Thanks for sharing all of this. It seems like they've made things even more confusing and stigmatizing. It's taken "this kid's size is literally off the chart" to a whole new level.
I've always tried to understand the logic behind thinking that every kid "should" be at or near the 50th percentile—it doesn't make any sense for so many reasons (hello, body diversity), but it also just doesn't seem to make mathematical sense. The reason there IS a *50th percentile* is because there is a distribution of size date points on either side of that statistical line. Right?
I worry we might be moving toward using just BMI for kids (or the ridiculous new BRI).
Thanks for sharing all of this. It seems like they've made things even more confusing and stigmatizing. It's taken "this kid's size is literally off the chart" to a whole new level.
I've always tried to understand the logic behind thinking that every kid "should" be at or near the 50th percentile—it doesn't make any sense for so many reasons (hello, body diversity), but it also just doesn't seem to make mathematical sense. The reason there IS a *50th percentile* is because there is a distribution of size date points on either side of that statistical line. Right?
I worry we might be moving toward using just BMI for kids (or the ridiculous new BRI).