I think the more important overlap is in the brain itself. We have known that regions of cortex that register genital stimulation are adjacent to/overlap with the area hat registers foot stimulation since Penfield did the first mapping of cortex in the 1930s.
In answer to "that's true for perception, but why the excitement for looking" lays in that the homuncular representation is not a simple one. We know that there are multiple homuncululi tied to different types of perception, and there is more modern work that ties the planning and goal systems to the functional centres around key points of the homonculi. The physical closeness of the two is possibly responsible for the mingling of the two representations. Back in the day there was even a mechanism for it - "ephaptic excitation" - where axons running in a bundle could activate neighbouring fibres through changing the ionic composition of the fluid around them.
This wasn't a published study. This was beers with the folks in the genetics lab at the hospital I worked at. No patient names or other identifying information was involved. They did tissue matching etc. and ran into the issue all the time. On a personal note two close friends have found out they had different biological dads than they thought they did. So maybe my perspective is skewed somewhat.
Incredibly common. I haven't seen any recent estimates but I recall at one time that ~15% of children did not have the biological fathers than they thought they did. It's not to point the finger at women - rates of infidelity may be even higher among men, it's just harder to track independently.
BMI is used two ways; as a population tool to compare groups of people, and as a screening tool for indviduals to see if more detailed tests need to be run. I've given other examples of screening tests here - the sit/stand test and an alcohol screener. None of these form the basis of clinical recommendations. A positive finding is cause to ask further questions. "Oh you're very tall ok BMI doesn't work well then." Or "Oh you're muscular, that's fine".
As a personal example I was a serious runner at one point in my life and my resting heart rate slipped below 40 at the doctor's office. It set off an alarm. I confirmed that I ran about 70 miles a week and we all had a laugh about it.
The fact that you know some edge cases doesn't invalidate the measure. And let me point out that people have an amazingly distorted view of normal now. A 6'0" man weighing 225 lbs is obese. 225 seems like a typical weight but from a historical view that is very large. The fact that most of the North American population is overweight or obese and they don't like to hear that.
You dramatically overestimate the number of people who can bench their bodyweight, forget about 2 plates. Your highschool were people in their prime, I bet those 7 did not maintain their fitness through the following 3 decades. And as I said that's a starting point for considering whether BMI breaks down for an individual, it's not a definitive statement.
BMI is just a tool for assessing whether there is cause for concern. Like a screening when a physician asks how many drinks you have a week. An answer of 10 doesn't make you an alcoholic, but they'll ask some follow up questions.
Similarly a BMI of 30 doesn't produce an OMG reaction and pressure to get bariatric surgery. But it will drive a lifestyle conversation. And I can guarantee any physician who sees that result and and sees you're built like a brick shit house will not be recommending food restriction.
The BMI standards were established in a healthier baseline population than currently exists. The 1940s and 1950s had a higher proportion of manual labor than we have now. So those arguments fall apart.
Dr. Bob @ DrBob @lemmy.ca Posts 9Comments 949Joined 2 yr. ago