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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Fri, Jun-09-17, 16:45
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,584
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

Yet again...Waist to Height Ratio is a better predictor of obesity.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70606090942.htm

https://www.dietdoctor.com/measurin...tifying-obesity

Quote:
Waist-to-height ratio more accurate than BMI in identifying obesity, new study shows
Date:
June 6, 2017
Source:
Leeds Beckett University
Summary:
Calculating a person's waist-to-height ratio is the most accurate and efficient way of identifying whether or not they are at risk of obesity in clinical practice, a new study shows.

Calculating a person's waist-to-height ratio is the most accurate and efficient way of identifying whether or not they are at risk of obesity in clinical practice, a new study by Leeds Beckett University shows.

The research, published in the latest edition of PLOS ONE journal, aimed to improve the way that obesity is currently measured and classified by examining the whole-body fat percentage and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass (the fat stored around the abdominal region where most of internal organs lie) of a group of 81 adults (40 women and 41 men). It aimed to find the most accurate way of predicting this measurement in a clinical environment and set cut-points for obesity.

The researchers, led by Dr Michelle Swainson, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology in the Carnegie School of Sport at Leeds Beckett, found that 36.5% more adults would be classified as obese using whole-body fat data (one in two participants) rather than body mass index (BMI) (around one in seven participants, or 13.5%).

The team gathered accurate whole-body and abdominal fat data using a total body dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner -- a highly accurate way of measuring body composition and fat content. They then calculated five predictors of whole-body fat and VAT, which could be easily replicated in a GP's office, fitness centre or at home, comparing the results to those of the DXA scan and determining which simple predictor of obesity is the most accurate.

The five predictors tested were: BMI, waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) and waist-to-height ratio0.5 (WHtR0.5).

Dr Swainson explained: "The conventional measurement of obesity used by GPs is BMI. Although there are benefits to this method, there is concern that a lot of people are being classified as obese by BMI when they are not or are being missed by this classification when they need to be referred for help. This is most definitely the case when people have a 'normal' BMI but high abdominal fat that is often dismissed. Whole-body fat percentage, and specifically VAT mass, are associated with health conditions including insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but are not fully accounted for through BMI evaluation.

"Carrying fat around the abdominal area has been shown to be an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in men and women. Put simply, it is more important, especially for cardio-metabolic conditions, that your belt notch goes down than the reading on the scales."

The results showed that the best predictor of both whole-body fat percentage and VAT in both men and women was waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). The simple waist circumference divided by height measurement is not a new method of obesity classification but despite evidence supporting its use, it is still not routinely measured in clinical settings. Cut-points for predicting whole body obesity were 0.53 in men and 0.54 in women. The cut-point for predicting abdominal obesity was 0.59 in both sexes.

BMI had weak support as a predictor for whole-body fat percentage in both men and women but was a plausible alternative for the prediction of VAT mass in women.

The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), a measure regularly recommended by fitness instructors and used in clinical practice but which, was found to be a very poor predictor of obesity according to both measures.

Dr Swainson said: "Our WHtR cut-points align broadly to current guidelines that adults and children should keep their waist circumference to less than half their height. In current clinical practice, it is common to calculate BMI for an indication of whole-body fat and waist circumference for abdominal obesity.

"Our research has shown that WHtR is a more accurate alternative to these two measures and also a more time-efficient measure. By introducing this alternative, and more accurate, measure into clinical settings, more men and women would potentially be referred to programmes, such as weight management, to receive help in improving their health. We have also shown how these simple measurements may be used as surrogates by GPs and other health care professionals when DXA scans are unavailable or inaccessible.

"Even in a small sample of adults, our results provide further evidence that alternative measures are fundamental to the more accurate identification of obesity, therefore ensuring that individuals are referred to the most suitable therapeutic approach to reduce risk of obesity-related conditions."

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Fri, Jun-09-17, 17:02
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,554
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/150/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: NE WA
Default

My build is stocky & I've never had a waist. Except for my bust, I was pretty much straight up & down even at my skinniest. I don't even know what my waist size was back then. At my age, I don't think I'm going to worry about that - there's no way I'll be wearing a bikini or Spandex.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Fri, Jun-09-17, 19:31
Justin Jor Justin Jor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 184
 
Plan: Bernsteinish
Stats: 314/231/199 Male 6'1
BF:
Progress: 72%
Default

Normally in these studies waist is defined as around your belly button. Mostly, I infer, because otherwise where the heck you're talking about is vague.

