NationStates Jolt Archive

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have recently published results that cast serious doubts on the use of body mass index (BMI) as a gauge for health and wellness.

The study used data from 40 studies covering 250,000 people with heart disease.

According to the study, patients with "overweight" BMI scores had better survival rates and fewer heart problems than those with a normal BMI. Patients with low BMI scores had a higher risk of death from heart disease than those with normal BMI.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14396741/wid/11915773?GT1=8404

There have been several recent threads dealing with obesity, health, and related topics, so I thought this might be of interest to a few people. Particularly the people who have argued for things like the "fat tax."

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have recently published results that cast serious doubts on the use of body mass index (BMI) as a gauge for health and wellness.

The study used data from 40 studies covering 250,000 people with heart disease.

According to the study, patients with "overweight" BMI scores had better survival rates and fewer heart problems than those with a normal BMI. Patients with low BMI scores had a higher risk of death from heart disease than those with normal BMI.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14396741/wid/11915773?GT1=8404

There have been several recent threads dealing with obesity, health, and related topics, so I thought this might be of interest to a few people. Particularly the people who have argued for things like the "fat tax."

Go minnesota!!!

I have always maintained that the BMI concept is utter bollocks because the values assigned are completely arbitrary. The numbers do not have a scientific relation.

Its like cellulite...a marketing tool.

I have always maintained that the BMI concept is utter bollocks because the values assigned are completely arbitrary. The numbers do not have a scientific relation.

Its like cellulite...a marketing tool.
You are far too reasonable. That's no fun.

Go minnesota!!!
Word!

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have recently published results that cast serious doubts on the use of body mass index (BMI) as a gauge for health and wellness.

The study used data from 40 studies covering 250,000 people with heart disease.

According to the study, patients with "overweight" BMI scores had better survival rates and fewer heart problems than those with a normal BMI. Patients with low BMI scores had a higher risk of death from heart disease than those with normal BMI.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14396741/wid/11915773?GT1=8404

There have been several recent threads dealing with obesity, health, and related topics, so I thought this might be of interest to a few people. Particularly the people who have argued for things like the "fat tax."


Call me crazy (and many here do)....

I remember in the 1970s, when we were told that studies showed that butter and beef fat were evil, and we should all eat margarine...

then in the 1990s, we were told that all fat was evil, especially the margarine....

then we were told that carbs were evil... but olive oil was ok...

then carbs are ok, as long as they're complex...

I had a better idea...

found the level of exercise and items/amount in my diet that works for me.

I have the impression that in moderation, just about any food is OK. Eat a ton of refined sugar, or a ton of tallow, and you're going to have problems. Weigh 400 pounds, and you'll be the problem.

Exercise in moderation - more if you like, but you'll probably risk injury. No exercise is probably not a good thing for most people.

But, if you feel healthy and happy, and your lab tests don't show major problems with your organ systems, you can leave the experiments to the scientists.

BMI is utter shit. It just seems to set an arbitrary "Ideal Weight". It does not take into account muscle mass or overall health. Someone on their BMI weight might be much more unhealthy than someone the BMI scale would consider overweight.

If you have more muscle mass relative to your weight, you're going to have an artificially high BMI; also, you're going to be healthier because you exercise more and eat properly. A person with a normal BMI can easily be less healthier than a person with an overweight or even obese BMI because it doesn't differentiate between the different masses of fat and muscle.

We don't need a fat tax, we'll just charge people more for health insurance and services. The problem is solved from the business end.

I know not of a single physician who uses BMI on its own as a risk indicator. Lipids, level of activity, type of diet, smoking, alcoholism, other health status, heredity, waist-to-hip (and also a funny one where you measure the height of the abdominal fat when the patient lies down), distribution of body fat, and on and on and on... BMI is a minor factor in the assessment, which is weighed against many, many other factors.

Call me crazy (and many here do)...

