1_j0rdr24 wrote

Reply to comment by coweatyou in Social media influencers are charged with feeding followers ‘a steady diet of misinformation’ in a pump and dump stock scheme that netted $100 million by Wagamaga

He can and does own stocks he picks he also discloses this. Further he isn't literally buying the stock, going on tv talking about the stock and then selling his stock. There is a clear cut difference between discussing companies and your opinions on them and pump and dump. The difference is intent. These people intended to manipulate the asset price and sell their assets after the price rose.

9

turtle4499 t1_j084zju wrote

Reply to comment by jrkib8 in [OC] Cost of Carbon Zero - Historical Look At U.S. Funding of Fusion Energy by Metalytiq

https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1602907470133100547

Fusion reactions arent even remotely close to viable.

You can assemble different reactor types in close proximity, which has never been done, and eliminate 99% of nuclear waste. Its never been done because we dont build them with this intended we just yeet the stuff into the ground.

1

turtle4499 t1_j07zc95 wrote

Reply to comment by jrkib8 in [OC] Cost of Carbon Zero - Historical Look At U.S. Funding of Fusion Energy by Metalytiq

No one has ever achieved a fusion reaction (in a reactor not a bomb) that produced net positive energy. I dont understand why we are investing in this when we can do fission right now. Most nuclear waste can be used by different reactor types to recycle it. The very small amount left over that can be stored by digging a fucking hole.

1