Active Low-Carber Forums - View Single Post - Is being overweight that bad?

If the researchers stopped using the BMI as a marker of health, and above 25 as overweight and therefore unhealthy, we could finally focus on a simpler measure that does indicate early health risks...

Waist to Height Ratio. WHtR

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/3/e010159

Quote:

Waist-to-height ratio as an indicator of ‘early health risk’: simpler and more predictive than using a ‘matrix’ based on BMI and waist circumference

Abstract
Objectives There is now good evidence that central obesity carries more health risks compared with total obesity assessed by body mass index (BMI). It has therefore been suggested that waist circumference (WC), a proxy for central obesity, should be included with BMI in a ‘matrix’ to categorise health risk. We wanted to compare how the adult UK population is classified using such a ‘matrix’ with that using another proxy for central obesity, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), using a boundary value of 0.5. Further, we wished to compare cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with ‘healthy’ BMI divided according to whether they have WHtR below or above 0.5.

Setting, participants and outcome measures Recent data from 4 years (2008–2012) of the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) (n=1453 adults) were used to cross-classify respondents on anthropometric indices. Regression was used to examine differences in levels of risk factors (triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), TC: HDL, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting glucose, systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)) according to WHtR below and above 0.5, with adjustment for confounders (age, sex and BMI).

Results 35% of the group who were judged to be at ‘no increased risk’ using the ‘matrix’ had WHtR ≥0.5. The ‘matrix’ did not assign ‘increased risk’ to those with a ‘healthy’ BMI and ‘high’ waist circumference. However, our analysis showed that the group with ‘healthy’ BMI, and WHtR ≥0.5, had some significantly higher cardiometabolic risk factors compared to the group with ‘healthy’ BMI but WHtR below 0.5.

Conclusions Use of a simple boundary value for WHtR (0.5) identifies more people at ‘early health risk’ than does a more complex ‘matrix’ using traditional boundary values for BMI and WC. WHtR may be a simpler and more predictive indicator of the ‘early heath risks’ associated with central obesity.

This is not the only study...there have been previous ones using 300,000+ NHS records. http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...31&page=3&pp=15 The WHtR method does not classify a tall, muscle bound male as unhealthy and does a short, lightweight woman with a bulging waistline. Willett and the BMI method would entirely miss the Indian and Chinese diabetes epidemic where the average BMI is 23.

But by either method, the author of the original NYT article upon which this article is based, is unhealthy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/...g-age.html?_r=0 (I put that in the Oprah thread in War zone)
She whines likes she is trying to be the new Tara Parker-Pope at the NYT. Even her name reminded me of Tara. "Taffy Brodesser-Akner is a contributing writer for the magazine." Weight Loss is hard, oh woe is me, I do everything WW or the dietary guidelines say and can't lose weight.