Training & Nutrition - Canadian Health Professor say BMI means nothing

On CBC (Canadian Brodcasting Corperation) radio there was this phone in about BMI on Thursday.

This "expert" Professor from York University in Toronto says BMI means nothing.

He also said overweight seniors are more healthy than normal weight seniors

Fruit does not prevent cancer

Fiber does not prevent colon cancer

This guy supposedly advises the Ontario goverment on health issues and policies?

He says being physicaly fit does not increase one chances of living longer

He says it all boils down to if one is rich or poor and he bases all this on Statistics.

Poor people die younger than the richer counter parts. Rich people have more options and time which makes them more healthy. more time to relax etc. Poor people are under much more stress. which is true.

People phoned in to say this is all wrong but the professor just says the facts don't support normal weight phisically fit people living longer or being healthy.

There was this idea of people living in the west end of
Toronto having a higher rate of diabetis. He says that those people are poor and under stress of not having a secure job. that is why the diabetis

Being over weight does not have anything to do wit type 2 diabeties?

I would have thought the CBC would have had a Heart doctor to counter his argument.

so basicly being physicaly fit and eating heathly means nothing.

he say the health proffesions have a interest in promoting being healthy which = money.

What do you think?

Plus this Professor had a BMI of 27

On CBC (Canadian Brodcasting Corperation) radio there was this phone in about BMI on Thursday.This "expert" Professor from York University in Toronto says BMI means nothing.

He also said overweight seniors are more healthy than normal weight seniors

Fruit does not prevent cancer

Fiber does not prevent colon cancer

This guy supposedly advises the Ontario goverment on health issues and policies?

He says being physicaly fit does not increase one chances of living longer

He says it all boils down to if one is rich or poor and he bases all this on Statistics.

Poor people die younger than the richer counter parts. Rich people have more options and time which makes them more healthy. more time to relax etc. Poor people are under much more stress. which is true.

People phoned in to say this is all wrong but the professor just says the facts don't support normal weight phisically fit people living longer or being healthy.

There was this idea of people living in the west end of
Toronto having a higher rate of diabetis. He says that those people are poor and under stress of not having a secure job. that is why the diabetis

Being over weight does not have anything to do wit type 2 diabeties?

I would have thought the CBC would have had a Heart doctor to counter his argument.

so basicly being physicaly fit and eating heathly means nothing.

he say the health proffesions have a interest in promoting being healthy which = money.

What do you think?

Plus this Professor had a BMI of 27



http://is.rely.net/1-92-30002-l-J5ZyzmLEttvRHu47Ah02g.gif

BMI does mean nothing.

Above a certain age, having more fat is actually a good predictor of health. Skinny old people are on their way to dying. Some of what he denies has been proven very well using controlled studies, but he is right that a lot of supposed studies that magazines use to give you lifestyle advice are really just correlations that don't prove any causation.

BMI is BS...for healthy fit people. BF % is much better.

All this reads pretty stupid, if you ask me.

So if a person who has a BMI of 30 and eats what they want and does no exercise just as healthy as one who has a BMI of say 23 and is physicaly fit?

What is a person to think.

I realize the BMI is just a number.

It is probably true poor people die sooner because of lack of health care and stress.

So being over weight has nothing to do with diabeties and high blood pressure?

I work out because it helps with stress and I bike because it is fun to do.

BMI means nothing for people who work out and eat well. Unfortunately, BMI does mean a lot for the majority of the US population.

BMI means nothing for people who work out and eat well. Unfortunately, BMI does mean a lot for the majority of the US population.

+1 According to the BMI, I am "healthier" now than when I worked out every day and my body fat was half what it is now. BMI is basically a chart of ideal weights for any height. According to the BMI, all men 5'10" tall have the same ideal weight regardless of any other factors. Most people don't get that.

34% of Americans have a BMI over 30. That means nothing. Nope. Nothing at all.

