Bye-bye BMI? Waist-to-hip ratio may measure obesity better.

Salty Dog wrote:
wrote:

That's because abdominal fat is more likely than fat stored in other
spots to lead to changes in hormone levels and to cause inflammation,
which in turn leads to clogged arteries, says Dr. Gordon A. Ewy, a
professor and chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona College
of Medicine, and director of the school's Sarver Heart Center. So,
"fat on a woman's hips doesn't seem to increase risk, whereas a
beer belly does," Ewy says.


Fat stored in the belly "is the most dangerous type of fat in our
bodies," explains Dr. William Castelli, director of the Framingham
Cardiovascular Institute.

The waist-to-hip measurement is likely to catch people at risk for
fat-related diseases who might otherwise think they were at a healthy
weight, based on their BMI scores.


If it is fat around the belly that is so important, you can do that
with calipers and use that as a single indicator of cardio risk and
forget BMI, weight, heighth and all the rest. Did YOU read the
article?? dkw

It's quite possible to have an acceptable BMI and still have some
belly paunch, says Dr. Louis Aronne, clinical professor of medicine at
the Weill-Cornell Medical College and director of the Comprehensive
Weight Control Program at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

Certain groups of people - those from Japan and south Asia, for
example - tend not to become obese but can have an increased risk of
heart disease from storing small amounts of fat around their waists,
Aronne says. "You can be thin and still have too much fat," he
adds.

Linda Carroll is a health and science writer living in New Jersey. Her
work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsday, Health magazine,
Smart Money and Neurology Now.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14483512/


Waist to hip measurement indicates whether you are apple or pear shaped
and in general, it is better to be pear-shaped as far as your heart is
concerned because extra weight around your heart (apple-shaped) is bad.
You couldn't use the ratio as anything useful though as far as
determining if someone was overweight.

Why don't you actually *READ* and try to understand the full article
before making less than astute comments about why it won't work.

It wasn't to determine whether someone was overweight, it was to
determine if some had fat in the high risk area, abdominal fat.

Waist size compared to heighth
would give you a better indicator than waist/hip ratio. Someone could
easily lose 85 pounds and keep that ratio the same.

Bull****! Think about what you are saying before making an idiot of
yourself.

It highly improbable that a person could be carrying 85lbs so evenly
distributed that they could lose it without changing the ratio. People
tend to have fatter bellies when they are fat, not an even layer of fat
over the hips and waist. How many fat people have you seen walking about
with a well defined waist?

The BMI would
decrease though. BMI is a better indicator but BMI doesn't distinguish
between fat and muscle, so very muscular people who are not overweight
with fat can have a BMI in the obese range, when they are not fat at
all. Better still is the % of fat and that can also be measured a
number of ways including calipers as selected sites, electric
resistence, and buoyancy tests.

They don't care about the percentage of fat, just the fat around the
belly. READ THE REPORTS before commenting on them.

The buoyancy (underwater test) is the
only real accurate method.

For fat percentage determination, not for cardio risk.


Salty

wrote:
Salty Dog wrote:

wrote:


That's because abdominal fat is more likely than fat stored in other
spots to lead to changes in hormone levels and to cause inflammation,
which in turn leads to clogged arteries, says Dr. Gordon A. Ewy, a
professor and chief of cardiology at the University of Arizona College
of Medicine, and director of the school's Sarver Heart Center. So,
"fat on a woman's hips doesn't seem to increase risk, whereas a
beer belly does," Ewy says.


Fat stored in the belly "is the most dangerous type of fat in our
bodies," explains Dr. William Castelli, director of the Framingham
Cardiovascular Institute.

The waist-to-hip measurement is likely to catch people at risk for
fat-related diseases who might otherwise think they were at a healthy
weight, based on their BMI scores.



If it is fat around the belly that is so important, you can do that
with calipers and use that as a single indicator of cardio risk and
forget BMI, weight, heighth and all the rest. Did YOU read the
article?? dkw

Yes, and most of the articles preceding it.

You can't use calipers, it is the abdominal fat (visceral fat)
surrounding the organs *UNDER* the abdominal wall that causes the risk.
Calipers ain't gonna work there.


Salty

It's just another shortcut for doctors, so instead of treating the
patient who's obese..they can just tell them to go on a diet, and then
deal with it later.

Have you considered how many obese people were found to be ill, not
because of weight, but because of delayed diagnoses by ignorant doctors
who wanted to wait until their patient met the BMI requirements?

wrote:
It's just another shortcut for doctors, so instead of treating the
patient who's obese..they can just tell them to go on a diet, and then
deal with it later.

Crap!


Have you considered how many obese people were found to be ill, not
because of weight, but because of delayed diagnoses by ignorant doctors
who wanted to wait until their patient met the BMI requirements?

No.

The two claims that you have just made are ludicrous. Try to get your
wooly head into gear and think things through. If a Doctor makes his/her
living by treating sick people, then insisting that a person lose weight
and become healthy would seem to be counterproductive to the greed/lack
of concern/whatever that you imply motivates them. You are an idiot.

Look up the word "triage". It has been around for a long time. There
have been some publicity over recent years about triage being applied to
the ever increasing waiting lists for *public* medical care. It seems
quite responsible and logical to me to use public funds allocated to
medical care in a manner that would bring the most benefit. As a result,
some people who show no indication of aiding in the management of their
own health, primarily people who smoke or are chronically overweight,
should *NOT* be given precedence over those who are most likely to
benefit from those dwindling resources.

Why spend thousands on treatment for a person who shows no inclination
to modify their lifestyle in a way that facilitates their recovery and
maintains their health, who will very likely relapse and require further
medical intervention? Those resources can benefit society more by being
allocated to those that show the highest probability of a successful
recovery and the lowest likelihood of a relapse. It is common sense and
the only really responsible way to manage limited social medical
resources. If a fat person or a smoker isn't prepared to be
self-responsible, why should society shoulder the whole load?

I gather that you are one those self indulgent, demanding, irritatingly
lazy and irresponsible, extremely overweight people who would rather
make futile attempts to adapt the rest of the world to yourself than
actually make the effort to become a responsible and healthy member of
society. One who doesn't demand more than their fair share of society's
resources. You are the one who made yourself fat, you and no one else,
and it is you, and no one else, that is responsible for putting things
right.


I just had Google at your posting history both under this current
incarnation and a another one from the same account.

alt.support.child-free, alt.support.fat-acceptance primarily.

It seems that you are a fat, whinging, child hating, motherhood mocking
little piece of crap. (the little was figurative - don't get flattered).
You refer to children as crotch fruit, mothers as moos and worse and
support a group that takes delight in every news report related to the
death of a child. Your life appears to really suck. Perhaps God
practices triage as well.


Salty

"Salty Dog" wrote in message
...
| wrote:
| It's just another shortcut for doctors, so instead of treating the
| patient who's obese..they can just tell them to go on a diet, and
then
| deal with it later.
|
| Crap!

Sounds like you're in denial, Salty . There are plenty of
documented cases of this.

| Have you considered how many obese people were found to be ill,
not
| because of weight, but because of delayed diagnoses by ignorant
doctors
| who wanted to wait until their patient met the BMI requirements?
|
| No.
|
| The two claims that you have just made are ludicrous. Try to get
your
| wooly head into gear and think things through. If a Doctor makes
his/her
| living by treating sick people, then insisting that a person lose
weight
| and become healthy would seem to be counterproductive to the
greed/lack
| of concern/whatever that you imply motivates them. You are an idiot.

