Conference rocks::weight_control

    Here is another web definition of BMI:
    
    The BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) is used to define nutritional status and is
    derived from the formula: 
    
    	WEIGHT(kg) /  HEIGHT(m)2  (Weight in kilograms divided by the
    	square of your height in meters). 
    
    The standards are the same for men and women. 
    
    The acceptable range is 20-25. Obesity is taken to start at a BMI of 30
    and gross obesity at 40. A BMI of 18-20 is defined as mild starvation
    and severe starvation begins when BMI falls below 16. 
    
    The page I found this on is at:
    
    	http://www.sirius.on.ca/running/bmi_txt.html
    
    jeb
    

    Thanks Jim,
    		Most helpful...
    				:o)
    

    
    	I wonder why such formulas are still in use (or being
    	"newly developed" today, when a Body Composition Analysis
    	tells more accurately what your overall fitness is.
    
    	For example, using BMI, when I was at my lowest bodyfat
    	percentage (using the "dunk" tank), I weighed 147.  I'm
    	5' 2" tall, which gives a BMI of 26.88% (nearly the "limit"
    	of 27).  At that time, I had a body fat ratio of 17.8%.
    
    	Obesity is a sliding scale.  The numbers I learned were that
    	the scale starts at 20 pounds overweight, or greater than 22%
    	bodyfat (18% for men).
    
    	Karen
    

    KISS (Keep it simple, silly)
    
    The problem I think that health professionals are running into today is
    that if they try to pry open your brain and pour in on tenth of one
    percent of what they actually know about health and fitness and what
    you *ought* to be doing, most of those that fall into the category of
    overweight, however measured, would be in danger of having their brains
    explode from pure overload.
    
    BMI is a very simple measure that correlates closely to body fat in
    most Americans.  Exceptions abound, but by the thousands, not millions.
    And BMI is a very big step for a society that is very wieght (not fat)
    conscious.  In fact, most Americans are a lot more interested in how
    they look, than how they feel (and they don't look mahvelous). 
    Transtioning people to thinking in terms of BMI rather than gross body
    weight would be a very big improvement, and focus weight loss efforts
    on health, rather than dress sizes.
    
    But why do we need any measure at all?  You get overweight by eating
    more calories than you use.  All you have to do is use more, and
    consume less (work out and eat healthy), right?
    
    Its not really that simple: weight *gain* is insidious.  Weight loss at
    least *seems* even more insidious.  You don't notice it till its there,
    because we are an ageing, largely sedentary society, that become
    impacted by our lifestyle just when we are most hard pressed to defend
    against it - as we age.
     
    At least in my case, and I think for many people, we need to see
    positive, frequent reinforcement that the very difficult effort we put
    into getting healthy is paying off.  I've heard many times that "it
    took a while to get there, it will take a while to get it off".  I never
    want to hear that something "takes time", especially weight loss.
    
    I am on a 14 month program.  Its my hope that in the next 14 months I
    will take off most of the weight (60 lbs) that I've put on over the
    last 5-7 years.  Thats ambitious.
    
    But its also irritating!  I've heard of people planning trips to Disney
    a year in advance.  I don't even plan buying a house that far in
    advance.  I'm into spontaneous.  Lets see, shopping, this afternoon,
    lose weight tomorrow morning, buy new clothes tomorrow afternoon.
    
    I, and I think most overweight people, really need a way to measure
    progress.  And anything is better than stepping on the scale once a
    week.  Once a week????  Cut me a break.  I want to weigh myself 5
    minutes after I walk a half a mile and see POUNDS missing!
    
    But its clear that weight is not a good measure.  So we need something
    better.  BMI is better.  Unfortunately its still based on weight, and
    its certainly not incredibly accurate.
    
    But at least it gives someone who is overweight a MUCH more realistic
    goal than simply shooting for a ridiculously low overall body weight; a
    measure that attempts to estimate a reasonable weight that includes n
    estimation of a healthy amount of body fat.
    
