So, you think you hate the BMI now?
Replies
-
but here's the thing... why are they focusing on "fat" and "not fat"?
We can generally visually judge if someone is too large for their height, but the real question is: is this person's body HEALTHY?
Whether you are or aren't fat is a factor insurance companies and employers are allowed to discriminate on. Thus ways to objectively identify who is and isn't fat is important to those greedy a-holes.
FIFY :flowerforyou:0 -
There was a really good program on the BBC recently called "The Men Who Made Us Fat" and it covered the issue of BMI. It was apparently created by an insurance guy who noticed that people who were bigger tended to have more health problems and died younger. He created the BMI as an insurance tool to work out insurance premiums. After it had been used for a while they decided to shift the boundaries so that people who were on the verge of becoming overweight were now classed as being overweight and this shift would spur them to lose weight and stay in the healthy range. So people who were classes as being health were now deemed to be overweight and would lose pounds in order to be classed as healthy again.
The program covered a wide range of issues relating to weight and was defiantly worth a watch on the iplayer.0 -
but here's the thing... why are they focusing on "fat" and "not fat"?
We can generally visually judge if someone is too large for their height, but the real question is: is this person's body HEALTHY?
Whether you are or aren't fat is a factor insurance companies and employers are allowed to discriminate on. Thus ways to objectively identify who is and isn't fat is important.
Insurance companies and employers could use blood tests to identify who is at risk for heart disease and diabetes, and who is not. While they're at it, they could identify who is at risk for osteoporosis, i.e. people who are underweight.0 -
that's a great explanation, so if we lower the threshold the false positive group gets larger correct? So what does that lead to is it a better indicator of health, mortality, fitness? Would it be more beneficial to have a large false positive group to get further testing to eliminate the ones who are not truly fat even though it becomes more involved and costly?
That is the question, isn't it. Would increasing the confidence on the negative group (reducing the incidence of false negatives) be worth the increased effort and cost to filter out more false positives?
Hard question to answer. Depends on what its being used for. Probably yes for doctor based risk screening or medical research, no for insurance risk and underwriting.0 -
but here's the thing... why are they focusing on "fat" and "not fat"?
We can generally visually judge if someone is too large for their height, but the real question is: is this person's body HEALTHY?
Whether you are or aren't fat is a factor insurance companies and employers are allowed to discriminate on. Thus ways to objectively identify who is and isn't fat is important.
Insurance companies and employers could use blood tests to identify who is at risk for heart disease and diabetes, and who is not. While they're at it, they could identify who is at risk for osteoporosis, i.e. people who are underweight.
No they can't. That type of screening is not legal (anymore).
(It is allowed to a degree for some high risk professions, but not for insurance).0 -
What??!?!?!
That would put me from obese to morbidly obese. Ouch! :noway:
Kicker is that my body fat % has me at the top end of healthy/acceptable, not overweight.0 -
At my weight and height ( 4"11.75 , 119lbs) I would be in the overweight category again after busting my butt to get out of it. But I say F that, they can kiss my overweight *kitten*. I dont care about BMI. I care about how much I can deadlift!!0
-
but here's the thing... why are they focusing on "fat" and "not fat"?
We can generally visually judge if someone is too large for their height, but the real question is: is this person's body HEALTHY?
Whether you are or aren't fat is a factor insurance companies and employers are allowed to discriminate on. Thus ways to objectively identify who is and isn't fat is important.
Insurance companies and employers could use blood tests to identify who is at risk for heart disease and diabetes, and who is not. While they're at it, they could identify who is at risk for osteoporosis, i.e. people who are underweight.
No they can't. That type of screening is not legal (anymore).
(It is allowed to a degree for some high risk professions, but not for insurance).