Try to get your wooly (sic) head into gear and think things
through. Losing weight and becoming healthy are not the same
thing - for one thing, it depends on how the weight is lost. OT:

| Look up the word "triage". It has been around for a long time. There
| have been some publicity over recent years about triage being
applied to
| the ever increasing waiting lists for *public* medical care. It
seems
| quite responsible and logical to me to use public funds allocated to
| medical care in a manner that would bring the most benefit. As a
result,
| some people who show no indication of aiding in the management of
their
| own health, primarily people who smoke or are chronically
overweight,
| should *NOT* be given precedence over those who are most likely to
| benefit from those dwindling resources.

But you don't know how well a person is managing their health.
A fat person who works out is given less consideration than a thin
sedentary person - is this fair?

| Why spend thousands on treatment for a person who shows no
inclination
| to modify their lifestyle in a way that facilitates their recovery
and
| maintains their health, who will very likely relapse and require
further
| medical intervention?

If you really want to save money, insist that fat people be
given better medical care - say, as good as that given to thin
people. Insist on the most bang for your buck.

Those resources can benefit society more by being
| allocated to those that show the highest probability of a successful
| recovery and the lowest likelihood of a relapse.

Should we give up caring for the elderly then?

It is common sense and
| the only really responsible way to manage limited social medical
| resources. If a fat person or a smoker isn't prepared to be
| self-responsible, why should society shoulder the whole load?

| I gather that you are one those self indulgent, demanding,
irritatingly
| lazy and irresponsible, extremely overweight people who would rather
| make futile attempts to adapt the rest of the world to yourself than
| actually make the effort to become a responsible and healthy member
of
| society.

No. I am! I am! I wa put here on earth for the sole purpose of
sucking up your tax dollars and annoying the hell out of you.

In the US, fat people support a lot of the economy. If fat
people started accepting themselves, whole industries would
shrink and fall to the ground.

| One who doesn't demand more than their fair share of society's
| resources.

No, I'm just demanding my share. Asking politely
doesn't seem to help.

|You are the one who made yourself fat, you and no one else,

Thank you! So all these people who claim they can't
gain weight are just liars, right? They could just do whatever
it was I did, and bingo! they'd gain.

| and it is you, and no one else, that is responsible for putting
things
| right.

I'm trying! Which is why I'm engaging in this
discussion with someone who thinks only thin or
moderate-weight people can be healthy.

| I just had Google at your posting history both under this current
| incarnation and a another one from the same account.
|
| alt.support.child-free, alt.support.fat-acceptance primarily.
|
| It seems that you are a fat, whinging, child hating, motherhood
mocking
| little piece of crap. (the little was figurative - don't get
flattered).
| You refer to children as crotch fruit, mothers as moos and worse and
| support a group that takes delight in every news report related to
the
| death of a child. Your life appears to really suck. Perhaps God
| practices triage as well.

Y'know, Salty, children put a burden on the health-care
system too. Just think of those limited resources that have to
be divided among more and more people, because some
people don't have Self Control, or Take Responsibility, and
insist on breeding beyond their limited means.

| Salty

And now that we've gone way off topic, I hereby
return you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup.

Robin

Robin King wrote:
"Salty Dog" wrote in message
...
| wrote:
| It's just another shortcut for doctors, so instead of treating the
| patient who's obese..they can just tell them to go on a diet, and
then
| deal with it later.
|
| Crap!

Sounds like you're in denial, Salty . There are plenty of
documented cases of this.

Documented eh?

In that case you can show me "plenty". I have yet to see any claims that
stand up under scrutiny. I have seen press reports of some isolated
incidents, but no pattern.


| Have you considered how many obese people were found to be ill,
not
| because of weight, but because of delayed diagnoses by ignorant
doctors
| who wanted to wait until their patient met the BMI requirements?
|
| No.
|
| The two claims that you have just made are ludicrous. Try to get
your
| wooly head into gear and think things through. If a Doctor makes
his/her
| living by treating sick people, then insisting that a person lose
weight
| and become healthy would seem to be counterproductive to the
greed/lack
| of concern/whatever that you imply motivates them. You are an idiot.

Try to get your wooly (sic)

sic? What do you see as notable about "wooly"? It is correctly spelled
and appropriate. I guess that you must think that the Atlantic only has
one side. Wooly and Woolly are according to my various dictionaries, valid.

As it happens, I normally spell it woolly, but once again, the vagaries
of a US biased "correct as you type" spell checker escaped my notice.
The point is, both are valid, so desperate as it would seem you are to
score some sort of point - you didn't.

head into gear and think things
through. Losing weight and becoming healthy are not the same
thing - for one thing, it depends on how the weight is lost. OT:

I have been, from my first post, emphasising healthy, not
slim/thin/skinny, whatever many of you seem to read as soon as your
prejudices leap into action. Splitting hairs to claim that it might be
less healthy to lose weight than remain fat, seems a little desperate to
me. One would assume that if someone does lose weight to improve health,
that it be done so in a healthy fashion.



| Look up the word "triage". It has been around for a long time. There
| have been some publicity over recent years about triage being
applied to
| the ever increasing waiting lists for *public* medical care. It
seems
| quite responsible and logical to me to use public funds allocated to
| medical care in a manner that would bring the most benefit. As a
result,
| some people who show no indication of aiding in the management of
their
| own health, primarily people who smoke or are chronically
overweight,
| should *NOT* be given precedence over those who are most likely to
| benefit from those dwindling resources.

But you don't know how well a person is managing their health.

If they are, to a cursory glance, obviously overweight, then it is
extremely likely that they are not managing very well.

A fat person who works out is given less consideration than a thin
sedentary person - is this fair?

Consideration by whom? If you are suggesting Doctors then I feel that
once again it unrealistic bias rather than logical thinking. Doctors
would be both aware and pleased if an overweight patient began working out.


| Why spend thousands on treatment for a person who shows no
inclination
| to modify their lifestyle in a way that facilitates their recovery
and
| maintains their health, who will very likely relapse and require
further
| medical intervention?

If you really want to save money, insist that fat people be
given better medical care - say, as good as that given to thin
people. Insist on the most bang for your buck.

How would dividing a finite resource unequally "save money"? It would be
neither morally fair nor fiscally sound. If there was unlimited funding
available for health care, then yes, spending whatever was required
would be the only morally correct thing to do. This isn't the case. No
country that I am aware of has an infinite public purse. Most are
already stretching resources and extremely concerned about the expected
additional (above the current norms) demands to be expected as the Baby
Boomer generation ages. How can one fat person sucking up resources at a
rate two to three time higher than a person who is not fat and has
relatively healthy lifestyle be allowing "more bang for your buck"? It
can't; you are being biased and unrealistic.


Those resources can benefit society more by being
| allocated to those that show the highest probability of a successful
| recovery and the lowest likelihood of a relapse.

Should we give up caring for the elderly then?

Not if they aren't fat and that care would have genuine effect.


It is common sense and
| the only really responsible way to manage limited social medical
| resources. If a fat person or a smoker isn't prepared to be
| self-responsible, why should society shoulder the whole load?

| I gather that you are one those self indulgent, demanding,
irritatingly
| lazy and irresponsible, extremely overweight people who would rather
| make futile attempts to adapt the rest of the world to yourself than
| actually make the effort to become a responsible and healthy member
of
| society.

No. I am! I am! I wa put here on earth for the sole purpose of
sucking up your tax dollars and annoying the hell out of you.

You are failing.

You amuse me, but do not annoy me. You may be a part of the waste of tax
dollars, but then so is almost every financial allocation of the Bush
Government. I would prefer to see tax dollars wasted on the illusion of
making fat people healthy than on a war machine that can never win, and
can never be morally justified.


In the US, fat people support a lot of the economy. If fat
people started accepting themselves, whole industries would
shrink and fall to the ground.

What a ludicrous claim.


| One who doesn't demand more than their fair share of society's
| resources.

No, I'm just demanding my share. Asking politely
doesn't seem to help.

Then good for you. Unless of course you deem you share to be greater
than my share on the grounds that you have made no effort to become
healthy without medical intervention.


|You are the one who made yourself fat, you and no one else,

Thank you! So all these people who claim they can't
gain weight are just liars, right? They could just do whatever
it was I did, and bingo! they'd gain.

Here we go. The fat person's "never fail" claim that the problems are
metabolic, not a result of indiscriminate eating and a total disregard
for exercise.

Yes, some thin people have difficulty in gaining "healthy" weight, i.e.,
not simply packing on lard. It can be a slow process, as is weight loss,
but not an impossible one. It has no bearing on the discussion.


| and it is you, and no one else, that is responsible for putting
things
| right.

I'm trying! Which is why I'm engaging in this
discussion with someone who thinks only thin or
moderate-weight people can be healthy.

No, I have never believed that you have to be thin to be healthy, but I
know that you cannot be grossly overweight and healthy. It is various
responders such as yourself who make everything black or white, thin or
fat. I started out discussing a "healthy" weight, without specifying how
someone should look. I mentioned not having flab, not a particular weight.


| I just had Google at your posting history both under this current
| incarnation and a another one from the same account.
|
| alt.support.child-free, alt.support.fat-acceptance primarily.
|
| It seems that you are a fat, whinging, child hating, motherhood
mocking
| little piece of crap. (the little was figurative - don't get
flattered).
| You refer to children as crotch fruit, mothers as moos and worse and
| support a group that takes delight in every news report related to
the
| death of a child. Your life appears to really suck. Perhaps God
| practices triage as well.

Y'know, Salty, children put a burden on the health-care
system too. Just think of those limited resources that have to
be divided among more and more people, because some
people don't have Self Control, or Take Responsibility, and
insist on breeding beyond their limited means.

Now you are being truly ridiculous. Children do not require anything
close to the level of resources that fat people demand; unless one of
them is genuinely ill. That is what our public health system is for,
those who are ill, not for those who are simply suffering the result of
a lifestyle of perpetual self indulgence and laziness.

I agree that some families have more children than they can adequately
support, but that is a *valid* use for social welfare. Assisting them to
raise their children. Dipping into it to support a lazy person's self
indulgent lifestyle isn't.


| Salty

And now that we've gone way off topic, I hereby
return you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup.

Thank you. Glad to be back.

Salty

aMAZon wrote:



How does "Lose 20 pounds and come back and see me" help someone with strep throat? ... a broken arm? ....migraine headaches?


Great! A puzzle.

Let me see. Well, eating sufficiently less to drop twenty pounds would
tend not to irritate the throat as much.

As for the broken arm, it would be getting more rest, not working so
hard, shoveling food down that strep throat.

The migraine? Often triggered by eating things like chocolate, so eating
in a healthy manner would assist in that area as well.




Fat people spend much of their lives in denial, Doctors know this and you can hardly blame them for taking it into consideration when assessing them medically. Occasionally someone will present with a legitimate reason for being overweight and the Doctor will not realise this - too many other fat people have been screaming "WOLF!" into the Doctors ear for much of his/her career.

Salty



Surprisingly, an endocrinologist of my acquaintance tells me that the research indicates that in really large individuals, the fat is not the cause of the problem, but often a symptom of a whacked-out metabolism. It's a chicken-and-egg scenario, but the endo thinks that folks who are active, even if still overweight, are much better off than their sedentary thinner friends. It's the activity, not the possible weight loss, that the good Doc is going after.


I would suggest that you obtain your advice from a more competent and
up-to-date endocrinologist. The very brief lifespan of the "a little fat
is better than none" pipe dream has been discredited by several areas of
more competent research. (and the resignation of one of the principal
players involved in the original faulty research.) You need to keep up
with these things, pleasant as it might be immerse yourself in a fat
fantasy world where there might be a legitimate reason for not losing
weight.

Salty