Re: BMI of 25 May Be to High

[Guest guest]

Also no surprise that the BMI isn't " one size fits all " because

25 is too much for short people and too little for tall people by virtue

of its inherent math (using a square rather than a cube). What amazes me

is that this article doesn't say " because Asians are on average

shorter, " which is the whole point, I suspect.

Maco

no surprise to us... but a BMI

lower than 25... is

healthier than one of 25...

http://news./s/afp/20060907/hl_afp/healthobesityaustraliaconference_060907101219

Asians misdiagnosed by standard obesity measure,

experts say

by Malcolm Burgess

SYDNEY (AFP) - Health problems related to obesity are

hitting Asians harder than other ethnic groups because

doctors using a one-size-fits-all diagnosis fail to

pick it up, experts have said.

The standard way to define obesity uses the body-mass

index -- a measure of weight divided by height -- but

weight-related ill health appeared in East and South

Asians at a lower cut-off point than in Caucasians,

they said.

[Guest guest]

The fact that BMI does not take into consideration the distribution of

weight is the major problem. Abdominal adiposity is associated with

many health problems, but BMI is blind to it. Somehow, the

waist-to-height ratio needs to get into the equation to get a more

complete picture of the antropomorphic shape.

Tony

====

Also no surprise that the BMI isn't " one size fits all " because 25 is

too much for short people and too little for tall people by virtue of

its inherent math (using a square rather than a cube). What amazes me

is that this article doesn't say " because Asians are on average

shorter, " which is the whole point, I suspect.

Maco

> no surprise to us... but a BMI lower than 25... is

> healthier than one of 25...

>

>

http://news./s/afp/20060907/hl_afp/healthobesityaustraliaconference_060\

907101219

>

> Asians misdiagnosed by standard obesity measure,

> experts say

> by Malcolm Burgess

[Guest guest]

> Also no surprise that the BMI isn't " one size fits all " because 25 is too

> much for short people and too little for tall people by virtue of its

> inherent math (using a square rather than a cube). What amazes me is that

> this article doesn't say " because Asians are on average shorter, " which is

> the whole point, I suspect.

Asians are often small boned, I would expect that to play into the

significance of a given BMI for them also.

Al

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

If the following 52 country study is correct then the ratio of waist

measurement to hip measurement is far more significant for CVD risk

than BMI.

And it is even easier to calculate, too. So what is the point in

bothering to calculate BMI? Only, perhaps, because we are more

familiar with the ranges of BMI, than we are for those for waist-to-

hip.

Of the 28 people who have entered their data in Francesca's table in

the database here only nine have submitted data for waist-to-hip

ratio.

It would be a great help ***PLEASE*** if the remaining nineteen who

have not entered waist-to-hip numbers could do so. Then we would

have a much better sample of these measurements to look

at. .............. ***PLEASE***

Based on the very limited sample currently available, for males the

range is from 0.82 to 0.90. For females, 0.68 to 0.87. The lowest

male ratio is associated with a BMI of 22.7 and a BF% of 10.9. The

lowest female ratio is associated with a 19.2 BMI and an unspecified

BF%. But we need a great deal more data entered in Francesca's table

***PLEASE*** before we can consider we have a good range of reference

values for ratio of waist-to-hip against which we can compare

ourselves.

DEFINITIONS: 'Waist' is defined as the smallest circumference

between the butt and the chest; 'hip' is defined as the largest

circumference below the waist - so the latter is not a measurement of

the size of the hip bone (which is what I had originally assumed it

to be) but more nearly a measure of the padding in all directions at

the level of the hip joint.

=========================

Here is the study:

" INTERPRETATION: Waist-to-hip ratio shows a graded and highly

significant association with myocardial infarction risk worldwide.

Redefinition of obesity based on waist-to-hip ratio instead of BMI

increases the estimate of myocardial infarction attributable to

obesity in most ethnic groups. "

PMID: 16271645

Of course there may be a better body measurement than waist-to-hip

for estimating risk to health. But since as far as I know no one to

date has been organized enough to do a really thorough study of all

possible different measurements (including waist-to-height; BF%;

weight-to-height; weight to height cubed; .........) we seem to be

stuck with waist-to-hip, as defined above, until we have a study that

shows some other measure to be superior.

Rodney.

>

>

>

>

> > Also no surprise that the BMI isn't " one size fits all " because

25 is too

> > much for short people and too little for tall people by virtue of

its

> > inherent math (using a square rather than a cube). What amazes me

is that

> > this article doesn't say " because Asians are on average shorter, "

which is

> > the whole point, I suspect.

>

> Asians are often small boned, I would expect that to play into the

> significance of a given BMI for them also.

>

> Al

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Also no surprise that the BMI isn't " one size fits all "

because

> 25 is too

> > > much for short people and too little for tall people by virtue

of

> its

> > > inherent math (using a square rather than a cube). What amazes

me

> is that

> > > this article doesn't say " because Asians are on average

shorter, "

> which is

> > > the whole point, I suspect.

> >

> > Asians are often small boned, I would expect that to play into

the

> > significance of a given BMI for them also.

> >

> > Al

> >

>