For antioxidants see Ben Goldacre. I think fruit and/or veg are a good thing to have in one's diet, if only because it means one will hopefully thus eat less meat/salt, but there is zero evidence that this is due to the "antioxidants" in them.
Whereas BMI is "flawed" more in the sense that all health-related/biological measurements are "flawed" - one number can't possibly communicate the complexity that is inter-individual variation in humans, and should never be over-interpreted.
But you are right, BMI is less fashionable now than it was. It has obvious flaws. Less accurate at the extremes of height because of the way it's calculated, doesn't take account of variation in mass of non-adipose tissue (muscle, especially), and so on.
IMO BMI is useful once in the "medical" domain (eg That person is high risk for a general anaesthetic because they have a BMI of 35) but less useful within the "range of normal" of an ostensibly healthy population.
Mind you we are all getting fatter these days - very obvious looking at Jamie's library books that were illustrated in the 1970s, and comparing them with people now. It seems that in the 1970's, I (at my currrent weight)'d have been considered fat. Today, people think I am slim (ish).
Clin chem: urea creatinine albumin total protein bilirubin alk phos liver enzymes calcium corrected calcium glucose high-density lipoprotein triglyceride uric acid cholesterol low-density lipoprotein total cholesterol:HDL ratio.
Not standard abbreviations as such (except the liver enzymes and lipids, and urea which just means urea) but very easy to guess.
Nice to see the Nuffield keeping themselves in business. Since the reference range describes the middle 95% of the healthy population, then out of every 20 tests they do without any clinical indication, you'll expect on average one of them to turn out abnormal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-03-10 09:16 pm (UTC)Whereas BMI is "flawed" more in the sense that all health-related/biological measurements are "flawed" - one number can't possibly communicate the complexity that is inter-individual variation in humans, and should never be over-interpreted.
But you are right, BMI is less fashionable now than it was. It has obvious flaws. Less accurate at the extremes of height because of the way it's calculated, doesn't take account of variation in mass of non-adipose tissue (muscle, especially), and so on.
IMO BMI is useful once in the "medical" domain (eg That person is high risk for a general anaesthetic because they have a BMI of 35) but less useful within the "range of normal" of an ostensibly healthy population.
Mind you we are all getting fatter these days - very obvious looking at Jamie's library books that were illustrated in the 1970s, and comparing them with people now. It seems that in the 1970's, I (at my currrent weight)'d have been considered fat. Today, people think I am slim (ish).
Clin chem: urea creatinine albumin total protein bilirubin alk phos liver enzymes calcium corrected calcium glucose high-density lipoprotein triglyceride uric acid cholesterol low-density lipoprotein total cholesterol:HDL ratio.
Not standard abbreviations as such (except the liver enzymes and lipids, and urea which just means urea) but very easy to guess.
Nice to see the Nuffield keeping themselves in business. Since the reference range describes the middle 95% of the healthy population, then out of every 20 tests they do without any clinical indication, you'll expect on average one of them to turn out abnormal.
Hydration level, antioxidants.... (