Cycling UK Forum

seems like it is better than BMI

get a piece of string measure your height then half it, all the way around should be less than that

ie waist to height ratio

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062c0tf?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=bbcone&intc_campaign=bigonbbcone&intc_linkname=vidclip_stringtestobesity_contentcard1

I’m 12 stone and slightly overweight, and didn’t do well at all on that test.
A couple of years ago I dieted and eventually weighed in at 11 stone and seriously think I wouldn’t have passed it then.

35" waist and 5ft 9" tall.
That makes 35 vs 69 but I tend to stoop, but if I try stand better and put my shoulders back, I could be 5ft 10".
35 vs 70.

BMI isn't so good though.

Things like this are silly.

Our perceptions of fat are culturally driven. Unless someone is clinically obese, they are likely to have a better health outcome than someone who is underweight, and no different than someone who is 'normal' weight. A couple of generations ago 'pleasingly plump' was a thing.

Vorpal wrote:Things like this are silly.

Our perceptions of fat are culturally driven. Unless someone is clinically obese, they are likely to have a better health outcome than someone who is underweight, and no different than someone who is 'normal' weight. A couple of generations ago 'pleasingly plump' was a thing.

I think thing is to be the correct weight for your body shape. Some are tall and skinny, such as me. If my waist to height was 50% I’d be over weight, it is in fact 42%. However for a shorter, squatter body shape, my waist/height ratio would be underweight. These general rules of thumb are dangerous and should carry a health warning.

Mick F wrote:35" waist and 5ft 9" tall.
That makes 35 vs 69 but I tend to stoop, but if I try stand better and put my shoulders back, I could be 5ft 10".
35 vs 70.

BMI isn't so good though.

BMI's nonsense for some. Shows me at obese. Put me on a set of body analysis scales (of course I have some ) and my body fat is sub 20% and perfectly healthy, with all other vital signs good, too.

Vorpal wrote:Things like this are silly.

Our perceptions of fat are culturally driven. Unless someone is clinically obese, they are likely to have a better health outcome than someone who is underweight, and no different than someone who is 'normal' weight. A couple of generations ago 'pleasingly plump' was a thing.

ah you failed the test then Yes you may be right, doesnt mean it is healthy though A lot of things are culturally driven, like the subjugation of women..

The interesting point I remember was that a certain proportion of people who pass the BMI test actually fail the string test, so may be a better test. As the test pointed out its the fat around the organs thats the trouble, doesnt really matter if you have fat buttocks?

My BMI is 22, which is middle to the top of the healthy range given for my 10 stone 5 pounds, 5' 8" and 30" waist which passes the string test with ease. Even when I was "fat" (BMI 25.5) at 12 stone and 34" waist I would still have passed the string test. I suspect this is another invalid guide simply meant to grab attention and be easy to (mis)understand.

Vorpal wrote:
Our perceptions of fat are culturally driven - A couple of generations ago 'pleasingly plump' was a thing.

Well, I'm fat by my standards at the moment. 24.2BMI andI a 34" waist, rather than the 36.5" calculated via the string test But my standards aren't culturally driven; they're driven by the fact that when I do a 23 mile walk in the Lakes as in yesterday, or 2 hours down the gym this morning, or 60 miles on the bike this afternoon I prefer to move at some speed. And dropping 3kg's is not only far cheaper than buying a carbon bike or super light rucksack (As carried by all the plump humans struggling to move uphill yesterday), it always feels more pleasing.

And aside from that, having to share an office with five others at the moment, two of whom are fat is revealing. It's impossible not to notice that the heavy breathing, smell of sweat and great hacking cough routines originate from the fat women (28 hacking coughs in a 30 minute period, when I last counted). It's revealing that none in the office of "normal" weight have picked up great hacking coughs in the space of a four month period. Nor do none of a "normal" weight feel a need to have the office at a temperature of 28-29 degrees centrigrade, attempting to bring in extra heaters and great, heavy, fat covering cardigans to maintain body temperature. And I suppose from a cycling perspective, do none of a "normal" weight feel the need to drive 800 metres into work.

There's nothing wrong with my weight - I'm just 3" too short at the moment!

mercalia wrote:

Vorpal wrote:Things like this are silly.