    But you are certainly right.  Once someone tackles the problem of being
    overweight (or should I say "out of shape"), they get interested in the
    process and are more open to learning about additional tools and
    measures.
    
    Covert Bailey argues for something completely unrelated to weight
    called "pace", which is how fast you can routinely (daily, or several
    times during the day) cover a mile, be it swimming, jogging, walking,
    skiing, or whatever.
    
    He also suggests calipers, which provide a cheap way to get a much more
    accurate estimate of body fat.  
    
    The waist-to-hip ratio has been touted a great deal of late.  Other
    measures of fitness require a heart rate monitor to measure resting
    heart rate and recovery time after exercise, both exceptional measures
    of fitness, as is a stress test, at least for the more fit.
    
    And as you mentioned, the only truly accurate measure of body fat is
    a dunk test.
    
    But most people aren't ready for this level of information and tools
    until they've really immersed themselves mentally into the idea of
    fitness (no pun intended).
    
    I've probably learned more over the last three months about fitness
    than I've ever known my entire life.  Its not a top item in our
    curriculums, especially since its hard for us to get excited about it
    as young, healthy pre-adults.
    
    So I feel that, until someone really goes for the "health thing", that
    BMI is a simple way to find out if they are reasonably healthy, or
    dangerously in need of a lifestyle change.
    
    And if BMI helps people get more interested in their health, then
    accurate or not, it would be a wonderful thing.
    
    jeb
    

	I'm not trying to pick on BMI.  It's just that it's not that
	different than the height/weight insurance charts.

	Calipers offer a good measure of body fat composition, and
	a good means for measuring progress (especially if done
	by the same person at different time intervals).

	Karen

    One thing different about BMI is that the insurance charts have to
    incorporate sex and frame size.  Sex is probably obvious, but to the
    uninitiated, frame size may not be.  BMI correlates somewhat with the
    large frame column for men, and closer to the average frame size for
    women.
    
    Moreover, the chief complaint about the insurance tables is that they
    were conceived from insurance mobidity data, and were not necessarily
    intended to help an individual determine a healthy lifestyle.
    For more information, see the article at:
    
    		http://www.fatso.com/article.html
    
    jeb
    

    Hi Jim,
    		Having lost 30lbs, I was feeling that I was on the right
    road, but having looked into the Shape-up recommendations, my BMI is
    still way too high & I might need to loose another (ton) of flab. I'll
    read their recommendations during the week-end & try to get my wife 
    interested as well...
    		Great stuff, if only I could get fit as well (we can all
    dream)...
    			:o)

    Tell me about it.  I started exercising (to lose weight) in February. 
    As of this morning I've lost two, count 'em, TWO pounds.  If it weren't
    for things like bodyfat measurement and heart rate monitoring, I'd
    really feel like I wasn't making any progress at all.  And of course,
    the BMI would not help.
    
    I'm still targeting my appropriate BMI weight, but fortunately thanks
    to these other measures, I'm not relying on BMI to measure progress.
    
    By the way, if you are exercising at all, don't be mislead to think you
    are not getting fitter.  The new heart rate based exercise research
    says that by elevating your heart rate to a mere 50% of your maximal
    heart rate (e.g., for a 40 year old male, maximal heart rate is 220-40
    = 180, 50% would be 90 beats per minute) you will get a health benefit.
    
    Now, until you try a heart rate monitor, you can't know how VERY low an
    expenditure of energy 50% is.  A moderate walking pace will easily
    break 50%.  This level of exercise won't turn you into Atlas, but it
    *will* condition your heart.  And the better you feel, the more you
    want to do.  Hard to imagine exercise as addictive!
    
    Regarding weight loss, I am lifting weights as part of my exercise
    program.  I can SEE the results after a very short time.  And since
    muscle uses more energy in its resting state than fat, I know that I
    am, in effect, raising my metabolism.  Unfortunately, since muscle is
    so much heavier than fat, I am actually putting ON weight!  I took off
    eight pounds, but then put six of them back on!  Since my clothes are
    looser (except in the shoulders) I know that I'm slowly moving it to
    where it should be.  Its amazing that its easier to put on muscle, than
    to take off excess fat!
    
    jeb
    

    If you go walking at a fair clip, you are making your largest muscles
    work & consume fat faster than with weight lifting, imho. That is how I
    lost 30lbs in two months ten years ago, walking for one hour before
    breakfast.
    
     This time round I just ignored head hunger & went for tum grumbles as 
    the warning for real hunger, and eating off a smaller plate...
    
    Looking at the BMI charts this week-end, with my wife's weight & height
    it appears as very inaccurate, as she is overweight, yet her calculated
    BMI is 25.
    
    Do we need to aim at a BMI of 22 or so?

    
    I found the following at: http://www.sirius.on.ca/running/bmi_txt.html
    
    "The acceptable range is 20-25. Obesity is taken to start at a BMI of 30
    and gross obesity at 40. A BMI of 18-20 is defined as mild starvation
    and severe starvation begins when BMI falls below 16."
    
    Note that this implies a "caution" area of 25-30, that is probably very
    subjective depending on a lot of other factors.
    
    But like anything to do remotely with medicine (or perhaps just human
    beings), there are differing opinions.  For example, I found the
    following at: http://www.webpoint.com/bmiexplain.htm
    
    "If the body mass index is 25 or more, the subject *may* be overweight.
    If the body mass index is 30 or higher, the individual may be
    considered obese and experience health problems associated with
    obesity."
    
    I emphasized the "may", since these articles are quick to indicate that
    BMI "correlates" with body fat, but as mentioned previously, is not an
    actual measure of body fat, which is really what you are trying to get
    at.  BMI is for those who aren't sure if they are at a healthy weight,
    but don't have their own calipers, or a resource available that could
    accurately measure their body fat content.
    
    Lastly, Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeaon General says that
    "minimal risk based solely on BMI" is below 25, "low" risk is 25-27,
    and "moderate" risk beings at 30 BMI.
    
    He also goes on to caution that BMI does not apply to some people: 
    
    "Competitive athletes and body builders, whose BMI is high due to a
    relatively larger amount of muscle, and women who are pregnant or
    lactating. Nor is it intended for use in growing children or in frail
    and sedentary elderly individuals".
    
    Keep in mind that 99% of what the BMI measure is intended to do is
    insure a "healthy" weight - that is, a weight which will not contribute
    to a shortened life span due to obesity-related complications.  There
    is a big difference between the weight you feel comfortable at, and the
    limits that doctors believe may cause medical problems.
    
    There is an interesting article that I won't reproduce here at:
    http://www.warner-lambert.com/info/weightconnection.html.  It discusses
    a study by Harvard medical school that seems to clearly indicate a
    relationship between early death and obesity.
    
    jeb
    
    (BTW, I understand that sub-aerobic and aerobic exercise are high
    calorie burners.  Consequently, I have been doing this type of exercise
    3-5 days per week for over three months.  However, within a couple of
    hours after you stop exercising (if you attained 50% MHR for 12 minutes
    or more), the higher level calorie burning returns to normal levels. 
    Sure, you burned 300-500 calories, and if you didn't consume a couple
    extra cookies or juice afterwards that you ordinarily wouldn't eat if
    you hadn't exercised, then you probably "lost" those calories.  
    
    But every other day I also lift weights after my aerobic exercise.  My
    increased muscle mass needs more energy to maintain it 24 hours a day. 
    If you exercise frequently, then you essentially have a higher
    metabolism.  But even when I skip a few days, my extra muscle mass is
    still burning far more calories than the fat that used to be there (fat
    needs something like 3 calories per hour, muscle at rest needs
    something like 27).  
    
    I don't think you can do just one or the other.  I think they go hand
    in hand, along with a healthy, well-rounded diet.  Regarding diet (and
    exercise), the most important thing is the thing that works for you.  I
    prefer to eat small portions throughout the day, avoiding a sense of
    ravenous hunger at mealtimes that causes me to binge)
    

    Thanks for that Update, we can now go away & read & inwardly digest!
    									
    								:o)