Forums >General Running>New Research shows "Being overweight linked to lower risk of mortality"
Tiefsa
I wonder what the BMI is for someone like Clay Matthews or Adrian Peterson. We all know they are ridiculous shape, and I'm assuming they are clean, but would they test out bad because they're made of twisted steel?
Distinctively Juvenile
It is well known that BMI doesn't give the right picture for muscular athletes.
AP is 6'1" and 217lbs, so 28.6. Chubby, but not obese. I bet with a little Jenny Craig he can get things under control.
"Because in the end, you won't remember the time you spent working in the office or mowing your lawn. Climb that goddamn mountain."
Jack Kerouac
Good Bad & The Monkey
I'm surprised it took this long for this study to show up in this forum.
Y'all are reading too much into this interesting study that nonetheless has numerous challenges to generalizability.
All this study did was analyze the overall results from a hundred other studies, focusing specifically on BMI categories in populations of people (not in individuals) and general health outcomes. The study did NOT look at major logical confounders, such as body fat in individuals, the presence of chronic illnesses making some individuals thin in the low BMI population, whether the overweight folks are more cognizant of their health than blaze thin folks, etc., etc. It also did not account for outcomes on other quality of life measures, such as whether populations having normal versus overweight BMIs were more likely to be happy, active, etc. The study is interesting, but it is not a license to be overweight.
As for the BMI, well, I have ranted long and hard about that previously here on RA. The BMI is a very useful tool in populations, less useful in individuals. It is intended as a screen, not a diagnostic test. And it is not some flawed thing, but a simple mathematical measurement that accounts for your weight relative to your height.
I once ranted on RA: BMI is not designed to diagnose anybody as fat. Rather, the BMI is to screen people who may be fat to see if they need better testing, such as body fat percentage. All this negativity against BMI, much of which is based on denial, distracts us from the real problem. The real problem is this: too many people are too fat. Focus on that, not on derailing the BMI with anecdotes about NFL players.
Another time: For most Americans, the BMI score is meaningful, and most Americans (including many of us) think themselves fitter than they are. Most Americans are NOT NFL football players. And many NFL football players are fat. Use BMI as a screen. If it is high, ignore the label, look at the number. If the number is above 25, get your body fat percentage tested. If that is high, it does not matter if you are (or consider yourself to be) an athlete; you are still fat.
Yet another time: Mot of the major BMI studies were published in JAMA. JAMA is probably the number 2 medical journal (behind New England Journal of Medicine). ... Here is a corpus of literature from different investigators and different patient/subject populations from around the world. The studies all test different hypotheses. The studies show consistently that high BMI and low BMI are independent predictors of death and disease and that these predictors remain when controlled for confounders such as comorbidiites, level of exercise, smoking, socioeconomic status. Most of these are in JAMA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056904
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16505525
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986696
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16551713
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478900
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15840860
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17670912
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15353531
The BMI is a very useful number in terms of guiding policy and services and for following an individual patient who you have already identified to be unhealthy due to being both overweight and fat. BMI is much easier to follow than body fat, which can be hard to test. BMI is a screening test. Body fat measurements and the mirror test (i.e., look into the mirror while nekkid and be honest) are individualized tests that have much greater cost and time associated with them. Screening tests are supposed to have high sensitivity and poor specificity (you do, of course, know what that means), and be very inexpensive to perform. BMI is perfect in this regard. Diagnostic tests, by contrast, are supposed to have excellent positive predictive value and cost/time considerations are less relevant. So BMI is a great place to start. When faced with YOUR BMI, as with your weight, you should not rush to be defensive (e.g., "that stuff is just rubbish, it does not apply to us athletes"). Rather, you should supplement that information with a measure of your body fat, blood pressure and lipids. If any of these are out of the normal range, you stand a chance at improving your health and life by reducing them.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Or my favorite prior post:
BMI is a simple calculation, height divided by weight squared using metric units. The BMI categories are based on general statistica about the population at large (heh) and, as above, do not account for body fat percentage or musculature. The BMI for somebody who is 5-10 and 145 lbs is 20.8, which is squarly in the "normal" range of 18.5-25.
When most athletic folks complain about BMI, they are complaining because they are muscled and their muscle weighs a lot, giving them a calculated BMI category of "overweight" or "obese" when they are all-muscle. These folks are misinterpreting the BMI, which is meant to serve as a screen for obesity. A screening test is meant to find all cases of a disease, even though some of those it identifies may not have the disease. Used as a screen, all people who are obese should be found by an elevated BMI, but some of those found with the elevated BMI will be football quarterbacks. That is why there are follow up tests, such as whether the person looks fat, or the results of a body fat test. However, that is not how BMI is meant to be used. BMI is a screening test to help identify folks with obesity, not a diagnostic test to calculate bodyfat. Most 200 lb Americans are not Arnold Schwarzenegger and are not all-muscle. That it happens not to be very accurate for a bunch of freaky runners does not mean the test is garbage. And also, how do YOU know your overweight body mass index is due to muscle and not fat? Answer: unless you have had a body fat measurement, you don't. To be crystal clear: BMI is the number. Not the word. The number is always accurate. The word is an interpretation that has to do with population-based statistics. The word "overweight" does not mean "fat", but rather something along the lines of "more weight than average". I am sorry if that word offends you because you beleive it implies "fat". The fact of the matter is that most people whose BMI falls into the category of "overweight" do have excess fat, even athletes. And they have a higher risk of dropping dead at an early age or developing diabetes or other conditions related to excess fat. This is a fact, supported by science. AND, many athletes who are overweight due to muscle today remain overweight as their muscle inexorably becomes fat as they age. Also a fact. I am sorry if the word "overweight" offends you. If your BMI can be categorized as overweight, you might have excess fat, no matter how badly you want to believe otherwise (or how much you believe yourself to be an "athlete", whatever that means). If your BMI can be categorized as overweight, go get your body fat measured. Targeted data is better and safer than denial. From the CDC, paid for with your tax dollars:
How is BMI used? BMI is used as a screening tool to identify possible weight problems for adults. However, BMI is not a diagnostic tool. For example, a person may have a high BMI. However, to determine if excess weight is a health risk, a healthcare provider would need to perform further assessments. These assessments might include skinfold thickness measurements, evaluations of diet, physical activity, family history, and other appropriate health screenings.
Folks need to stop judging it as if it were a diagnostic tool.
And also, how do YOU know your overweight body mass index is due to muscle and not fat? Answer: unless you have had a body fat measurement, you don't.
I will...I've signed up to have my BF measured via the submersion method this upcoming Monday. Mobile Lab coming to my gym that day.
Dream Maker
. as their muscle inexorably becomes fat as they age. Also a fact.
.
as their muscle inexorably becomes fat as they age. Also a fact.
ah tell me more about how muscle becomes fat....
Just kidding, I know what you meant. It only made me cringe because some non Trent people truly believe they convert directly.
I am both overweight and fat. It doesn't really offend me. (My Bmi is 27.5 and my body fat tested at just under 25)
My only issue with BMI is how people take it and that people assume normal BMI means things are great. Not so much it's intended use (much easier to measure snd group populations for research) but how it is used when as individual people we have better measures of health... Body fat, bloodwork results, common about your activity level and diet... And normal bmi does not mean you should ignore that stuff any more than overweight bmi.
Yeah, muscle does NOT convert directly to fat. But with age, muscle tends to atrophy and fat tends to grow.
Imminent Catastrophe
SCIENTISTS BAFFLED!
Just more junk science journalism.
"Able to function despite imminent catastrophe"
"To obtain the air that angels breathe you must come to Tahoe"--Mark Twain
"The most common question from potential entrants is 'I do not know if I can do this' to which I usually answer, 'that's the whole point'.--Paul Charteris, Tarawera Ultramarathon RD.
√ Javelina Jundred Jalloween 2015
Cruel Jewel 50 mile May 2016
Western States 100 June 2016
Agreed. I'm the skinniest person I know outside of my running friends. My BMI is 20.7 -- square in the middle of normal.
I am also the skinniest person I know outside of my running friends. My BMI is currently 23.6. My race day BMI has always been 22.8. At my last physical the doctor said he thought I was thin for my height before he looked at my weight and BMI. Maybe he sees more heavier people in his daily practice.
2013 -Sub 2:00 for 1/2 marathon
Proboscis Colossus
You know, even if this study is accurate, having had it both ways, I think I'd rather go through a slightly shorter life at a "normal" BMI.
"God guides us on our journey, but careful with those feet." - David Lee Roth, of all people
Mmmmm...beer
I can see where this makes sense, especially for older people, since a side effect of a lot of serious illness is rapid weight loss. If you don't have a little extra weight to lose, it's going to hit you a lot harder.
But as others have mentioned, I think that while you're young and healthy, you should try to maintain a healthy weight/bodyfat. I have just recently dipped into the high 24s for BMI and my "normal" weight range. I am the leanest I have ever been in my life, and still have fat to lose.
-Dave
My running blog
Goals | sub-18 5k | sub-3 marathon 2:56:46!!
Some of the responses in this thread make my head hurt.
I'm the skinniest person I know outside of my running friends.
“Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.”
"I want you to pray as if everything depends on it, but I want you to prepare yourself as if everything depends on you."
-- Dick LeBeau
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.