PDA

View Full Version : Body Mass Index- "hey fatty bum bum"


gingernut
15th Dec 2006, 14:55
For many years, us medical types have been harping on about the importance of maintaining a health Body Mass Index, (BMI), the relationship between your height and your weight.

Many have stated, on this very forum, that stratifying risk based upon such measures were flawed.


"I'm big boned."

"What about a strapping fit rugby player- is he clinically obese."

"I'm all muscle- it's different than fat."

Our reply usually went along the grounds of:

"No no, do as the we say- you have a raised BMI,
you need to lose weight."


Well guess what? WE GOT IT WRONG.:bored: according to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence


So if there is anybody out there who was classed as overweight, (BMI 25-30) with a small waist circumference, then please accept my sincerest apologies.

For the rest- keep off the pies and get to the gym.

Juud
15th Dec 2006, 15:27
Ginger, don't be too hard on yerselves. It's been years since I first heard a Medbod carry on about the link between waist circumference and morbitdity.
It's not like you guys have kept it silent right?
Go on, have another mince pie or whatever you Brits call your X-mas cookies. :)

BTW, googling "National Institute for Clinical Excellence waist circumference" I did not get the 'new' findings up. You have a link?

gingernut
15th Dec 2006, 15:38
Have a look at the "quick reference guide" here...http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG43

I don't think I can have a mince pie- I'm a little upset-I've just read the guidance and found out I'm fat.

I'm off for a swim with all the other lard rses:ooh:

slide blower
19th Dec 2006, 09:33
Roll on the SSBBWs !.

kissmysquirrel
19th Dec 2006, 13:01
Gingernut: dont all jump in at once. you'll empty the pool, lardy!!! :ok:

ps where does a small waist end and a large waist start? 34"?

tony draper
19th Dec 2006, 14:10
Just read a interesting tale on another website that has some bearing,twas about a event that occured in the first world war, a Ships Captain of vast girth called Arthur Smith,or Muckle Ertie as he was known by all and sundry.
Ertie's vessel is intercepted by one of those sausage side Uboats and in those more civilised times the crew were allowed to disembark in her life boats before said sausage sider pops a fish into her ass as they would say nowadays,and down she goes, they all board the submarine as captives, POW's as was the custom then, the U boat prepared to get the **** out of dodge before something Grey flying the white ensign makes the scene,the captive merchantman crew are hastily thrust down below until they come to Muckle Ertie,down the conning tower and through the hatch he would not fit,nor could his vast girth be persuded down the forard torpedo hatch,there is only one answer, Herr Kapitan of the U Boat casts poor Captain Ertie adrift all alone in a vast ocean in one of his own lifeboats and dissapears under the ogan in a cloud of bubbles.
Fortunatly Muckle Ertie is aspied a few days later by a passing vessel and is rescued,before he has had a chance to try out his new diet of sea biscuit and salt water and possibly shed some of his Muckleness.
Of course his rescuers see this empty life boat and look upon the plump well fed chap ensconsed alone within same,and ask suspiciously,
"Where are the rest of yer crew Captain"
You have been warned.
:rolleyes:
And for those prooner who heaven forbid thinks Drapes is spinning a yarn here, look below.
Here in all his glory is the man himself in later years with his family twas said he had lost a lot of weight by this time.
http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/data/504/IMAGE0003.JPG

GANNET FAN
19th Dec 2006, 14:53
Dear Drapes.

All is not how it seemed. I think mystershums have been cast here on my ancestor. Be very careful how you exterpollate this one.

Yours
Muckle Flugga

gingernut
19th Dec 2006, 16:25
ps where does a small waist end and a large waist start? 34"?

Well just to confuse things, for this purpose, waist circumference is not the same as trouser waist circumference. Its the circumference of the tummy which lies midway between the bottom of the ribs, and the top of the front of the pelvis (anterior illiac spines.)

Large is a waist circumference over 94cm, very large is over 102cm.

And who r ya calling lardy:{

tony draper
19th Dec 2006, 16:43
One has reached the venerable age and state when if one stands up suddenly with the safety pin undone that is securing one's pottering about trousers around ones waist, they immediatly fall round one's ankles.
SWH hardly raises a eyebrow at this now.
:rolleyes:
Not that one is given to standing up suddenly very often now.

gingernut
19th Dec 2006, 16:58
Unfortunately the ageing process catches up with most of us.

Only last night did Mrs G request that I ran upstairs and made love to her.

I told her, I could only do one of these.:)

helimutt
19th Dec 2006, 19:38
woopee, my waist size is 34" too. Not even largish.:cool:

stagger
19th Dec 2006, 19:55
NICE guidelines say...

"Base meals on starchy foods such as potatoes, bread, rice and pasta, choosing wholegrain where possible."

I did that for many years during which time I progressively got fatter and fatter.

I stopped basing my meals on starchy foods and effortlessly became much slimmer - well much less fat at least.

