BMI again proven to be useless

BMI again proven to be useless

Context: 20 years ago i applied for life insurance. At that time i did quite a bit of muscle building. I wasn’t a bodybuilder, but i had quite a lot of muscle and little fat. As a result my BMI was 32 due to muscles being heavier than fat. And got slapped with a 10% increase of premiums due to my BMI. I knew this was unjust. I wasn’t a couch potato. As much as i protested there was no arguing. I could take it or leave it. So i left it. Which made me research in depth the BMI phenomenon. Here is yet another installment proving how this system malfunctions

Approximately 75 million US adults may be misclassified as cardiometabolically healthy or unhealthy when using Body Mass Index (BMI) categories as the main indicator of health, reports research published in the International Journal of Obesity this week. The authors argue that policymakers should consider the unintended consequences of relying solely on BMI as a measure of health when determining policy.

New rules proposed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would allow employers to penalise employees up to 30% of health insurance costs if they fail to meet certain ‘health’ criteria, such as a specified BMI. However, this policy carries with it the assumption that a higher BMI uniformly indicates that individuals must be in poor health.

Using blood pressure, insulin resistance, C-reactive protein data and triglyceride, cholesterol and glucose counts from 40,402 nationally representative individuals aged over 18, A. Janet Tomiyama and colleagues compared cardiometabolic health (the risk of diabetes and heart disease) to BMI. The authors found that nearly half of overweight individuals, approximately 29% of obese individuals, and 16% of very obese individuals, as categorised by BMI, were cardiometabolically healthy. In contrast, over 30% of individuals whose BMI was considered ‘normal’ were found to be cardiometabolically unhealthy.

The authors suggest that while BMI may be seen as a quick, convenient and inexpensive marker for health, its use as an indicator may have detrimental consequences for the health and wellbeing of heavier individuals.

The study found that close to half of Americans who are considered “overweight” by virtue of their BMIs (47.4 percent, or 34.4 million people) are healthy, as are 19.8 million who are considered “obese.”

<snip>

Given their health readings other than BMI, the people in both of those groups would be unlikely to incur higher medical expenses, and it would be unfair to charge them more for health care premiums, Tomiyama said.

Among the other findings:

  • More than 30 percent of those with BMIs in the “normal” range — about 20.7 million people — are actually unhealthy based on their other health data.
  • More than 2 million people who are considered “very obese” by virtue of having a BMI of 35 or higher are actually healthy. That’s about 15 percent of Americans who are classified as very obese.

Tomiyama, who directs UCLA’s Dieting, Stress and Health laboratory, also called DiSH, found in previous research that there was no clear connection between weight loss and health improvements related to hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol and blood glucose levels.

She said she was surprised at the magnitude of the numbers in the latest study.

“There are healthy people who could be penalized based on a faulty health measure, while the unhealthy people of normal weight will fly under the radar and won’t get charged more for their health insurance,” she said. “Employers, policy makers and insurance companies should focus on actual health markers.”

Jeffrey Hunger, a co-author of the paper and a doctoral candidate at UC Santa Barbara, said the research shows that BMI is a deeply flawed measure of health. “This should be the final nail in the coffin for BMI,” he said.

ScienceDaily

No, Nazis didn’t set out to attack children


Angry Foreigner

FLYER

Between 70 to 100 men stormed the central station in Stockholm and created noise. (video here) They handed out flyers before, urging people to put an end to the criminal immigrants roaming the streets of Stockholm. The biggest newspaper in Sweden, Aftonbladet, said that they attacked people with a foreign background. But the police cannot confirm this, since no reports of assault have been filed.

The way in which our massmedia is reporting about a “racist flyer” isn’t just symptomatic of the agenda-driven swedish journalism, it also confirms the worldview inside the flyer.

I have translated it in it’s entirety so that you yourself can judge how racist the content is. Text which is light-brown is hyperlinked, so just click if you want to read my sources.

“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

By this point in time it’s impossible for anybody to miss that Sweden isn’t what it used…

View original post 1,840 more words

Why you won’t lose weight with exercise alone

Why you won’t lose weight with exercise alone

People who start exercise programs to lose weight often see a decline in weight loss (or even a reversal) after a few months. Large comparative studies have also shown that people with very active lifestyles have similar daily energy expenditure to people in more sedentary populations.

Pontzer says this really hit home for him when he was working among the Hadza, a population of traditional hunter-gatherers in northern Tanzania.

