7 ms·

Measuring Adiposity in Patients: The Utility of Body Mass Index (BMI) & Body Fat

36 points by graeme 4y ago

swatcoder 4y ago
> BMI characterized 26% of the subjects as obese, while DXA indicated that 64% of them were obese. 39% of the subjects were classified as non-obese by BMI, but were found to be obese by DXA. BMI misclassified 25% men and 48% women. Just goes to show how unreliable BMI is… oh wait
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pancrufty 4y ago
  “Happily obese” people like to point out how wrong BMI is. Little did they know they were right for the wrong reason.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    Is there anybody (obese and non obese) in the health community that assumes BMI isn‘t wrong ? I’m not sure what your point is.
    - swatcoder 4y ago
      I’m surprised this needs to be explained, but the joke is that every time BMI comes up in online discussions, people rally to annonuce that it’s too conservative because it classifies some dedicated bodybuilders as obese, while this study shows that it’s aggregate bias seems to be in precisely the opposite direction. Which, of course, better fits everyday intuition about how unhealthy most people with high BMI seem to be. In reality, the failure of BMI to accurately capture the body fat and healthfulness of most individuals is not usually because they’re just too damned ripped. It’s because people eat more and sit more than they ever have.
      - NavinF 4y ago
        Yep just below this thread there's a [dead] comment about how a bodybuilder had high BMI despite not being fat. It's always the same cliche.
        d0mine 4y ago
        Pointing out that Earth is round no matter how often it is repeated does not become any less true. BMI and bodybuilder example may be less obvious unless you know that muscles are more dense than fat but it is true nonetheless.
      - makeitdouble 4y ago
        > people rally to annonuce that it’s too conservative That’s a bit of a surprise to me. The most common conplaint I heard was “it’s wrong, but we need to keep it around otherwise there’s no way to compare cross-studies”. We have decades and decades of BMI based classification, and publishing a paper today that needs results from past studies will automatically bind it to BMI. Same on public policies, defining obesity threshold a completely different way would require more politics than most groups are able to tackle. It’s like coming up today with a different way to count nutrients from calories, technical merit won’t make it prevail over the whole world that has been built around calories.
- johntb86 4y ago
  The paper mentions that "In 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined obesity based on a percent body fat ≥25% for men and ≥35% for women [15], while the most recent 2009 guideline [..] used percent body fat ≥25% for men and ≥30% for women". I wonder what the process was for choosing the BMI and obesity cut-points, since they seem to differ a lot.
ggm 4y ago
There is strong relationship between increased leptin and increased percent body fat, and no relationship between insulin and percent body fat. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals for mean. And BMI significantly underestimates prevalence of obesity when compared to DXA direct measurement of percent body fat. Currently, no other blood test or biomarker has been correlated with the rate of obesity. The use of both DXA and leptin levels offers the opportunity for more precise characterization of adiposity and better management of obesity. Finally The use of leptin levels further improves precision of BMI adjustment, whereas insulin levels do not. With 91% of our patients with high leptin levels being women, our data confirm the greater effectiveness of BMI adjustment with leptin levels in women, attributable to a higher prevalence of hyperleptinemia among women. As significant lowering of leptin impacts long term weight control [31], [32], the idea of incorporating leptin adjustments into a more accurate diagnosis of obesity should be seriously considered. Further studies should be conducted for leptin measurements as a potentially useful tool in the management of obesity.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
makeitdouble 4y ago
BMI has been known to be unreliable for almost as soon as it was published, but people clinged to it because they could get some number with absolutely no education and only basic tools on the measuring side. You could do it in the jungle with a tape measure and a weighting board. So the base reasonning was “a somewhat dummy number is better than no number at all”. DXA is 100% better but requires trained personnel and expensive, advanced scanners. I’m not sure it’s a fitting upgrade of BMI…and if a subject can be thorougly scanned, can’t they also get more personal advice and actual assessment of what they are risk of (blood pressure ? heart disease ? diabetes ?) instead of some vague “you’re fat so you should lose weight, we’ll see how you’ll actually die once you’re thinner” ?