I don't pay attention to their guidelines any more.

reynoldsno1
19th Dec 2006, 20:09
mrsr1 eats much rice, that being her natural staple, and never moves from 42kg. I took up mrsr1s staple diet and put on 14kg gradual like, it crept up on me - sneaky these SE Asian staple diets. It's slow to go away, but it is going away as long as I keep looking over my shoulder ....

sir.pratt
19th Dec 2006, 20:35
BMI is a crock. I'm 6'1" 90kg. I race Ironman and multisport races all year, and train 3 or 4 sports (swim/run/ride/kayak - depends on season) for nearly 20 hours a week.

if i REALLY watch what I eat I can get down to 85kg, but I feel tired all the time, and get sick really easily. At 90kg I just have that little bit of reserve.

My target weight for the upper ideal BMI is 82kg. Ridiculous. IF I was a pro athlete I might be down there, but I'd be sleeping more than I do, and taking a shite load more supplements. At the moment I couldn't even get into the Police!

tinpis
19th Dec 2006, 21:06
Tin is positively skinny at 90kg
I agree BMI is a crock it sez I spose to be around the 60 mark

slim_slag
19th Dec 2006, 22:47
Well just to confuse things, for this purpose, waist circumference is not the same as trouser waist circumference. Its the circumference of the tummy which lies midway between the bottom of the ribs, and the top of the front of the pelvis (anterior illiac spines.)Do you mean about at the level of the belly button (umbilicus if you must :))

gingernut
19th Dec 2006, 23:19
Hi Slim,

Do you mean about at the level of the belly button (umbilicus if you must )

If the slag was indeed slim, the belly button would be a useful marker.

The problem arises when the belly button sags below the midline- should you measure horizontally or on an angle?

It probably doesn't matter, as a belly that big usually crosses the threshold for super pie eater, but in case your interested, there are 14 different ways of documenting waist circumference, and 4 methods of measurement.

I think I should get out more:)

slim_slag
19th Dec 2006, 23:30
I would trip them up and as they lay flat on their back I'd measure the size of their belly as they struggled to get up - if they ever did.

Chesty Morgan
19th Dec 2006, 23:35
Bo11ocks, 36" waist. Put on a stone in the last week by giving up smoking!:}

gingernut
19th Dec 2006, 23:40
Good on ya chesty, you'll probably bung a few pounds on initially, but use your new found energy at the gym / pool.

Fantastic that your beating the weed, but unfortunately sugar is the new nicotine:\

tony draper
19th Dec 2006, 23:50
Been the same weight since I left school,about nine and a half stone,and one has been a right gannet for most of me life,don't eat as much now but I still pouches more than me share of cream cakes fry ups and such,one recons my generation was built to a better standard than you lot, I recons they broke the mold in the mid seventies and had to build a new one and it hasn't worked out as well.
:rolleyes:

gingernut
19th Dec 2006, 23:55
Your probably nearer to the truth than you think Tony, for the first time, it could be that our kids have a lower life expectency than ourselves, due to the obesity epedemic.

Blacksheep
20th Dec 2006, 02:06
BS is clinically obese according to the quacks, but swims a kilometer every morning before work and eats moderately. Waist is 34" (86cms) and chest is 44" (112cms). We swimmers just have big shoulders, that's all.

Loose rivets
20th Dec 2006, 03:13
If feel sooooooooo good when I diet. Why is it that I'm almost always overweight?

What should be 13.4 stone is almost always 14.2 well, 14.8 if it's near Christmas.

Having posed that question, I'm orf to the kitchen to make me dinner.

All together now, "Food, glorious food........."


Edit.... Looking at Blacksheep's post. If I still had a 34" waist, I could get into most of the clothes that I have saved for years. Made in the 50s and 60s, they're just like new.

blue up
20th Dec 2006, 06:41
Heard in the EGNX crewroom........


"Darling, it isn't a Beer Belly, it's a battery pack for a Love Machine":rolleyes:

Whirlygig
20th Dec 2006, 10:04
NICE guidelines say...

"Base meals on starchy foods such as potatoes, bread, rice and pasta, choosing wholegrain where possible."

I did that for many years during which time I progressively got fatter and fatter.

I stopped basing my meals on starchy foods and effortlessly became much slimmer - well much less fat at least.

I don't pay attention to their guidelines any more.

I can't believe NICE are still trotting that one out! That sort of diet was fine when we all worked on the fields, were up at dawn, did our washing all by hand (with a washboard and mangle) and had a life expectancy of 54!

It has been well-known for centuries that if you want to lose weight, then cutting out the "starchy" foods and sugars was the best way to do it.

Cheers

Whirls

CTBEyes
21st Dec 2006, 16:35
It has been well-known for centuries that if you want to lose weight, then cutting out the "starchy" foods and sugars was the best way to do it.Rubbish the only way to loose weight safely is to reduce the amount that you put past your lips.

You require a balanced diet which includes all the main food types. Look at the recent dealth of a model who lived on tomatoes and apples. Both excellant antitoxin foods but living soley on them means that all your body organs and little cells that require carbs for energy producion are not getting them. SO cut them out completely and you are starving your body of essential nutrients

Everything in moderation is the key to a good diet

Whirlygig
21st Dec 2006, 17:51
CTBEyes, can you please explain WHY the body NEEDS sugars? Energy can be obtained from meat and fish, low-glycaemic carbohydrates and fats; high-glycaemic carbohydrates are surplus to requirements.

Have I said anywhere that by not eating these foods, you are given carte blanch to eat as much as you want of everything else? No. But if you do want to lose weight, cutting out bread and pasta would be a good place to start.

What causes weight gain is too much sugar in the blood; this will be higher if you eat starchy foods! If the body takes in surplus energy from hi-glycaemic foodstuffs, this is the first type of energy that will be converted to fat on the body. If the body doesn't use it immediately by constant activity, on it goes as spare tyre!

Cheers

Whirls

gingernut
21st Dec 2006, 18:03
BS is clinically obese according to the quacks, but swims a kilometer every morning before work and eats moderately. Waist is 34" (86cms) and chest is 44" (112cms). We swimmers just have big shoulders, that's all.

Well good news BS, if your BMI is only marginally above 25, and your waist is below 94cm, and your quack reads his NICE guidelines, he will no longer be able to call you a porker.

Whirly, I think the thing about the rice/starch thing, is that the body has to do a bit of work to break down these complex carbs.

I've read a little about the glycaemic index, I'm not an expert, but none of this diet stuff seems very scientific. (its based on what seems logical, rather than actual evidence).

Sadly, I do believe that weight management does boil down to the equation:

Wrong Food + No exercise = Fat Person.

Whirlygig
21st Dec 2006, 18:29
Wrong Food + No exercise = Fat Person.
Absolutely! Wrong is the operative word here! And sugars, rather than fats, are for many people, a bigger culprit!

I still want to know why these guidelines also say that exercise is not that big a factor in losing weight - I would have thought it was a large part of the equation.

Cheers

Whirls

gingernut
21st Dec 2006, 19:31
The guidelines are, I think, in two parts. I've ony had a look at the bit dealing with the NHS but if you have a look at the NICE website, I'm sure exercise wil lbe covered. Gotta go, tea's ready:)

Loose rivets
21st Dec 2006, 19:42
I remember the ‘Canadian Airforce diet' sweeping the country. Throw away the strawberries and eat the cream type logic.

My pal was transformed in 10 days. When I went back to his flat and he answered the door, I could hardly recognise him. His trousers were folded over and I could have put my hand in his shirt collar. He had been noshing steaks and what have you, but what we really didn't realise then was the importance of a balanced diet.

Still, as I've said before, the only way that I can stop over-eating, is to stop eating. I wouldn't claim this to be a wise method but is works for me.

I can work hard all day just sipping water, until my stomach is back to size, then reintroduce food slowly. Doing this, I just don't crave food at all...(until taking the first bite.)

I've swung between 190 and 210 pounds for the last 35 years apart from periods of (perhaps depressive) eating, when I hit 220. It's times like this that I take the extreme measure of fasting.

When you think about it, it saves $20,000 on a stomach stapling op.

kissmysquirrel
21st Dec 2006, 19:43
Whirlygig, Weight gain isn't necessarily caused by high blood sugar. My wife is type 1 diabetic. Before suffering and being diagnosed with it, she had to eat sensibly and often with an increase in exercise etc to lose weight.
Once becoming diabetic, she started losing weight even though she was eating the same. Her Blood glucose levels were through the roof for about 2-3 months and the weight was falling off her!
When she was thirsty too and less than 8 stone, I told her it was time to see the doc.
Excess glucose is stored in the liver and the kidneys work overtime trying to rid the body of it, hence the thirst and increased toilet visits.
Now she takes insulin to reduce blood glucose levels. Weight is increasing.

:hmm:

frostbite
21st Dec 2006, 21:21
Used to work with a real porker who had a large appetite, but I am convinced that a lot of his weight came from liquids.

In addition to many teas and coffees during the day, he used to drink well in excess of a gallon of water.

tony draper
21st Dec 2006, 21:30
There was a series on couple of weeks ago about a group of people who were seriously obese,they had undertaken a long distance walk to try and lose weight,what struck me was their constand moaning about their obesity,understandable I suppose, but you do not wake up one morning and discover you suddenly weigh 25 stone,there must be a point when they look in a mirror and think, I have to do something, long before they get to that weight.
:uhoh:

Loose rivets
22nd Dec 2006, 03:03
One was walking the dog this evening, and a car almost stopped at a junction and then slooooooowly made its way out. The womand driving was almost lying down...gargantuan arm grabbing at the wheel over her vast belly.

Arm singular? Yep, the other one was employed using the phone. :ugh: