How do I lose 5 pounds in 7 days?

[garbon]

Anybody said 'listen to your body' yet?

Sorry wasn't in Cosmo's suggestions.

[HVC]

I'm not advocating anything.  I'm just taking exception to calling something that's imperfect useless.  There is a world of difference between imperfect and useless, and lots of really stupid conclusions are being drawn when those two words are used interchangeably. 

Obviously something that's less imperfect is better than something that's more imperfect at predicting stuff, though as Malthus points out, other considerations need to be given weight as well.

I believe that in this case - determining an individual's health - this means is, indeed, worthless for any number of individuals.

but they're not determining your health, they're determining your risk. Under that understanding then from an insurance point BMI is a valid tool. Statistically (yell at me if i'm using that term wrong, Dguller ) a higher BMI number is a predictor of future health issues. At a policy level it makes sense, though at a personal level it sucks for you.

[HVC]

Anybody said 'listen to your body' yet?

My body says "feed me". i've found that listening to my body isn't the best weight loss method.

[garbon]

Anybody said 'listen to your body' yet?

My body says "feed me". i've found that listening to my body isn't the best weight loss method.

I prefer to tell my body to deal with it and stop growling.

[garbon]

I'm not advocating anything.  I'm just taking exception to calling something that's imperfect useless.  There is a world of difference between imperfect and useless, and lots of really stupid conclusions are being drawn when those two words are used interchangeably. 

Obviously something that's less imperfect is better than something that's more imperfect at predicting stuff, though as Malthus points out, other considerations need to be given weight as well.

I believe that in this case - determining an individual's health - this means is, indeed, worthless for any number of individuals.

but they're not determining your health, they're determining your risk. Under that understanding then from an insurance point BMI is a valid tool. Statistically (yell at me if i'm using that term wrong, Dguller ) a higher BMI number is a predictor of future health issues. At a policy level it makes sense, though at a personal level it sucks for you.

I don't know. I mean look at these studies pulled from wiki:

A study published by JAMA in 2005 showed that "overweight" people had a similar relative risk of mortality to "normal" weight people as defined by BMI, while "underweight" and "obese" people had a higher death rate.

In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with "normal" BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25–29.9).

A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that BMI is not a good measure for the risk of heart attack, stroke or death. A better measure was found to be the waist-to-height ratio.

[HVC]

Meri said she was in the obese column for BMI so the higher mortality of the 2005 study stands. Coronary disease, stroke, and heart attacks can be caused by a host of other issues (yay thin smokers ). Being overweight also leads to diabetes which is a pain as far as insurers are concerned. you don't die quick, but you cost a lot of money.

I agree that BMI isn't the best method, but my contention is that it isn't useless from an insurers perspective. It's cost effective and statistically relevant. that's all they really need (a la Dgullers speeding ticket scenario).

[MadImmortalMan]

Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.

[garbon]

My point of contention is that if it isn't actually correlated with a lot of causes of mortality, it doesn't seem particularly useful.

Side note but what's this about insurers checking BMI? I've had a flurry of different insurance plans in the last few years and for most of that span haven't even had so much as a physical.

[garbon]

Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.

I guess it depends on whether or not they routinely have access to that personal info?

[sbr]

Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.

I guess it depends on whether or not they routinely have access to that personal info?

She's going in for a physical, I think that is all standard procedure there.

[derspiess]

My point of contention is that if it isn't actually correlated with a lot of causes of mortality, it doesn't seem particularly useful.

BMI is not correlated with health problems?

[garbon]

Still, it would be more statistically relevant to use an aggregate score that contains not only BMI but also cholesterol level, BP, body fat percentage, W/H ratio etc.

I guess it depends on whether or not they routinely have access to that personal info?

She's going in for a physical, I think that is all standard procedure there.

Yeah I guess I'm just wondering if the insurance company gets access to all the files.

[garbon]

My point of contention is that if it isn't actually correlated with a lot of causes of mortality, it doesn't seem particularly useful.

BMI is not correlated with health problems?

How about what you re-read what I wrote?

[DGuller]

I don't know. I mean look at these studies pulled from wiki:

A study published by JAMA in 2005 showed that "overweight" people had a similar relative risk of mortality to "normal" weight people as defined by BMI, while "underweight" and "obese" people had a higher death rate.

In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with "normal" BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25–29.9).

A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that BMI is not a good measure for the risk of heart attack, stroke or death. A better measure was found to be the waist-to-height ratio.

That doesn't invalidate BMI in the least.  If BMI were useless, these studies would show the same risk of death for all BMI values.

[garbon]

I don't know. I mean look at these studies pulled from wiki:

A study published by JAMA in 2005 showed that "overweight" people had a similar relative risk of mortality to "normal" weight people as defined by BMI, while "underweight" and "obese" people had a higher death rate.

In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with "normal" BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25–29.9).

A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that BMI is not a good measure for the risk of heart attack, stroke or death. A better measure was found to be the waist-to-height ratio.

That doesn't invalidate BMI in the least.  If BMI were useless, these studies would show the same risk of death for all BMI values.

The 2nd one lists that those with normal BMIs were more at risk to die than overweight BMIs when both had the same pre-existing condition.
The 2nd shows that it wasn't correlated with several causes of mortality nor mortality itself.

I don't think the point is to show that it has no use but that its flawed enough that some other model should be (or variables) taken into account.