I don't know what your point is. Something being limited isn't really a problem when limits are recognized. The main limitation in this case is that BMI undercounts obese people. The growth in obesity rates isn't a product of there being tons of bodybuilders and football players.
I said it was shit science because it wasn't accurate enough and there are better methods to more accurately assess a person's obesity/health.
This is even supported by the study you linked:BMI is a shit indicator for obesity compared to caliper or displacement based measuring methods.
Obesity is definitely a problem in the US, but strictly going off the BMI is junk science.
That's a pretty big variation.BMI-defined obesity (≥ 30 kg/m2) was present in 21% of men and 31% of women, while BF %-defined obesity was present in 50% and 62%, respectively.
*Ten years later*
"More American children and teens aren't just morbidly obese. They're MEGA obese!"
Sure, eating more is going to result in smaller calories. I'm not exempting anyone from blame here. Americans eat too much and we are sold too much and too much of that is garbage. You can't fix the problem by adjusting only one side of the equation. Reducing intake may reduce portion sizes, but won't do anything to affect the quality.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Well, when "one side of the equation" is the hugely major factor in the problem, then fixing that factor can actually solve the problem. Quantity of food eaten is significantly more important to weight gain than quality of food is. You could eat only Twinkies and vitamin supplements and lose weight if the quantity of Twinkies you eat is less than you need to maintain weight.
It's been done before.