That is not, for me, the thinnest bit of me - what would probably be my waist by the older definition is a few inches higher and a couple inches thinner.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Sat, Jun-10-17, 03:43
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,584
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

There actually is a very specific place to measure your waist. This older post on the topic is a bit complicated (find your iliac crest? three normal exhales? ) but if you are interested...the official definition of "waist" is here:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/simple-w...lth-measurement

Last edited by JEY100 : Sat, Jun-10-17 at 03:53.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Sat, Jun-10-17, 03:55
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 4,855
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

I am not a big fan of any of these metrics. None of them take into consideration individual variations that can effect the measurements. Western Medicine puts so much focus on metrics. Waist hip, waist height, BMI. There's got to be a better way to evaluate health.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Sat, Jun-10-17, 04:31
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,255
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

A more direct measure of liver/visceral fat would be better. Also yeah, a high waist circumference is a reason for suspicion, but it's not conclusive. A person who simply carries more subcutaneous fat will probably get in trouble at a higher waist circumference, the tape measure doesn't know what it's measuring. An otherwise very lean person could measure at the waist at half of their height or less--but still have excessive visceral/liver fat.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Sat, Jun-10-17, 13:06
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,116
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

And Kim Kardashian's waist-training corset doesn't make her any healthier.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 05:04
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,584
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

Yet again, and again, waist to height is good measure of health, to say nothing of easier, cheaper and quicker to calculate. Though this incredibly complex meta-analysis adds nothing to the simple review of NHS records in the previous posts.


Central fatness and risk of all cause mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 72 prospective cohort studies


https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3324

Quote:
Conclusions Indices of central fatness including waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ratio, waist-to-thigh ratio, body adiposity index, and A body shape index, independent of overall adiposity, were positively and significantly associated with a higher all cause mortality risk. Larger hip circumference and thigh circumference were associated with a lower risk. The results suggest that measures of central adiposity could be used with body mass index as a supplementary approach to determine the risk of premature death.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 05:53
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Doing My Best
Posts: 4,604
 
Plan: TheraKeto~Atkins72
Stats: 170/137/140 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 110%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

For some reason, I never saw this conversation until today.

Half of my genes come from giants and the other half from very-short people. Imagine me as a shetland pony.

The BMI equation doesn't factor our bone density into the equation. All my adult life I've carried 20 more pounds than people think. My BMI always shows me as obese. I'm an hourglass, 62" tall with a 29" waist. My Beurer scale this morning shows my BMI at 23.4.

At my age, I don't think it would be healthy for me to be thinner.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 06:36
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,554
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesinger
For some reason, I never saw this conversation until today.

Half of my genes come from giants and the other half from very-short people. Imagine me as a shetland pony.

The BMI equation doesn't factor our bone density into the equation. All my adult life I've carried 20 more pounds than people think. My BMI always shows me as obese. I'm an hourglass, 62" tall with a 29" waist. My Beurer scale this morning shows my BMI at 23.4.

At my age, I don't think it would be healthy for me to be thinner.

Sounds to me like you're doing great! Because you're fit you're carrying extra muscle, which is heavy, compared to sedentary women of the same age range, who are at risk of muscle-wasting sarcopenia and resulting frailty. This makes your BMI higher since it only looks at weight and not whether that weight is heavy strong muscle and bone or is fat, the BMI's major weakness.
Keep up all that good work!
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 07:32
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 721
 
Plan: Protein Power/Atkins
Stats: 250/179/165 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

BMI, in the absence of any other fatness parameters, is deceiving. It does not take account of age, gender, bone density, muscle mass. It is simply calculated on the basis of height and weight.

I played around with a BMI calculator on line, changing gender first, then age, then activity level. Nothing changed on the BMI calculation. the only thing that changed the BMI calculation was either changing the weight or the height.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 07:32
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,825
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/234/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 38%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Not a fan of BMI either. The old three body types system was much better.

My son is tall fine boned and light weight. Im tall ,very heavy bone and broadbuilt......under a heavy layer of insulation.

The BMI is totally inaccurate for both of us.

The waist/ height is only a rough estimate of risk. Inflamation is a big risk and is rampant in "thin" people. This risk system is misleading for the "low" risk people.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 09:52
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 7,477
 
Plan: EF/Fung IDM/keto
Stats: 375/225.4/175 Female 66.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 75%
Location: NE Florida
Default

A picture of my son on his wedding day. Height: 71 inches, waist: 32 inches. His calculated BMI put him at overweight/borderline obese.

Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 10:58
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,825
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/234/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 38%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

What a handsome young man. Keep your memories close.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Fri, Sep-25-20, 15:23
Sniggle Sniggle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 260
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 205.2/188.4/185 Male 73.5
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: West Virginia
Default

Smart BMI seems much better, providing a more realistic range, age adjusted. The mirror, however, never lies.
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 08:36.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.