- lhl 4y ago
  There's a lot of misinformation about BMI... Is it perfect? No, in fact for women, it tends to significantly under-report obesity (when defined against fat percentage, officially, obesity is mostly defined by BMI though so of course it's always accurate in that sense). It's actually quite accurate for men though. There has in fact been extensive study on better formulas, and one recent study has proposed Relative Fat Mass, RFM as a new index that does a better job correlating to DXA measurements for all populations: Woolcott, Orison O., and Richard N. Bergman. “Relative Fat Mass (RFM) as a New Estimator of Whole-Body Fat Percentage ─ A Cross-Sectional Study in American Adult Individuals.” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (July 20, 2018): 10980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29362-1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29362-1. Someone else mentioned waist-to-height-ratio (WHtR) as a better marker for metabolic health, and I tend to agree that it's superior to BMI: Ashwell, Margaret, and Sigrid Gibson. “Waist-to-Height Ratio as an Indicator of ‘Early Health Risk’: Simpler and More Predictive than Using a ‘Matrix’ Based on BMI and Waist Circumference.” BMJ Open 6, no. 3 (March 14, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010159 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010159. If you're also arguing that people should be looking at other markers for metabolic health, sure. If you get an annual checkup, you should get everything you need to calculate your metabolic syndrome markers, which is an excellent way to assess metabolic health: Huang, Paul L. “A Comprehensive Definition for Metabolic Syndrome.” Disease Models & Mechanisms 2, no. 5–6 (2009): 231–37. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.001180 https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.001180.
fsckboy 4y ago
as this study shows, BMI is a useful measure despite its limitations, however others have preferred waist-to-hip ratio as a better health risk metric. waist-to-hip-ratio is actually simpler to measure and calculate than BMI. Here’s how from WebMD: https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/what-is-waist-to-hip-ratio https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/what-is-waist-to-hip-... Measure waist at the smallest point. Wrap a tape measure around your waist at the smallest point, usually around your belly button. This is your waist circumference. Measure hips by wrapping the tape measure around your hips at the widest part. This is your hip circumference. Divide your waist size by your hip size. This is your waist-to-hip ratio. A good rule of thumb is that your waist should be smaller than your hips, no matter your weight or BMI. WHO defines abdominal obesity in men as a waist-to-hip ratio of at least 0.90. For women, it’s a ratio of 0.85 or more. A ratio higher than 1.0 for either sex means a much higher chance of health problems. TFA mentions waist-to-hip but doesn't assess it: "We were not able to accurately capture co-morbidities. We were also unable to compare other anthropometric indices, such as waist-to-hip ratio with corresponding DXA measurements, due to lack of hip circumference data." more from WebMD: Too much fat around your waist is known as abdominal obesity. This fat is called visceral fat because it surrounds your liver and other organs. This can affect both men and women, but men are more likely to have too much fat around the waist. Women are more likely to carry fat around their hips and thighs. Visceral fat sends hormones, fatty acids, and other chemicals that cause inflammation into your body. This leads to higher cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood glucose. It also leads to higher levels of triglycerides, a type of fat, in your blood. Fat around your waist can make you more likely to have other health problems, including: Heart disease, Cancer, Stroke, Type 2 diabetes
- stewbrew 4y ago
  I simply cannot imagine such a measure to be sensible for all types of body shapes.
  - lhl 4y ago