I remember in the 1970s, when we were told that studies showed that butter and beef fat were evil, and we should all eat margarine...

then in the 1990s, we were told that all fat was evil, especially the margarine....

then we were told that carbs were evil... but olive oil was ok...

then carbs are ok, as long as they're complex...

I had a better idea...

found the level of exercise and items/amount in my diet that works for me.

I have the impression that in moderation, just about any food is OK. Eat a ton of refined sugar, or a ton of tallow, and you're going to have problems. Weigh 400 pounds, and you'll be the problem.

Exercise in moderation - more if you like, but you'll probably risk injury. No exercise is probably not a good thing for most people.

But, if you feel healthy and happy, and your lab tests don't show major problems with your organ systems, you can leave the experiments to the scientists.
I'm deeply irritated with the current panic over "the obesity crisis," because it is so obviously manufactured. The panic over making people thin is causing people to completely forget about the actual goal, which should be to make people HEALTHY.

According to the results of this study, people who were "overweight" had better survivability than people with "normal" weight. If that's true, shouldn't we be re-thinking how we define the "normal" or "healthy" weight range?

For instance, right now the "target BMI range" for women is something like 20-25. However, women with a BMI of around 35 live longer, on average, than women with BMI around 25. So why the fuck is the "normal" range set where it is?! Why are we telling people that they need to be "normal," when "normal" means they are more likely to get heart disease and are probably going to die sooner?

I still think one of the best examples of how utterly bollock BMI measurements are is that Jonah Lomu, Martin Johnson and Lawrence Dallaligio (all international rugby players for those who don't know) would have all been refused entrance to Britians military for being obese according to their score. These are three of the fittest and strongest guys on the planet but because their BMI is over 29 they would hve been ineligable.

Well we agree on one thing at least! :)
Well, I figure my body is not everyone else's body, and vice versa.

Call me crazy (and many here do)....

I remember in the 1970s, when we were told that studies showed that butter and beef fat were evil, and we should all eat margarine...

then in the 1990s, we were told that all fat was evil, especially the margarine....

then we were told that carbs were evil... but olive oil was ok...

then carbs are ok, as long as they're complex...

I had a better idea...

found the level of exercise and items/amount in my diet that works for me.

I have the impression that in moderation, just about any food is OK. Eat a ton of refined sugar, or a ton of tallow, and you're going to have problems. Weigh 400 pounds, and you'll be the problem.

Exercise in moderation - more if you like, but you'll probably risk injury. No exercise is probably not a good thing for most people.

But, if you feel healthy and happy, and your lab tests don't show major problems with your organ systems, you can leave the experiments to the scientists.


Well we agree on one thing at least! :)

You are far too reasonable. That's no fun.

:) Ok...errr let them eat cake!

I still think one of the best examples of how utterly bollock BMI measurements are is that Jonah Lomu, Martin Johnson and Lawrence Dallaligio (all international rugby players for those who don't know) would have all been refused entrance to Britians military for being obese according to their score. These are three of the fittest and strongest guys on the planet but because their BMI is over 29 they would hve been ineligable.
I read somewhere that every player in the NBA (US basketball) is "overweight" according to their BMI.

Of course, this topic could also be branched out to include other "measures" of health, beyond just BMI. If we can all agree that BMI is bunk, and that the numbers on the scale aren't necessarily going to help you, then what about other ways that people try to single out who is and isn't healthy?

The most obvious example is looks. The going fad in America is that "healthy is beautiful." I like the notion of telling people that healthy bodies are beautiful, but the problem is that most people kind of read it backwards...they assume that beautiful bodies are always healthy, and that attractiveness automatically equates to healthfulness.

Which is really a problem when you combine it with our obsession with thinness. There are lots of deeply unhealthy thin people out there, but nobody seems to give them much thought. It's the fatties that we worry about, even though a great many of those fat people are healthier than their "normal" counterparts!

Well, I figure my body is not everyone else's body, and vice versa.

totally.

so can we now also agree that marketing needs a stiff talking to?

totally.

so can we now also agree that marketing needs a stiff talking to?
Marketing exists to make money.

