tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post8105845517969011598..comments2024-03-28T02:36:04.078-07:00Comments on Health Correlator: The lowest-mortality BMI: What is its relationship with fat-free mass?Ned Kockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-40602326291751318802013-04-19T10:37:50.074-07:002013-04-19T10:37:50.074-07:00or if you're too lazy you can use the bmi calc...or if you're too lazy you can use the <a href="http://www.posisto.com" rel="nofollow">bmi calculator</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-86787387365869231942013-01-07T00:55:15.074-08:002013-01-07T00:55:15.074-08:00I’m really amazed by this blog. Tons of useful pos...I’m really amazed by this blog. Tons of useful posts and info on here. Thumbs up, thanks a lot.<br /><br /><b><a href="http://www.pushdaddy.com/" rel="nofollow">Jacksonville mobile ads</a></b> Jacksonville mobile adshttp://www.pushdaddy.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-78674080893813515782012-07-12T11:30:22.138-07:002012-07-12T11:30:22.138-07:00niceniceSocial Readerhttp://www.tidingso.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-45889475659213815992012-07-12T11:29:32.960-07:002012-07-12T11:29:32.960-07:00greatgreatDemenitahttp://caregiverrelief.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-67802719948083651192012-07-11T07:46:20.194-07:002012-07-11T07:46:20.194-07:00greatgreathow to use linkedinhttp://www.freelinkedinwebinar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-50064617924458732492012-07-02T02:46:54.929-07:002012-07-02T02:46:54.929-07:00I am very happy to see the update here.I am very happy to see the update here.vaporizers from HBGhttp://www.halfbakedgoods.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-76401472299181668032012-06-29T23:23:26.517-07:002012-06-29T23:23:26.517-07:00goodgoodfish tankshttp://www.buyfishtanksforsale.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-43430193447464574862012-06-29T23:23:08.468-07:002012-06-29T23:23:08.468-07:00greatgreatApp Store, iOS Appshttp://www.appnotices.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-19696537363946865512012-06-28T13:55:42.945-07:002012-06-28T13:55:42.945-07:00nicenicetext marketinghttp://moremobilemedia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-10069269376835662172012-06-26T08:37:00.393-07:002012-06-26T08:37:00.393-07:00Hi, Ned--
Here's an article you may want to g...Hi, Ned--<br /><br />Here's an article you may want to glance at:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v17/n1/full/oby2008492a.html<br /><br />As one would expect, the distribution of both BMI and WC is a skewed curve--since it is possible to go way up in both, but not possible to go down too far without disappearing.<br /><br />Eyeballing it, it looks as if minimum BMI and WC (about 16 and 55cm respectively, and maximum BMI and WC (somewhere around 65 and 160 cm) are very much the same for men and women.<br /><br />I wish the researchers in the study you cited had clipped off the long tails. I suspect the health outcomes for the > 104 cm WC might have been very different than, say, a group of 104-110 cm WC. <br /><br />Ditto < 90 cm versus, say, 82-90 cm. Someone with a BMI of 25.5 and a WC of 82 cm (about 32 inches) probably looks pretty good--trim and muscular. In other words, it wouldn't surprise me if the "sweet spot" on their mortality curve for males with BMI of 25-29.9 is really somewhere in the WC of 30-34 inches rather than the 35-38 inches. <br /><br />You're correct about the take-home point, though--the overall effect we're seeing here is probably related to having a good dose of lean body mass and a low level of visceral fat--with or without a little subcutaneous fat.David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-25559969112438021832012-06-24T16:03:37.101-07:002012-06-24T16:03:37.101-07:00Sorry David, I saw what you wrote, but somehow had...Sorry David, I saw what you wrote, but somehow had in my mind the lowest mortality cell for men, in the lower-middle waist range. Yes, it is possible there were men with 65-cm waists in the other cell – although a bit unlikely, as that would be around 25-26 in. More likely for women; especially women like Megan Fox!Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-60064125476570650152012-06-24T10:48:47.855-07:002012-06-24T10:48:47.855-07:00Hi, Ned--
I don't see anything here that excl...Hi, Ned--<br /><br />I don't see anything here that excludes someone with a 65 cm WC, but perhaps I missed it. In the footnote to the table, the boundaries are stated as 90, 96, and 104 cm. If they get four cells/bins from three boundaries, aren't they <br /><br />0-90<br />90-96<br />96-104<br />> 104<br /><br />?David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-26137278725320617152012-06-24T08:07:28.364-07:002012-06-24T08:07:28.364-07:00Hi David. You are right in that some of the differ...Hi David. You are right in that some of the differences are too small to be relevant; the main accomplishment of the study, in my opinion, is to point at a different direction for the interpretation of the “overweight-longevity paradox”. It seems that retention of fat-free mass is the key.<br /><br /> As for your doubt: “I really wonder how many of the people in the 0-90 cm group are at, say, 65 cm”. That is easy to answer: none. Barring coding/measurement error, all of the people in each cell fit the criteria for inclusion in the cell.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-76695661433254392452012-06-23T12:58:12.156-07:002012-06-23T12:58:12.156-07:00Hi, Ned--