Unfortunately, they can still ask for blood tests. We switched to Cigna C-change and to get onto the lower deductible plan with more coverage requires a blood test. Although, they say it is for benign purposes "only for you" and there will be no genetic screening you still question the ethics of it and what they are really doing with your blood. GRRRRRR.0 -
"Based on their findings, Braverman and his coauthor, New York State Commissioner of Health Nirav Shah, M.D., say the BMI threshold for obesity, which now stands at 30, should be lowered to 24 for women and 28 for men."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/health/obesity-rates-maybe-worse/
Smh
Contradictory article is contradictory. :noway:0 -
"Based on their findings, Braverman and his coauthor, New York State Commissioner of Health Nirav Shah, M.D., say the BMI threshold for obesity, which now stands at 30, should be lowered to 24 for women and 28 for men."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/health/obesity-rates-maybe-worse/
Smh
LIES!!
Spawn's BMI is 30. Thats not including the 6,000+ souls in his body.
He's definitely is not fat or obese because there is no way the Prince of Darkness would be recruiting out of shape / incapable individuals to lead Hell's army. Duh!0 -
"Based on their findings, Braverman and his coauthor, New York State Commissioner of Health Nirav Shah, M.D., say the BMI threshold for obesity, which now stands at 30, should be lowered to 24 for women and 28 for men."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/health/obesity-rates-maybe-worse/
Smh
It's not so much that I hate it as I think we give it too much credit. It's just too vague. Many people don't understand that your body's weight includes BOTH healthy, necessary tissue in addition to any fat you may have that you could afford to lose.
In cases like this article, it creates this paranoia about weight because all people will hear is "OMG! I'm OBESE now! I've got to lose weight!". Then, instead of their weight being a non-emotional statistic regarding their body, it becomes an even more frightening boogeyman, which fuels the market for sham weight-loss products because all people care about is losing weight, not improving their health.0 -
BMI really doesn't bother me, I completely disregard it because I think it's wrong most of the time. I do weights and lift 40lbs nearly every day and I gain muscle very easily (Thanks mom!) According to my GP I'm between obese and morbidly obese because of my weight, but my body fat percentage is 29%. Everyone has different amounts of muscle, so it's not accurate at all really.0
-
As a healthcare professional I can guarantee two things:
1) most physicians will not automatically diagnose you with obesity because of your BMI. They will look at a lot of other factors, since BMI was never intended to be a standalone measure of health, only a red flag to consider more fully whether a person is healthy or not.
2) one study is virtually never enough to change medical opinion. Typically these things take at least three or four peer-reviewed studies and at least a few years after that to absorb into clinical thinking. Doctors are SLOW to change, for good reason.
But the fact remains that for most people in most situations, BMI DOES work. It's obvious it can't work for everyone, but how many people truly have bodybuilder problems? I have yet to see one come through our clinic. And as for the other side of not working (the low weight person with high body fat) there are certainly other warning signs. Generally speaking, BMI will still work. That said, I don't think it should be used to calculate insurance rates UNLESS there's also a diagnosis of obesity. BMI alone, despite its rather reliable ability to predict danger to health, is not enough.0 -
"Based on their findings, Braverman and his coauthor, New York State Commissioner of Health Nirav Shah, M.D., say the BMI threshold for obesity, which now stands at 30, should be lowered to 24 for women and 28 for men."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/health/obesity-rates-maybe-worse/
Smh
Contradictory article is contradictory. :noway:
wait I just thought of something why would the threshold for women be lower when women have general overall body fatness than men?
So a 5'11" woman would have to weigh 20lbs less than a 5'11" man to be considered overweight even though her gender is going to have more fat, less LBM why does this seem wrong to me? Can someone explain what would be the reasoning behind this are we going with less bone mass, muscle mass?0 -
Our company told us that starting in 2015, BMI will be a factor in our healthcare plan cost (as will smoking). I can see this becoming a popular trend among healthcare companies.
It all makes perfect sense now. More obese people means insurance companies can charge more.
Maybe that's the point of all this research? hmmm...0 -
Well I'm 21.1 so I guess I'm still good. BMI doesn't really work for my husband though. His BMI is 28, which would be obese under the article's standards, but you'd never know it by looking at him. He's much leaner than his peers. He's just very muscular. I hope nobody gets discouraged by this. I'm not gonna give it a second thought myself.
