geo wrote: The latest study you present
http://m.eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/c ... rtj.ehw221 can be a bit disheartening to those of us that have worked hard to get down to the 21 BMI range, i.e., working for optimal health and life extension. For myself it was a lot of work to get there, thinking that I was doing about as good as I ccould. Now, it appears that maybe a little more work is in order. But better knowing now than later... and I enjoy a good challenge
![smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
I understand that the data shows only relative values as to health gain between the lowest level and the next, so it would have been more helpful to show absolute values, but it is what it is.
Whats not clear is if the data could be extrapolated to those of us of older age than the study's "teenage" group. Is it possible that as we age that it becomes even more important to get to that 18.5-20 BMI level? Do you know of any data that may give us a clue to this?.
I wouldn't stress to much over it. If you review all the articles in the Optimum BMI thread, there is no clear consensus that 20 or less is the ideal. Remember, these kind of studies are not able to show direct causal relationships, only casual relationships and associations. Yes, consistent associations over time, begin to show a picture but that picture must be further tested.
So, to me, this above study reinforces the overall message of the original thread, that if obtained through a healthy lifestyle and diet, that being in the lower range of the normal range, regardless if that is 18.5 to 20, or 18.5 to 22 or 18.5 to 19.5 etc.
![smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
If I was in your shoes, I would not lose any sleep over an exact number but feel all the efforts I have made have put me in the right "area" without knowing the exact perfect spot (which doesn't exist).
Same as I explained in another thread, that a total cholesterol of </= 150 is not a guaranteed protection form heart disease.
I would also recommend you review this thread, where this topic came up earlier
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=46837&p=482749#p482749geo wrote: Another issue that bothers me is that these BMI levels never mention % Body Fat levels. I've always wonder why this is so and would one be healthier if they were at a BMI of 18.5-20 with 15% BF or with 10% BF? Of course the argument might be how did you achieve those BF levels, i.e., exercise, natural bone structure/body type, greater/lesser muscle mass, genetics, etc...
Yes, these things can matter. Line up 100 men who are exactly your age, height and weight and they would all have different body types, looks, builds, and % body fat, etc. And, I have posted some info showing that excess weight (not excess within normal range) regardless if it is from extra muscle, may still have health consequences. However, for most Americans, especially the 73% who are overweight and obese, I doubt this is an issue. So, while BMI often gets knocked, there is virtually no data for the benefit of % body fat.
Remember, BMI is **only** a "marker" and a "screening" tool and not a diagnostic tool. As a screening tool, it has to be one that can easily be obtained. Height and weight require virtually no intervention and/or assistance. Most people know their height and weight and/or can easily step on one inexpensive piece of equipment and get both numbers fairly accurately (the old doctors scale which is used at many health screenings). Waist circumference, body fat % etc, starts bringing in more complexity, more technology, more expenses and less accuracy unless done by trained people in a consistent manner (where exactly do you measure waist circumference, or pinch the calipers, and how much tension on the measuring tape, etc etc).
There have been studies done that while these other two numbers are important, when they do BMI, waist circumference, waist/ht, etc, none of them come out to be a better predictor than BMI alone. So, the easiest way to screen a large population is BMI and that is why it is used.
So, at the screening, if you are outside the healthy zone, or close to it, or the screener thinks there may be an issue (body fat, etc), you would be recommended for further evaluation.
All of this information only reinforces my first comment above and the one in the linked thread...
In Health
Jeff