Apparently the way I wrote the question...Hi, Ned--<br /><br />Apparently the way I wrote the question may you misinterpret my emphasis. I wasn't suggesting that there is little difference in the body composition between the two waist size groups.<br /><br />What I was noting is that, as far as I can see, there is little difference in mortality rates of 2.0% and 2.1%. Certainly not enough difference (if there in fact is a statistically significant difference) to encourage me to try to increase my waist size in pursuit of health. So I think that both of those numbers should have been circled in red.<br /><br />I'm always a little troubled by studies that bin results into ranges where the bottom and top ranges are "< x1" and "> xn". Such an approach may include subjects who are way out on the distribution curve. So when I read that we are comparing the mortality of people with waist circumferences of 0-90 cm with those who have WCs of 90-96 cm, I really wonder how many of the people in the 0-90 cm group are at, say, 65 cm? <br /><br />One might argue that it would be unlikely that anyone with a BMI of 25-29 would have a WC of 65 cm, but that in effect is assuming that we can predict WC from BMI--and part of the purspose of this study was to tease the effects of the two apart...David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-90172556044040907582012-06-23T00:32:26.150-07:002012-06-23T00:32:26.150-07:00nice postnice postlive sportshttp://sportsfunia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-33415611264416810032012-06-21T09:33:21.198-07:002012-06-21T09:33:21.198-07:00Hi dearieme. I am not sure exactly what you mean....Hi dearieme. I am not sure exactly what you mean. Virtually all quantitative studies either support or not hypotheses based on coefficients of association (of which the correlation is one type).<br /><br /> No single study “proves” anything.<br /><br /> More generally, no empirical study can prove a hypothesis. Empirical studies are designed to disprove hypotheses.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-76813273825998481092012-06-20T11:21:34.902-07:002012-06-20T11:21:34.902-07:00"this does not mean that you should try to br..."this does not mean that you should try to bring your BMI to 21.6 if you want to reduce your risk of dying " <br /><br />Since it's a correlative study, it's not likely that it teaches anything conclusive about what you should do.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-45382118414303301262012-06-20T05:19:58.814-07:002012-06-20T05:19:58.814-07:00Hi David. I’ve done some estimates on this before,...Hi David. I’ve done some estimates on this before, and would have to look at them to be sure, but I think that one single extra inch in waist circumference translates into a nontrivial increase in body fat percentage.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-603537392321659412012-06-19T16:56:03.120-07:002012-06-19T16:56:03.120-07:00There doesn't seem to me to be any good reason...There doesn't seem to me to be any good reason for distinguishing between lowest and low-middle waist circumferences in the males. We're talking 2% versus 2.1%. In this kind of study, I would call those virtually identical, right?David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-90353754221839053012012-06-19T13:42:33.086-07:002012-06-19T13:42:33.086-07:00Hi Dan. Bodybuilders are not very common in compre...Hi Dan. Bodybuilders are not very common in comprehensive samples of individuals. They are usually males, and they are rare. I am talking about bodybuilders that are committed enough to achieve results in terms of muscle gain that will significantly influence BMI.<br /><br /> If you take a look at the second table, from the paper by Bigaard and colleagues, the category with the least mortality was the “overweight plus lower-middle waist” category. It had over 4,000 individuals in it – about 30 percent of all overweight individuals.<br /><br /> My guess is that only a few, very few, of the individuals in that category were bodybuilders.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-19283821305766596892012-06-19T13:32:26.185-07:002012-06-19T13:32:26.185-07:00Hi v/vmary. Yes, I think I remember him saying tha...Hi v/vmary. Yes, I think I remember him saying that.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-2917348756741893452012-06-19T12:35:47.703-07:002012-06-19T12:35:47.703-07:00BMI is misleading. Higher BMIs can result from mus...BMI is misleading. Higher BMIs can result from muscular people also, who most definitely will have a healthier life. Bodybuilders often have a "high" BMI, but it's not because they are fat, it's because the BMI measurement itself is flawed and does not tell the whole story.Danhttp://musclegeek.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-38615666986464627412012-06-19T12:29:18.645-07:002012-06-19T12:29:18.645-07:00i think i remember professor de vany posting a whi...i think i remember professor de vany posting a while ago that the overweight people lived longer cuz they had more muscle than thinner people. but i believe he was talking about the elderly.<br /><br />professor de vany emphasizes the importance of muscle mass in insulin regulation and the immune system.v/vmaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06862544306715636777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-71159024622489787712012-06-18T18:50:19.922-07:002012-06-18T18:50:19.922-07:00Hi Stephan, thanks. I still there is more to this ...Hi Stephan, thanks. I still there is more to this story, perhaps something to do with the combination of fat-free mass and body weight, and how it regulates nutrient intake via calorie intake.<br /><br /> It is interesting that the lowest mortality seems to occur at the point where an optimal balance between fat-free mass and weight is achieved, which may involve carrying some, mostly subcutaneous, body fat.<br /><br /> When we look at hunter-gatherer populations in general, however, my impression is that the “natural” BMI is lower. For example, the men tend to all look like lightweight boxers.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-42504055238682401992012-06-18T13:34:19.196-07:002012-06-18T13:34:19.196-07:00Fascinating study. This is very important and res...Fascinating study. This is very important and resolves the paradox I've struggled with that we evolved to be relatively lean, yet overweight seems to be the lowest-mortality category today.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.com