You know, the South Beach Diet, etc. Thighmaster. Nordictrack. Bowflex.

Pay a doctor to do a study, and quote his research - you paid for it. Now sell some stuff. Get Oprah involved.

What are you still doing here? Go out and get rich!

I thought this thread was going to be another rant against the recording industry (http://www.bmi.com/)

Marketing exists to make money.

You know, the South Beach Diet, etc. Thighmaster. Nordictrack. Bowflex.

Pay a doctor to do a study, and quote his research - you paid for it. Now sell some stuff. Get Oprah involved.

What are you still doing here? Go out and get rich!

I think I am more than happy only having heard of the thighmaster...

I have no problem with marketing if it has a basis in truth...this stuff just does not have that basis. Its flimflamming of the worst sort.

I think I am more than happy only having heard of the thighmaster...

I have no problem with marketing if it has a basis in truth...this stuff just does not have that basis. Its flimflamming of the worst sort.
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't expect marketing to be based in any truth other than profit.

What I have a problem is when the mainstream media perpetuates dishonest marketing ploys. The "obesity crisis" isn't just the stuff of infomercials...it's on mainstream news stations during prime time. It's in major print news. It's all over the damn place. And it's dangerous bullshit.

The crisis itself is not about the actual health problems, but about the big ugly fat people who are shown in stock footage of annonymous guts and butts roaming around a food court. The "solution" for the "crisis" is always described as getting people to lose weight.

Of course, most of the methods that are recommended for "weight loss" are actually methods that will DECREASE people's health. They will be making themselves sicker in order to make their bodies conform to an image of "health" that the media is helping perpetuate.

That bugs the snot out of me.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't expect marketing to be based in any truth other than profit.

What I have a problem is when the mainstream media perpetuates dishonest marketing ploys. The "obesity crisis" isn't just the stuff of infomercials...it's on mainstream news stations during prime time. It's in major print news. It's all over the damn place. And it's dangerous bullshit.

The crisis itself is not about the actual health problems, but about the big ugly fat people who are shown in stock footage of annonymous guts and butts roaming around a food court. The "solution" for the "crisis" is always described as getting people to lose weight.

Of course, most of the methods that are recommended for "weight loss" are actually methods that will DECREASE people's health. They will be making themselves sicker in order to make their bodies conform to an image of "health" that the media is helping perpetuate.

That bugs the snot out of me.


I keep wondering how many people end up damaging their bodies with fad diets - and how bad they feel that they didn't end up looking like Christina Aguilera, no matter how hard they worked at the gym.

I keep wondering how many people end up damaging their bodies with fad diets - and how bad they feel that they didn't end up looking like Christina Aguilera, no matter how hard they worked at the gym.

I can't for the life of me understand why people want to advance crazy-ass shit like this:
http://men.style.com/details/features/landing?&id=content_4622

It is an article informing us that "Fat is Back" in Hollywood. Examples of "fat" actors include Liv Tyler, Katherine Heigl, Drew Barrymore, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Fat. Those women are what qualifies as "fat" these days.

And then people are shocked (shocked!) that young women develop unhealthy obsessions with food. They are shocked (shocked!) that people "self-medicate" with eating, or have a very hard time grasping the concept of moderation. Sweet Jeebus.

Examples of "fat" actors include Liv Tyler, Katherine Heigl, Drew Barrymore, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Fat. Those women are what qualifies as "fat" these days.


Yes, I would hit them all, in that order.

I can't for the life of me understand why people want to advance crazy-ass shit like this:
http://men.style.com/details/features/landing?&id=content_4622

It is an article informing us that "Fat is Back" in Hollywood. Examples of "fat" actors include Liv Tyler, Katherine Heigl, Drew Barrymore, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Fat. Those women are what qualifies as "fat" these days.

And then people are shocked (shocked!) that young women develop unhealthy obsessions with food. They are shocked (shocked!) that people "self-medicate" with eating, or have a very hard time grasping the concept of moderation. Sweet Jeebus.
I read a great reply to that article on Salon--Rebecca Traister wrote it I believe. What passes as fat for women these days is insane.

Me? I'm fat--5'10" and between 240 and 250. But my weight has been relatively stable for the last seven years, my blood pressure and cholesterol are normal, and my doctor, while she'd like me to lose a few pounds, says I'm healthier than the average person. The only time it really affects me is the occasional joint pain, and I'm exercising moderately and eating less in an attempt to drop somewhere between 10 and 20 pounds.

I read a great reply to that article on Salon--Rebecca Traister wrote it I believe. What passes as fat for women these days is insane.

Me? I'm fat--5'10" and between 240 and 250. But my weight has been relatively stable for the last seven years, my blood pressure and cholesterol are normal, and my doctor, while she'd like me to lose a few pounds, says I'm healthier than the average person. The only time it really affects me is the occasional joint pain, and I'm exercising moderately and eating less in an attempt to drop somewhere between 10 and 20 pounds.
It's just goddam bizarre to me.

I can understand somebody saying, "I am physically attracted to women who fit a particular body type." That's fine. People have always done that.

What makes me bonkers is when they then say, "Because I find this body type most attractive, it follows that all women will be healthier if they force their bodies to conform to my aesthetic ideal."

It's just goddam bizarre to me.

I can understand somebody saying, "I am physically attracted to women who fit a particular body time." That's fine. People have always done that.

What makes me bonkers is when they then say, "Because I find this body type most attractive, it follows that all women will be healthier if they force their bodies to conform to my aesthetic ideal."
It's just another form of male control over women--if men can control what is considered attractive, then they can control the women themselves. Is there really a difference between women getting breast enhancement surgery and the women who insert the plates in their lips?

It's just another form of male control over women--if men can control what is considered attractive, then they can control the women themselves. Is there really a difference between women getting breast enhancement surgery and the women who insert the plates in their lips?

The expense.

The expense.
Fair enough. But that's about the only difference.

The expense.
Speaking of which, what the hell is up with women's shoes?! Women pay MORE money to get shoes that are intentionally made LESS comfortable and LESS supportive for the feet! They pay people money to give them chronic back and joint pain. What the crap?

Hey, I just noticed I'm hijacking my own thread. Cool.

LOL Not me. I wear sneaks or sandals, and the most expensive footwear I own are custom boots that were made to feel as if I am walking barefoot.

They are heaven on earth.

The hell with heels, let guys wear 'em. Makes their calves look shapely, too.

It's just another form of male control over women--


I was with you until this line.
Gotta call BS.

Women are far more concerned with what women look like and what other women think they look like than what men think they look like.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't expect marketing to be based in any truth other than profit.

What I have a problem is when the mainstream media perpetuates dishonest marketing ploys. The "obesity crisis" isn't just the stuff of infomercials...it's on mainstream news stations during prime time. It's in major print news. It's all over the damn place. And it's dangerous bullshit.

The crisis itself is not about the actual health problems, but about the big ugly fat people who are shown in stock footage of annonymous guts and butts roaming around a food court. The "solution" for the "crisis" is always described as getting people to lose weight.

Of course, most of the methods that are recommended for "weight loss" are actually methods that will DECREASE people's health. They will be making themselves sicker in order to make their bodies conform to an image of "health" that the media is helping perpetuate.

That bugs the snot out of me.

When I say truth I mean that there is a basis in reality to the claim. I know marketing is there to make $$$, to think otherwise is foolish. But so much is utter crap...look at the cosmetic ads...peptides or whatever the latest buzzword is...its just a buzzword...and no...you cannot 'reverse the aging process'....

Now you are correct and no one can argue differently about the media...they are lazy and do not ask the questions...all they do is rehash the corporate PR handouts as a gospel truth...and that I find disturbing...and rather scary...Journo's seems to have forgotten their trade...

