Comments and Key points about this article on the range of body mass index values
|Age 20 to 29||23.7||24.3||22.0||22.7|
|Age 30 to 39||25.1||25.7||23.1||24.4|
|Age 40 to 49||25.9||26.3||24.1||25.4|
|Age 50 to 59||25.8||27.2||25.3||27.1|
|Age 60 to 69||25.7||27.1||25.6||26.6|
|Age 70 to 74||25.2||26.1||25.9||26.3|
The article also shows children’s data, comparing 1963-70 versus 1988-94.
When this data is graphed, you can see the pattern, that children and adults are heavier (probably fatter), recently in the 1988-1994 survey.
That’s it. This actual article managed to show 11 pages of description, analysis, hypotheses and discussion. But I have summarized the bottom line.
Now lets add a little more talky talk into this little article. One thing I noticed, is that if you just use the NHANES data purely, like this study did, then the childrens values and the adult values are nicely lined up with each other. My charts show a little artificial gap between childrens and adults data, but if you ignore that whitespace, the pink and orange square dots, and the blue and green diamonds, seem to flow nicely together, as they should. In contrast however, later in the history of the CDC setting growth charts, they created a noticable problem by compressing childrens values into a data range that they were hoping for, causing childrens and adults data to no-longer flow nicely together.