No such thing as "normal" or "healthy" weight?

Kipperdoodle13

Please see the link for a NYT article re-defining obesity risk and whether or not we should actually be striving for that "normal" or "healthy" weight standard. Its a pretty good read, let me know what you guys think.

"Now, if we were to employ the logic of our public health authorities, who treat any correlation between weight and increased mortality risk as a good reason to encourage people to try to modify their weight, we ought to be telling the 75 million American adults currently occupying the government’s “healthy weight” category to put on some pounds, so they can move into the lower risk, higher-weight categories."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/our-imaginary-weight-problem.html?_r=0

RoadsterGirlie

Ugh, ugh and more ugh.

etoiles_argentees

try again.

Firefox7275

Study was discussed in a thread a few days ago if you run a search. Note that the study and article refers to mortality NOT morbidity/ quality of life, healthcare is very much concerned with both and so are risk factors. Interesting the credentials of the person they chose to analyse the research, nothing like a little bias to excite readers with a hangover or post holiday blues. Nothing to see here, move along please.

BinaryPulsar

I agree with the posters above me. I'm not buying it. There are a lot of health problems associated with being over-fat. And a lot of clear enjoyments of the health that comes with a "healthy weight" or healthy body fat percent. I'm happy as I am. I enjoy being active and fit.

Nataliaho

OP

People for whom it works, think the "normal" and "healthy" weight ranges, as determined by the BMI are perfectly fine. People who get f*@cked by the BMI don't like it. The former think the latter are stupid, fat, lazy and in denial... I have learnt the hard way that these kinds of discussions are pointless for those reasons.

signed - someone who got royally f*@cked over by the BMI just this week.

mjhedgehog

WendyTerry420

Please see the link for a NYT article re-defining obesity risk and whether or not we should actually be striving for that "normal" or "healthy" weight standard. Its a pretty good read, let me know what you guys think.

"Now, if we were to employ the logic of our public health authorities, who treat any correlation between weight and increased mortality risk as a good reason to encourage people to try to modify their weight, we ought to be telling the 75 million American adults currently occupying the government’s “healthy weight” category to put on some pounds, so they can move into the lower risk, higher-weight categories."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/opinion/our-imaginary-weight-problem.html?_r=0

Sounds like how they figure the inflation statistics. :ohwell:

Mathguy1

We in the actuarial field (I'm on the P&C side, but I've spoken with those on the health side) understand that weight and BMI numbers are very misleading. That's why they are going to be switching to a new measure of health which is your Waist to Height ratio. The reason is that a BMI number may become irrelevant is when dealing with those that lift weights and carry a decent amount of muscle on their frame.

Anyway, no one in the insurance industry is going to accept that "Being overweight allows you to live longer than if you were at a healthy weight" argument.

Simply put, take a tape measure and measure your circumference (at your belly button), dont suck in your stomach, but dont push it out either. Just stand as you normally do (hold your breath mid breath) and have someone measure you. Then divide that number by your total height.

You should get a fraction.

.50 is ideal.
.48-.53 seems to have very little, almost immeasurable years of life lost.
.54-.56, one starts to lose years off their life.

For a 30 yr old non smoking male, here's how many years off their life they lose at varying Waist to Height ratios:

.60 - about 3 years lost
.70 - about 7 years lost
.74 - about 11 years lost
.78 - about 16 years lost
>.80 about 21 years lost

Keep in mind, an average 30 year old, non smoking male, on average, lives 47 more years.

In keeping with what the OP stated, there is a correlation to being too skinny and the number of years of life lost. (I think that was the point of this article) and here are the additional years of life lost at lower waist to height ratios (again, for a 30 year old non smoker).

<.36 - about 2 years
.38 - about 1 year
.40 to .48 - less than 1 year.

While it seems that being too skinny is a very slight health risk, it's nothing compared to having extremely high waist to height ratios. You'll see that more and more health insurance companies will move away from the BMI standard of measuring health to the waist to height ratio. It's more accurate and doesn't get skewed by those that exercise.

Also, keep in mind, I've only discussed the mortality aspect of varying waist to height ratios. In regards to units of health care consumed, having higher waist to height ratios (meaning you are carrying a lot of excess fat on your organs) increases the frequency and severity of your health related issues.

Firefox7275

OP

People for whom it works, think the "normal" and "healthy" weight ranges, as determined by the BMI are perfectly fine. People who get f*@cked by the BMI don't like it. The former think the latter are stupid, fat, lazy and in denial... I have learnt the hard way that these kinds of discussions are pointless for those reasons.

signed - someone who got royally f*@cked over by the BMI just this week.

The medical profession doesn't pretend BMI is all things to all men, neither is bodyfat nor waist to hip nor any other measure.
"BMI is a useful measure of overweight and obesity. It is calculated from your height and weight. BMI is an estimate of body fat and a good gauge of your risk for diseases that can occur with more body fat. The higher your BMI, the higher your risk for certain diseases such as heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, gallstones, breathing problems, and certain cancers.

Although BMI can be used for most men and women, it does have some limits:
It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle."
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt/risk.htm
Note the absence of the words death or mortality, it refers to disease risk - disease being something that tends to occur in the living.

Working in lifestyle healthcare I much prefer bodyfat, but use it alongside BMI and of course discussion with the client to determine if people are, say, skinny-fat or athletic types. My opinions and preferences do not change my view on that study, it doesn't prove BMI is meaningless since the WHO definition of "Health [as] a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" doesn't say "you are healthy if you are not suffering an advanced case of dead."

Bobby__Clerici

Rationalizing our fatness is fashionable in the 21st century.
Count me OUT!
:noway:

BinaryPulsar

We in the actuarial field (I'm on the P&C side, but I've spoken with those on the health side) understand that weight and BMI numbers are very misleading. That's why they are going to be switching to a new measure of health which is your Waist to Height ratio. The reason is that a BMI number may become irrelevant is when dealing with those that lift weights and carry a decent amount of muscle on their frame.

Anyway, no one in the insurance industry is going to accept that "Being overweight allows you to live longer than if you were at a healthy weight" argument.

Simply put, take a tape measure and measure your circumference (at your belly button), dont suck in your stomach, but dont push it out either. Just stand as you normally do (hold your breath mid breath) and have someone measure you. Then divide that number by your total height.

You should get a fraction.

.50 is ideal.
.48-.53 seems to have very little, almost immeasurable years of life lost.
.54-.56, one starts to lose years off their life.

For a 30 yr old non smoking male, here's how many years off their life they lose at varying Waist to Height ratios:

.60 - about 3 years lost
.70 - about 7 years lost
.74 - about 11 years lost
.78 - about 16 years lost
>.80 about 21 years lost

Keep in mind, an average 30 year old, non smoking male, on average, lives 47 more years.

In keeping with what the OP stated, there is a correlation to being too skinny and the number of years of life lost. (I think that was the point of this article) and here are the additional years of life lost at lower waist to height ratios (again, for a 30 year old non smoker).

<.36 - about 2 years
.38 - about 1 year
.40 to .48 - less than 1 year.

While it seems that being too skinny is a very slight health risk, it's nothing compared to having extremely high waist to height ratios. You'll see that more and more health insurance companies will move away from the BMI standard of measuring health to the waist to height ratio. It's more accurate and doesn't get skewed by those that exercise.

Also, keep in mind, I've only discussed the mortality aspect of varying waist to height ratios. In regards to units of health care consumed, having higher waist to height ratios (meaning you are carrying a lot of excess fat on your organs) increases the frequency and severity of your health related issues.

This is interesting, but some women are just built with a very small waist and don't store much fat on the mid section (that's how I am), but I guess these figures show it doesn't really make a big difference, just one to two years. Seems statistically insignificant. I've always heard that having a low amount of visceral fat is healthy.

concordancia

I love that it is mortality. Everyone I have known who got hit by a car was out walking or biking when it happened, not sitting on the couch.

Nataliaho

OP

People for whom it works, think the "normal" and "healthy" weight ranges, as determined by the BMI are perfectly fine. People who get f*@cked by the BMI don't like it. The former think the latter are stupid, fat, lazy and in denial... I have learnt the hard way that these kinds of discussions are pointless for those reasons.

signed - someone who got royally f*@cked over by the BMI just this week.

