Yes, it is a pretty high level metric with good correlation a bunch of diseases, but really many of these is because it is ALSO correlated to percent of fat, which is often the more relevant metric. But as you said BMI is so much simpler to measure.
Many active gym people have pretty high BMIs but fairly low fat (because muscle is dense), and unsurprisingly have better outcomes than the average person (if you ignore the share that uses/overuses anabolic steroids and co)
> Many active gym people have pretty high BMIs but fairly low fat
I think this is greatly exhaggerated.
Yeah you can put on as much muscle as Arnold and have a FFMI of about 27 then maybe have a BMI of 34 if you have 20% body fat.
But a very gifted natty might cap out at maybe 24 with a BMI of 30 at 20% bodyfat. But let's be realistic. This is not "many active gym people". This is the guy winning the local strongman meet.
Yes a couple of years training for most people can add a couple of points to BMI but I think people exaggerate how much this is. Go look at a 20lb brisket at costco - you don't see people with that much extra muscle all that often.
I do agree to some extent, but really the overweight threshold for BMI is 25. And 30 for obese.
At 6 feet / 183 cm that it takes 184 lbs / 83 kg to be overweight. From what I could find, for regular gymgoers the typical weight for people around 6feet is 180-190lbs, which put many people around the overweight threshold. I am myself at 24.9, and while not skinny I am definitely in the skinnier half of the people at my local gym.
I very much disagree. Overweight starts at 25 BMI, and obese at 30. Most regular gym goers in my social circles maintain <20% body fat, and are classified as overweight based on BMI. In the US weightlifting is quite popular, and it’s not hard to gain enough muscle mass to classify as overweight. I’ve been “overweight” at 27 BMI going on >10 years now, with actual body fat fluctuating ~12-18%. I’ve had doctors tell me I need to lose weight because my BMI is too high, while I had visible abs. It’s a common theme among other casual weightlifters I know. I don’t think BMI is particularly useful for anyone that has done more than a year of basic barbell strength training cycle.
My completely made up rule is you get an extra point for every plate you bench (or squat etc). Its not a dramatic difference. If you bench 225 you’re not overwreight till 27 BMI, which iirc used to be the actual cutoff until they narrowed it.
Obese is hard. Overweight is easy if you walk, take the stairs, do the occasional pushup, and play something like hockey once week. Source: my entire life.
But specifically, it requires no gym time. Muscle mass is built with through reps not weight, and there are lots of non-gym-rat behaviors that do that. I'm not winning any comps.
> Many active gym people have pretty high BMIs but fairly low fat (because muscle is dense),
I’ve been in the overweight BMI category with low body fat by being active at the gym and focusing on diet. It takes some work to get there.
If I check the calculators for the obese BMI range, there was no way I could get there without either gaining a lot of fat on top of the muscle. The amount of muscle required to have an obese BMI with healthy amount of fat is absurd.
Not sure I follow the logic here, but happy to be proven wrong if I'm misunderstanding. It's not intuitive to me that a 300 lb. person at 20% body fat is generally at the same risk as a 200 lb. person at 30% body fat.
Fat is inherently unhealthy for you beyond some low baseline level.
Additional muscle is positive for health, but only up to some reasonable threshold. There is no health benefit to having very high levels of muscle, and in fact it may be negative for your health at extreme levels. E.g. many bodybuilders have trouble breathing, sleep apnea etc.
Both people in the example have 60lbs of fat. 1lb of muscle doesn't cancel out the negative health effect of 1lb of fat
The nasty detail is that some people gain relatively more visceral fat than others. These three fats are correlated, but the correlation isn't the same in every human. Some have better metabolism and don't store as much fat inside as others do.
Looking for some references on these claims, thanks! What you're saying registers as "makes some sense, but where's the evidence?" to me. I'm not seeing the connection where total lbs of fat is inherently worse than higher percentage.
The mean height for men at 20-29 is 69.2" and 80+ is 67.1" (measured in 2015-2018, the last data I've found) [1], which could be interpreted as shorter people having lower risk of all mortality. One could say that people are just getting taller over time and 80+ y.o. were shorter at their 20-29, but we also have the median height for 20-29 fro 1970s, when 2018's 80+ were 20-29 - it's actually 69.7" [2], men in the US are getting shorter over time, so unless people naturally shrink 2" with age the data points to shorter people having lower risk of death.
"People typically lose almost one-half inch (about 1 centimeter) every 10 years after age 40. Height loss is even more rapid after age 70. You may lose a total of 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 centimeters) in height as you age."
So people DO in fact tend to lose about 2 inches at age 80 versus their younger selves.
