[fallingsquirrel]

Considering:

- a century ago a greater percentage of people were "normal" weight

- human physiology has not changed much over the past century

- our current definitions of overweight/obese correlate with negative health outcomes

I think the classification is largely correct even if you can haggle over some of the smaller details.

(EDIT: That said, people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question, sorry that happened)

[Izkata]

> - human physiology has not changed much over the past century

With improved nutrition, people are several inches taller than they were a century or so ago.

[fallingsquirrel]

That isn't a change of physiology, it's a change of our external environment. AFAIK there's no evidence to show humans living 100 years ago would respond any differently to modern nutrition than we do.

If the cause of being taller were internal, such as genetic changes: that would be a change in physiology.

[Izkata]

There are only two inputs to BMI, and height is one of them.

[fallingsquirrel]

That's a complete non-sequitur. If you cut off your feet and get shorter, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed. And if you eat more calories and get taller, it doesn't mean the human species has physiologically changed.

[s1artibartfast]

Yep, and it's not like there is a mysterious lack of cardiovascular and health consequences that would make us question the belief that high BMI is bad

[Izkata]

Even that is relevant, because it would mean the measurement is now wrong.

[JumpCrisscross]

> people shouldn't be downvoting you just for asking the question

I didn't downvote. But if you're asking a question, ask it. Don't phrase it as a statement while pretending it's a question. And if you're making a statement, substantiate it. Ending a question with a period is borderline intellectually dishonest.