Posted on 08/19/2006 5:29:05 AM PDT by Paradox
Doctors expose BMI shortcomings
Doctors have questioned a common measure of obesity after research found that "overweight" heart patients had better survival rates than those described as "normal".
They say the finding exposes shortcomings in the use of Body Mass Index (BMI), which has formed the basis of defining healthy and abnormal weight for more than 100 years.
Many experts now say that waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio, which indicate levels of abdominal fat, are more accurate guides.
BMI, invented by
It is now universally relied upon in clinical trials designed to assess the health risks associated with weight.
Someone with a BMI of less than 18.5 is considered underweight, between 18.5 and 24.9 lies within the "normal" range, and 25 to 29.9 is classified as "overweight". Clinical obesity is defined by a BMI of 30 or greater.
However, the measurement has thrown up anomalies. The mighty New Zealand rugby star, Jonah Lomu, has a BMI of 32, yet could hardly be described as "obese".
The new research conducted by American researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, pooled data from 40 studies involving about 250,000 people with heart disease.
It found, as expected, that severely obese patients had a higher risk of heart-related death - but it also showed that overweight patients, as defined by their BMI scores, had better survival and fewer heart problems than those with a normal BMI.
Dr Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, who led the study, said: "Rather than proving that obesity is harmless, our data suggest that alternative methods might be needed to better characterise individuals who truly have excess body fat, compared with those in whom BMI is raised because of preserved muscle mass."
Also, remember that Clintoon's Surgeon general changed the criteria for what is considered 'overweight' and 'obese' in 1998. I'm not saying that there aren't a bunch of fatties out there, (looks over shoulder and whistles a tune) but at the time and now, I see it as just another way for the fascists to control the lives of the sheeple.
This is great news. I don't have to try to get taller anymore.
The insurance companies will not stand for this false hypothesis to be pushed aside. Because it is based upon conjecture and false premises, there is little way for the average individual to fall in with the standards of the BMI and since insurance companies use this as a standard to assess and charge more for risk, they will fight to the end to keep it.
BINGO!!! We have a winner!
Aside from cancer, that ain't gonna happen.
Aligncare -
You are correct that there are many obese people, and in fact, we've known for a generation that most are out of shape.
HOWEVER...
The BMI is horribly flawed. It is like trying to tell the condition of a car by looking at the tired. While some info might be gained, there are so many variables that the BMI is useless.
First, It seeks to measure body fat percentages using height-weight charts. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell the BMI that the patient is a weight lifter, or a bicyclist, etc. So, we've got the problem that most athletes are overweight or obese according to BMI.
Second, it was developed by people who stand to gain financially by finding the greatest number of people to be obese / overweight. The CDC is certainly in there, as are various insurance companies, not to mention the multitudes of weight loss companies.
So here I am... 6 feet tall, 210 pounds. According to the BMI I'm damned near obese. However, I rode 92 miles on my bike a few days ago (800 for the season so far) and run regularly. My abs are flat.
Dubya is overweight according to the BMI, as is Lance Armstrong. Tom Cruise in his prime was obese, as was Barry Sanders.
Let's just do everyone a favor and kill the BMI.....
sorry, Lance Armstrong's BMI is 22.8 (he is 5'11" and 165 lb)(180cm an 74kilo). Nice excuse. Most people, not all, with high BMI are fat. Use your eyes. denial is not just a river in africa.
Lance Armstrong lost 20 pounds due to cancer. At 5'11" and 185 pounds, his pre-cancer BMI was 25.8 - overweight. Calculate the BMI of any muscular male, and you'll find the same situation presents itself.
If I ever got to the high side of "normal" with the BMI I would need to lose 120 lbs.
Now, I do need to lose weight at age 47, but if I lost 120 lbs I would be dead.
Even when I was my fittest, and I was at one time very fit, I would still be "obese" with almost no excess body fat, but I could run a six minute mile and bench press 280 lbs with no weight lifting background,
Most, what is that, anything above 50%.. Lets say its 90%, that leaves 10% of Americans with a high BMI who are NOT fat. Thats only 30 million people, for whom the BMI would be sh*t. I happen to be one of them.
Even the science does not support the BMI anymore. Waist to Hip ratio is better.
Your post made me think of the implications of political correctness influencing the BMI.
The BMI has no gender breakdown, just a range of numbers both male and female fit into.
If I had not put away my tin foil hat years ago I would make that claim the the government CDC is forcing us "real men" to conform to the metrosexual lifestyle of eating tofu and rabbit food trying to look like Kate Moss.
Yep, it's sheer insanity. My wife and I could both stand to lose about 10 pounds (we like our occasional drink and carbs too much to withhold entirely). She has a small frame, and I have broad shoulders and am 6'2". (I have to work hard in the gym to keep the weight down while marginally watching my diet, while she can eat whatever she wants without much exercise.)
Yet she could gain 20 pounds and still be in the normal range, while I need to lose 35 pounds to get into the normal range. If we did that she'd be clearly overweight, while I'd be gaunt.
Not tin-foil territory at all. IMO
See posts #2-4-6 & 8. It's about dependancy on Gov't. with the insurance companies jumping on the band wagon.
It's my understanding that what today is called the BMI is NOT BMI. My recollection is that BMI was developed as a more precise measurement of fitness than the height and weight tables. My first exposure to the concept was Dr. Kenneth Cooper's book and his explanation of how he measured it by immersing the patient in a tank of water. And I believe the point of this procedure was because it WASN'T POSSIBLE to determine a person's BMI from their height and weight. Over time, people looked for an easier way to approximate BMI without water immersion and "pinch" tests became common (the fat fold on the stomach, back, or arm). Today they use height-weight tables to calculate BMI which makes absolutely no sense to my understanding and memory of the concept. Am I suffering from false memory syndrome?
You know much more of the science of this than I, evidently. The immersion you mention reminds me of how specific gravity is measured.
The opinions I have stated above are more from observations of the political consequences that result from what to me, were arbitrary changes in the criteria of obesity. I was looking more at the socio-political-economic side rather than the health side. The sudden "epidemic" of obesity was more manufactured than factual IMO.
Bump for later reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.