The actual studies [1],[2] that tried to measure this came to very different rates of height loss though: 3.6 cm and 6 cm from 40 to 80 in men. This does not look like a serious fact.
The difference was 3.6cm in the study that measured 10 more years 30-80. And 5cm in the study that measured 10 fewer years 40-80.
The studies were conducted over different time periods when average nutrition changed, and demographics changed. And the study demographics just vary by location.
Height loss with age is incredibly well documented. Here’s a few more studies.
This is just basic medical textbook information. No one in the world is arguing that this phenomenon doesn’t exist.
I am not saying that. I am saying that the theory about absolute amount of fat being bad for health, as stated by the comment you responded, seems to be supported by data.
> I asked about the specific claim that absolute fat was bad for your heart.
There is no word "heart" or any to this effect in the message you replied to so I did not understand that was what you were doing. I took your question as an attempt to attack the theory on the basis of prevalence of some heart conditions in shorter people.
Some are more common in short people and some are more common in tall people. Hypertension is one of the ones more common in short people and is significantly more common than the rest combined, so your overall chance of having some form of heart disease goes down as you get taller. However, the forms of cardiovascular disease more common in tall people (e.g. atrial fibrillation) are more likely to actually kill you.
Do you have a citation for that? I've had thoughts in a similar direction (specifically around the upper/lower intervention points) but have had no luck finding data.
Same for France and Spain, which is what I am familiar with. I am expecting it to be true all around.
The map of France shows maybe 100 castles? If you include castles, forts and chateaux (which it seems the map aims to do) France has around 45000 of them, including 15k medieval castles (military), an other 15k from the Renaissance period (mix of military and luxury), and 20k more recent ones (some military, many luxury type).
I know if at least 20 medieval castles within 1h of my hometown and not a single one is here.
For Spain maybe 10k to 20k castles and forts. Out of which at least 2500 genuine medieval castles (not just big houses with fortifications)
I know, I am in the same range of points and still asking questions has always been a bit scary.
I remember spending 2h writing a question for what I thought was a complex c++/compiler issue. 10s of thousands of lines proprietary codebase, so I couldn’t include everything obviously, but also couldn’t create a “minimal working example” to reproduce the issue. So I included as many things is I could to try to get pointer on how to track that behavior I was seeing. Of course the second I post it I got a -1 plus “can’t reproduce”/“please add minimal example”.
An other time, I had a question that was very similar to an existing one, but different setup and the answer did not solve my problem at all. Mentioned all that, linked the other question and specifically wrote that it was NOT addressing my problem. Posted it, soon after tagged as duplicate with that one answer that did NOT solve the problem.
After that I rarely asked questions again.
Also the points system made it frustrating as a new user: someone 2 years ago asks a basic language question “+50 upvotes”. You asked a similar question, asking extra clarification on an aspect “-2, already answered, read the doc” and so on. And with such a big deal made about reputation it felt like just being born early and being able to be an early adopter meant you got east points. For new users, though luck.
Skill issue to the second paragraph. You can always create a minimal example. I've done it many times. Some of them are quite long.
Start by copying your whole file with the problem into a new file. Delete each part. See if the problem occurs. If not, Ctrl-Z and try deleting the next part. Be extremely aggressive in deleting. Also try refactoring things to be simpler if deleting doesn't work.
In C++, inline #includes not from the standard library by copy-pasting the file contents. At each step, make sure the problem still occurs. Repeat the iterative deletion process.
You should now have a fairly short source file which exhibits the problem. Rename all proprietary identifiers to foo, bar, baz, frob. Submit question to SO.
The evidence that humans would naturally be designed to sleep “multiple times a day” is quite mixed. “Multiple” does a lot of heavy lifting here, when basically most evidence points to two batches, following either of these patterns:
- a long uninterrupted night cycle and a short (20-60 mins) afternoon nap. Around 2pm.
- a night cycle split into two halves. With a 1-2h break (maybe up to 3h) starting around midnight to 2am.
The former is still very common, and imho stretching the definition of multiple cycles. The latter is more historical (more common when there are long winter nights and no electricity).
Also making it a “Western” problem is kinda weird? There are other cultures where single cycle sleep has existed. Even hunter-gatherer groups with little to no contact with the west. And alternatively afternoon naps are still quite common is some western areas. I guess the main thing that prevent it would be the classic work day schedule.
Well of course as you pointed out the legitimate one would be copying voices WITH permission (yours, someone you know who gives authorization, through contracts for movies/bots etc). The model can’t differentiate between voices for which you have permission or not.