ETA: Personally, I think a more useful tool would be waist ratio measurements.0 -
The military goes by BMI, when I joined in 2001 I had to get a waiver for my weight because I weighed 182, and the government felt I should weigh 172 max. At that point in my life I was running, swimming and lifting 5-6 days a week, and had a BF% between 12-15% I had to get taped before every PRT because I was considered overweight. Made no sense to me. BMI is a useless one size fits all government classification, and is just one more example of why the government shouldn't be trusted with even the power it already has over us, let alone any more.
Rigger
No kidding. I have known several muscular guys with the same issue. BF% is a much better indicator.0 -
I've accepted that I'm always going to be fat by doctors' standards, so I'm not overly fussed. I just wish they'd use their brains for something other than hat racks.
Wear your hat. That adds, what?, 2-3 inches?6' w/ a goal weight of 185 will just put me at "overweight", not "obese".
*phew*
Dodged a bullet there.
ETA: However, I'm sometimes measured at 5'11", which puts me just a little bit closer.0 -
but here's the thing... why are they focusing on "fat" and "not fat"?
We can generally visually judge if someone is too large for their height, but the real question is: is this person's body HEALTHY?
Whether you are or aren't fat is a factor insurance companies and employers are allowed to discriminate on. Thus ways to objectively identify who is and isn't fat is important.
Insurance companies and employers could use blood tests to identify who is at risk for heart disease and diabetes, and who is not. While they're at it, they could identify who is at risk for osteoporosis, i.e. people who are underweight.
No they can't. That type of screening is not legal (anymore).
(It is allowed to a degree for some high risk professions, but not for insurance).
Unfortunately, they can still ask for blood tests. We switched to Cigna C-change and to get onto the lower deductible plan with more coverage requires a blood test. Although, they say it is for benign purposes "only for you" and there will be no genetic screening you still question the ethics of it and what they are really doing with your blood. GRRRRRR.
I thought that this was specifically outlawed by the ACA. Unless its a smoking test (usually don't need a blood test for that though).0 -
BMI is a crock, as most people here understand. However, it is unfortunately used to determine things like ones eligibility for transplant. I am just coming up to be eligible for my lung transplant after losing almost 30 pounds. If they switch it, then I would have to lose another 30. They will not go by BF% even though right now mine is considered at least healthy, not ideal, but at least healthy. Hardly seems right....0
-
but here's the thing... why are they focusing on "fat" and "not fat"?
We can generally visually judge if someone is too large for their height, but the real question is: is this person's body HEALTHY?
Whether you are or aren't fat is a factor insurance companies and employers are allowed to discriminate on. Thus ways to objectively identify who is and isn't fat is important.
Insurance companies and employers could use blood tests to identify who is at risk for heart disease and diabetes, and who is not. While they're at it, they could identify who is at risk for osteoporosis, i.e. people who are underweight.
No they can't. That type of screening is not legal (anymore).
(It is allowed to a degree for some high risk professions, but not for insurance).
Unfortunately, they can still ask for blood tests. We switched to Cigna C-change and to get onto the lower deductible plan with more coverage requires a blood test. Although, they say it is for benign purposes "only for you" and there will be no genetic screening you still question the ethics of it and what they are really doing with your blood. GRRRRRR.
I thought that this was specifically outlawed by the ACA. Unless its a smoking test (usually don't need a blood test for that though).
If it is, Aetna hasn't gotten the memo, either. We get charged a fee if we don't have certain metrics measured and reported yearly by a physician, including blood glucose and serum cholesterol.0 -
Damn! According to the "new" BMI at my current weight, I guess I should be dead from morbid obesity. I agree with everyone else that's been chiming in, non-scale but more accurate body fat tests should be taken into consideration for overweight and obesity.
I know I'm obese at the moment, joined MFP to track and keep myself accountable so that I could lose weight (okay, truth be told, lose body fat). I've actually always said that I don't care if I weigh 400 lbs (I love using a ridiculous number) as long as I look like I weigh 125. And I know if I look like I weigh 125, then I've greatly diminished my body fat.
