Currently viewing the category: "body mass index (BMI)"

Say Bye Too-Skinny…Vogue-Style

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), British Fashion Council, eating disorders, London Fashion Week, New York Fashion Week, too-skinny models, Vogue magazine

Bravo to Vogue magazine…bravo. I have been saying for over a decade that if we want to make a dent in the perpetuation of eating disorders, it has to start with the images we choose to look at regularly, the ones we choose to deem “beautiful.” Well, Vogue mag is doing its part by banning the images of “too-skinny” models. Duh! And Bravo.

Not only is the mega-fashion mag doing away with too-skinny, but too-young is being flung, too. The 19 Vogue magazine editors around the world made a pact to project healthy, not ultra-thin. They agreed to “not knowingly work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder,” and said they will ask casting directors to check IDs at photo shoots and fashion shows and for ad campaigns.

Most editions of Vogue made it common practice to hire girls under 16–a sure road to a future eating disorder. I mean think about it–which model isn’t going to psych-out when comparing herself to her immature, underdeveloped 14-year-old self?

“I want my prepubescent figure back…” Duh!

But, of course, not just models: Every young adult, teen, and heck…many women of all ages look to fashion magazines like Vogue for ideas on the latest looks, and these unfortunately…and probably subconsciously…include body types. I cannot tell you how many women I have heard say, “But clothes just hang better when you’re thin.”

My retort, “No…you just have set the convoluted images in fashion and celebrity magazines as your relative point…the standard,” if you will.

Seems that Vogue, however, is just following a healthy trend. The Council of Fashion Designers of America adopted a voluntary initiative in 2007, which emphasizes age minimums and healthy working environments during New York Fashion Week, and London Fashion Week designers sign a contract with the British Fashion Council to use models who are at least 16.

The primary fashion organizations in Italy and Spain banned catwalk models who fall below a certain body mass index (BMI) level, and earlier this year, Israel’s government passed an anti-skinny-model law. This all on the heels of the deaths of two young models in 2006-2007 following complications from eating disorders.

But up until now, the focus has been solely on runway models. This push by one of the worlds biggest fashion magazines, however, is a giant leap. As Vogue goes, so goes…well, everybody. The “Vogue pact” says the magazines will help “structure mentoring programs” for younger models and raise awareness of the problem of model health. They said they would encourage healthy working conditions backstage and encourage designers “to consider the consequences of unrealistically small sample sizes of their clothing, which limits the range of women who can be photographed in their clothes, and encourages the use of extremely thin models.”

So bravo, again, to Vogue and the entire fashion industry for taking the bulimics by the horns–it’s about time! Healthy bodies need to be celebrated in their full glory; and the health and safety of both models and the young women idolizing them will get a big boost from this move. What can I say, Vogue? You made this health advocate proud.

Caloric Restriction Without Malnutrition

By On · Add Comment · In anti-aging, body mass index (BMI), caloric restriction, Caloric restriction with optimal nutrition (CRON), diastolic heart function, heart disease, Longevity Diet, pericardial fat, type 2 diabetes

Caloric restriction without malnutrition–heard of it?  Caloric restriction with optimal nutrition (CRON) or the Longevity Diet–these are all terms for the practice of reducing calories over the long-haul, and some studies have shown it to be beneficial in terms of aging and longevity. The practice has been shown to improve age-related health and to slow the aging process in a wide range of animals and some fungi. Pretty cool, huh?

While still inconclusive as to whether long-term caloric restriction can do the same for humans, results so far have been promising. Take a recent study, for example, that has shown caloric restriction improved heart function in obese people with type 2 diabetes.  The study analyzed the heart function and pericardial fat (too much can harm the heart) of fifteen obese people with type 2 diabetes before and four months after they started consuming a 500-calorie-per-day diet.

Age matched monkey (right) on caloric restriction

Four months after the participants began the low-calorie diet, average BMI fell from 35.3 to 27.5 (statistical obesity begins at a BMI of 30), and pericardial fat decreased from 39 milliliters (ml) to 31 ml.  And diastolic heart function also improved, which is a key measure in preventing congestive heart failure (CHF).

Although the BMI rose slightly when the study participants resumed their regular diets (after 14 month follow up), but interestingly, the pericardial fat stayed low.  Said  lead author Dr. Sebastiaan Hammer of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands:

“Our results show that 16 weeks of caloric restriction improved heart function in these patients. More importantly, despite regain of weight, these beneficial cardiovascular effects were persistent over the long term.”

Interesting results these latest findings. Although I advocate no particular diet for people trying to lose weight other than eating whole, natural foods at moderate portions, I am a big proponent of caloric restriction as a lifestyle habit. Let me explain. I think that in the western world, as a rule, we all eat more than we really need to. Restaurant portions are generally huge, and all you can eat buffets are way too popular (at least in the U.S.). In fact, during a recent trip to Las Vegas, it was not lost on me that the longest line I saw for any event over a three day period was to the all-you-can-eat-buffet.
So in that regard, I am certain that we would all benefit, regardless of our size, from caloric restriction. Eating causes free radicals, and these lead to aging. Eating in moderation, obviously, decreases the amount of free radicals our bodies need to neutralize, which in turn decreases our risk of developing degenerative diseases.  The top three killers in the U.S.–heart disease, cancer, stroke–are degenerative diseases.
So although I am trying not to jump to any conclusions here, but when I see a life principle that’s true over a wide range of living organisms, I start to think universality. Essentially I believe that eating just enough to live, with an emphasis on good nutrition, is probably the best path toward longevity and natural anti-aging.

Some Evidence on Obesity Model

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), drinking water, energy expenditure, fast-food, hormones, International Journal of Obesity, junk food, obesity, parents of obese children, positive energy balance, visfatin

I’ve been getting harangued for weeks by a severely wounded ego-centric proponent of the I’m-so-desperate-to-be-right approach to intellectual discourse, that I am finally giving in and providing some support for my thoughts on obesity. The blog stalker has insisted that I prove the validity of my thoughts on obesity, and so I will provide some evidence, but let it be known that this is the last response I will make to the ramblings.

In the most recent issue of the International Journal of Obesity [Volume 35, Issue 10 (October 2011)], no less than every article supports my position:

Overweight and obesity are the results of an enduring positive energy balance, that is, when energy intake is larger than energy expenditure. Hence, overweight and obesity prevention requires effective intervention programmes targeting behaviours that contribute to both sides of this energy balance. These so-called energy balance-related behaviours include dietary behaviours (for example, consumption of fruit and vegetables, or sugar-sweetened beverages), sedentary behaviours (for example, television (TV) viewing or computer use) and physical activity behaviours (for example, sports or active commuting to school).

Interesting, calories in vs. calories out (boldface emphasis mine), and not one thing about hormones or genetics. That’s because it’s science, stupid.

The PA of children seems to compensate in such a way that more activity at one time is met with less activity at another. The failure of PA programmes to reduce childhood obesity could be attributable to this compensation.

Duh!  Parents are responsible for their children especially when they see them blowing up.

Lower insulin sensitivity at childhood may predict subsequent total and central adiposity gain at adolescence. These findings enhance the role of insulin sensitivity as a target of obesity prevention already from the first decades of life.

Or in other words, don’t let your children eat junk food.

Children whose both parents were overweight or obese both before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up had a strikingly high risk of overweight at age 16 years…parents’ long-term overweight (BMI greater than or equal to25 kg m−2 before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up) was the strongest single predictor.

I almost can’t believe that anyone would need proof of this.

Consuming the recommended daily amount of water for children could result in an energy expenditure equivalent to an additional weight loss of about 1.2 kg per year…water drinking could assist overweight children in weight loss or maintenance, and may warrant emphasis in dietary guidelines against the obesity epidemic.

Too much abdominal (visceral) fat increases an individual’s risk of developing insulin resistance and other metabolic disorders. In a Perspective, Hug and Lodish discuss the unexpected finding that blood levels of a hormone produced by visceral fat, called visfatin, correlate with obesity.

Okay, that particular study is from a different journal, but I couldn’t resist (and one more from same journal)

But back to the International Journal of Obesity:

Conclusion: Hormone (serum visfatin) levels are influenced by body fat content in obese children

An association between children’s body mass index (BMI) and overeating has been established…overeating, impulsivity and reward responsiveness were significantly associated with childhood BMI. Mediation analysis revealed that impulsivity and reward responsiveness equally and significantly predicted BMI indirectly through overeating.

The single most idiotic argument I’ve heard is that overeating is not a cause of obesity–precisely why this will be my last response to such nonsense. I cannot discuss an idea with someone if we don’t speak the same language.  Denying the most basic knowledge we have about physiology puts us on different planets.  Conversation over.

