Letter from School nurse

A person's BMI is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters, squared. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered "normal," a BMI of 25 to 29.9 is "overweight," and a BMI greater than 30 is "obese."

The problem with this is that it isn't accurate at all as measure of body fat. In fact, it does nothing to take into account the ration of body fat to muscle. An NFL defensive lineman today is lean, fast but still very big. Their body mass index is in the 60s to 70s. The HHS would say they are "obese" which is absurd.

This young lady is 5-3 and 124. She's not obese. The video shows she is muscular. I doubt she has 15% body fat, which is how they used to measure obesity, and in my opinion, still should. Fifteen percent body fat for a female is good. For a guy that age, 10% is good. Women/girls carry a bit more body fat due to metabolism and genetic makeup.

The BMI ought to be ejected. It's bad science.

 

Probably the simplest way to calculate your body fat is by using a special set of calipers. Skin and fat measurements are taken from the waist, shoulder blade, biceps and triceps. The resulting readings, in millimeters, are added up to produce a single figure. The figure is then plotted against a chart that takes the patient's sex, age and measurement into consideration to determine your body-fat percentage. The higher the body fat, the higher your risk of suffering from obesity-related conditions.

Another popular method is the Body Adiposity Index (BAI). It does not use your weight in the calculation. In order to work out your percentage body fat, BAI multiplies you hip circumference by your height. Although clinical studies have not shown any definitive proof, they nonetheless support the postulation the BAI is more accurate than BMI. As the resulting figures in either test are approximate, the elimination of the use of body weight in the equation prevents wrong conclusions being reached with muscular individuals, particularly athletes. BAI is also useful in areas where scales may not be available e.g. remote locations such as the jungle or desert.

BAI can be indeterminate for men or women reach their 50s, as up to that point, belly fat is distributed throughout the body on a fairly even basis. After 50, fat accumulates around the hips and waist. For older adults, measuring the natural waist can give a good indication of the amount of abdominal fat you are carrying. Knowing the circumference of your waist can help determine your risk of getting heart disease and other medical conditions. According the physicians, the following figures indicate individuals in the 'at risk' group: women with a waist circumference of 35 inches and over and men with a waist circumference of 40 inches and over. This is probably the easiest method, as anyone can measure their own waist.

A high-tech method of measuring the ratio of fat-to-muscle is hydrostatic weighting. This is a controversial method, but contrary to popular belief, hydrostatic weighing is not an ineffective way of calculating body-fat. The weighing process takes place underwater on a chair that is placed on a zeroed out set of scales. You then sit on the chair before exhaling all the air from you lungs and then placing your head underwater. Once the scales stabilizes, your weight is taken. The resulting figure is then passed through a series of formulas which, ultimately, produces a body-fat reading. The reason it works is that the body fat is lighter than water, and so does not figure into the measurement, and the formulas compare the resulting number to actual overall body weight.

All are far more accurate than the BMI.

 

Going public and exposing this seems counterproductive to not wanting to be bullied.

 

Where'd that dang like button go?

 

ANYONE who is active would likely put on additional weight if they quit being active.

It's ridiculous that the nurse got involved. The BMI thing is silly when used that way.

My own girls were great examples of how that silly thing definitely isn't worth a hoot for a lot of people. Parents misunderstand it and want their kids to fit in the box. Mine were all SO very different, including one who was so very tiny that she wasn't even ON the growth chart for a while and then she was always that tiny dot at the bottom. The poor thing couldn't find clothes that didn't have kids cartoons on them even when she was a teenager. LOL She finally sprouted up when she hit 16 and now as an adult, she's perfectly average. As opposed to one of her sisters, who was much bigger than her, now is much smaller. Or her other one, who was taller than both of them, now is the shortest. None of their growth chart patterns meant anything, but if I'd let it bother me, I suppose I could have walked around worrying a whole lot for many years and trying to give all three of them different foods to try to force them to fit properly into the dumb chart, then maybe they'd all be really screwed up right now with their eating, huh?

Everyone needs to quit with the silly growth charts and diets and eating junk and counting calories and stuff. If kids just eat normal and exercise, they'll be perfectly fine. They don't all need to be the same, they may be all over the growth chart, they may be off the dumb thing, but it doesn't mean they aren't healthy. Just look at the kid and use some common sense!

 

Obesity is a big problem these days--it won't get better if it becomes politically incorrect to address the problem.

 

Sure ...



Take your pick. But I want 'em back in one piece. With no belly button lint, please.

 

Did you have to use the word 'big'? :tongue3: :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

 

Ewwwww! Keep 'em! :tongue3:

 

Use the calipers that are on your POVs brakes! :laugh::laugh: