Are You Normal-Weight Obese?

I think I've only ever seen one of those, my cousin, who spent years doing cabbage soup diet/regain/repeat. In 3 years, she gained about 3 clothing sizes while at the "thin" weight doing that, it was amazing. I've never seen someone's body change that much.

"Once again - the BMI is shown to be a poor indicator of body composition and health risk."

This would be suggested by this study if it showed that NWO were a significant percentage of the poplulation. It would not be shown if that were not the case. The abstract linked to doesn't specify this -- only that they found 20 women

... some of who (an unspecified number) who were NWO. No indication of how many women were gone through before they found the NWO women is given.

Since the BMI was specifically developed from a regression analysis of body fat measured through highly accurate techniques vs. the BMI technique, and the correlation was found to be high, it seems unlikely that there are a high percentage of NWO women in the world.

The "poor indicator" reference probably refers to a recent Canadian study that determined that one type of heart attack risk correlates closer to waist-height-ratio than to BMI.

Read beyond the headlines people: the BMI is very accurate in determining obesity and its health risks in the vast majority of people, and if you aren't an extremely muscular athlete, you should trust it.

In response to Mark's comment that we should trust the BMI, I've learned the hard way not to trust it.

I've always been considered a "big girl" because of my physique. My grand-pa called me "La Roche" (the rock) as a child because it's like my feet were stuck to the floor. I look at pictures of me as a child and I was definatly not fat. You can see ribs and collar bones.

My BMI for my height and weight are 32.7 but I had my body fat calculated with the lovely machines they have now and I have a 26% body fat. That's a pretty huge difference.

Even as a teenager when I was so fit I had stop menstruating, I was still considered overweight. I think they need to use the machines more often. The charts are useless as soon as you have any form of muscle.

Maybe they are good to let people know they should be doing something about their physical fitness but not to classify people. It doesn't work.

The machines could also figure out who is NWO.

I don't know why people get so hung up on BMI - whether for or against it. The BMI is just "one" of many tools that can be used. It is a useful indicator - it is not diagnostic - nor is it meant to be, but it can be useful in helping you figure out if you need to pay more attention to your health. No one makes a diagnosis based on BMI alone.

I think about BMI, that because real people are not made from cylinders of constant uniform density, but rather of different tissues in varying proportions, actual BMI calculations can give perplexing results.

Mark said:
Read beyond the headlines people: the BMI is very accurate in determining obesity and its health risks in the vast majority of people, and if you aren't an extremely muscular athlete, you should trust it. [...]

But, if there's a more accurate measure, like body fat percentage, that fits all of the population, why not use that instead? Indeed, for someone like me, always striving for progression while weight lifting, the BMI becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Genn, and I don't have anywhere close to a proper body fat reading on the machines that do it through an electric current. I retain a lot of fluids, and my body fat result on those is always something around 37%, where a caliper measurement or a water movement measurement will show it is around 21-22%.

So that reminds me: if they measured these people's body fat through the electric current, then add me to the NWO category.

Jan said:
So that reminds me: if they measured these people's body fat through the electric current, then add me to the NWO category.[...]

I think many doctors are using scans - abdominal fat deep in the mid-section doesn't register wtih calipers and it's that fat that is most deadly.

As I said earlier, the BMI index and the scale is obsolete. Because there are heavy people who have high muscle mass, but low-fat mass. So, the answer is: Your waistline is the most important than your weight.

Regina W said:
I think many doctors are using scans - abdominal fat deep in the mid-section doesn't register wtih calipers and it's that fat that is most deadly.
[...]

I've always read that the water movement test is widely regarded as the most accurate one, and yet I always register around 12% higher on the scan tests. I also refuse to believe they are the accurate ones and that I have that much abdominal fat - my waist is 27" and it is clear just by looking at me that I carry my body fat on my arms and legs, not on the abdomen. The trainers/doctors using the scans always told me that they were very accurate and that the extra 12% must have been hiding in my mid-section, when that goes against all common sense.

Jan said:
using the scans always told me that they were very accurate and that the extra 12% must have been hiding in my mid-section, when that goes against all common sense.[...]

This article (from December) included some really interesting scans:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JLHQ1QSMYZOPTQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/health/2006/12/21/ftfat121.xml

I'm probably the exact opposite of NWO. I'm normal weight, but only around 12-13% fat. I usually use the calipers test, only because I can do it at home and it's fairly accurate. I'm pretty sure weighing under water is the best way to figure BF%, but it's fairly expensive to have it done.