The medical profession doesn't pretend BMI is all things to all men, neither is bodyfat nor waist to hip nor any other measure.
"BMI is a useful measure of overweight and obesity. It is calculated from your height and weight. BMI is an estimate of body fat and a good gauge of your risk for diseases that can occur with more body fat. The higher your BMI, the higher your risk for certain diseases such as heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, gallstones, breathing problems, and certain cancers.

Although BMI can be used for most men and women, it does have some limits:
It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle."
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt/risk.htm
Note the absence of the words death or mortality, it refers to disease risk - disease being something that tends to occur in the living.

Working in lifestyle healthcare I much prefer bodyfat, but use it alongside BMI and of course discussion with the client to determine if people are, say, skinny-fat or athletic types. My opinions and preferences do not change my view on that study, it doesn't prove BMI is meaningless since the WHO definition of "Health [as] a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" doesn't say "you are healthy if you are not suffering an advanced case of dead."

Unfortunately often medical professionals have to work within parameters set by policy makers and policy makers love easy generic things like the BMI.

My mum is a nurse, she has completely rediculous BMI related policies that she is required to implement. None of the medical professionals she works with agrees that they have any medical basis or benefit to patients.

My cousin is a teacher, she has BMI related policies which she needs to comply with that she deems downright harmful to children.

I am going through something at the moment that my doctor is obligated to follow because of my BMI, despite the fact that he describes me as "rediculously healthy". Despite the fact that I am fit and strong, despite all my blood tests being perfect, despite the fact I have never had anything wrong with me in my entire life, despite the fact that I can squat 1.5x my BW and run 10km, despite the fact that my usual BF% is in the healthy range....

These are the kinds of issues that occur when a broad statistical tool like the BMI is used on an individual basis. But on MFP there's no point in talking about these things because, like I said in my other post, people who are OK don't care and assume the rest of us are complete idiots...

Mathguy1

We in the actuarial field (I'm on the P&C side, but I've spoken with those on the health side) understand that weight and BMI numbers are very misleading. That's why they are going to be switching to a new measure of health which is your Waist to Height ratio. The reason is that a BMI number may become irrelevant is when dealing with those that lift weights and carry a decent amount of muscle on their frame.

Anyway, no one in the insurance industry is going to accept that "Being overweight allows you to live longer than if you were at a healthy weight" argument.

Simply put, take a tape measure and measure your circumference (at your belly button), dont suck in your stomach, but dont push it out either. Just stand as you normally do (hold your breath mid breath) and have someone measure you. Then divide that number by your total height.

You should get a fraction.

.50 is ideal.
.48-.53 seems to have very little, almost immeasurable years of life lost.
.54-.56, one starts to lose years off their life.

For a 30 yr old non smoking male, here's how many years off their life they lose at varying Waist to Height ratios:

.60 - about 3 years lost
.70 - about 7 years lost
.74 - about 11 years lost
.78 - about 16 years lost
>.80 about 21 years lost

Keep in mind, an average 30 year old, non smoking male, on average, lives 47 more years.

In keeping with what the OP stated, there is a correlation to being too skinny and the number of years of life lost. (I think that was the point of this article) and here are the additional years of life lost at lower waist to height ratios (again, for a 30 year old non smoker).

<.36 - about 2 years
.38 - about 1 year
.40 to .48 - less than 1 year.

While it seems that being too skinny is a very slight health risk, it's nothing compared to having extremely high waist to height ratios. You'll see that more and more health insurance companies will move away from the BMI standard of measuring health to the waist to height ratio. It's more accurate and doesn't get skewed by those that exercise.

Also, keep in mind, I've only discussed the mortality aspect of varying waist to height ratios. In regards to units of health care consumed, having higher waist to height ratios (meaning you are carrying a lot of excess fat on your organs) increases the frequency and severity of your health related issues.

This is interesting, but some women are just built with a very small waist and don't store much fat on the mid section (that's how I am), but I guess these figures show it doesn't really make a big difference, just one to two years. Seems statistically insignificant. I've always heard that having a low amount of visceral fat is healthy.

Good point. For women, the ideal is .46.
.40 - .54 is less than 1 year lost.
.56 is about 1 year lost
.70 is about 5 years lost
.76 is about 8 years lost
>.80 is about 11 years lost.

Keep in mind, a non smoking 30 yr old female is going to live, on average, another 51 yrs. I'm guessing the difference, which you mentioned, is that men and women store fat differently.