The FastDay Forum

[carorees]

Well said kencc, though I would say that the waist measurement is the best indicator of risk. Fat stored under the skin in the thighs and rump is not dangerous apart from its effects on carrying more weight around. Fat stored in the abdomen increases cancer risk, diabetes risk, heart disease risk, stroke risk. We should principally aim to reduce waist measurement to under half our height and/or reduce the waist: hip ratio to less than 1 for men or 0.8 for women.

[carorees]

I was just listening to the Inside Health podcast that Franglaise highlighted for us. The expert on obesity was explaining how we should look at the fat around the abdomen as being an overflow area for when the dedicated fat storage cells (under the skin especially in the buttocks and thighs) have run out of room to store the excess food and it ends up around our organs where it causes massive problems. That makes a lot of sense and explains why the waist measurement is so important!

When I was a teenager I was a size 14 (I am 5ft 8in)and thought I was fat because all my friends were small and skinny and a size 10.

I weighed about 9stone 12lbs which would give me a low bmi of 21.

My daughter who is in her twenties now is a size 10. I have kept one of my size 14 dresses from my youth and she cannot wear it as it is too tight.

I think we fool ourselves to believe that a size 10 means we are slim. It depends on height and fat distribution. Vanity sizing is everywhere. Also it depends on where you carry the fat. You may wear a size 10 trouser with a huge 'muffin top' if you happen to have small hips.

We are getting fatter as a nation yet the bodies we are born with are the same so we must be carrying more fat around which cannot be healthy.

I don't wish to offend anyone but we should open our eyes and face reality. Be honest. if you sit down and have wodges of fat around your waist or your stomach touches your thighs that is not healthy whatever your dress size.

Oh for goodness sake.

First of all, kencc I really appreciate your post and explanation.

As for "you might still be fat when you are a size 10" - can't argue that I suppose, I just used myself as an example. If I could be bothered I would post pictures for everyone to make their own minds up about me.

I carry most of my weight on my bum and legs normally (now, following creeping weight putting-on, pregnancy, cancer a year later and then many years of depression, also a lot on my middle - but it's going down!), so I maintain, that when I wore size 10 jeans (with my bum and thunder thighs), I WAS NOT OVERWEIGHT.

I may regret this post and I'm sorry I offend anyone.

(and sorry I shouted).

I'll get me coat.

Oh for goodness sake.

First of all, kencc I really appreciate your post and explanation.

As for "you might still be fat when you are a size 10" - can't argue that I suppose, I just used myself as an example. If I could be bothered I would post pictures for everyone to make their own minds up about me.

I carry most of my weight on my bum and legs normally (now, following creeping weight putting-on, pregnancy, cancer a year later and then many years of depression, also a lot on my middle - but it's going down!), so I maintain, that when I wore size 10 jeans (with my bum and thunder thighs), I WAS NOT OVERWEIGHT.

I may regret this post and I'm sorry I offend anyone.

(and sorry I shouted).

I'll get me coat.

I totally get what you're saying Swedey!! BMI is a guide, but there are lots of things it can't take account of. People with big boobs for a start! sometimes I am shocked I weigh so much more than some other people as I don't think I look that much bigger than them but I have curves even my calves are big but they are not fat. BTW size 10 jeans, I only dream of, and will definitely not be considering myself fat then, no matter what anyone says!

As Caroline says, it's apples and pears. If you have thunder thighs and a relatively narrow waist, you are the lucky one, and the logic of the medical advice (though I have not heard it so expressed) is that you could be quite a bit heavier without endangering your health. How much heavier I don't know. but at any rate it shows again that when considering a healthy body BMI is not be taken too literally, any more than absolute weight.

As has been mentioned here, BMI is a statistical tool, and that's all it can be in any meaningful sense. Just look at the different builds and amounts of muscle in a selection of people of the same sex and height and you'll see how much of a blunt instrument it is, before you even get to the problems with tall and short people. All it can really be for an individual is a rough guide.

I'm 5'7" tall and weigh 12 stone. This means my BMI is 26.3 and therefore I'm in the overweight section of the scale. Should I be worried about this? I don't really think so. I run 5 times a week, 3x3 miles and 2x6 miles. I have fairly well developed leg muscles from running up hills etc. I tend to think that this accounts for a fair bit of the weight I am carrying.

I have a 34 inch waiste and I don't overeat ( guess what, I do the 5:2 diet). I am concerned that any further weight I lose would be muscle rather than fat although I would like to get down to a 32" waiste.

@itadakimasu: BMI is well-known (notorious) for misrepresenting athletes as being overweight. Have you measured your body fat%? You may be all lean muscle!

You are a bit over on the 50% waist measurement though, and I am not aware of a 'good' reason for a runner to have a wider waist? What is your waist/hip ratio? For a man the waist should be not more than the hip.

[carorees]

I guess even athletes can be 'TOFIs' (thin outside, fat inside)?

Random question I've always wondered: Do blokes fit into the apples/pears analogy?

Random question I've always wondered: Do blokes fit into the apples/pears analogy?

Well, I am wearing a sort of Apple Green coloured tee shirt in my avatar (and matching football socks)

Thanks kencc, interesting to hear a robust defence of BMI, and the link backs it up.

Dominic Pearapple

BBC Radio 4's More or Less discusses BMI in a 10 minute download called Fat or Fiction 26 Jan 2013. You can get it from here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless

Basically it says that BMI is a statistical device that gives an overall view of a population, but is next to useless for an individual. It really doesn't matter what formula you use.

It also has a few factoids like iif you're South Asian you are considered overweight with a BMI of 23, and obese at 25.

I think the point here is not whether BMI is the best indicator, but whether any indicator is particularly useful beyond giving you a general idea.

The link kencc posted is about comparing BMI to other indicators, and that's fine as far as it goes, but they all remain just that: statistical indicators which are useful in broad strokes but decline in usefulness when applied to individual cases. The study shows nothing more than that BMI isn't worse than the other indicators, not that it is in any way close to perfect.