Just to clarify and there is a full thread in my forum on this called Optimum BMI.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6916Knut wrote:
There have always been numerous problems associated with the misuse of BMI as the sole indicator of health and or fitness
Even though I am fan of it, no one has ever recommended using BMI as the sole indicator of health.
sharonbikes wrote:
that BMI is just statistical averages as a method to estimate body fat,
That is all it was ever supposed to be, a screening tool.
sharonbikes wrote:
but BMI isn't accurate for everyone. Body fat is what really matters and there are better ways (although none are perfect) to measure body fat than to use the BMI calculation.
Actually, there is no proven or established relationship between body fat and longevity or health. If anything, the relationship between BMI is much stronger than for just body fat.
Aging, Adiposity, and Calorie Restriction. JAMA. 2007;297 (9): 986- 994. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.9.986 Luigi Fontana, MD, PhD; Samuel Klein, MD
"Calorie restriction in adult men and women causes beneficial metabolic, hormonal, and functional changes, but the precise amount of calorie intake or body fat mass associated with optimal health and maximum longevity in humans is not known."sharonbikes wrote:
BMI, the researchers say, is an overly simplistic measure that often misrepresents physical fitness and overall health, especially among older women.
Most people take this to mean that it ranks people more at risk then they really are
However....
sharonbikes wrote:
Nearly 4 in 10 adults whose BMI places them in the overweight category would be considered obese if their body fat percentage were taken into account
this new data indicates that these people are actually more at risk then BMI indicates.
sharonbikes wrote:
Bodybuilders can be classified as obese based on their BMI, he says,
Correct. But, there are very very few of them who would be classified as such. And, if you check my discussion on BMI, you will find that excess weight, even from excess muscle mass, is a health risk.
sharonbikes wrote:
while "a 55-year-old woman who looks great in a dress could have very little muscle and mostly body fat, and a whole lot of health risks because of that -- but still have a normal BMI."
This is correct. However, this is why no one risk factor determines health. However, BMI and Waist Circumference together is a much better measure, and Waist to Height is turning out to the best measure of all.
From a brand new article.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstractWaist-to-height ratio is a better screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews. Volume 13, Issue 3, pages 275–286, March 2012
"For the first time, robust statistical evidence from studies involving more than 300 000 adults in several ethnic groups, shows the superiority of WHtR over WC and BMI for detecting cardiometabolic risk factors in both sexes. Waist-to-height ratio should therefore be considered as a screening tool."Lastly, for all its criticisms, BMI still turns out to be an excellent health indicator.
Cancers Linked to Obesity on the Rise
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 09552.htmlIn addition...
- The 2007 Report on Diet & Cancer by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute For Cancer Research said the #1 recommendation for preventing cancer is
to be as lean as possible within the normal range (a BMI 18.5 to 22). Second was to physically active. This was a totally independent report of 100 scientist from 30 countries who spent 5 years reviewing 7000 studies.
- Last month, the 2012 National Cancer Institute Report said the #1 recommendation to prevent cancer is to achieve and maintain a healthy weight throughout life. And,
to be as lean as possible throughout life without being underweight. Number two was to be physically active.
In Health,
Jeff
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
