So, you think you hate the BMI now?

Options
1235»

Replies

  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    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.
  • LVCeltGirl
    LVCeltGirl Posts: 473
    Options
    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. :smile:
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    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).
  • Adrianachiarato
    Adrianachiarato Posts: 362 Member
    Options
    I still love BMI. Mine is 22 :)
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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.
  • WVprankster
    WVprankster Posts: 430 Member
    Options
    Yep. I'm still fat. Now I'm fat with visible abs.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Options
    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.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    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.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Options
    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).
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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.
  • youngdreamer
    youngdreamer Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    ....................................................
  • sleibo87
    sleibo87 Posts: 403 Member
    Options
    The BMI chart is bull, they should go off body fat only! The guy at my work who is like 6'3 and and pure muscle got told from the kaiser mobile truck that visited my work, that he was 30 pounds over weight HAHAHHA(worst part is the nurses were not in their bmi count..just sayin!) ....So he looked at them and joked that heck ya he was 30 pounds over weight (while looking at his junk). I BUSTED UP LAUGHING!
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Options
    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.

    BMI was (and is) a tool used to predict whether or not a person is more likely to suffer from weight-related health issues.
    Is it sometimes used otherwise? Sure.
    Is the article about appearance? Nope.
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Options
    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.

    Well, my BMI is high (to me), and by appearance medical professionals are always surprised by my scale weight. I'm one of those on the cusp of overweight right now that would be 'obese' according to the article. You'd think an obese person should look fat to medical pros at least.

    Do we really want completely normal folks to be classified as 'obese'? OTOH, I do have a lot of LBM (wide skeleton, naturally big leg muscles, etc). I'm not what people think of when they think bodybuilder by any means, but the women in my family probably pulled the oxcarts themselves back in the old country :D:D

Categories