Our perceptions of fat are culturally driven. Unless someone is clinically obese, they are likely to have a better health outcome than someone who is underweight, and no different than someone who is 'normal' weight. A couple of generations ago 'pleasingly plump' was a thing.

ah you failed the test then Yes you may be right, doesnt mean it is healthy though A lot of things are culturally driven, like the subjugation of women..

The interesting point I remember was that a certain proportion of people who pass the BMI test actually fail the string test, so may be a better test. As the test pointed out its the fat around the organs thats the trouble, doesnt really matter if you have fat buttocks?

As it happens I 'pass' this test, even though I 'fail' the BMI one.

My point is though, that there is *no* evidence that someone whose waist is more than half their height is anymore unhealthy that someone whose waist is less than half their height. There is no 'fail' when w it comes to things like this. The medical establishment use things like this. They also have charts and things. The biggest problem with this stuff is that it's just practice. Studies have shown that people who are 'overweight' have the same health outcomes as people who are 'normal' weight, and that 'underweight' is associated with slightly worse health outcomes. Some studies show the same outcomes for clinically obese people as 'normal' weight. This occurs in studies of older people. Some studies show better health outcomes for people who are 'overweight' than any other weight classification.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865852/
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/02/heal ... index.html

So, why does the medical establishment continue to insist that people need to lose weight? I can understand when people have specific health issues that are correlated to being overweight, such as Type 2 diabetes. Even then, it is likely that it isn't the weight that is the problem, but diet and lack of exercise. So, it's fair enough to my mind for a GP to tell their patient to lose weight to help specific medical issues. Not otherwise. Not until they produce some evidence that it makes an iota of difference.

It far worse to my mind for our culture to idolize the perfect figure. The harm that does to young people, and girls and women, in particular is enourmous. Many young women have low self esteem because other judge their bodies.

More string vest than string test.

Vorpal wrote:
So, why does the medical establishment continue to insist that people need to lose weight? I can understand when people have specific health issues that are correlated to being overweight, such as Type 2 diabetes. Even then, it is likely that it isn't the weight that is the problem, but diet and lack of exercise.

Weight might be a good indicator of diet and exercise so in a way the doctors might be right. I havea feeling too that doctors are really referring to gross overweight - i.e. obesity and in this case weight really does matter.

horizon wrote:
Weight might be a good indicator of diet and exercise so in a way the doctors might be right. I havea feeling too that doctors are really referring to gross overweight - i.e. obesity and in this case weight really does matter.

Does it? How do you know?

I'm not trying to deny that there are *some* health issues that are significantly negatively impacted by bein overweight or obese. But I'm not convinced that either is a bad as they are made out to be, and the stigma associated with it can be far worse for someone than the health issues.

And it's not just people who are grossly overweight, either.

I know a couple of people who have had concerns about some medical issue ignored or dismissed because they were moderately 'overweight' and that was seen as the cause for their problems. One of them has reflux, an easily diagnosed and treated condition. In her case, it is do to something she was born with. Yet, she was told for years, that it was nothing and she should lose weight & eat less fatty foods. Reflux ignored, can lead to cancer in the esophagus. Luckily, she found a (private) specialist who was willing to believe that she might have a treatable medical condition that was not due to her being overweight, and treat it before it caused worse problems.

The other person I know needed hormone therapy, but was told for years that her problems were due to being overweight. When she finally got treatment, it made a significant difference to her life, and her capability to function normally.

This kind of bias causes harm, never mind the fat-shaming that media and even individuals engage in. Furthermore, few people choose to be obese, and there are many more factors than just diet and exercise that impact it.

Did you look at the links in my previous post?

horizon wrote:

Vorpal wrote:
So, why does the medical establishment continue to insist that people need to lose weight? I can understand when people have specific health issues that are correlated to being overweight, such as Type 2 diabetes. Even then, it is likely that it isn't the weight that is the problem, but diet and lack of exercise.

Weight might be a good indicator of diet and exercise so in a way the doctors might be right. I havea feeling too that doctors are really referring to gross overweight - i.e. obesity and in this case weight really does matter.

It’s not just the visually obese. We treat a lot of patients who are what’s now known as TOFI’s Thin Outside, Fat Inside. BMI is slightly crude but works well for the bulk of the population.