New body measurements to replace BMI


(Michel Labelle) #1

No scientific article, that proposes switching from BMI, to body fat as a prediction of health.


(Allie) #2

Apparently I’m ideal with my 0.44


(Anjum) #3

Thanks for the information. It makes so much more sense.


(Central Florida Bob ) #4

I’ve been opposed to BMI as a measurement since they started talking about it in the general press. It was supposed to replace the outdated height/weight tables, but when you put height and weight into a formula, all you get out is something related to height and weight. What’s weight divided by height squared? Some sort of density?

In the early 90s, we had a famous pro basketball player in the area, over 7 feet tall, measured 5% bodyfat, and could run for hours, but by BMI he was unhealthy. Then I started to notice that almost any pro athlete I’d hear about calculated to have “dangerously high” BMI. When a wasting away cardiac patient can have a better BMI score than a combat-ready Navy SEAL, you need to throw away your scale. And if an underweight cardiac patient really does have a better long term health prognosis than an incredibly fit SEAL, we need to throw out pretty much everything else we think we know about “wellness”.

It might be that they’re onto something with their height to waist diameter ratio, but my bet is they aren’t. Waist size is a proxy for weight. It’s height vs. weight again.

Height, weight and “wellness” are independent of each other. For a good summary, listen to Megan Ramos telling her story about being a TOFI young woman with all kinds of health problems, but nobody ever diagnosed her properly because she was thin and good looking.


(John) #5

They make no distinction between men and women with that metric. According to that, I need to get my waist measurement down to 36" to be in their OK range. Sounds about right.


(KCKO, KCFO) #6

Yes, and because of it she suffered problems as she aged and she is still in her early 30’s. Luckily she stumbled on protocols to help your get healthy.

My problem with this is the pear shape is the ideal. Some of us, especially females have a lot of curves going on, I am a top heavy person. While I am currently healthy according to them and the standard BMI calculation, so I find this an interesting topic, but nothing more meaningful to me personally.


(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #7

Your waist-to-height ratio is between 0.5 and 0.6, which means you are a pear-apple.

Consider taking action.

Geez, I “only” have to lose 6 inches off of my waist (the smallest part of my torso already) to be considered a “healthy shape”. I think my rib cage is going to get in the way of that.


#8

I’m curious if this measurement works in India?

A documentary I saw on the diabetes epidemic in India highlighted how useless BMI was there. For example, they compared two researchers that had the same BMI but dramatically different body fat percentage, even though they looked to be about the same body structure.

Supposedly, the diabetes epidemic in India is different than most places. It appears the body learns to store fat when there is severe nutritional deprivation early in life, but it stores it internally. Or something like that. Maybe a combination of nature and nurture…?


(Justin Jordan) #9

BMI is useful on a population level (not all populations)

It’s even potentially useful on an individual level, as a screening thing.


(Janelle) #10

Having traveled to India recently, it was obvious that while a large part of the population is vegetarian, they are eating a ton of fried foods, white rice and wheat bread. I’m not sure about BMI but I saw a lot of bellies hanging out of those pretty saris too. It was totally acceptable.


(Central Florida Bob ) #11

To me, this is the crux of the problem. One size doesn’t fit all. One size - one number to show your overall “wellness” or “OK-ness” - never fits all.

My wife and I have this issue. I’m 6’ tall, she’s 4’-10". I like to stand next to her and say “one size fits all” as a joke reminder. They used to say the old Ht/Wt tables aren’t valid because there’s no such thing as only three frame sizes. So by the magic of taking the ratio of weight over (height) squared, they made all that go away (with BMI). Now, with the magic of taking height/diameter (waist size), it’s suddenly going to get all “sciency” and super accurate. Wake me up when they have a few million people checked and their approach is proven.

If by populations you mean large, diverse groups living in an area. I’m afraid I doubt that. If you mean, “it’s useful for people of the same heredity and range of sizes as the first populations studied”, then it might be.

Again, with all due respect, I don’t think it’s any more valuable or insightful than looking at people and saying “nope, too round” or “yup, pleasingly thin”.

I used to have one of the original papers around here and just spent too long looking for it. In the abstract, the authors specifically said not to use the BMI scale on lean athletic people. It returned too high a value.


(Running from stupidity) #12

You can get ribs removed surgically, you know. Surely you’d do that in order to become healthy?


(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #13

And I’m sure insurance would cover it. You know for my mental health. Who needs ribs anyway? I mean, what are they even there for??


(Katie the Quiche Scoffing Stick Ninja ) #14

Interesting article, I got a Ratio: 0.44 and my BMI is apparently 24.


(Running from stupidity) #15

And they’re so fragile anyway.