Article: Study called ‘nail in the coffin for BMI’

[Ultralight]

So... what do we make of this?

http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/feb/08/study-called-nail-in-the-coffin-for-bmi/

[CathyA]

I get so tired of the opinions of "those-in-the-know". Their findings/research changes constantly. So I just try to be reasonable about what I eat and accept the responsibility of what might happen because of my choices.

[iris lilies]

So... what do we make of this?

http://www.columbian.com/news/2016/feb/08/study-called-nail-in-the-coffin-for-bmi/

i thought that the only accurate way to measure BMI is through water immersion. The quick and dirty method used on dry land is just too dirty to be generalized as useful. Big surprise.

While I earn my high BMI ratio honestly via bundles of fat, DH does not deserve his. He is dense and short with heavy bones and a large chest. His cholesterol, heartrate, and BP are always perfect. Yet his BMI number is always too high.

[bae]

We have a cool machine in our station's medical exam room that sends varying-frequency electrical pulses through your body, and mostly-accurately gives you back breakdowns of water weight, fat, bone, muscle, ... - it's much more useful than BMI.

On pure BMI, I should be dead. In addition to carrying more fat weight than is the norm, I have 99th-percentile bone thickness due to a fun genetic twist, am shaped like a refrigerator, and have more muscle mass than is the norm. If you remember Harold/Sakata/Oddjob from the Bond film, scale that up about 10% and I'm a dead ringer.

Yet I have great bloodwork, functional strength, endurance, cardio and pulmonary output, and finish in the middle of the results in our quarterly timed agility/stress/work output tests, and I'm purposefully slacking during them.

You can see the nature of my problem here - I'm the large fellow with his back turned at the bottom of this team bringing a patient down the mountain. For scale, the other guys are not small...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FWrsbGZ0fvM/VaG-LZMH0ZI/AAAAAAAAQMI/EA_MP_ZLDPQ/s800-Ic42/turtlerescue.JPG

I'm trying to get leaner and stringier, but it's tricky business.

[Teacher Terry]

I have known skinny people with HBP, cholestrol etc so many things go into being healthy. I have also known truly obese people that were on no meds and were healthy. Yes some of it is weight, lifestyle, etc but much of it is genetics.

[JaneV2.0]

You can't fight your genes. You may win a skirmish or two.

Nutrition science may be undergoing a reformation--concepts like BMI and "calories in, calories out" are under scrutiny, along with the lipid theory and government-sponsored one size fits all eating plans. Recently, nutritionists were called out for decades-long sloppy and dishonest misrepresentations of the science.
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/nutrition_coverage_under_fire.php?page=all

Maybe--through the wisdom of crowds--we are at last entering an era where the truth triumphs over special interests. I'm cautiously optimistic.

"Built like a refrigerator." I've described myself exactly that way. Must be those persistent Teutonic genes. :~)

[Williamsmith]

Bae,

I detect you might be one of those double handcuff guys. I'm not sure a handcuff would even go around your wrist.

[bae]

Bae,

I detect you might be one of those double handcuff guys. I'm not sure a handcuff would even go around your wrist.

The Peerless 752C large-scale one does, it goes to 10", my wrists are a bit over 9" in diameter. I try to avoid handcuff-related situations though, as I like the nerves in my hands :-)

[Lainey]

I'm wondering what is the genetic advantage of having milkmaid calves, as I've heard them called. I've looked at women who are quite obese but have the ankles and calves of a baby deer and I can only marvel. Females in my family run to the chubby side but even as slim teens we had cankles and calves that would never fit into a pair of knee-high boots.
Why oh why does evolution think that's something to continue through the generations of my Irish females >:(

[Zoe Girl]

I finally came to a realization that if I had a larger top I was not going to have a tiny waist also. I see a lot of women with tiny midsections and then realize they are in the A-B category not the D and up category. So I get a squishy middle to balance it out.

[lessisbest]

As far as I knew, the only accurate measure is to do a DEXA Scan which is more often used for bone density, but it also shows the amount of muscle and fat ratios. I've seen a tiny man in his late 30's who lived a sedentary life was considered obese after a DEXA test, while a jumbo football player, who looked obese, was actually all muscle and according to the DEXA test was NOT obese.

[Suzanne]

I think Waist to Hip and Waist to Height Ratios may be better quick-and-dirty tests that require only a tape measure and a calculator. However, it's important to note, for waist-to-hip ratios, that skeletal morphology does have a considerable effect. I've only done the research for women's bodies, and was surprised to find just how much torso length and the ratio of the shoulder to the hip girdles affects the waist-to-hip ratio. I'm pretty sure that the same will be true for men. The link below provides a table of health risks associated with waist-to-hip ratio, but it should be treated with caution. My research showed that even a very lean, fit and active, woman can have a very high waist-to-hip ratio if she's columnar in shape and short-waisted. Women who have broad shoulders and narrow hips, even if their flat bellies ripple with muscle, can also have waist-to-hip ratios that would put them in the high-risk range. Longer-waisted women of the same heights, weights, and body shapes as their shorter-waisted peers tend to have lower waist-to-hip ratios.

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/fitness_articles.asp?id=776

For a really quick-and-dirty measurement, women's waists should be less than 31.5" (I've seen this rounded up to 32") and men's should be less than 35". However, I don't like this one, as it doesn't take into account height and frame size. People with small frames, or short people, could have waists under the upper limit and still be carrying too much belly fat for their personal health. Likewise, a large-framed individual with a deep chest and solid pelvic girdle might go over the upper limit and still be okay.

Waist-to-height ratio might be a better determinant, as it's less dependent on skeletal morphology. The waist should be less than half the height. I think it's probably the best measure of the bunch. However, it's still not infallible, because some people look very thin, but still have surprising amounts of visceral fat - the Thin Outside, Fat Inside morphotype. Other people may have a lot of subcutaneous fat but little visceral fat - the Fat Outside, Thin Inside subset. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/dec/10/medicineandhealth.health

The whole thing gets more complex all the time! However, for the purposes of rapid assessment, as a first-order review, I think I'd go with waist-to-height.

[ToomuchStuff]

How many nails does a coffin need?
If a test isn't 100% accurate, 100% of the time, it already has a nail in its coffin as tests improve, or other tests could be sistered to it, etc.
There was a local LEO that was told to lose weight by the BMI test, when a local police force decided to use it. After he hired a lawyer due to 3% body fat, it went to someone with the super power, common sense.

[Suzanne]

So I couldn't resist doing them all: by BMI, I'm fine. By WHR, I'm fine. By waist circumference: just barely squeak in. By waist-to-height: just overweight. The latter is actually true: I've put on 10lb in 8 weeks, and it's all on my belly.