Based on what this professor says we can eat drink any thing and be physical unfit as it really means nothing?

So if I eat a half pound of bacon every morning and skip my oat meal and do nothing I will just live as long as if I tried to live in a healthy way.

I see many children who are very overweight does than mean nothing?

Tell him he's a complete and total moron.

What he is saying is based on the determinants of health laid out in the Alma Ata, and the Ottawa charter on health. The biggest determinant of health on an epidemiological level is income. The lower incomes and people in poverty experience many more diseases and die earlier than people with higher incomes. There are many reasons for this which are very complex and interrelated. There is an ecological perspective that takes in many more factors than the biomedical view and the behavioral view that was espoused by the Lallonde report of 1977. Consequently this was the springboard for the the Alma Ata, and at the time it was very progressive. The behavioral view changed nothing and tended to blame the victim. Now we have a vision of health care that is based on previous declarations and the Epp report.

I think what has been said in the OP is mostly true, he is trying to get people away from the behavioral perspective and more to an ecological perspective that encompasses all the determinants of health, but the biggest one is income, as well as social status.

The Ontario Government is trying to localise the management of health care through local health integrations networks (LHINS). That is trying to use the research based initiatives for delivery of health care and that it encompasses more than just hospital visits, but health is seen as a process for everyday living. This means moving away from illness based institution care and promoting health through a population health approach. Each area has unique needs and it is the people in the community that decide how health care dollars are spent. This allows for more of a focus on primary and secondary prevention thus decreasing the need for tertiary prevention.

When he says BMI is meaningless he is correct. Maybe not for the reasons that you think. There is the effect of the community and other determinants of health and too look at BMI is useless unless you take in the other determinants of health. To quickly say it is useless is for shock value, as were some of the other statements. When used with other tools to assess the community it can paint a more complete picture.

Income is very complex in that it will affect many aspects of health. If your income is relatively good then there are a lot of basics things that are taken care of and there is no need to have the added stress. The community that one lives in also has an effect and can cause more stress as well.

I realize he may be right about BMI (being poor comes with a lot of stress) but he also dismisses the fact that keping fit and heating healthy food does any good.

He says saturated fat is not bad for you.
eating fruits and fibre does not prevent cancer.

I have heard a lot of doctors over the years say to be fit and east lots of friuts veggies and cut down on saturated fat.

Being obesse cannot be good.

Well having a percent body fat that is in bounds is probably a good thing. But BMI does not do that. BMI calls people like ultralean body builders "obese" which is simply absurd.

As for heavy people being healthier than skinny people, he is probably right. People who expire from cancer generally are very skinny. Some times a very low body weight is a consequence of massive pathology.

He is also right that eating fruit and fiber does not prevent cancer. You can do everything right and still get cancer. It might lower your odds of getting cancer but that is small comfort if you develop cancer anyway.

The thing is that if you look at societies where the intake of saturated fats is very low, heart attack rates are also extremely low. I believe the evidence for a causal link between diet and stroke and artheriosclerosis is compelling.

But heck that is Canada. If you are old enough like most people with bum tickers, you have to wait so long for surgery that you will probably expire before you get it. It is a great way of saving the system money.

BMI, at best is a statistical tool for analyzing data for a population. It shouldn't be used to categorize individuals.

In spite of the fact that I'm in decent enough shape to ride a bike fairly well, even up hills, by BMI I'm obese.

I take some comfort in the fact that Brad Pitt is also obese.

BMI, at best is a statistical tool for analyzing data for a population. It shouldn't be used to categorize individuals.

In spite of the fact that I'm in decent enough shape to ride a bike fairly well, even up hills, by BMI I'm obese.

I take some comfort in the fact that Brad Pitt is also obese.

There's no way in hell that Brad Pitt is "obese" (BMI > 30).

There's one website that claims that he is, but it's complete BS. The website is a front for the food and restaurant industry, and is a political hack job to help deflect criticism of the food industry for helping to make Americans so fat.


For the tiny minority with 30" waists and bulging biceps, who are referred to by their friends as "The Rock", BMI may not be meaningful.

But for the vast majority of Americans, if your BMI says you are "overweight" (BMI > 25), or "obese" (BMI > 30), it means you're fat.

I realize he may be right about BMI (being poor comes with a lot of stress) but he also dismisses the fact that keping fit and heating healthy food does any good.

He says saturated fat is not bad for you.
eating fruits and fibre does not prevent cancer.

I have heard a lot of doctors over the years say to be fit and east lots of friuts veggies and cut down on saturated fat.

Being obesse cannot be good.

Try to realise that he is taking an ecological approach, which is quite different from the biomedical approach or a behavioral approach. Different approaches lead to a differnt lens on the situation.

For instance, ask a cardiologist, who uses the biomedical approach, what causes a heart attack and he will say that a blocked coronary artery caused the heart attack. Ask the same question to a nurse who uses the behavioral approach and she would say that cigarette smoking, obesity, and lack of physical activity caused the heart attack. Ask a community health nurse who uses an ecological approach about what caused the heart attack and they will say that it was low income, increased stress and low social status.

If you look at epidemiological stats you will see that the poor and obese will succumb much sooner than someone who is well off and obese. There is a move away from blaming the individual and improving conditions for people on a higher level.

To look at an extreme example many homeless are not obese and may not get to eat a lot of meat but yet they have a life span that is between 20-30 years less than that of the average person in Canada

I don't believe that saturated fats are bad in of itself (not saying the same for trans fats). Many civilizations have survived on a diet high in saturated fats and do very well. Of course the meat we eat know is lazy and this meat breeds lazy people because one can just go to the freezer and not even realise what the animal actually looks like wrapped in fur.

Just try to remeber that their are many ways to look at things, it does not mean it is wrong because it is different. Long ago when people were more connected to the land there was more of an ecological perspective. It is only since the discovery of the germ theory that we have had a biomedical approach. The government did not take a behavioral approach until 1977. The ecological approach is a fairly new adoption, but it is the approach that was used for most of human civilisation and it worked very well. Now that it has been realised by the west. There is more of a connection to our environment than is appreciated and; at least a small minority in the medical community is realising this now. It is too bad that the medical establishment feels that a biological approach is the best because it lets them wield the most power in the health care community.

It is also important to remeber that the biomedical and behavioral approach are aimed at taking care of people when they are ill, the ecological approach aims to avoid the illness altogether.

Thanks Someday RN

You have a point and I never quite looked at the situation this way.

I guess a balanced open mind to differnt ways of looking at the world.

We have to agree once a civilization adopts the Wests fast food habits they become heavier.
We just take in too much of the wrong kinds of fats.

Thanks Someday RN


Thanks too SomedayRN.



We have to agree once a civilization adopts the Wests fast food habits they become heavier.
We just take in too much of the wrong kinds of fats.

True on the first part,but don't limit it to just FAST FOOD habits. Research has shown that adapting our diet habits in general increases rates of obesity and related diseases in other populations. Also, you are WAY too limiting on the second part. We take in too many calories in general, and too many from poor/bad sources, not enough fruits/veg/whole grains, and live a life that lacks enough physical activity.

No problem.

Something else you may find interesting is the health of immigrants. When they come over to North America they are usually healthier then the average North American. Then within 10 years after some assimilation has happened their health becomes equal to that of the average North American.

BMI has always been a loose indicator for healthy, fit people who exercise often. For most of the working population (or so it seems), BMI is actually a pretty good indicator of their health. If 34% of Americans have a BMI above 30, then the next question is how many of those Americans are on intensive exercise regimens that warrant such high numbers? If that number is low, then we are in trouble.

Just by looking at most people, I'd have to say that the average BMI is somewhere along 28.

The rest of his comments are a wash.