BMI v Height/Waist

[User]

 

[Sea of vapours]

The principal objection to the height/waist ratio, which is often cited as being a much better indicator of helath, as you say, is that, whilst BMI is extremely easy to measure consistently, the 'waist' bit of height/waist is not at all easy. That's especially true when the person being measured is of the more generously proportioned around the middle type, but even on slim people determining exactly where 'waist' is isn't as obvious as it might seem - so I'm told when making the same point as you make to medical professionals anyway. In other words, it's a pragmatic choice of the slightly inferior ratio.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

It's bollocks.

 

[classic33]

It's bollocks.

They tend to be lower down

 

[classic33]

The principal objection to the height/waist ratio, which is often cited as being a much better indicator of helath, as you say, is that, whilst BMI is extremely easy to measure consistently, the 'waist' bit of height/waist is not at all easy. That's especially true when the person being measured is of the more generously proportioned around the middle type, but even on slim people determining exactly where 'waist' is isn't as obvious as it might seem - so I'm told when making the same point as you make to medical professionals anyway. In other words, it's a pragmatic choice of the slightly inferior ratio.

Why the waist, why not the girth?

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

What Marmion said.

 

[MikeG]

The principal objection to the height/waist ratio, which is often cited as being a much better indicator of helath, as you say, is that, whilst BMI is extremely easy to measure consistently, the 'waist' bit of height/waist is not at all easy. That's especially true when the person being measured is of the more generously proportioned around the middle type, but even on slim people determining exactly where 'waist' is isn't as obvious as it might seem - so I'm told when making the same point as you make to medical professionals anyway. In other words, it's a pragmatic choice of the slightly inferior ratio.

Why wouldn't they just measure at the navel?

 

[Levo-Lon]

We have a BMI reader.
The wife bought it to motivate her diet...
I told her to hold the device in both hands and then reach down to the floor and then reach for the ceiling.
Do this 20 times a day for starters..
It never got used..

It says my bmi is around 25

 

[Fab Foodie]

It's bollocks.

Actually it's not.
There's more than enough evidence to say that central belly fat or more precisely abdominal fat deposits are far more harmful than fat carried anywhere else and a better indicator of health than BMI.

 

[Drago]

Same here. My BMI is 30.something. But I'm a fraction under 6'4", 52-54" chest, 36 waist.

I did some research into BMI a while back, and it is utter tripe, not least of which because the basic datum for the modern version of the system was gathered in the late Forties when food rationing was still in place.

So I wipe my bum on BMI and suck in my stomach at the very mention of it!

 

[Levo-Lon]

Same here. My BMI is 30.something. But I'm a fraction under 6'4", 52-54" chest, 36 waist.

I did some research into BMI a while back, and it is utter tripe, not least of which because the basic datum for the modern version of the system was gathered in the late Forties when food rationing was still in place.

So I wipe my bum on BMI and suck in my stomach at the very mention of it!

Men lose a lot of there belly when young ladies are about in swimming cozzies..
But it tends to be temporary..as they tend to faint after holding it in.. For too long

 

[Drago]

And BMI is only supposed to be applied to sedentary subjects, a very fundamental fact that is all too often ignored.

 

[TVC]

BMI was originally devised in the 1830s, and the current scale is based on measurements taken from US servicemen in the 1950s. It is at best a crude measure as it doesn't differentiate between muscle and fat, and other more relevent methods are available. Total % body fat is a better marker.

 

[Fab Foodie]

BMI was originally devised in the 1830s, and the current scale is based on measurements taken from US servicemen in the 1950s. It is at best a crude measure as it doesn't differentiate between muscle and fat, and other more relevent methods are available. Total % body fat is a better marker.

Total body fat is better, but WHERE the fat is deposited is most crucial. Sub cutaneous fat wherever it is is relatively benign but abdominal cavity fat is detrimentally active.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Total body fat is better, but WHERE the fat is deposited is most crucial. Sub cutaneous fat wherever it is is relatively benign but abdominal cavity fat is detrimentally active.

Visceral fat (lovely stuff) literally fills any gap it can, will even displace organs to the point where many many kg worth of it can pile on relatively un-noticed.

A hidden danger in every sense