Do you agree with Miss curvy?

[Super Hans]

You didnt quote medical people though, you quoted newspapers who use "heart attack" as a cover all term for a variety of conditions/causes of death. I'd be very surprised if all (or any) those quoted had an actual heart attack

 

The fact is that BMI is useful because it tells you generally if you're too fat for your height.

 

Barring elite sports people, it gives doctors a good indicator as to whether you weigh to much as a proportion of your height.

 

That's it, if it was nonsense then doctors wouldn't use it.

 

Yes there are definitely exceptions to the rule, people who are muscular. But for MOST people who aren't particularly muscular this is irrelevant.

[ratter71]

The fact is that BMI is useful because it tells you generally if you're too fat for your height.

 

Barring elite sports people, it gives doctors a good indicator as to whether you weigh to much as a proportion of your height.

That's it, if it was nonsense then doctors wouldn't use it.

 

Yes there are definitely exceptions to the rule, people who are muscular. But for MOST people who aren't particularly muscular this is irrelevant.

 

Do you have any sources to cite? Newer research dispute the usefulness of BMI measurements

 

4.1. The major finding

 

In a regression model that controlled for age, gender, lifestyle variables (smoking, alcohol drinking and physical activity) and chronic co-morbidities, underweight (defined as BMI < 21 kg/m2) is associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in both men and women. Overweight–obesity (>27 kg/m2) is not associated with a significant change in all-cause mortality in all age ranges examined. Thus, the over-all relationship between body weight status and all-cause mortality risk is L-shaped in Taiwanese over 53 years of age. This finding is similar to that observed in other Eastern populations such as the Japanese (Tamakoshi et al., 2009), Chinese in Hong Kong (Auyeung et al., 2010) and the Koreans (Jee et al., 2006).

 

The association of body mass index (BMI) with all-cause mortality in older Taiwanese: Results of a national cohort study

Alan Chung-Hong Tsaia, b, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,

Mei-Lan Hsiaoa

 

However, BMI presents as an inaccurate obesity classification method

 

 

Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI), Percent Body Fat, and Leptin: e33308

 

Shah, Nirav RView Profile

 

; Braverman, Eric R. PLoS One7.4 (Apr 2012).

 

 

Body mass index (BMI) has limited diagnostic performance due to its inability to discriminate between fat and lean mass

 

Comparison of the effectiveness of body mass index and body fat percentage in defining body composition.

Goonasegaran AR, Nabila FN, Shuhada NS

[focusedhypno]

Do you have any sources to cite? Newer research dispute the usefulness of BMI measurements

 

You beat me to it Ratter! I was just about to post that same research! BMI isn't that great as a tool for GPs to get an idea if you need to lose weight or not. The BMI ratio was developed in the 1840's (I think!) and needed to be simple because they didn't have pocket calculators.

 

A modern, and even more simple, measurement to gauge weight is the waist/height ratio. If you can keep your weight less than half your height you are doing pretty well. A simple, elegant idea that everyone can understand.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245328.php

[spilldig]

36 24 36" ,is still best I think.

[Cyclone]

The fact is that BMI is useful because it tells you generally if you're too fat for your height.

Only if you happen to be of average build and of average height.

 

The moment you're outside the average for height it becomes squewed, and equally it will tell muscled rugby players (for example) that they are obese, when in fact they are extremely fit and healthy.

 

Barring elite sports people, it gives doctors a good indicator as to whether you weigh to much as a proportion of your height.

Barring many low level sports people and anyone of non-average height or build.

 

That's it, if it was nonsense then doctors wouldn't use it.

They don't 'use' it very seriously.

 

Yes there are definitely exceptions to the rule, people who are muscular. But for MOST people who aren't particularly muscular this is irrelevant.

 

It doesn't take much muscle to make the result meaningless.

[Super Hans]

Only if you happen to be of average build and of average height.

 

The moment you're outside the average for height it becomes squewed, and equally it will tell muscled rugby players (for example) that they are obese, when in fact they are extremely fit and healthy.

Barring many low level sports people and anyone of non-average height or build.

They don't 'use' it very seriously.

 

It doesn't take much muscle to make the result meaningless.

 

Yet doctors still use it, it's still an indicator used on NHS and official Government media.

 

Someone needs to call them because there seem to be so many experts on SF who could clearly teach doctors better practice.

[SpikeMac]

Yet doctors still use it, it's still an indicator used on NHS and official Government media.

 

Someone needs to call them because there seem to be so many experts on SF who could clearly teach doctors better practice.

 

Maybe you should go and read some of the research.

 

For many people, a BMI of 26-30 is better than a BMI of 15-20.

[Super Hans]

Maybe you should go and read some of the research.

 

For many people, a BMI of 26-30 is better than a BMI of 15-20.

 

I'm not an idiot I know if you're fit and healthy with muscle you'll have a high BMI, but fit and healthy people are not going to the doctors needing their BMI looked at - fat and lazy people are. And those are the ones BMI is useful for.

[SpikeMac]

I'm not an idiot I know if you're fit and healthy with muscle you'll have a high BMI, but fit and healthy people are not going to the doctors needing their BMI looked at - fat and lazy people are. And those are the ones BMI is useful for.

 

Not so. Go and look at the research about heart attack survival and BMI. You might find it illuminating.

 

The human body is a complex thing. Some minds are not:rolleyes:

[Super Hans]

Not so. Go and look at the research about heart attack survival and BMI. You might find it illuminating.

 

The human body is a complex thing. Some minds are not:rolleyes:

 

Probably full of statistical anomalies, fat people are more likely to have heart attacks and given the number of people who survive heart attacks anyway there might be 100 fat people a day have a heart attack, and 50 survive.

 

Then you might have 10 healthy people have a heart attack and 8 of them survive, and the figures will still say that more fat people survived their heart attacks.

 

So reading a stupid study with no context or knowledge in the field is pointless - which is why people trust doctors to get it right, and doctors, NHS, UK Government use BMI as an indicator of health in people they judge it to be useful for.