    I linked to one review earlier, but there's actually a lot of evidence that WHtR is quite good against a number of populations and ages, and certainly for each individual, even if you ignore cutoffs, it will be directionally correct: Corbatón Anchuelo, Arturo, María Teresa Martínez-Larrad, Irene Serrano-García, Cristina Fernández Pérez, and Manuel Serrano-Ríos. “Body Fat Anthropometric Indexes: Which of Those Identify Better High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects? A Comparative Study in Spanish Population.” PLoS ONE 14, no. 5 (May 23, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216877 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216877. Djap, H. S., B. Sutrisna, P. Soewondo, R. Djuwita, K. H. Timotius, Trihono, S. Sharif, and Y. S. Tjang. “Waist to Height Ratio (0.5) as a Predictor for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in Indonesia.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 434 (December 2018): 012311. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/434/1/012311 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/434/1/012311. Zhu, Qihan, Feixia Shen, Tingting Ye, Qi Zhou, Huihui Deng, and Xuejiang Gu. “Waist-to-Height Ratio Is an Appropriate Index for Identifying Cardiometabolic Risk in Chinese Individuals with Normal Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference.” Journal of Diabetes 6, no. 6 (November 2014): 527–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12157 https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12157. Vrdoljak, Davorka, Biserka Bergman Marković, Ksenija Kranjčević, Dragica Ivezić Lalić, Jasna Vučak, and Milica Katić. “How Well Do Anthropometric Indices Correlate with Cardiovascular Risk Factors? A Cross-Sectional Study in Croatia.” Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research 18, no. 2 (February 1, 2012): PH6–11. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.882451 https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.882451. Ochoa Sangrador, C., and J. Ochoa-Brezmes. “Waist-to-Height Ratio as a Risk Marker for Metabolic Syndrome in Childhood. A Meta-Analysis.” Pediatric Obesity 13, no. 7 (2018): 421–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12285 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12285. Caminiti, Carolina, Marisa Armeno, and Carmen S. Mazza. “Waist-to-Height Ratio as a Marker of Low-Grade Inflammation in Obese Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism: JPEM 29, no. 5 (May 1, 2016): 543–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpem-2014-0526 https://doi.org/10.1515/jpem-2014-0526.
kazinator 4y ago
The problem isn't so much the BMI, as the idea that obesity starts at BMI 30. Probably, say, 22-25 should be overweight, 25+ obese.
- foepys 4y ago
  22 at average western height is a perfectly healthy weight. A typical male weighing 70kg at a height of 1.80m has basically no excessive fat and a BMI of 21.6. What BMI needs is a more refined scale for different kinds of humans.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    Sorry, to clarify; the overweight tipping point might be found somewhere in the range 22-25, not that this is to be the overweight range. If this hypothetical person puts on 10 kg of fat, that almost brings him to 25. Say 5 kg is overweight, 10 kg the start of obesity. Looks reasonable.
    - xboxnolifes 4y ago
      Seems kind of unreasonable that one can go from "normal" to "obese" by putting on 10kg. Feels like that's just removing the entire overweight range. The idea that 25 should be where obesity starts is frankly absurd.
      - kazinator 4y ago
        Why should there be a large overweight range of more than some 6-8 kg (for that 1.8 m height)? That just sounds like fat acceptance. 10 kg is like a toddler.
        xboxnolifes 4y ago
        Why should there be a large obese range (80kg to infinity), but a tiny overweight range of 5kg? What is even the point of the overweight range in that context? It's not fat acceptance. Being overweight is still unhealthy.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
[dead]
ChuckMcM 4y ago
DXA scans are available (in the US at least) from people like BodySpec. When I started a weight loss program I found the DXA scan to be the most helpful data in terms of understanding how things were changing given my changes in diet and exercise regimen. I tend to be somewhat data driven :-) and that definitely scratched the data itch. It also gave me a better target (body fat % / adipose tissue target) to go for rather than a specific body weight. In the past it has always seemed arbitrary to me that someone "should" weigh, X pounds given their height.
orwin 4y ago
I used BMI as a tool to see how much I was losing since I started eating less, to help me set goals and reach 'healthy' levels. 32->28 took a bit more than a year. I remember I weighted myself because I was able to walk two hours without ankle pain (the last hour was a bitch), and I started doing sports other than sailing/windsurfing/kayaking. The 28->26 took three years, with a lot more sport than I used too. I'm still overweight but my waist/hip ratio is under 1 (barely) and I have less ankle pain and respiratory issues than I used too. I think I really stopped being obese in this range.

36 points by graeme 4y ago

> BMI characterized 26% of the subjects as obese, while DXA indicated that 64% of them were obese. 39% of the subjects were classified as non-obese by BMI, but were found to be obese by DXA. BMI misclassified 25% men and 48% women. Just goes to show how unreliable BMI is… oh wait

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pancrufty 4y ago
“Happily obese” people like to point out how wrong BMI is. Little did they know they were right for the wrong reason.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Is there anybody (obese and non obese) in the health community that assumes BMI isn‘t wrong ? I’m not sure what your point is.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    I’m surprised this needs to be explained, but the joke is that every time BMI comes up in online discussions, people rally to annonuce that it’s too conservative because it classifies some dedicated bodybuilders as obese, while this study shows that it’s aggregate bias seems to be in precisely the opposite direction. Which, of course, better fits everyday intuition about how unhealthy most people with high BMI seem to be. In reality, the failure of BMI to accurately capture the body fat and healthfulness of most individuals is not usually because they’re just too damned ripped. It’s because people eat more and sit more than they ever have.
    - NavinF 4y ago
      Yep just below this thread there's a [dead] comment about how a bodybuilder had high BMI despite not being fat. It's always the same cliche.
      - d0mine 4y ago
        Pointing out that Earth is round no matter how often it is repeated does not become any less true. BMI and bodybuilder example may be less obvious unless you know that muscles are more dense than fat but it is true nonetheless.
    - makeitdouble 4y ago
      > people rally to annonuce that it’s too conservative That’s a bit of a surprise to me. The most common conplaint I heard was “it’s wrong, but we need to keep it around otherwise there’s no way to compare cross-studies”. We have decades and decades of BMI based classification, and publishing a paper today that needs results from past studies will automatically bind it to BMI. Same on public policies, defining obesity threshold a completely different way would require more politics than most groups are able to tackle. It’s like coming up today with a different way to count nutrients from calories, technical merit won’t make it prevail over the whole world that has been built around calories.
johntb86 4y ago
The paper mentions that "In 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined obesity based on a percent body fat ≥25% for men and ≥35% for women [15], while the most recent 2009 guideline [..] used percent body fat ≥25% for men and ≥30% for women". I wonder what the process was for choosing the BMI and obesity cut-points, since they seem to differ a lot.

ggm 4y ago

There is strong relationship between increased leptin and increased percent body fat, and no relationship between insulin and percent body fat. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals for mean. And BMI significantly underestimates prevalence of obesity when compared to DXA direct measurement of percent body fat. Currently, no other blood test or biomarker has been correlated with the rate of obesity. The use of both DXA and leptin levels offers the opportunity for more precise characterization of adiposity and better management of obesity. Finally The use of leptin levels further improves precision of BMI adjustment, whereas insulin levels do not. With 91% of our patients with high leptin levels being women, our data confirm the greater effectiveness of BMI adjustment with leptin levels in women, attributable to a higher prevalence of hyperleptinemia among women. As significant lowering of leptin impacts long term weight control [31], [32], the idea of incorporating leptin adjustments into a more accurate diagnosis of obesity should be seriously considered. Further studies should be conducted for leptin measurements as a potentially useful tool in the management of obesity.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

makeitdouble 4y ago

BMI has been known to be unreliable for almost as soon as it was published, but people clinged to it because they could get some number with absolutely no education and only basic tools on the measuring side. You could do it in the jungle with a tape measure and a weighting board. So the base reasonning was “a somewhat dummy number is better than no number at all”. DXA is 100% better but requires trained personnel and expensive, advanced scanners. I’m not sure it’s a fitting upgrade of BMI…and if a subject can be thorougly scanned, can’t they also get more personal advice and actual assessment of what they are risk of (blood pressure ? heart disease ? diabetes ?) instead of some vague “you’re fat so you should lose weight, we’ll see how you’ll actually die once you’re thinner” ?

lhl 4y ago
There's a lot of misinformation about BMI... Is it perfect? No, in fact for women, it tends to significantly under-report obesity (when defined against fat percentage, officially, obesity is mostly defined by BMI though so of course it's always accurate in that sense). It's actually quite accurate for men though. There has in fact been extensive study on better formulas, and one recent study has proposed Relative Fat Mass, RFM as a new index that does a better job correlating to DXA measurements for all populations: Woolcott, Orison O., and Richard N. Bergman. “Relative Fat Mass (RFM) as a New Estimator of Whole-Body Fat Percentage ─ A Cross-Sectional Study in American Adult Individuals.” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (July 20, 2018): 10980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29362-1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29362-1. Someone else mentioned waist-to-height-ratio (WHtR) as a better marker for metabolic health, and I tend to agree that it's superior to BMI: Ashwell, Margaret, and Sigrid Gibson. “Waist-to-Height Ratio as an Indicator of ‘Early Health Risk’: Simpler and More Predictive than Using a ‘Matrix’ Based on BMI and Waist Circumference.” BMJ Open 6, no. 3 (March 14, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010159 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010159. If you're also arguing that people should be looking at other markers for metabolic health, sure. If you get an annual checkup, you should get everything you need to calculate your metabolic syndrome markers, which is an excellent way to assess metabolic health: Huang, Paul L. “A Comprehensive Definition for Metabolic Syndrome.” Disease Models & Mechanisms 2, no. 5–6 (2009): 231–37. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.001180 https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.001180.

fsckboy 4y ago

as this study shows, BMI is a useful measure despite its limitations, however others have preferred waist-to-hip ratio as a better health risk metric. waist-to-hip-ratio is actually simpler to measure and calculate than BMI. Here’s how from WebMD: https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/what-is-waist-to-hip-ratio https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/what-is-waist-to-hip-... Measure waist at the smallest point. Wrap a tape measure around your waist at the smallest point, usually around your belly button. This is your waist circumference. Measure hips by wrapping the tape measure around your hips at the widest part. This is your hip circumference. Divide your waist size by your hip size. This is your waist-to-hip ratio. A good rule of thumb is that your waist should be smaller than your hips, no matter your weight or BMI. WHO defines abdominal obesity in men as a waist-to-hip ratio of at least 0.90. For women, it’s a ratio of 0.85 or more. A ratio higher than 1.0 for either sex means a much higher chance of health problems. TFA mentions waist-to-hip but doesn't assess it: "We were not able to accurately capture co-morbidities. We were also unable to compare other anthropometric indices, such as waist-to-hip ratio with corresponding DXA measurements, due to lack of hip circumference data." more from WebMD: Too much fat around your waist is known as abdominal obesity. This fat is called visceral fat because it surrounds your liver and other organs. This can affect both men and women, but men are more likely to have too much fat around the waist. Women are more likely to carry fat around their hips and thighs. Visceral fat sends hormones, fatty acids, and other chemicals that cause inflammation into your body. This leads to higher cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood glucose. It also leads to higher levels of triglycerides, a type of fat, in your blood. Fat around your waist can make you more likely to have other health problems, including: Heart disease, Cancer, Stroke, Type 2 diabetes

stewbrew 4y ago
I simply cannot imagine such a measure to be sensible for all types of body shapes.
- lhl 4y ago
  I linked to one review earlier, but there's actually a lot of evidence that WHtR is quite good against a number of populations and ages, and certainly for each individual, even if you ignore cutoffs, it will be directionally correct: Corbatón Anchuelo, Arturo, María Teresa Martínez-Larrad, Irene Serrano-García, Cristina Fernández Pérez, and Manuel Serrano-Ríos. “Body Fat Anthropometric Indexes: Which of Those Identify Better High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects? A Comparative Study in Spanish Population.” PLoS ONE 14, no. 5 (May 23, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216877 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216877. Djap, H. S., B. Sutrisna, P. Soewondo, R. Djuwita, K. H. Timotius, Trihono, S. Sharif, and Y. S. Tjang. “Waist to Height Ratio (0.5) as a Predictor for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in Indonesia.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 434 (December 2018): 012311. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/434/1/012311 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/434/1/012311. Zhu, Qihan, Feixia Shen, Tingting Ye, Qi Zhou, Huihui Deng, and Xuejiang Gu. “Waist-to-Height Ratio Is an Appropriate Index for Identifying Cardiometabolic Risk in Chinese Individuals with Normal Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference.” Journal of Diabetes 6, no. 6 (November 2014): 527–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12157 https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12157. Vrdoljak, Davorka, Biserka Bergman Marković, Ksenija Kranjčević, Dragica Ivezić Lalić, Jasna Vučak, and Milica Katić. “How Well Do Anthropometric Indices Correlate with Cardiovascular Risk Factors? A Cross-Sectional Study in Croatia.” Medical Science Monitor : International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research 18, no. 2 (February 1, 2012): PH6–11. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.882451 https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.882451. Ochoa Sangrador, C., and J. Ochoa-Brezmes. “Waist-to-Height Ratio as a Risk Marker for Metabolic Syndrome in Childhood. A Meta-Analysis.” Pediatric Obesity 13, no. 7 (2018): 421–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12285 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12285. Caminiti, Carolina, Marisa Armeno, and Carmen S. Mazza. “Waist-to-Height Ratio as a Marker of Low-Grade Inflammation in Obese Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism: JPEM 29, no. 5 (May 1, 2016): 543–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpem-2014-0526 https://doi.org/10.1515/jpem-2014-0526.

kazinator 4y ago

The problem isn't so much the BMI, as the idea that obesity starts at BMI 30. Probably, say, 22-25 should be overweight, 25+ obese.

foepys 4y ago
22 at average western height is a perfectly healthy weight. A typical male weighing 70kg at a height of 1.80m has basically no excessive fat and a BMI of 21.6. What BMI needs is a more refined scale for different kinds of humans.
- kazinator 4y ago
  Sorry, to clarify; the overweight tipping point might be found somewhere in the range 22-25, not that this is to be the overweight range. If this hypothetical person puts on 10 kg of fat, that almost brings him to 25. Say 5 kg is overweight, 10 kg the start of obesity. Looks reasonable.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    Seems kind of unreasonable that one can go from "normal" to "obese" by putting on 10kg. Feels like that's just removing the entire overweight range. The idea that 25 should be where obesity starts is frankly absurd.
    - kazinator 4y ago
      Why should there be a large overweight range of more than some 6-8 kg (for that 1.8 m height)? That just sounds like fat acceptance. 10 kg is like a toddler.
      - xboxnolifes 4y ago
        Why should there be a large obese range (80kg to infinity), but a tiny overweight range of 5kg? What is even the point of the overweight range in that context? It's not fat acceptance. Being overweight is still unhealthy.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

[dead]

ChuckMcM 4y ago

DXA scans are available (in the US at least) from people like BodySpec. When I started a weight loss program I found the DXA scan to be the most helpful data in terms of understanding how things were changing given my changes in diet and exercise regimen. I tend to be somewhat data driven :-) and that definitely scratched the data itch. It also gave me a better target (body fat % / adipose tissue target) to go for rather than a specific body weight. In the past it has always seemed arbitrary to me that someone "should" weigh, X pounds given their height.

orwin 4y ago

I used BMI as a tool to see how much I was losing since I started eating less, to help me set goals and reach 'healthy' levels. 32->28 took a bit more than a year. I remember I weighted myself because I was able to walk two hours without ankle pain (the last hour was a bitch), and I started doing sports other than sailing/windsurfing/kayaking. The 28->26 took three years, with a lot more sport than I used too. I'm still overweight but my waist/hip ratio is under 1 (barely) and I have less ankle pain and respiratory issues than I used too. I think I really stopped being obese in this range.