Results tagged “BMI” from iVillage - Madelyn Fernstrom
We all know what to do to lose weight, right? So, why, as a nation, do we continue to put on extra pounds year after year? A new report from the Center for Disease Control revealed that nearly two-thirds of states now have adult obesity rates of about 25%. That's 1 in 4 people. Plus weight is creeping up in all age groups - particularly troubling when it comes to children and adolescents.
Maybe an important area to revisit is just how we determine "obesity". For many years, it was the eyeballing approach - do I "look" fat, or "feel" fat, or have health problems which seem to accompany extra weight? Multiple large scale studies have strongly linked increasing weight with increasing health risk. This has been based on body mass index or BMI (What's your BMI?), a term linking height and weight for a single number used as the marker comparing weight and likelihood of diseases (like high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol). Your BMI translates in number that classifies you as healthy, overweight, and obese. You don't have to look particularly "heavy" to be classified as medically obese. In fact, many "overweight" folks agree they want to "lose a few pounds", but don't feel this is a health issue, since they have no medical illness related to their weight.
The big problem here is automatically translating population statistics to our own personal situation. While the BMI has been a major plus in helping to assess overweight and obesity in this country, we've gotten too caught up in the numbers, and not enough in the constellation of factors that also contribute to good health.
New research studies update national health recommendations. But what does that mean for excess weight? It's often forgotten that a number of years ago, a BMI of 27 or less was considered a "heathy" weight. Now, recent large-scale population studies showed that a BMI of less than 25 was now the healthy range. So overnight an entire segment of the population became overweight, without gaining a pound.
While weight is a major barometer of good health, I think it's time we took a broader look at what "counts". I think it's unrealistic for many people to get below a BMI of 25. When the bar is set too high, most of us give up and do nothing. It's just too defeating. We've got to get away from the "all of nothing approach", to the "something is better than nothing approach".
We need to return to a more realistic way of looking at the weight issue. It's the big picture that counts - including blood pressure, blood sugar, blood fats, and the lifestyle activities that support them (eating, activity, no smoking, stress control), with weight being one of the factors, but not the only focus.
Choosing a realistic weight as a healthy one should be the major focus, rather than an idealized weight. For many people, a BMI of less than 25 is not going to be a reality. We need to think more about a goal weight that we are able to maintain (not just achieve!) to support good health and avoid the endless round of self-defeating weight loss and regain episodes.
That's an important step in the right direction, to combating this very real epidemic. Let's use the BMI as a guideline, but not the sole replacement to evaluation of good health.
There are many ways to work at good health. Do you agree? Leave a comment below.
Maybe an important area to revisit is just how we determine "obesity". For many years, it was the eyeballing approach - do I "look" fat, or "feel" fat, or have health problems which seem to accompany extra weight? Multiple large scale studies have strongly linked increasing weight with increasing health risk. This has been based on body mass index or BMI (What's your BMI?), a term linking height and weight for a single number used as the marker comparing weight and likelihood of diseases (like high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol). Your BMI translates in number that classifies you as healthy, overweight, and obese. You don't have to look particularly "heavy" to be classified as medically obese. In fact, many "overweight" folks agree they want to "lose a few pounds", but don't feel this is a health issue, since they have no medical illness related to their weight.The big problem here is automatically translating population statistics to our own personal situation. While the BMI has been a major plus in helping to assess overweight and obesity in this country, we've gotten too caught up in the numbers, and not enough in the constellation of factors that also contribute to good health.
New research studies update national health recommendations. But what does that mean for excess weight? It's often forgotten that a number of years ago, a BMI of 27 or less was considered a "heathy" weight. Now, recent large-scale population studies showed that a BMI of less than 25 was now the healthy range. So overnight an entire segment of the population became overweight, without gaining a pound.
While weight is a major barometer of good health, I think it's time we took a broader look at what "counts". I think it's unrealistic for many people to get below a BMI of 25. When the bar is set too high, most of us give up and do nothing. It's just too defeating. We've got to get away from the "all of nothing approach", to the "something is better than nothing approach".
We need to return to a more realistic way of looking at the weight issue. It's the big picture that counts - including blood pressure, blood sugar, blood fats, and the lifestyle activities that support them (eating, activity, no smoking, stress control), with weight being one of the factors, but not the only focus.
Choosing a realistic weight as a healthy one should be the major focus, rather than an idealized weight. For many people, a BMI of less than 25 is not going to be a reality. We need to think more about a goal weight that we are able to maintain (not just achieve!) to support good health and avoid the endless round of self-defeating weight loss and regain episodes.
That's an important step in the right direction, to combating this very real epidemic. Let's use the BMI as a guideline, but not the sole replacement to evaluation of good health.
There are many ways to work at good health. Do you agree? Leave a comment below.
What if you heard that you could eat less, and live longer? Sound too good to be true? There's been a lot of buzz for the past few decades (in fact since the 1930s) about what's called "caloric restriction", and how it promotes longevity. Both Wired (July 9) and the New York Times (Friday, July 10) recently revisited this topic.
Early studies in mice, and newer studies in monkeys seem to suggest that when caloric intake is cut by about one third of what would be considered "normal" to maintain a healthy weight, that these animals live longer. Cutting calories by 30% is a big decrease, and significant weight loss occurs; the big debate is whether it's a healthy way to live.
In humans, there's a caloric restriction society, whose members adhere to this way of eating. To me, the folks look excessively thin (a BMI in the "unhealthy" range), but claim to be energized, feel great, and report excellent physical health.
This isn't about weight loss, and reducing calories to remain in a stable weight range (the kind of caloric restriction most of us deal with on a daily basis). This is cutting significant calories from your maintenance calories. For example, if you eat 1800 calories daily, to remain at a certain weight, within a healthy range, you'd voluntarily consume about 1200 calories daily, as a "calorie restrictor". This is not anorexia - although weight loss occurs in all people doing this (not a surprise!). People DO eat, and work hard at maintaining a healthy diet.
While there's no guarantee that calorie restriction promotes longevity in humans (the society members DO believe this), the newest 20-year study in monkeys suggests that this appears to be true in primates (monkeys and humans are in this class together), and not just mice. While the mechanism(s) by which this might be occurring are currently unknown, multiple studies are ongoing to continue to explore this phenomenon.
Would you cut your maintenance calories by a third, to live longer? I'd love to know your thoughts.
Early studies in mice, and newer studies in monkeys seem to suggest that when caloric intake is cut by about one third of what would be considered "normal" to maintain a healthy weight, that these animals live longer. Cutting calories by 30% is a big decrease, and significant weight loss occurs; the big debate is whether it's a healthy way to live.
In humans, there's a caloric restriction society, whose members adhere to this way of eating. To me, the folks look excessively thin (a BMI in the "unhealthy" range), but claim to be energized, feel great, and report excellent physical health.
This isn't about weight loss, and reducing calories to remain in a stable weight range (the kind of caloric restriction most of us deal with on a daily basis). This is cutting significant calories from your maintenance calories. For example, if you eat 1800 calories daily, to remain at a certain weight, within a healthy range, you'd voluntarily consume about 1200 calories daily, as a "calorie restrictor". This is not anorexia - although weight loss occurs in all people doing this (not a surprise!). People DO eat, and work hard at maintaining a healthy diet.
While there's no guarantee that calorie restriction promotes longevity in humans (the society members DO believe this), the newest 20-year study in monkeys suggests that this appears to be true in primates (monkeys and humans are in this class together), and not just mice. While the mechanism(s) by which this might be occurring are currently unknown, multiple studies are ongoing to continue to explore this phenomenon.
Would you cut your maintenance calories by a third, to live longer? I'd love to know your thoughts.
I was in Washington DC last week, at the National Academy of Sciences, to discuss the unique needs of women when it comes to weight loss research. This was an important meeting, since the committee's directive was to provide a report to Congress on the state of women's health research, and what directions should be addressed in the future. Multiple topics on women's health were addressed, and I talked about obesity and eating disorders.
When it comes to weight control, it's clear that "one size does not fit all" for both men and women. But there are gender specific issues, many of which we are all familiar. Besides the biological differences (testosterone and muscle mass), women have many separate issues related to weight control, which have nothing to do with biology, and are connected to eating behavior, stress management, and other environmental (portion size) and behavioral (social) factors.
So, how can clinical research address these topics? It's important to have controlled research studies, to document recommendations made to the public, that are true, and based on evidence gathered in hundreds or thousands of women. This is an important distinction from personal stories and anecdotes, that cannot be the basis of widespread advice that works for most people. A personal story works for one person, and that's a great thing, but cannot usually be translated to others.
Like it or not, as women we are experienced multi-taskers and need a lifestyle plan that can support this is a realistic manner. While the perfect world option of eating 7-9 servings of produce a day and exercising for an hour daily sounds appealing, most of us struggle with that concept on a daily basis. Science and research reap great benefits for improving our health, but sometimes the bar can be set too high, based on "perfect world" research. While we all strive for a more healthful lifestyle, when the bar is set too high, for "optimum health", we all tend to give up and do nothing.
I think the message for weight control is a lifelong acceptance of moderation. The goal is to avoid having to lose weight at all, rather the effort goes into just "not gaining". That's a hard task, and takes a much work as losing weight. Plus, working on an earlier point of intervention where there's just 10 or 20 pounds to lose makes the lifestyle effort more sustainable. When it comes to weight loss, it's never too late. A jump-start on early intervention and prevention is the key.
What thoughts do you have on combating obesity? Leave a comment below.
When it comes to weight control, it's clear that "one size does not fit all" for both men and women. But there are gender specific issues, many of which we are all familiar. Besides the biological differences (testosterone and muscle mass), women have many separate issues related to weight control, which have nothing to do with biology, and are connected to eating behavior, stress management, and other environmental (portion size) and behavioral (social) factors.
So, how can clinical research address these topics? It's important to have controlled research studies, to document recommendations made to the public, that are true, and based on evidence gathered in hundreds or thousands of women. This is an important distinction from personal stories and anecdotes, that cannot be the basis of widespread advice that works for most people. A personal story works for one person, and that's a great thing, but cannot usually be translated to others.
Like it or not, as women we are experienced multi-taskers and need a lifestyle plan that can support this is a realistic manner. While the perfect world option of eating 7-9 servings of produce a day and exercising for an hour daily sounds appealing, most of us struggle with that concept on a daily basis. Science and research reap great benefits for improving our health, but sometimes the bar can be set too high, based on "perfect world" research. While we all strive for a more healthful lifestyle, when the bar is set too high, for "optimum health", we all tend to give up and do nothing.
I think the message for weight control is a lifelong acceptance of moderation. The goal is to avoid having to lose weight at all, rather the effort goes into just "not gaining". That's a hard task, and takes a much work as losing weight. Plus, working on an earlier point of intervention where there's just 10 or 20 pounds to lose makes the lifestyle effort more sustainable. When it comes to weight loss, it's never too late. A jump-start on early intervention and prevention is the key.
What thoughts do you have on combating obesity? Leave a comment below.
