Food lovers rejoice:  This quote from the attached link (my highlight...):-

 

“Quite simply, it looks like the body mass index is pretty much bullshit, and we should stop using it as a horribly generalised indication of what an individual 'should' weigh.â€

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-healthiest-weight-might-actually-be-overweight-massive-study-finds

 

Next thing; the scientists will be advising that, as per Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper", smoking is actually quite good for us....

Edited May 20, 20169 yr by robin-hobart

Isn't it bullshit anyway?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it's a good cigar, then I agree. The beneficial reduction in ones stress level far outweighs any perceived or real negative health impacts. IMO

I think most people have a pretty good idea of whether they are overweight or not. I don't need a chart or a medical type person to tell me the bleeding obvious

Stupid BMI. I went on an extreme weight loss conquest and went from 125 KG to 75KG in 7 months and stayed at that weight for 2 years.

I have now, 1 year later, gained about 6KG so I am now 81KG and I feel fit, healthy and have as much energy as I did 25 years ago. I swim 2KMs 3 times a week and a 10K walk 3 times a week. On the other days I am lazy and just do 30 minutes walking outside or on a treadmill when it's raining

 

Saw the doctor recently for a check up and there was a locum in place of my regular GP, who was on holidays.  He turned out to be a BMI vigilante and told me I was seriously over weight according to his BMI bible. No credit for having lost 50KG and staying long term at minus 44KG, just a lecture about more weight loss.

The thing is, I don't have much more to give up and a guilty pleasure is a couple of pieces of chocolate once a week, or a slice of cheesecake a couple of times a month. I am acutely aware of what I now eat and always do due diligence on my food intake. I eat no white,refined carbs, like white bread or rice,which I have given up entirely and I always look at everything  prior to eating it to see if it passes my nutritional test, which is kick arse and no soft pedalling

 

To be told I didn't fit his healthy weight profile I adjudged to be petty and a arbitrary for someone who has never been on an extreme diet in his life

 

So, I am unhealthily, officially overweight.....and have never felt better

 

Pfftt!

Hi All

 

 I have been 'overweight' most of my life, even when I went to the gym 5 times a week and had 7 - 9% body fat, even now with 15- 18% body fat, depending on how much swimming I do a week I am still seen as 'overweight' on the BMI scale.

 

   

 

JJ

Edited May 20, 20169 yr by Janjuc

BMI, on its own, is a terrible indicator of whether someone is overweight. Underweight, it is slightly more useful.

BMI in conjunction with body fat % and lean muscle mass % is a MUCH better indicator of whether someone is over/underweight. Hell, you can scrap BMI altogether and the other two together will give you a great indication of whether you are overweight or not.

Next thing; the scientists will be advising that, as per Woody Allen's movie "Sleeper", smoking is actually quite good for us....

 

 

For the record, the oldest verified person to have lived, Jeanne Calment, smoked for 96 years of her life and died at the age of 122. Seems your thoughts have more to do with your health than anything else.

 

@@rantan I hope you gave that doctor a piece of your mind, It's like being told to fast for 12 to 14 hours before having a blood test for cholesterol.  Did a bit of research on this and there are many studies which indicate that it isn't necessary, I've had GPs who agreed with me and many who didn't. I asked one doctor why the medical profession is so set on this and other issues regarding tests. He paused and then said....you know about hair shirts? Oh yes,

 

Just as an aside....I'm not advising people to refuse medical tests, if their doctor thinks they're necessary. Like the BMI, these things are conditional.

Edited May 20, 20169 yr by MusicOne

Best indicator of risk of death is age :-)

But more seriously the best indicator of risk of death is level of sedentary/exercise - prioritise improving movement, stop smoking, improve diet and be happy - weight is an issue but focus on the above

People can and do smoke, drink, and do all the wrong things and can live to ripe old ages. BUT if one is genetically predisposed to cancers and other diseases brought on by an unhealthy life style you can be fairly assured of bad things happening long before they otherwise would have.

 

Having said that though, people who are slightly on the cuddly side of a normal healthy weight range do tend to last longer than the underweight simple because when they approach the end they have more in the reserve tank. You can be carrying a few extra kilos and still be stupidly fit and healthy. My wife is about 5kg over her ideal weight but runs ultra marathons.

 

Everything in moderation. Except fun, you can binge on fun.

 

Oh and work hard, and be good to your mother

And then this "Cholesterol is not cause of heart disease" report shows up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/high-cholesterol-not-cause-heart-disease-taking-statins-waste-time-a7079171.html

As a sufferer of dodgy ticker, I try to follow this stuff.

Mind you, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick and others have been saying exactly the same for decades. Although he agrees that, if you have heart disease, Statins are doing something to help fend off heart attacks.

Statins have several side-effects, and he thinks cholesterol-lowering is just one of them;  but probably not the useful one.

Gawd!

Woody's smoking_is_good_for_you gag might still be proven correct!

My wife is about 5kg over her ideal weight but runs ultra marathons.

What is it that's causing her not to lose weight?

If i did one single marathon i think id lose a few kilos overnight and die in 3 days of pain

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have, and will continue to, shun any medical professional who puts any importance on bmi. I've left mid appointment on occasion accordingly. Despite being not only a ridiculously simplistic 'measure of health' many who use it would be completely unaware of its roots in the 40's and why is flawed.

As was mentioned earlier, it is incredibly biased against those above a certain height and by its measure I will be in the obese category indefinitely, despite a bf% in the low teens.

I can't speak hor hippy's wife, but long-distance running means you need lots of enefgy intake, typically before, during and after the exercise. Simple carbs are an easy choice.  The body also seems to know it had better put aside some reserve energy for the next run.

 

I found that weight was easier to shed during the taper and then post-marathon, although my broken femur might have helped

What is it that's causing her not to lose weight?

If i did one single marathon i think id lose a few kilos overnight and die in 3 days of pain

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is an interesting question and is one that a decent portion of the exercise "professionals" have not yet seemed to understood.

I will give a brief answer but point you in the direction of the work of Dr Al Sears and his PACE protocol for exercise.

In short it is the adaptive nature of the body that is the cause.

When a body is used for low to medium intensity long-duration activity the body will run in a fat-burning mode since fat is a MUCH more efficient energy-storage mechanism than glycogen. As a consequence, the long-duration exercise teaches the body that it needs to store fat as a fuel, and thus that is exactly what it does.

The old chestnut of getting on a running machine and pounding out 10km runs to lose weight is non-effective approach. This will cause the body to store fat (as a fuel).

The PACE methodology is short duration and high intensity, and the approach of PACE teaches the body that it does not need to store fat as the glycogen stores are more than ample for the energy requirements.

Thus the body will happily reduce its fat stores.

It is based on the the primal programming of our bodies.

Have a read. Is a very interesting subject area. I could type for a long time here but easier to google Sear's work.

Cheers

Rawl

And then this "Cholesterol is not cause of heart disease" report shows up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/high-cholesterol-not-cause-heart-disease-taking-statins-waste-time-a7079171.html

As a sufferer of dodgy ticker, I try to follow this stuff.

Mind you, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick and others have been saying exactly the same for decades. Although he agrees that, if you have heart disease, Statins are doing something to help fend off heart attacks.

Statins have several side-effects, and he thinks cholesterol-lowering is just one of them;  but probably not the useful one.

Gawd!

Woody's smoking_is_good_for_you gag might still be proven correct!

 

The joker on the ABC health report seems to be always pushing the Statin flag, maybe its cause of the bad press Catalyst got for bagging them (saying the same as the link, old news) a few years ago. Some would seriously put them in our water with fluoride and......Prozac.

 

One major study said undue stress can knock around 6 years off your life......so stop worrying, eat plenty of vegetables and go for a walk everyday......oh and listen to plenty of music.

My wife is about 5kg over her ideal weight but runs ultra marathons.

My wife was overweight so we started a plan. Every night I dropped her 5 km's from home. By the end of the week she was 35 km's away and I didn't have to look at her any more.

Mines excuse is she love her chocolate. Over the last 2 years though since shes been running a lot the weight has steadily come off. I expect it will continue to come off until shes somewhere near the figure she had when we were first married.

@@rawl99 interesting but most of serious marathoners are skinny...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by davidro

Yes I agree they are. She does a half marathon in about 1h50m-1h55m. Dunno how serious this make her tbh. A 56k trail ultra took her about 9.5h but those are up hill and down dale...

Her brother does Iron Mans. Now those are for the truly insane.

Yes I agree they are. She does a half marathon in about 1h50m-1h55m. Dunno how serious this make her tbh. A 56k trail ultra took her about 9.5h but those are up hill and down dale...

Her brother does Iron Mans. Now those are for the truly insane.

 

running near 2 hrs at once will gas me out serious. 30 mins im gone lol

If you ever see me running its probably a good idea to start running in the same direction. Something bad is about to happen behind me

The joker on the ABC health report seems to be always pushing the Statin flag, maybe its cause of the bad press Catalyst got for bagging them (saying the same as the link, old news) a few years ago. Some would seriously put them in our water with fluoride and......Prozac.

 

Yes, the Catalyst episode essentially said the same thing, but was an open invitation to bagging - Demasi picked the wrong (ie vested interest) interviewees entirely. It was very unprofessional.

Which was a shame because there has been / are serious questions regarding the accepted wisdom [paradigm] of the Cholesterol theory.

Whereas now the highly respected BMJ is running the report - and it encompasses 68,000 subjects.

Statins are the biggest money-spinner big Pharma has ever concocted, and certainly many people don't, and will never, need them. They are most certainly over-prescribed.

However - for those with known heart disease, the evidence is pretty clear that somehow, Statins are working.

My own medico said that, in his clinical experience, patients with cardiac problems who are on Statins, don't seem to progress to the next stage (ongoing / more serious / fatal heart attacks) as they regularly - and predictably - did in the past.

They've kept me out of the ground for 6 years  

Or maybe it's just the daily Aspirin.

[be interesting if it turned out to be something entirely different and unexpected - wifi radiations or such...]

@@rawl99 interesting but most of serious marathoners are skinny...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most professional, or semi-professional, or very serious amateur, yes.

From the next post after yours though (and given I used to do triathlons and decent running I tip my hat to Hippy's wife so there is no disrespect in this comment) 2 hrs for a half is not in the professional league which is what I think you are picturing in your mind.

For the amount of training a serious semi-pro/pro does it comes down to calories in vs calories out wrt your comment. They burn A LOT of calories.

For relatively normal folks, which is how I interpret Hippy's wife, my comments ( and the serious research behind them) stand.

Go to a gym and look at the numbers of substantially overweight folks trying to lose weight on the cardio machines, not understanding that they would be far better off doing weights to build muscle mass ( which substantially increases basal metabolic rate) and PACE on the cardio machines. The sad part is that a lot of personal trainers are still not aware of the results from these different approaches and are stuck in the (effectively) high-carb, low-fat, lots of cardio approach to weight loss.

Walk down the street to see how effective this is

A lot of people still consider a 40% protein balance to be a high-protein Atkins style-diet, whereas it is the basis of a zone-balanced eating regimen ala Prof Barry Sears Zone-Balancing ( which has a lot of research and science behind it)

Cheers

Rawl