Can You Be Overweight and Healthy?
Replies
-
Quoting from your referenced article:Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The researchers found that:
- On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
- The higher the BMI, the lower the HDL (the "good" type of cholesterol that tends to lower heart attack and stroke risk).
- The health effects of excess weight vary for different people, perhaps due to genetics.
- Obesity was linked with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular events.
- People of any weight who have high cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar tend to have higher rates of death, as well as heart and blood-vessel disease.
Avoiding obesity is important. But these studies suggest that you can expect to have a normal lifespan even if you're overweight, as long as you are in good metabolic health. But, keep in mind that the health impact of being overweight likely depends on which way your weight is headed. Rising BMI is linked with an increase in heart and blood vessel risk factors (including metabolic syndrome).
What about the idea that you can be obese but fit? Unfortunately, compelling evidence suggests that obesity is linked with an increased risk of death and heart events, even if one's metabolic and heart health numbers are good.
My 2 cents:
- The article has a misleading title. It referenced 2 studies that address death rate, not health.
- Not much is known with the data those studies referenced
- Overweight is one step closer to obesity than normal weight
- I would rather living a shorter life with no major health issue before death than living a longer life but having to take medicine to control blood pressure/diabetes/cholestrol, or being inmobilize from a stroke, or... I think you get the point.
What is the motivation for asking "Can you be overweight and healthy"? Is it because we want to stay overweight? Or, is it to avoid ourselves to judge people who are overweight? Or, is it just for us to take our eyes off the scale but to our health? Perhaps, we need to ask ourselves, overweight or not, what direction are we heading?
For me, overweight is just a term in the BMI to tell us that we are one step closer to the danger zone, much like blood sugar, blood pressure or cholesterol, there are numbers that tell you, you don't have the condition yet but you are heading the wrong direction.0 - On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
-
mom3over40 wrote: »Quoting from your referenced article:Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The researchers found that:
- On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
- The higher the BMI, the lower the HDL (the "good" type of cholesterol that tends to lower heart attack and stroke risk).
- The health effects of excess weight vary for different people, perhaps due to genetics.
- Obesity was linked with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular events.
- People of any weight who have high cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar tend to have higher rates of death, as well as heart and blood-vessel disease.
Avoiding obesity is important. But these studies suggest that you can expect to have a normal lifespan even if you're overweight, as long as you are in good metabolic health. But, keep in mind that the health impact of being overweight likely depends on which way your weight is headed. Rising BMI is linked with an increase in heart and blood vessel risk factors (including metabolic syndrome).
What about the idea that you can be obese but fit? Unfortunately, compelling evidence suggests that obesity is linked with an increased risk of death and heart events, even if one's metabolic and heart health numbers are good.
My 2 cents:
- The article has a misleading title. It referenced 2 studies that address death rate, not health.
- Not much is known with the data those studies referenced
- Overweight is one step closer to obesity than normal weight
- I would rather living a shorter life with no major health issue before death than living a longer life but having to take medicine to control blood pressure/diabetes/cholestrol, or being inmobilize from a stroke, or... I think you get the point.
What is the motivation for asking "Can you be overweight and healthy"? Is it because we want to stay overweight? Or, is it to avoid ourselves to judge people who are overweight? Or, is it just for us to take our eyes off the scale but to our health? Perhaps, we need to ask ourselves, overweight or not, what direction are we heading?
For me, overweight is just a term in the BMI to tell us that we are one step closer to the danger zone, much like blood sugar, blood pressure or cholesterol, there are numbers that tell you, you don't have the condition yet but you are heading the wrong direction.
+1.
Also important to remember, fat is not an inert substance. It has roles to play in the proliferation and production of inflammatory mediators and some hormones. More fat = more of these things that the body is not meant to have circulating around. Which is unhealthy.
But then again, you have failed to address what your definition of healthy is. If you have the exact same two people, in the exact same level of "body function" if you will, and you added 10kg of fat to one, that other person would be less healthy for the reasons stated above. However, lets face it, you don't get or stay overweight by being healthy - eating heathful foods in good portions, and staying physically active - so the question itself is pretty moot.0 - On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
-
mom3over40 wrote: »Quoting from your referenced article:Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The researchers found that:
- On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
- The higher the BMI, the lower the HDL (the "good" type of cholesterol that tends to lower heart attack and stroke risk).
- The health effects of excess weight vary for different people, perhaps due to genetics.
- Obesity was linked with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular events.
- People of any weight who have high cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar tend to have higher rates of death, as well as heart and blood-vessel disease.
Avoiding obesity is important. But these studies suggest that you can expect to have a normal lifespan even if you're overweight, as long as you are in good metabolic health. But, keep in mind that the health impact of being overweight likely depends on which way your weight is headed. Rising BMI is linked with an increase in heart and blood vessel risk factors (including metabolic syndrome).
What about the idea that you can be obese but fit? Unfortunately, compelling evidence suggests that obesity is linked with an increased risk of death and heart events, even if one's metabolic and heart health numbers are good.
My 2 cents:
- The article has a misleading title. It referenced 2 studies that address death rate, not health.
- Not much is known with the data those studies referenced
- Overweight is one step closer to obesity than normal weight
- I would rather living a shorter life with no major health issue before death than living a longer life but having to take medicine to control blood pressure/diabetes/cholestrol, or being inmobilize from a stroke, or... I think you get the point.
What is the motivation for asking "Can you be overweight and healthy"? Is it because we want to stay overweight? Or, is it to avoid ourselves to judge people who are overweight? Or, is it just for us to take our eyes off the scale but to our health? Perhaps, we need to ask ourselves, overweight or not, what direction are we heading?
For me, overweight is just a term in the BMI to tell us that we are one step closer to the danger zone, much like blood sugar, blood pressure or cholesterol, there are numbers that tell you, you don't have the condition yet but you are heading the wrong direction.
I think the point of the article is that not everyone who is overweight has high cholesterol, high blood sugar, etc. And also there are plenty of people who are in the normal weight range who do. I know many people who are not overweight, and in fact who are quite slim, who have type 2 diabetes, and plenty of people who are overweight who do not. Statistics don't matter so much when individuals are being discussed. This is far from the first article to make this point.
I take more issue with the fact that the article focuses exclusively on blood markers as signs of health, instead of also discussing mobility, joint problems, arthritis, etc. Those should also be taken into account. Like you said, long life does not necessarily mean healthy, so the title is a bit misleading.
And the article does mention that rising BMI is bad, which is not exactly the same thing as saying being overweight is bad.0 - On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
-
chrissievet wrote: »mom3over40 wrote: »Quoting from your referenced article:Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The researchers found that:
- On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
- The higher the BMI, the lower the HDL (the "good" type of cholesterol that tends to lower heart attack and stroke risk).
- The health effects of excess weight vary for different people, perhaps due to genetics.
- Obesity was linked with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular events.
- People of any weight who have high cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar tend to have higher rates of death, as well as heart and blood-vessel disease.
Avoiding obesity is important. But these studies suggest that you can expect to have a normal lifespan even if you're overweight, as long as you are in good metabolic health. But, keep in mind that the health impact of being overweight likely depends on which way your weight is headed. Rising BMI is linked with an increase in heart and blood vessel risk factors (including metabolic syndrome).
What about the idea that you can be obese but fit? Unfortunately, compelling evidence suggests that obesity is linked with an increased risk of death and heart events, even if one's metabolic and heart health numbers are good.
My 2 cents:
- The article has a misleading title. It referenced 2 studies that address death rate, not health.
- Not much is known with the data those studies referenced
- Overweight is one step closer to obesity than normal weight
- I would rather living a shorter life with no major health issue before death than living a longer life but having to take medicine to control blood pressure/diabetes/cholestrol, or being inmobilize from a stroke, or... I think you get the point.
What is the motivation for asking "Can you be overweight and healthy"? Is it because we want to stay overweight? Or, is it to avoid ourselves to judge people who are overweight? Or, is it just for us to take our eyes off the scale but to our health? Perhaps, we need to ask ourselves, overweight or not, what direction are we heading?
For me, overweight is just a term in the BMI to tell us that we are one step closer to the danger zone, much like blood sugar, blood pressure or cholesterol, there are numbers that tell you, you don't have the condition yet but you are heading the wrong direction.
+1.
Also important to remember, fat is not an inert substance. It has roles to play in the proliferation and production of inflammatory mediators and some hormones. More fat = more of these things that the body is not meant to have circulating around. Which is unhealthy.
But then again, you have failed to address what your definition of healthy is. If you have the exact same two people, in the exact same level of "body function" if you will, and you added 10kg of fat to one, that other person would be less healthy for the reasons stated above. However, lets face it, you don't get or stay overweight by being healthy - eating heathful foods in good portions, and staying physically active - so the question itself is pretty moot.
Me? I have failed to address what my definition of healthy is? Sorry, I didn't (don't) know you were talking to me.
My definition of healthy would be the same as the dictionary, I guess. Free of disease, injury, ailment, etc. I would even add few or no controlable risk factors for future disease.
But I would like to see something other than opinion that you can't stay overweight and healthy. The reason this interests me is that I am overweight and healthy and have been for a pretty long time. But, my BF% < 30 which puts me in the not overly fat category on charts I've seen (though I've never really been able to find much data to back up those charts). But, I have no medical problems. I'm strong, active, free of disease, blood work in normal ranges. I am almost 20 lbs overweight by BMI.0 - On average, the higher the BMI, the higher the blood pressure and the greater the tendency toward diabetes (as measured by the body's resistance to insulin, which is considered a key first step toward developing the disease).
-
It's easier to publish that way as it doesn't undergo outside scrutiny. (Like a misleading title would never fly in a peer reviewed journal.)Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »It's pretty easy to google this stuff.
Just as easy for you to be thorough. I know, thorough is hard. Asking questions is hard.
Knock it off. I still question the content quality, because it's subject to a star chamber's level of scrutiny. I prefer real scrutiny to something being passed off as:This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
Trustworthy is such an ambiguous term.
You can't make people trust you. We all choose what and who to trust. Trust can also be hard.
I can only guess at why they publish online instead of in a journal, but my guess would be it's meant for a wider and more general audience and is discussing information already published in a journal. Again, that is just a guess.
There would be little blocking them from publishing in a journal and then a month later releasing to the website.
0 -
I'm not sure I mentioned this before, but I think focusing on BMI is focusing on the wrong parameter and forming the wrong basic question. What is overweight? That's a world that means nothing, it's imprecise.
Now, if one were to amend it to, Can you have an excess fat load and be healthy, then we're starting to get somewhere once we define healthy, and what control/baseline performance is.
Is health solely based on length of life? What other factors could be used to determine "healthy"?0 -
If your heart rate, blood pressure cholesterol and other vitals are okay, then you are in relatively good health. Regardless of weight/bmi0
-
I'm not sure I mentioned this before, but I think focusing on BMI is focusing on the wrong parameter and forming the wrong basic question. What is overweight? That's a world that means nothing, it's imprecise.
Now, if one were to amend it to, Can you have an excess fat load and be healthy, then we're starting to get somewhere once we define healthy, and what control/baseline performance is.
Is health solely based on length of life? What other factors could be used to determine "healthy"?
