Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 08:14
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default More accurate measure of body fat developed

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80827134130.htm


Quote:
But of course, the BMI is so inaccurate as a measure of body fat percentage that this is relative.

Cedars-Sinai investigators have developed a simpler and more accurate method of estimating body fat than the widely used body mass index, or BMI, with the goal of better understanding obesity.

The new method is highlighted in a study published in Scientific Reports, one of the Nature journals.

"We wanted to identify a more reliable, simple and inexpensive method to assess body fat percentage without using sophisticated equipment," said the study leader, Orison Woolcott, MD, of Cedars-Sinai.

While the BMI is commonly accepted, many medical experts in the field of obesity consider it to be inaccurate because it cannot distinguish among bone mass, muscle mass and excess fat. BMI also does not account for the influence of gender -- women generally have more body fat than men.

The new formula developed at Cedars-Sinai is called the relative fat mass index, or RFM, and it uses only height and waist circumference measurements.

"Our results confirmed the value of our new formula in a large number of subjects: Relative fat mass is a better measure of body fatness than many indices currently used in medicine and science, including the BMI," Woolcott said.

For the first time, researchers examined more than 300 possible formulas for estimating body fat using a large database of 12,000 adults who participated in a health and nutrition survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In the next step, investigators calculated the relative fat mass for 3,500 patients and compared the results to the patients' outcomes from a specialized, high-tech body scan called DXA, widely considered one of the most accurate methods of measuring body tissue, bone, muscle and fat. The patients' RFM results corresponded most closely with the precision of the DXA body scan.

"The relative fat mass formula has now been validated in a large data base. It is a new index for measuring body fatness that can be easily accessible to health practitioners trying to treat overweight patients who often face serious health consequences like diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease," said Richard Bergman, PhD, the senior author of the study and director of the Cedars-Sinai Sports Spectacular Diabetes and Obesity Wellness and Research Center.

And the best part, according to Woolcott: "You don't need a bathroom scale to determine your relative fat mass, just a measuring tape."

To determine relative fat mass (RFM), you need to measure your height as well as your waist circumference. To measure your waist, place the tape measure right at the top of the hip bone and reach it around your body for the most reliable result. Next, put those numbers into the relative fat mass equation -- making a ratio out of the height and waist measurements. The formula is adjusted for gender:

Relative Fat Mass Formula

MEN: 64 -- (20 x height/waist circumference) = RFM

WOMEN: 76 -- (20 x height/waist circumference) = RFM

More than 93 million people -- nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population -- are considered overweight, according to the CDC. Obesity is associated with a poor quality of life and premature death from chronic disease.

"We still need to test the RFM in longitudinal studies with large populations to identify what ranges of body fat percentage are considered normal or abnormal in relation to serious obesity-related health problems," Woolcott said.


This will have the same problem for more muscular people as BMI. At a given height and waist circumference, a guy carrying ten more pounds, the extra weight is more likely to be lean mass.

I guess it would be too much to ask that Doctors and Nurses be capable of anything past middle-grade school math.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 10:03
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80827134130.htm




This will have the same problem for more muscular people as BMI. At a given height and waist circumference, a guy carrying ten more pounds, the extra weight is more likely to be lean mass.

Won't the more muscled guy have a skinnier waist circumference for the formula than the guy carrying the extra weight as fat?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 10:09
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Yes--at a given body weight. But body weight didn't make it into the formula. Better than BMI. But not a good true measure of body fat.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 10:22
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I'm amazed at the naive "creativity" of these folks. Yes, it's better, but it can only be a relative measurement that, as you state, does not accurately measure body fat or lean mass for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 10:31
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

I plugged my stats into their formula but don't know if the result is supposed to approximate body fat percentage or is intended simply as a comparative measure tool by itself, that is, not supposed to approximate other measures like body fat or BMI. If it was supposed to approximate body fat it's a bit higher than my actual percent. Either way it's got to be an improvement over BMI which does nothing at all to account for muscle mass--six pack vs. beer gut.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 11:04
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I think height vs. waist circumference is a good ratio to look at--but does plugging in a formula to get to body fat percentage make it more useful as a health statistic? If central obesity is more specific to health than general body fat levels, it might do the opposite.

I just plugged a relative body fat of ten into the equation. I need a 25 inch waist to get to ten percent body fat. Unless I hire Ancel Keys as my personal trainer, probably not going to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 11:07
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Let me know if you do hire Ancel, as I'll likely have many other requests for you . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 13:09
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default



Though while you are talking to Ancel, ask why the simple weight/height ratio isn't even better. It's much simpler and we already have correlations to health outcomes. Great to know my "relative fat mass" (or not)...but that means exactly what?

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


Quote:
"We still need to test the RFM in longitudinal studies with large populations to identify what ranges of body fat percentage are considered normal or abnormal in relation to serious obesity-related health problems," Woolcott said.

This has already been done with the above data from UK...and has been validated multiple times, in 2012, 2016, and 2017 studies!
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 14:46
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Anybody else notice this? It's just a measurement, not an explanation. I measure stuff all the time with rulers and scales and thermometers, but it tells me nothing about how the stuff is made.

Hurrah for the centimer, yes?
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Aug-28-18, 15:33
amergin's Avatar
amergin amergin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 277
 
Plan: Low carb, suff. protein
Stats: 115/103/95 Male 191cm
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: dublin
Default

I believe the use of the height /waist ratio instead of BMI would be a major advance.
I have previously highlighted the mathematical idiocy of the BMI, as it is a ratio of a volume element weight, (proportional to the volume, or cube of a linear dimension), divided by the square of a linear dimension, height.
This means if you scale up the same item, with identical ratios of composition, Its BMI value increases in line with the scale up, whereas it should not.
The waist/height ratio on the other hand, remains constant.

This fact is incredibly obvious, yet it appears to be missed or ignored by almost everyone in the business. The only explanation is that they are mathematically illiterate.

It results in the idiocy of the "40+ inch waist" being a recognised risk factor equally for persons of 1.5 metre height as those of 1.9 metres.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:44.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.