this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
243 points (95.2% liked)

collapse of the old society

972 readers
38 users here now

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Meet the new right, same as the old right.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Once you do pretty much any strength training (or just heavy lifting) at all, BMI loses its value pretty quickly. It's a rough indicator.

So it seems like there's just an exception in the few gymrat type folks out there and athletes. Still seems like a small exception group compared to the general population. That aside, the bit about certain people being healthier while bigger/smaller seems anecdotal and unscientific afaik.

Most people check a good number of boxes on a good number of those checklists.

I don't think most people would check many boxes for schizophrenia or gender dysphoria or even ADHD, though as always the real test is whether the meds help.

As for GAD or something more unspecific it's really more about whether it impacts their life negatively or not which is a presumption under which those checklists are meant to be taken.

Still, I've never heard of someone checking off all the boxes while self-diagnosing and then going on to not be legitimately diagnosed outside of a few cases where supposed professionals usually apply some discrimination based on immutable characteristics.

Almost every individual checkbox is "checked" or not based on the doctor's subjective evaluation.

Yeah this kind of just demonstrates that the doctor's part of the equation is utter bullshit

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

"Gym rats" means anyone who's ever played a sport. Or done a job with manual labor. Or did any of many other things. BMI is "unscientific as fuck". It was literally never intended to be used anything like how it's used. It was solely intended to give a broad strokes single number for size relative to height (in a very limited initial population). There is no actual basis for its use anywhere.

The entire DSM was designed for the sole purpose of being used by a doctor. It was never intended to be used to self diagnose, or in literally any context outside of being used by a professional. The doctor's part of the equation is the whole point and the only thing that makes the DSM useful in any way. It is not standalone. It is a tool to enable doctors to have a consistent framework and process to do their job.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But anyways, this is all way off topic.

The entire point is that treating very rough, loose yardsticks as the "truth" for complex phenomena is nonsense.