Meet the new right, same as the old right.

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    But the alternative to being high weight without high body fat % is high muscle mass, which is only a thing in a few humans.

    IQ is indeed not representative of intelligence because we can’t represent a lot of functions of intelligence in a sensible test.

    The DSM is a list of diagnostic criteria. Hopefully patient-facing shrinks don’t use “raw data” outside of said diagnostic criteria to make judgements on diagnoses, otherwise they’re just using arbitrary non-spec information.

    What other raw data is used in the weight example?

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s a thing in a good number of humans. 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.

      The DSM is definitely not intended to be stand alone. It is a set of general guidelines and definitions to inform the evaluation of a mental health professional. Most people check a good number of boxes on a good number of those checklists. The checklists are a tool to be used in collaboration with the professional judgement of the doctor. Almost every individual checkbox is “checked” or not based on the doctor’s subjective evaluation.

      Muscle mass and general body composition are part of it. Some people are naturally bigger and healthier at more weight than others. Some are naturally smaller and healthier at levels that would be unhealthy skinny for others. Presence of other obesity related illnesses are another. If you’re showing signs of heart disease, breathing issues, etc, in addition to being big, that’s a sign that losing weight will improve your health outcomes. BMI is a very rough yardstick that is used for the purpose of evaluating populations over time. It is not a good way to look at the health of a single individual without context.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          “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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 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.