What would constitute "excess fat load"? And is there enough data to determine healthy ranges?0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »If your heart rate, blood pressure cholesterol and other vitals are okay, then you are in relatively good health. Regardless of weight/bmi
This is true, though I think the article is also considering risk of future disease. I guess the true question is "Can you reamin overweight and remain healthy?"0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »If your heart rate, blood pressure cholesterol and other vitals are okay, then you are in relatively good health. Regardless of weight/bmi
This is true, though I think the article is also considering risk of future disease. I guess the true question is "Can you reamin overweight and remain healthy?"
It's hard to tell how "some" excess fat would affect some but not others. I've seen people that would be considered "fat" but run full marathons. I'd have to say that perhaps their extra fat might not be hurting them in the long run? Who knows?0 -
I'm sure this has already been said.
People can be healthier on their way down than they were on their way up.
However, they will eventually not be overweight unless they choose to maintain at the higher end of the BMI scale for some reason. Is that unhealthy? The article seemed to circle back to 'yes.'0 -
Both excellent questions, and ones we would have to determine before we could go any further with such a question. We could start with some sample data, figure out suitability to mean from there, then once the deviation is known, we could determine a range that most people will fall into, say we go with one deviation +-, and outside of that would be considered excess or not enough. Then work from there.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm not sure I mentioned this before, but I think focusing on BMI is focusing on the wrong parameter and forming the wrong basic question. What is overweight? That's a world that means nothing, it's imprecise.
Now, if one were to amend it to, Can you have an excess fat load and be healthy, then we're starting to get somewhere once we define healthy, and what control/baseline performance is.
Is health solely based on length of life? What other factors could be used to determine "healthy"?
What would constitute "excess fat load"? And is there enough data to determine healthy ranges?
0 -
Both excellent questions, and ones we would have to determine before we could go any further with such a question. We could start with some sample data, figure out suitability to mean from there, then once the deviation is known, we could determine a range that most people will fall into, say we go with one deviation +-, and outside of that would be considered excess or not enough. Then work from there.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm not sure I mentioned this before, but I think focusing on BMI is focusing on the wrong parameter and forming the wrong basic question. What is overweight? That's a world that means nothing, it's imprecise.
Now, if one were to amend it to, Can you have an excess fat load and be healthy, then we're starting to get somewhere once we define healthy, and what control/baseline performance is.
Is health solely based on length of life? What other factors could be used to determine "healthy"?
What would constitute "excess fat load"? And is there enough data to determine healthy ranges?
Yes, but how? Where will you get this data? I could be wrong, but I doubt there enough data on individual fat content, other than what can be guesstimated from BMI, to be statistically significant.0 -
That's the issue, at best we could do stratified sampling, but we'd have to pre-qual data, because bf% is still wholly unknown as an important parameter to most medical professionals.0
-
-
I just found that even remaining (or maintaining) is a difficult thing to do as we age.
Several years ago, I was in normal weight range. Then, without doing anything different, I slowly gained to the overweight range. Then, my doctor decided to test my A1C and I would be considered pre-diabetic if my blood work shows the same range in 6 months.
My point is, if we don't pay attention, we head the wrong direction. We lose bone mass, muscle mass and our metabolic rate drop. I guess you might be able to remain overweight and remain healthy but even that requires attention.
You see, from those weight-training post I read, those muscular ones are likely to be overweight according to BMI. But then, they will never ask this question...0 -
Based on the article I would prefer to be 6% over some 'ideal' weight chart with no other health risks than to die earlier due to not being overweight.0
-
sheepotato wrote: »I'm sure this has already been said.
People can be healthier on their way down than they were on their way up.
However, they will eventually not be overweight unless they choose to maintain at the higher end of the BMI scale for some reason. Is that unhealthy? The article seemed to circle back to 'yes.'
The article says obesity is unhealthy, but does not say that being overweight and staying that way is unhealthy. Just don't move from overweight to obese. I'd say even within the normal weight range it is not healthy to put on extra weight as an adult unless it is from muscle gains.0 -
sheepotato wrote: »I'm sure this has already been said.
People can be healthier on their way down than they were on their way up.
However, they will eventually not be overweight unless they choose to maintain at the higher end of the BMI scale for some reason. Is that unhealthy? The article seemed to circle back to 'yes.'
The question seems to be if you stabilize around BMI 26 is that unhealthy? Is it worth your while to try to lose for health reasons.
To use myself, I seem to stabilize pretty easily around 130, even though I think I look better at 120. (I also am kind of a bad example since I have been prone to gaining weight well beyond that during certain periods of my life, but let's ignore that.) At various times I've maintained without trouble around 130, but felt like I had to work harder to get to or stay at a lower weight.
As it happens 130 for me is around a BMI of 23, but I know others with a similar experience for whom their perceived easy maintenance weight is more like a 26 or 27. If it's easy to stay at the one weight and stressful or simply a ton of work to get lower and tends to require dieting which results in some yo-yoing (not a huge range, say 120-150), might you be better off just staying at the higher weight (in my hypothetical, say 5'3, 145, slightly above "normal" BMI) and focusing on fitness goals, assuming you feel good and have no negative health indications?
I suspect so, although for various reasons for myself (smaller frame, not tons of muscle mass, personal preference, I enjoy running) I do think it's a good choice to try to stay within a healthy BMI range (and specifically to try to get down to 120 or so, which happens to be around a 21). If my weight had been really stable at 145 or so (which would be above the healthy range for me) and I was as healthy and fit as I mostly recently was at that weight--exercising lots and eating well and all the rest--I am skeptical that there would be real health reasons to get thinner, although I'd continue to work on overall fitness and a general decrease in weight might follow. I feel like people are nervous that unless you claim that getting to a BMI<25 is essential for health that everyone will decide to just be BMI=27, but the fact is that's not really the health concern and people have lots of other reasons they want to lose weight anyway. For health and just generally how good I feel, I'd much rather be BMI=27 and really fit than BMI=21 and not fit, and both are quite possible (I've been both).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sheepotato wrote: »I'm sure this has already been said.
People can be healthier on their way down than they were on their way up.
However, they will eventually not be overweight unless they choose to maintain at the higher end of the BMI scale for some reason. Is that unhealthy? The article seemed to circle back to 'yes.'
The question seems to be if you stabilize around BMI 26 is that unhealthy? Is it worth your while to try to lose for health reasons.
To use myself, I seem to stabilize pretty easily around 130, even though I think I look better at 120. (I also am kind of a bad example since I have been prone to gaining weight well beyond that during certain periods of my life, but let's ignore that.) At various times I've maintained without trouble around 130, but felt like I had to work harder to get to or stay at a lower weight.
As it happens 130 for me is around a BMI of 23, but I know others with a similar experience for whom their perceived easy maintenance weight is more like a 26 or 27. If it's easy to stay at the one weight and stressful or simply a ton of work to get lower and tends to require dieting which results in some yo-yoing (not a huge range, say 120-150), might you be better off just staying at the higher weight (in my hypothetical, say 5'3, 145, slightly above "normal" BMI) and focusing on fitness goals, assuming you feel good and have no negative health indications?
I suspect so, although for various reasons for myself (smaller frame, not tons of muscle mass, personal preference, I enjoy running) I do think it's a good choice to try to stay within a healthy BMI range (and specifically to try to get down to 120 or so, which happens to be around a 21). If my weight had been really stable at 145 or so (which would be above the healthy range for me) and I was as healthy and fit as I mostly recently was at that weight--exercising lots and eating well and all the rest--I am skeptical that there would be real health reasons to get thinner, although I'd continue to work on overall fitness and a general decrease in weight might follow. I feel like people are nervous that unless you claim that getting to a BMI<25 is essential for health that everyone will decide to just be BMI=27, but the fact is that's not really the health concern and people have lots of other reasons they want to lose weight anyway. For health and just generally how good I feel, I'd much rather be BMI=27 and really fit than BMI=21 and not fit, and both are quite possible (I've been both).
I do find it interesting, a BMI of 26 in question, I suppose I will be spending a bit of time 'overweight' on my way to goal of 'normal' but not really long enough to judge my general health. I think I could spare the $40 or so to get an air displacement BF% out of curiosity since I know of a gym with a bod pod in town.
I'm 5,8" and pear shaped, before there was any outside influence (ie) I ate when I was hungry and was active in sports, I seemed to always hover at 145/BMI of 22. It wasn't until I tried to force my body down to a BMI of 17.5 that it ever fought back. I am sure that eventually if I 'stay the course' I will end up at the 145 range which is 'healthy' BMI wise for my height. However, I honestly liked the way my body looked 180/BMI of 27 which is dead center of 'overweight.' So I can get the aesthetic appeal of maintaining at 'overweight.'
Vanity wise I think when I get older if I don't strength train anymore I would hover at the high end of healthy or low end of overweight. Just because I tend to be more hourglass than pear with a higher fat distribution. If there were no negative health continuations to carrying that extra weight I think I would be happy to maintain at 160-180, but that would put me at 25-27 BMI.
Fitness wise, I know that 140-150 is where I should be for my height/build. To be fair, I've only seen my own body at those weights when there was no lifting involved. It was the result of mostly cardio (I was a swimmer/jogger for years), I may like myself at a lower weight if my lower half isn't as out of proportion.
It does have me curious how much of health lies in how much weight you carry and not necessarily how you carry it. (IE with my shape I carry it in my chest not my abdomen, and abdominal weight is the current 'bad guy' health wise.)0 -
Important for what?That's the issue, at best we could do stratified sampling, but we'd have to pre-qual data, because bf% is still wholly unknown as an important parameter to most medical professionals.
Or, as a possibly unrelated question...What do you think they don't know?
(Asking, not baiting.)
0 -
Important for what?That's the issue, at best we could do stratified sampling, but we'd have to pre-qual data, because bf% is still wholly unknown as an important parameter to most medical professionals.
Or, as a possibly unrelated question...What do you think they don't know?
(Asking, not baiting.)
BF% seems to be people's biggest gripe with the 'one size fits all' BMI scale, athletic people are always 'unhealthy' on it.0 -
i get that. It says they're obese when they aren't. They have a beef there.sheepotato wrote: »
Important for what?That's the issue, at best we could do stratified sampling, but we'd have to pre-qual data, because bf% is still wholly unknown as an important parameter to most medical professionals.
Or, as a possibly unrelated question...What do you think they don't know?
(Asking, not baiting.)
BF% seems to be people's biggest gripe with the 'one size fits all' BMI scale, athletic people are always 'unhealthy' on it.
I'm wondering what dbmata thinks the doctors don't know...or in what way additional knowledge would help. I just don't understand the point, I think.
0 -
i get that. It says they're obese when they aren't. They have a beef there.sheepotato wrote: »
Important for what?That's the issue, at best we could do stratified sampling, but we'd have to pre-qual data, because bf% is still wholly unknown as an important parameter to most medical professionals.
Or, as a possibly unrelated question...What do you think they don't know?
(Asking, not baiting.)
BF% seems to be people's biggest gripe with the 'one size fits all' BMI scale, athletic people are always 'unhealthy' on it.
I'm wondering what dbmata thinks the doctors don't know...or in what way additional knowledge would help. I just don't understand the point, I think.
I think for the study to work, it would take studying people who are healthy but not in shape enough to skew the BMI by having a low BF% (if that's possible?) I'm curious if that was the point, still reading through the thread.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Me? I have failed to address what my definition of healthy is? Sorry, I didn't (don't) know you were talking to me.
My definition of healthy would be the same as the dictionary, I guess. Free of disease, injury, ailment, etc. I would even add few or no controlable risk factors for future disease.
But I would like to see something other than opinion that you can't stay overweight and healthy. The reason this interests me is that I am overweight and healthy and have been for a pretty long time. But, my BF% < 30 which puts me in the not overly fat category on charts I've seen (though I've never really been able to find much data to back up those charts). But, I have no medical problems. I'm strong, active, free of disease, blood work in normal ranges. I am almost 20 lbs overweight by BMI.
Firstly, it is usually up to the instigator of a discussion to provide definitions for what they are discussing. It is fairly fruitless to try and have a discussion without them - so I figured I would cut to the chase and ask you outright.
I would say that as long as there is excess body fat, there are significant risk factors for disease regardless of whether or not there is any evidence on the blood work that is regularly tested for "health" - therefore making you "unhealthy". There are numerous well proven animal models of adipose tissue acting as a source of inflammation and mediating significant future disease.
I also think pretty much every person here agrees with the lack of validity of BMI as anything but a rough indicator - as a vet we always assess animals individually for fat covering and body type - its something in the human psyche that makes them want to desperately cling to a number to define how they should or shouldn't be. You would be far more wise looking to body shape, fat covering and body fat percentage, as well as cardiovascular fitness, than BMI.0 -
And as we all know, just because you are skinny doesn't mean you are healthy either. It is a lot more complicated then that. I speak from personal experience as well.0
-
mom3over40 wrote: »I just found that even remaining (or maintaining) is a difficult thing to do as we age.
Several years ago, I was in normal weight range. Then, without doing anything different, I slowly gained to the overweight range. Then, my doctor decided to test my A1C and I would be considered pre-diabetic if my blood work shows the same range in 6 months.
My point is, if we don't pay attention, we head the wrong direction. We lose bone mass, muscle mass and our metabolic rate drop. I guess you might be able to remain overweight and remain healthy but even that requires attention.
You see, from those weight-training post I read, those muscular ones are likely to be overweight according to BMI. But then, they will never ask this question...
But I think that is the point of the article. Not aging women, but that it's lifestyle that matters most for those who are overweight when it comes to maintaining health.
As a soon to be 51 yo woman I can tell you that being at a healthy weight won't always prevent the things you mention above if you have a poor diet and/or inactive lifestyle. Many friends my age who have never been overweight suffer bone loss, insulin resistance or diabetes, high cholesterol or BP, etc.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Based on the article I would prefer to be 6% over some 'ideal' weight chart with no other health risks than to die earlier due to not being overweight.
I doubt your death would actually be due to not being overweight.
0 -
sheepotato wrote: »
Important for what?That's the issue, at best we could do stratified sampling, but we'd have to pre-qual data, because bf% is still wholly unknown as an important parameter to most medical professionals.
Or, as a possibly unrelated question...What do you think they don't know?
(Asking, not baiting.)
BF% seems to be people's biggest gripe with the 'one size fits all' BMI scale, athletic people are always 'unhealthy' on it.
No, not always. Most women and some men athletes would not be overweight by BMI. And some athletes also carry a BF% in the unhealthy range.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheepotato wrote: »
Important for what?That's the issue, at best we could do stratified sampling, but we'd have to pre-qual data, because bf% is still wholly unknown as an important parameter to most medical professionals.
Or, as a possibly unrelated question...What do you think they don't know?
(Asking, not baiting.)
BF% seems to be people's biggest gripe with the 'one size fits all' BMI scale, athletic people are always 'unhealthy' on it.
No, not always. Most women and some men athletes would not be overweight by BMI. And some athletes also carry a BF% in the unhealthy range.
You are right, I shouldn't have used the word 'always' I was tired when I wrote that. I should have said 'often' or 'usually.' My bad. I try not to speak in absolutes when I can avoid it. I was just saying that BMI's are a rule of thumb, but not a catch all for health. More specifically why BF% would be a huge factor in any BMI related study.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions