BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (Mikeb)

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:46:32 GMT

My bad I kind of said that wrong.

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (danmirage)

Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:08:01 GMT

Waist-to-hip ratio is NOT a way to assesss the level of bodyfat AT ALL.

It is another generalization intended to give the average person a simple way to assess their potential risk of heart disease, etc.

It's effectiveness is marginal at best. However for people at high risk due to over-fatness, it has some minor application.

"Research shows that people with "apple-shaped" bodies (with more weight around the waist) face more health risks than those with "pear-shaped" bodies who carry more weight around the hips."

Waist-to-hip ratio looks at the proportion of fat stored on your body around your waist and hip. It is a simple measure of fat distribution. Most people store their body fat in two distinct ways: around their middle (apple shape) and around their hips (pear shape).

Having an apple shape (carrying extra weight around the stomach) is riskier for your health than having a pear shape (carrying extra weight around your hips or thighs). According to statistical studies, body shape and health risk are linked. Statistically, if you have more weight around your waist you have a greater risk of lifestyle related diseases such as heart disease and diabetes than those with weight around their hips.

A WHR of 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men have been shown to correlate strongly with general health and fertility. Women within the 0.7 range are believed to have optimal levels of estrogen and are less susceptible to major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and ovarian cancers. Men with WHRs around 0.9, similarly, have been shown to be more healthy and fertile with less prostate and testicular cancer.

WHR is said to be a better measure of assessing a person’s risk of heart attack than Body mass index (BMI). It is also reported that if obesity is redefined using WHR instead of BMI, the proportion of people determined to be at risk of heart attack worldwide would increase threefold.

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (joey0)

Sun, 14 Jan 2007 04:21:21 GMT

ORIGINAL: Mikeb

I'm sure a lot of you guys already know this but waist-to-hip ratio is also a pretty good way to assess wether you ata healthy level of bodyfat.

...are you serious?

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (Mikeb)

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:55:53 GMT

I'm sure a lot of you guys already know this but waist-to-hip ratio is also a pretty good way to assess wether you ata healthy level of bodyfat.

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (danmirage)

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:09:06 GMT

One of my objectives is to change this!
(If nobody else does it first! Which I hope they do because I have many other projects in mind!))

At the University Level, I hope to work to record, collect data and demonstrate a much more effective way for people to determine their health and risk standing!

At the Graduate level I hope to publish and disseminate a new way of doing this..that is effective both for measures of health and fitness, and is useful for clinic and home assessment.

There are so many things I want to change/fix!

Like...FOOD NUTRITION LABELS!

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (Marc David)

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:57:18 GMT

The CDC released their 2006 Health Report.

Per the report, the definition they are using to show the increased obesity rates in the U.S. are based on none other than...

BMI

Technically, every time I go to the doctor and he submits my stats, I'm included in the overweight to obese category skewing the stats.

Dan's on the money with this one. BMI is flawed and has been for a long time. There needs to be something to take into account height, weight, body fat percentage and lean body mass to get real accurate results.

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (danmirage)

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:50:15 GMT

You know better than to even pay attention to that.

%Leam Body Mass to %Body Fat is a better measure.

RE: BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (joey0)

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:46:15 GMT

BMI is stupid. I am finally considered overweight according to it

BMI a good indicator? NOPE...read on (danmirage)

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:14:04 GMT

For some time now there has been a sense that body mass index (BMI) may be a far less accurate barometer of your health than you think -- since obese patients who are completely out of shape and many athletes (especially weight lifters and football players) may have similar scores.

Well, now we are beginning to see a clearer picture!

Belly Fat Matters More Than BMI When Determining Your Heart Disease Risks

Body mass index (BMI), which gauges weight in relation to height, is only a crude way to judge obesity-related heart disease risk. According to the results of a new study, belly fat is a better measure of the risks than BMI, and abdominal obesity could be a greater risk factor than overall obesity.

Researchers looked at data from more than 100,000 men and women to test whether measuring sagittal abdominal diameter, or SAD, would improve the accuracy of predicting heart disease risk.

SAD is the distance from the back to the upper abdomen midway between the top of the pelvis and the bottom of the ribs. SAD is a more standardized measurement than waist circumference, and therefore less subject to error.

Men with the largest SAD were 42 percent more likely to develop heart disease, and a large SAD similarly increased heart disease risk by 44 percent for women. Heart disease risk also rose with SAD within BMI categories, even among men of normal weight.

The relationship between SAD and heart disease risk was strongest among the youngest men and women, indicating that people who develop central obesity earlier in life are more likely to have more serious problems.

Also, increased organ or abdominal adipose tissue in particular (a "beer belly") has been shown to be more strongly associated with heart disease and a variety of chronic diseases than just weight in relation to height. I'm glad to see that more accurate measures are being proposed.

There's no better way to trim the fat around your waist than following an approach that emphasizes diet AND exercise. Emphasizing one and ignoring the other is just not a solid strategy to help you achieve optimal health.

In theory it is easy to measure if you have the right equipment. You need a giant caliper that can measure the distance from a person's belly to their back. So if you have the caliper it is easy to measure and likely more accurate than a waist circumference.