0 -
I thought that this was specifically outlawed by the ACA. Unless its a smoking test (usually don't need a blood test for that though).
If it is, Aetna hasn't gotten the memo, either. We get charged a fee if we don't have certain metrics measured and reported yearly by a physician, including blood glucose and serum cholesterol.
Ah, I see how they are doing it.
You aren't getting charged a fee, its the other way around, you are getting a discount for wellness participation. Lack of participation takes away the discount and you revert back to your baseline plan, which costs more (the fee as you put it).0 -
I still love BMI. Mine is 22 0
-
I hear that under Obamacare BMI may be use to determine if you are obese for your rates. Love the govt.
They're already used by your insurance company - and have been for a long time - to help determine your life insurance rates.
I don't have a problem with the article. In the past half-century - at least in North America - the public perception of what bodies "should" look like has shifted dramatically towards the larger end of the spectrum.0 -
Yep. I'm still fat. Now I'm fat with visible abs.0
-
I hear that under Obamacare BMI may be use to determine if you are obese for your rates. Love the govt.
They're already used by your insurance company - and have been for a long time - to help determine your life insurance rates.
I don't have a problem with the article. In the past half-century - at least in North America - the public perception of what bodies "should" look like has shifted dramatically towards the larger end of the spectrum.
Perhaps we have a different perception of what bodies "should" look like. However, the article is not about appearance.0 -
I thought that this was specifically outlawed by the ACA. Unless its a smoking test (usually don't need a blood test for that though).
If it is, Aetna hasn't gotten the memo, either. We get charged a fee if we don't have certain metrics measured and reported yearly by a physician, including blood glucose and serum cholesterol.
Ah, I see how they are doing it.
You aren't getting charged a fee, its the other way around, you are getting a discount for wellness participation. Lack of participation takes away the discount and you revert back to your baseline plan, which costs more (the fee as you put it).
That may be how they phrase it internally, but we are told that if we don't submit our biometrics, we will be charged a penalty. They say the same for either failing to fill out their health questionnaire yearly (or if you admit to being a smoker on said questionnaire).
It's a direct contrast to the discounts they offer for participation in their Thrive program, or for losing weight or maintaining your weight at every 3 month voluntary weigh-in. Those are referred to as rewards or rebates.
In reality, it's just semantics.0 -
As a healthcare professional I can guarantee two things:
1) most physicians will not automatically diagnose you with obesity because of your BMI. They will look at a lot of other factors, since BMI was never intended to be a standalone measure of health, only a red flag to consider more fully whether a person is healthy or not.
2) one study is virtually never enough to change medical opinion. Typically these things take at least three or four peer-reviewed studies and at least a few years after that to absorb into clinical thinking. Doctors are SLOW to change, for good reason.
But the fact remains that for most people in most situations, BMI DOES work. It's obvious it can't work for everyone, but how many people truly have bodybuilder problems? I have yet to see one come through our clinic. And as for the other side of not working (the low weight person with high body fat) there are certainly other warning signs. Generally speaking, BMI will still work. That said, I don't think it should be used to calculate insurance rates UNLESS there's also a diagnosis of obesity. BMI alone, despite its rather reliable ability to predict danger to health, is not enough.
I got some test results that were computer-generated, and I noticed that it had a box for the doc asking him if he discussed my BMI with me (just barely into overweight then). He didn't. They never do. But I mean that in a good way, because it's pretty clear if you poke around on me that my bodyfat is fine for health (if not a teeny bikini, exactly). I wouldn't trust a doc who couldn't use his brain along with all of those population formulas They truly do miss important things if they are that clueless (been there, too). 0 -
Perhaps we have a different perception of what bodies "should" look like. However, the article is not about appearance.
An article about BMI is implicitly about "appearance", because setting acceptable BMI ranges is an explicit statement on what bodies "should" look like.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions