Can You Be Overweight and Healthy?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
sheepotato wrote: »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.
I think most people, and certainly most researchers, would agree. But there isn't population data on BF% available to accurately determine cutoffs. BMI is an easy and cheap measurement. BF is not.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »sheepotato wrote: »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.
I think most people, and certainly most researchers, would agree. But there isn't population data on BF% available to accurately determine cutoffs. BMI is an easy and cheap measurement. BF is not.
Very true, and likely one of the main reasons there just isn't much conclusive research.0 -
In general, most of them haven't gotten the memo on bf%.
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.
My doctor is solid, but he's got a sports medicine focus. Other doctors actually use the BMI chart to give advice. That's up there with killing a rooster and reading its intestines.
0 -
In general, most of them haven't gotten the memo on bf%.
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.
My doctor is solid, but he's got a sports medicine focus. Other doctors actually use the BMI chart to give advice. That's up there with killing a rooster and reading its intestines.
I wonder how true this is on an individual basis. I know insurance companies use it, and doctors giving general advice to populations, but how many doctors would really ask a person that was overweight but fit and healthy to lose weight simply to get in their BMI down? I doubt anyone here really has an answer to that, but I doubt it would be many.
If the BMI is high but the person is not fit and healthy, that would be a different story.0 -
When I was getting medical treatment at MIT, the BMI was actually the standard from which they gave advice.
That was also the standard in the UC Davis medical system, back when I used them in the late 90s early 00s. Hopefully UCD has gotten out of the stone age.0 -
In general, most of them haven't gotten the memo on bf%.
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.
My doctor is solid, but he's got a sports medicine focus. Other doctors actually use the BMI chart to give advice. That's up there with killing a rooster and reading its intestines.
My doctor gives me advice such as 'squeeze a lemon on your salad instead of using dressing' or 'if you eat a cookie instead of a salad you would need to walk around the block 3 times to burn it off.' I have no idea where he comes up with that crap or how he thinks it would ever be helpful to someone so I just sort of say 'okay thanks.'
I like him as a doctor because he doesn't make guesses, he prefers to run tests and really that's what you are paying a doctor for. However, personality wise I find him a little grating.
The day I met my obgyn she told me (no questions asked) that I should eat less sugar. I said most of my sugar comes from fruit, so she said well cut back on fruit. I did not. Then she gushed about how happy she was months later with my gestational diabetes results (they were half of the normal range.) She told me 'you must not eat sugar very often.' Yeah, thanks for that.
0 -
So he's tested squeezing a lemon, walking around the block and found it fully valid?0
-
-
heh, so he doesn't test everything in his practice. lol. I've actually been asked to move to another practice after asking a doctor to restrict his advice and commentary to things he's actually been trained on and has at least a basic understanding of.
(In relation to unsolicited dietary advice.)0 -
sheepotato wrote: »
In general, most of them haven't gotten the memo on bf%.
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.
My doctor is solid, but he's got a sports medicine focus. Other doctors actually use the BMI chart to give advice. That's up there with killing a rooster and reading its intestines.
My doctor gives me advice such as 'squeeze a lemon on your salad instead of using dressing' or 'if you eat a cookie instead of a salad you would need to walk around the block 3 times to burn it off.' I have no idea where he comes up with that crap or how he thinks it would ever be helpful to someone so I just sort of say 'okay thanks.'
I like him as a doctor because he doesn't make guesses, he prefers to run tests and really that's what you are paying a doctor for. However, personality wise I find him a little grating.
The day I met my obgyn she told me (no questions asked) that I should eat less sugar. I said most of my sugar comes from fruit, so she said well cut back on fruit. I did not. Then she gushed about how happy she was months later with my gestational diabetes results (they were half of the normal range.) She told me 'you must not eat sugar very often.' Yeah, thanks for that.
My doctor never says anything about my weight, even though I am overweight. But, all my tests have come back okay so she doesn't see it as a problem. I asked her if she thought I should lose weight and her answer was "Sure, if you want to." Perhaps I should have asked if she thought I needed to lose.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions