Active Low-Carber Forums - 'Forget BMI, just measure your waist and height' say scientists

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- LC Research/Media (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - 'Forget BMI, just measure your waist and height' say scientists (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=442331)

'Forget BMI, just measure your waist and height' say scientists

Quote:

From The Telegraph
London, UK
12 May, 2012

'Forget BMI, just measure your waist and height' say scientists

People concerned about heart disease and diabetes should simply take their height and waist measurements to figure out their risk, say British researchers.

Ideally, all should aim to keep their waist measurement less than half that of their height, found the scientists.

That means a 6ft (72 inch) tall man should aim to keep his waist less than 36 inches, while a 5ft 4in (64 inch) woman should keep hers under 32 inches.

They have found that the easy-to-calculate ratio between the two is a better predictor of risk than the most widely measure of obesity, called body mass index (BMI).

The team, who analysed the health of some 300,000 people, found this ratio was a better predictor of high blood pressure, diabetes and cardiovascular events like heart attacks and strokes than body mass index.

While BMI is used almost universally in the medical profession, most people are unfamiliar with it, partially because it is not a straightforward calculation.

BMI is calculated by taking one's mass in kilograms and dividing it by the square of one's height in metres.

Dr Margaret Ashwell, former science director of the British Nutrition Foundation, and now an independent consultant, spearheaded the study. She is presenting the research at the European Congress on Obesity in Lyon, France, on Saturday.

"Keeping your waist circumference to less than half your height can help increase life expectancy for every person in the world," she said.

The ratio was also better than just taking a waist measurement, she added, as it took into account differing height between individuals and ethnic groups.

While BMI was a useful indicator, it failed to take into account the distribution of fat throughout the body.

Abdominal fat, around the heart, liver and kidneys, has been found to be worse than that on the bottom and hips, in terms of heart disease and diabetes.

Dr Ashwell suggested the waist-to-height ratio should be considered as a screening tool.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...scientists.html

Sounds so simple

Quote:

Keeping your waist circumference to less than half your height can help increase life expectancy for every person in the world

Just don't kill yourself to get there...

My best chance on the keeping part was back in the 70's for sure. Back in the day no problem, what happened?

It would be interesting to see how that measurement works out for different people. In my case I am 76 inches tall and I did feel comfortable with about a 38 inch waist but made it down to about 35 inches. I am, however, the butte of skinny jokes these days, but I take that as jealousy since the jokers are generally overweight. I also use it as an opportunity to tell people how I got this way, not that they listen :(

And I have come up with a diet to increase your heighth. There are a few bugs in it right now and FDA is objecting (Strange). And a few other life threatening side effects. I'll be a zillionairre maybe. LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by mio1996

It would be interesting to see how that measurement works out for different people. In my case I am 76 inches tall and I did feel comfortable with about a 38 inch waist but made it down to about 35 inches. I am, however, the butte of skinny jokes these days, but I take that as jealousy since the jokers are generally overweight. I also use it as an opportunity to tell people how I got this way, not that they listen :(

I would be interested as well. I think 36 for me is reasonable but it may not be easy and will take some time. My gut, waist line, is getting smaller for sure.
BTW great job on losing the weight.

This has been a bit of a hobby horse for me.
BMI assumes Mass increases proportional to the square of the linear dimensions.
Whereas the mathematics I learned at thirteen years of age says Volume, and therefore Mass, increases proportional to the Cube of the linear dimensions.
It has amazed me how this simple fact has escaped legions of "experts" (and obviously mathematical illiterates) who promote the BMI nonsense.
We truly sail on a ship of fools!

While I would love to get down to a 36" waist I'll probably hit the BMI "normal" range before I get there.

Thats great news for us pairs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mio1996

It would be interesting to see how that measurement works out for different people.

I'd be interested in hearing how that works out for different peeps as well.

For me...I am 5'4 female and as the article suggests, should be less than 32" waist, but I'm about at the weight I'd like to be at and my waist is still about 35". Probably more than it should be (and could probably reduce it with some exercise), but it is what it is and I'm not at all worried that I will have probs with heart disease or diabetes.

We are ALL different and unique and that is the problem with the BMI method as well as this method....and others. They just don't take into account the fact that as individual humans we won't all fit into a nice, tidy box.

At 5'9", the BMI healthy range is below 169, and that is accurate for me. My clothes fit better at 160, but my body fat tested by calipers is OK now, and my waist a squishy post-menopausal 35". I am hoping a few more pounds lost (most of it is hanging around the waistline) a few more ab exercises, and 34.5" would be a healthy goal. That, or pull the tape measure tighter. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEY100

That's a great idea, perhaps if I sinch the tape enough I can claim my waist is 32" :lol: I have heard conventional wisdom that a man's waist size should be no larger than the inseam length but my legs are short for my height so that would never work for me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mio1996

I have heard conventional wisdom that a man's waist size should be no larger than the inseam length but my legs are short for my height so that would never work for me!

Yeah, that runs in my family too. My dad was 6'1" with a 31-inch inseam. He never in his life had a 31-inch waist, even when he was a 175 pounds and involved in athletics. He was 190 pounds when he died, just short of his 82nd birthday, and his waist was about 40 at that point.

I'm 66" tall with an hourglass figure, so a 33" waist puts me in the obese BMI category and over 180 lbs. When my weight is in the ideal-normal range, my waist is 27-29". So I don't think this simple formula is useful for hourglass or pear-shaped people.

I'm glad I read this advice. To sum up, the way to be slim is to be slim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deirdra

I'm more apple shaped and it doesn't work well for me, either. I'm 68" tall, and a 34" waist on me look plain old FAT. It sticks out, causes muffin top and just isn't my idea of what I want to end up with. No one would dispute that if they saw me with a 34" waist, either. At my thinnest, my waist was 27", but I was a bit too thin at that time. I'm comfortable with anywhere between 28"-30".

In general, though, this is still a lot better than the BMI method, I think.