Who cares about health. I'm going to die, I don't particularly enjoy life, why wait? I'd take being unhealthy and laid everyday (or at all) over living to 120 and never getting any.

LOL Not me. I wear sneaks or sandals, and the most expensive footwear I own are custom boots that were made to feel as if I am walking barefoot.

They are heaven on earth.

The hell with heels, let guys wear 'em. Makes their calves look shapely, too.
I guess I'm just biased as all hell, because I tend to like the body-shape of medium-build women wearing flats or sneakers.

TV tells me that, instead, we're all supposed to be little sticks on stilts if we want the boys to like us. This seems a very excellent argument for militant lesbianism to me. :D

Who cares about health. I'm going to die, I don't particularly enjoy life, why wait? I'd take being unhealthy and laid everyday (or at all) over living to 120 and never getting any.
It's an old joke but a good one:

Eat right. Exercise regularly. Die anyway.

It's an old joke but a good one:

Eat right. Exercise regularly. Die anyway.
Heh. You pwn. I'd NS ask you out but I need to go N.S. throw up, I didn't keep my post count down by exercising after all. ;)

It's an old joke but a good one:

Eat right. Exercise regularly. Die anyway.
Denis Leary made a lot of money with that one. Of course, he was talking about smoking more than eating, but the idea is still the same.

Denis Leary made a lot of money with that one. Of course, he was talking about smoking more than eating, but the idea is still the same.
I may disagree with Denis Leary on a few topics, but I can honestly say that he's one of the few people who I think deserves to make a lot of money.

Bah .. BMI is another B.S. term for trainers who want to beleive they thought of something new. You know diet fads and catch phrases drive me insane, because they are based on information that has been around for decades with a clever marketing spin put on them.

Take for example carbohydrates. Now for years people with a nutritional education knew simple carbs weren't good in large amounts. Being that they were empty calories with no real nutritional value. These simple carbs were comonly known to the lay person as ..... are you ready for this.... SUGAR!
Then Atkins had his b.s. diet all full of protien , but no carbohydrates. Which is a diet that's alright for short periods of time. However this diet tricks the body into thinking it's starving, because of the lack of carbohydrates.
Your body only runs on protien if it thinks it's starving. Which in turn releases certain hormones and ..... yadda yaddda yadda.

Basicly what I'm getting at is .. I think marketing companies or in league with the devil!

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic have recently published results that cast serious doubts on the use of body mass index (BMI) as a gauge for health and wellness... etc.

The most predominant times I've encountered the use of b.m.i. is actually in accordance with eating disorders rather than heart disease. There are so many other factors that are included in keeping a healthy heart, making your weight nearly irrelivant. Also, if I had a b.m.i. of say, 19.5, I'd look disgustingly underweight even though a b.m.i. of 19.5 is still technically healthy.

Call me crazy (and many here do)....

I remember in the 1970s, when we were told that studies showed that butter and beef fat were evil, and we should all eat margarine...
Speaking of which, now there's this study:
Dairy foods may reduce the occurrence and symptoms of asthma and other allergic diseases, a New Zealand study has found.

In an apparent contradiction to conventional wisdom, researchers at Auckland University found that mice with allergic conditions showed a reduced reaction to allergens after being fed a diet enriched with milk-derived fatty acids.

These fatty acids have anti-inflammatory properties and occur naturally in cow's milk, butter and cheese, but are missing from margarine.

"One of the striking things about asthma, or indeed all of the allergic diseases - asthma, hay fever, eczema - is how much more common they are now than if you go back to the 1950s or 1960s," said lead researcher Dr Peter Black, from the university's faculty of medical and health sciences.

"There's been a several-fold increase, with somewhere between a two-fold and four-fold increase in the number of people with asthma."

One of the main suspects was the change in the Western diet, he said. The reduction in butter consumption and the increase of margarine use had taken place at the same time as allergic diseases had become more common.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10397372

And so it goes.
round and round and round.


Gee, who would've thunk that eating (in moderation of course) the stuff that helped the human race survive for millennia would be good for you?