I had a really good friend in college that was NWO. She was Asian (I don't know if that had anything to do with it) and even though she was only 125 lbs and 5'2", she was something like 35-37% body fat. She looked a bit heavy and definitely wore a bigger size (she wore 10-12) than I did at that weight (Although I'm 5'3", when I was 125, I was in a 6). It just goes to show you that BMI is definitely not a good indicator of overall health in many cases.

I'm probably normal weight obese since I am 5'3" and 105 lbs but I am still disgustingly fat.

this makes no sense,
so these are basically fat people who are in shape then?
huh?

Meme said:
so these are basically fat people who are in shape then?[...]

It's basically that there are people whom, as measured by BMI, would be classed "normal weight" but whom have a high percentage of body fat and/or too much visceral fat in the abdomen despite their normal weight.

That is interesting, about the bacteria. But would internal fat not be measureable in the water movement test? Does it respond only to the current?

I meant, that article and the other one linked in it was also interesting.

In that particular study, they used MRIs, but in this one linked here originally, they don't say how the body fat was measured.

I think there are other things to consider such as bone desnity. I don't think that people consider this one often. Muscle is more recognizable as a source of added weight. For example, i'm a mere 4'11 and 3/4. I weigh 105lbs, even though people think I look lighter. (And I really do) I am not only very muscular, but, my bone size is equivalent with someone who is at least 6" taller than me....it's true.

I tend to go by how I feel generally, how toned or chubby I look in the mirror, what I am eating and how much cardio I am doing. Being a woman, I also take into account the time of the month as this can add up to 7 lbs for a couple of days. I think most people can tell whether or not they are fit/slim/healthy by simply using their common sense these days. There is enough information out there for us to know whether we are eating too much junk food/fizzy drinks and getting enough exercise. I know I am generally in good health and any medical check ups confirm this, but I know I could always lose a couple of pounds if I want to look amazingly fit. I could also add more weight training and get super-toned arms and legs, but my general health is most important to me and anything else at this point would be purely cosmetic. Body shape also plays a factor. I am lucky enough to carry any spare weight on my hips and thighs and have always had a flat stomach, even when I was 10 lbs overweight in college. Other people may not be so lucky though and an extra 10 lbs carried around the waist would put them more at risk of health problems. I guess at the end of the day you need to be in touch with your own body and it's needs and take a balanced view instead of obssessing or becoming complacent/lazy. I find that the less I think about it, the healthier my lifestyle is. The minute I get paranoid over counting calories or fat intake or whatever (as I'm sure we all do from time to time), the cravings begin and it all just seems too much of a chore. Just relax and listen to your body and have fun!

My five year old daughter is at risk for being overweight. per the BMI calculation. She looks so solid to me, her bone structure is solid, and her muscles are strong. Do I really need to pay attention to the BMI?

sara said:
My five year old daughter is at risk for being overweight. per the BMI calculation. She looks so solid to me, her bone structure is solid, and her muscles are strong. Do I really need to pay attention to the BMI?[...]

BMI is bad enough for adults, but it's complete crap for children. Pay it no mind. If her height and weight percentiles are similar to each other, she's fine.

bmi and scales can not accurately tell us how much fat or muscle is present in the body. Neither can it tell us the bone ,blood,water ,fluid content.The best indicator is waist , hip and bust or chest measurement . Fat takes up more space than muscle n when a person gains weight his or her body expands. FAT TAKES 20% more space than muscle.Also when a person loses weight his muscle content increases n so does his or her weight in scales but his or her waist measurement decreases. Muscles weigh 3 times more than fat.

I guess I would fall into the category of a 'normal weight obese' person. I volunteered to be a control subject in an arthritis study, and once of the tests done on me was a DXA scan.

My body fat showed up as 37.7%! I am 173cm, and 66kgs which is a BMI of 22. My waist to hip ratio is also normal. Most people describe me and looking fit and slim! I exercise every day and eat very healthily.

A few years ago I used to be 106kgs and lost 40kgs so I think that might have something to do with it.

Wierd huh! I have to get a follow up scan for the study in 2 years so I have a goal of lowering my percentage by 10% by that time. I hope that's achievable....