Prev: Anybody excercise with their pet?
Next: I just lost 18 pounds
From: nonfiction.notes on 18 Jun 2008 23:23
In the last 48 hours, because of the death of Tim Russert, I have
watched or read news stories about the importance of hip to waist, or
waist to height ratios.
So, which one is it? Hip or height? Both. the best reading?
Secondly, I have seen and read reports that the waist is measured 1)
at its smallest point, just above the belly button in many people 2)
at the belly button and 3) just above the hip bone which is just
below
the belly button. Um, so which is it?
And thank you news media for being so consistent in the information
you disseminate, jeeze.
From: joeu2004 on 19 Jun 2008 02:58
On Jun 18, 8:23 pm, nonfiction.no...(a)gmail.com wrote:
> In the last 48 hours, because of the death of Tim Russert,
> I have watched or read news stories about the importance
> of hip to waist, or waist to height ratios. So, which one is it?
> Hip or height?

Neither, actually. Such measurements are intended for __triage__.
That is, they exist to allow doctors to know when they should pay
closer attention to see if you really have a problem. All of the
various indexes -- e.g. weight/height, waist/height and waist/hip
ratios -- are needed to give a complete picture of your condition.
But even then, they should be used only for triage purposes.


> Secondly, I have seen and read reports that the waist is measured 1)
> at its smallest point, just above the belly button in many people 2)
> at the belly button and 3) just above the hip bone which is just
> below the belly button. Um, so which is it?

It really does not matter. They are all equally inaccurate
measurements.

Just to add to the confusion, recent studies suggest that it is chest
fat, more than waist fat, that matters most. So expect to hear about
chest/height "body fat" indexes soon. (Sigh.)

The best way to measure fat is by more direct means such as calipers,
electric impedance (BIA), infrared (NIR), hydrostatic (water
immersion) and DEXA (imaging). Although people debate which methods
are best or worst, all of the methods can be used effectively -- and
ineffectively -- to monitor relative fat content.

It is equally important -- probably more important -- to pay close
attention to your blood chemistry. High "bad" cholesterol, low "good"
cholesterol, high triglycerides and high glucose (and I leaving one or
two out by mistake) are the best indicators of all of potential
problems, together with poor fitness factors such as inability to
climb stairs or walk long distances without getting out of breath.
From: nonfiction.notes on 20 Jun 2008 03:27
On Jun 19, 4:58 pm, joeu2004 <joeu2...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 8:23 pm, nonfiction.no...(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
> > In the last 48 hours, because of the death of Tim Russert,
> > I have watched or read news stories about the importance
> > of hip to waist, or waist to height ratios.  So, which one is it?
> > Hip or height?
>
> Neither, actually.  Such measurements are intended for __triage__.
> That is, they exist to allow doctors to know when they should pay
> closer attention to see if you really have a problem.  All of the
> various indexes -- e.g. weight/height, waist/height and waist/hip
> ratios -- are needed to give a complete picture of your condition.
> But even then, they should be used only for triage purposes.
>
> > Secondly, I have seen and read reports that the waist is measured 1)
> > at its smallest point, just above the belly button in many people 2)
> > at the belly button and 3) just above the hip bone which is just
> > below the belly button. Um, so which is it?
>
> It really does not matter.  They are all equally inaccurate
> measurements.
>
> Just to add to the confusion, recent studies suggest that it is chest
> fat, more than waist fat, that matters most.  So expect to hear about
> chest/height "body fat" indexes soon.  (Sigh.)
>
> The best way to measure fat is by more direct means such as calipers,
> electric impedance (BIA), infrared (NIR), hydrostatic (water
> immersion) and DEXA (imaging).  Although people debate which methods
> are best or worst, all of the methods can be used effectively -- and
> ineffectively -- to monitor relative fat content.
>
> It is equally important -- probably more important -- to pay close
> attention to your blood chemistry.  High "bad" cholesterol, low "good"
> cholesterol, high triglycerides and high glucose (and I leaving one or
> two out by mistake) are the best indicators of all of potential
> problems, together with poor fitness factors such as inability to
> climb stairs or walk long distances without getting out of breath.

Yeah, that's what I sort of figured. But the chest fat thing is new to
me, and a few others I mentioned this. Any cites? I know decades ago
they thought estradiol was a heart risk, but that was debunked.
From: joeu2004 on 20 Jun 2008 23:11
On Jun 20, 12:27 am, nonfiction.no...(a)gmail.com wrote:
> the chest fat thing is new to me, and a few others I mentioned this.
> Any cites?

Not off-hand. Just something I remember reading recently from
credible sources.

> I know decades ago they thought estradiol was a heart risk,
> but that was debunked.

Yeah. That's why it is best not to (over-)react to any new studies.
I mentioned it only to make the point that the medical community
cannot decide what triage methodologies work best.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Anybody excercise with their pet?
Next: I just lost 18 pounds