@article{MummHermanussen2021,
  author    = {Mumm, Rebekka and Hermanussen, Michael},
  title     = {A short note on the BMI and on secular changes in BMI},
  series = {Human biology and public health},
  journal   = {Human biology and public health},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2748-9957},
  doi       = {10.52905/hbph.v2.17},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Human size changes over time with worldwide secular trends in height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). There is general agreement to relate the state of nutrition to height and weight, and to ratios of weight-to-height. The BMI is a ratio. It is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. Yet, the BMI is inappropriate to provide any immediate information on body composition. It is accepted that the BMI is "a simple index to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults". It is stated that "policies, programmes and investments need to be "nutrition-sensitive", which means they must have positive impacts on nutrition". It is also stated that "a need for policies that address all forms of malnutrition by making healthy foods accessible and affordable, while restricting unhealthy foods through fiscal and regulatory restrictions". But these statements are neither warranted by arithmetic considerations, nor by historic evidence. Measuring the BMI is an appropriate screening tool for detecting an unusual weight-to-height ratio, but the BMI is an inappropriate tool for estimating body composition, or suggesting medical and health policy decisions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MummHermanussen2022,
  author    = {Mumm, Rebekka and Hermanussen, Michael},
  title     = {The dilemma of misclassifying weight in short and in historic population},
  series = {Human biology and public health},
  volume    = {2021},
  journal   = {Human biology and public health},
  number    = {3, Summer School Supplement},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2748-9957},
  doi       = {10.52905/hbph2021.3.28},
  pages     = {7},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background: Clinicians often refer anthropometric measures of a child to so-called "growth standards" and "growth references. Over 140 countries have meanwhile adopted WHO growth standards. Objectives: The present study was conducted to thoroughly examine the idea of growth standards as a common yardstick for all populations. Weight depends on height. We became interested in whether also weight-for-height depends on height. First, we studied the age-group effect on weight-for-height. Thereafter, we tested the applicability of weight-for-height references in short and in historic populations. Sample and Methods: We analyzed body height and body weight and weight-for-height of 3795 healthy boys and 3726 healthy girls aged 2 to 5 years measured in East-Germany between 1986 and 1990. We chose contemporary height and weight charts from Germany, the UK, and the WHO growth chart and compared these with three geographically commensurable growth charts from the end of the 19th century. Results: We analyzed body height and body weight and weight-for-height of 3795 healthy boys and 3726 healthy girls aged 2 to 5 years measured in East-Germany between 1986 and 1990. We chose contemporary height and weight charts from Germany, the UK, and the WHO growth chart and compared these with three geographically commensurable growth charts of the end of the 19th century. Conclusion: Weight-for-height depends on age and sex and apart from the nutritional state, reflects body proportion and body built particularly during infancy and early childhood. Populations with a relatively short average height are prone to high values of weight-for-height for arithmetic reasons independent of the nutritional state.},
  language  = {en}
}