But more generally while recordings might be copyrighted, the voice itself isn’t so copying a voice isn’t a crime, at least as it currently stands. You cannot however use said voice for deceptive practices. You can however for advertisement (needs permission). And in the US you can for satire, at least in the US, withOUT permission (falls under the 1st amendment).
Maybe the voice should be copyighted or protected then, I do not want anyone use to my voice, let them use their own boring afwully sounding voice. I am sure such models are used in 99% cases for illegal purposes or creating fake news.
Also, one's likeness (like face image) should also be protected from being used by anyone.
This drives me crazy when dealing with various contractors in my area. They often only answer by text, and can take a little while to do so. Not a big deal.
But If I send a message with more than one question, there is what feels like a 10% change they will answer all my questions and a 90% chance they will either answer one or none and I’ll just get an “ok”. And I am talking about 5 lines messages not 50 lines.
So I have to send my questions one at a time, wait sometimes minutes to hours for an answer, then send the next one.
Of course I can also call, but often can’t reach them. Or can reach the front desk that doesn’t have the answers. I understand people are busy but it turns something that should be one message into a cat and mouse game
I learned that in a business context, it was extremely important to adhere to one issue per email.
If I peppered someone with a series of questions or worse, bundled unrelated issues into one message, they would all probably be mishandled. I think it was a mismatch of expectations and/or how corporate workers use email apps.
So if I held every message to one topic, one question, things tended to work as expected.
The contractors who are best at doing high quality work are often not the best at written communication. People who enjoy reading and writing don't tend to go into that line of work in the first place. And they're probably juggling your questions with a dozen other urgent issues from employees, suppliers, and other customers. The frustration is understandable but we have to be realistic in our expectations.
From looking at how that was done, it seems they (the paper you linked) used an older paper which looked at which names are frequent enough and more biased toward a certain demographic (90% of that name occurrence falls within that demographic).
But they picked 9 family names per group. Which sounds quite low. And combined that with first names to reach 500 first+last names per group.
I wonder how much of the bias we see has to do with the names actually picked versus it being racially motivated (absolutely not denying that this probably is a factor, but might not be the only one).
For example, in France there is the national BAC end of high school exam. If you you at the names X grade distribution, and look at the higher “very good” bracket: some names are heavily under-represented (less than 5% of say “Jordan” get that grade) while some are over-represented (35% of “Josephine” get such a grade). The exam is for the most part anonymous, but some names are definitely heavily correlated with lower/higher income groups. So nothing surprising: Josephines tend to come from richer families, thus in average get better education/support, thus better grades. Same thing is true with family names to a smaller extent.
So I wonder how much of the bias we see, be it from real persons or the AI has more to do with a class thing than a racial thing. Again those are not neatly separate things, but still
Race and socioeconomic status are pretty strongly correlated but I'd imagine it's possible to do a study to see what the extent of each's influence is. You'd need to find "high socioeconomic" names that are also strongly correlated with race(s) themselves correlated with low socioeconomic status and vice versa which honestly might be the hardest part. The disambiguation from a statistical standpoint doesn't seem that difficult once you have the data.
Another hindrance to collecting data in the first place is that idiots will read this and downvote it because they think statistics are racist, I guess?
Yes possible. But really that video of them features the word prominently (even on the thumbnail) AND that vocabulary estimation website. The video/podcast is just slightly over a week old.
Anyway doesn’t really matter, it was more to see if anyone else was a listener of that podcast.
(Also, is it just me, or is anyone else mildly annoyed that the cleverly-titled "The rest is history" spawned a heap of meaningless "The rest is ..." siblings. Talk about letting the side down. I'm just waiting for Goal Hanger to recruit a pair of meditation gurus into their podcast stable, to make the "The rest is resting" ...)
Not sure how to understand that. You mean as the best engineers?
Funnily at my company, the few engineer that did the majority of the work before AI still do the majority of the work now. By majority I mean tackling both more issues and better.
However there is a general verboseness and over engineering trend across the board.
Saying "no" as in "this makes no sense" is not the same as "give it to another team". The first can be an engineering take while the second is just politics.
I have a similar issue. I tend to have a very “structured” type of writing. Say on slack or Reddit for example. Using markdown formatting. Lists with bulletpoints etc. And I tend to write long detailed explanations, sometimes too long if I am being honest.
But now I find myself adding noise and imperfections to my writing (not that it was perfect) to make it more human, which is kinda silly.
Many active gym people have pretty high BMIs but fairly low fat (because muscle is dense), and unsurprisingly have better outcomes than the average person (if you ignore the share that uses/overuses anabolic steroids and co)
reply