“The Hadza are incredibly active, walking long distances each day and doing a lot of hard physical work as part of their everyday life,” Pontzer says. “Despite these high activity levels, we found that they had similar daily energy expenditures to people living more sedentary, modernized lifestyles in the United States and Europe. That was a real surprise, and it got me thinking about the link between activity and energy expenditure.”

To explore this question further in the new study, Pontzer and his colleagues measured the daily energy expenditure and activity levels of more than 300 men and women over the course of a week.

In the data they collected, they saw a weak but measurable effect of physical activity on daily energy expenditure. But, further analysis showed that this pattern only held among subjects on the lower half of the physical activity spectrum. People with moderate activity levels had somewhat higher daily energy expenditures–about 200 calories higher–than the most sedentary people. But people who fell above moderate activity levels saw no effect of their extra work in terms of energy expenditure.

“The most physically active people expended the same amount of calories each day as people who were only moderately active,” Pontzer says.

The researchers say it’s time to stop assuming that more physical activity always means more calories. There might be a “sweet spot” for physical activity–too little and we’re unhealthy, but too much and the body makes big adjustments in order to adapt.

Full Text

Who’d have guessed, after millions of years of evolution the body finds it’s own best balance?

Denmark & Wind Power

Denmark & Wind Power

We have had some discussion about the amount of wind power being generated in Denmark, which hit 41% of total electricity in 2014. Denmark is often held up by proponents of wind power to prove that large amounts are both feasible and can be easily integrated into national grid systems.

It is therefore worth putting the figures into perspective.

The first thing to notice is just how small the Danish generation figures actually are, in comparison with the UK and Germany. For instance, output from wind in Denmark was 13.2 TWh, compared to 31.6 TWh in the UK

image

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

 

It is immediately apparent from these figures that Danish wind output can easily be absorbed into the German grid. In addition, a lot of Denmark’s electricity is exported to Scandinavia, where it can be used for pump storage.

And on the reverse side, it is not a problem for Denmark to import the small amounts of power it needs from Germany and Scandinavia, when the wind stops blowing.

<snip>

The Danish example is in fact comparable to the situation in Scotland, where wind power accounts for 24%. Again we see that the amount of wind power generated in Scotland is dwarfed by total demand in the rest of the UK, where any surplus can easily be sent.

 

 

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables

 

Just because a high proportion of wind power can be managed on a small scale, and as part of a much bigger grid system, does not mean it could be at the UK level.

Full article

Prime example why a Republic is a bad idea

Prime example why a Republic is a bad idea

Before I get into the issue at hand, some background is necessary. Many legal scholars, and indeed, even many members of Congress have admitted that Obama’s war against ISIS is illegal and unconstitutional. One of the best articles I’ve read on why this is the case, was published in the New York Times in 2014, which I covered in the post, Obama’s ISIS War is Not Only Illegal, it Makes George W. Bush Look Like a Constitutional Scholar. Here are a few excerpts:

President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

 

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

 

This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.

 

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.

 

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.

 

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

It’s been almost two years since that Op-ed was written, and Obama is still carrying out his illegal war on ISIS with barely a peep from our incredibly corrupt and useless Congress. Indeed, the only thing Congress is scheming to do is to ensure the next President receives a blank check for perpetual war.

From the National Journal:

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell offered mem­bers a snow-week­end sur­prise late Wed­nes­day night: Quietly tee­ing up a po­ten­tial de­bate on the leg­al un­der­pin­ning for the fight against IS­IS.

 

After months of wor­ry­ing that such a res­ol­u­tion—known as an au­thor­iz­a­tion for the use of mil­it­ary force—would tie the next pres­id­ent’s hands, Mc­Con­nell’s move to fast-track the meas­ure sur­prised even his top deputy, Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn, who was un­aware that Mc­Con­nell had set up the au­thor­iz­a­tion.

 

The AUMF put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy. Nor would it touch on the is­sue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has used to at­tack IS­IS des­pite that au­thor­iz­a­tion’s in­struc­tions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 ter­ror­ist at­tacks. By con­trast, the leg­al au­thor­ity put for­ward by the ad­min­is­tra­tion last Feb­ru­ary wouldn’t au­thor­ize “en­dur­ing of­fens­ive ground com­bat op­er­a­tions” and would have ended three years after en­act­ment, un­less reau­thor­ized.

Read that over and over and over until you get how incredibly dangerous it is.

Zerohedge

The danger obviously is allowing 1 sole person the possibility to give executive orders. It’s no different from a dictatorship. It again proves USA is not a democracy but rather evolving into an Idiocracy. Anyone badmouthing President Putin should look at President Obama. But as the saying goes: Every nation gets the leadership it deserves. Apparently the USA deserves a dictator