The teenagers who ate at FF restaurants consumed more unhealthy foods and were more likely to have higher BMISDS than those teenagers who did not eat frequently at FF restaurants.

  • That prosperity leads to obesity:

Ethnic minority groups in Western European countries tend to have higher levels of overweight than the majority populations for reasons that are poorly understood. ..Conclusion: Contrary to the patterns in White groups, the Dutch ethnic minority women were more obese than their English equivalents.

It’s only poorly understood because the right questions aren’t being asked.  Essentially the study shows that culture alone isn’t definitive.  However, I propose that it’s the change in culture, particularly entering an environment where conveniences abound.

…higher preferences for sweet and fatty foods compared with the other two groups. Food preferences were also related to all overeating measures, which in turn accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in BMI…The associations reported in this paper are important from a public-health perspective because of the abuse potential of sweet-fat foods and their strong relationship with obesity.

And that’s that. As I’ve said before, Mr. Stalker, I don’t do peoples’ research for them. But because you showed such diligence in asserting yourself, I thought I would finally accommodate. I didn’t have to go far for supporting articles–one journal, sir, was all I needed. That’s because what we know about obesity isn’t in need of an overhaul, therefore most of what I put forth is BASIC. What is needed is a halt to the notion that the individual isn’t responsible for his or her own weight, and that they are powerless because of their genetics or hormones.

So as I said, I’m done. I will post a few more promised pieces on obesity in the future, and then I move on.

Choose Wisely: More on Vit D

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), breast cancer, high density lipoprotein (HDL), obese, vitamin D, vitamin D deficiency
Two more reports out today showing a further necessity for improving vitamin D levels in North Americans–specifically women and children.  The first, a study showing that women with breast cancer and low vitamin D levels have more aggressive tumors and poorer outcomes, while the second showed vitamin D deficiency is common in American children and linked with obesity.

The first study conducted at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) tracked 155 women who had surgery for breast cancer between January 2009 and September 2010.  Researchers looked at blood vitamin D levels of the women one year before and one year after the surgery.  They found an association between low vitamin D levels (less than 32 milligrams per milliliter of blood) and poor scores on every major biological marker used to predict a breast cancer patient’s outcome.

This is the first study to look at the link between vitamin D levels and breast cancer progression. Previous studies have concentrated on vitamin D deficiency and the risk of cancer development only.

The second study looked at vitamin D levels in 237 healthy obese and non-obese white and black children, aged 8 to 18; they found most to be vitamin D deficient.  But equally interesting is that they found low D levels in these children to be associated  with higher body mass index (BMI) and fat levels, and lower levels of “good” high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.

You know, both of these studies really bring up only one thought in my mind–how are there still ‘experts’ claiming that supplementing with vitamin D is unnecessary?  A story published last year in the New York Times (which shockingly, some people still take as gospel) declared just that–that recommendations for vitamin D supplementation were primarily fueled by the vitamin industry.  I’m aghast that so-called respected media outlets (?) and health authorities are passing this advice.  They paint vitamin D proponents as dangerous…really?  I guess the old adage ‘for non-believers, no proof is sufficient’ really rings true.


I hope that people are wise enough to see the evidence before us.  Simple: most North Americans are not getting enough vitamin D; vitamin D insufficiency can lead to a plethora of health problems; children are at serious risk; and we don’t even know to what extent low vitamin D levels are affecting human health.

Choose your authorities wisely, people.  Hold onto the old guard experts and expect much of the ‘same-old, same-old’ for your health future.

Obesity and Natural Selection: Some Thoughts

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), disease, genes, genetic theory of obesity, high frequency mutation, human evolution, human genome, illness, natural selection, obese, Scientific American
Just read a great article on human evolution and how advantageous traits are likely selected for over time.  It got me thinking again about the genetic theory of obesity.  Now you all know how I feel about this subject–I pretty much find it a convenient excuse to absolve obese people from their personal responsibility.  Put another way: Gene or no gene, you’ve still got to eat well, exercise, and practice discipline.  Hey, we all have to that.

But reading this article in the September issue of Scientific American (I know I’m behind…cut me a break…I’ve got kids) titled, How We Are Evolving, got me thinking that obesity very well may have a genetic link.  According to recent research, most traits that provide genetic advantage or disadvantage likely take tens of thousands of years to disseminate throughout a population, not the thousands of years a high frequency mutation was once thought to dominate natural selection.  I won’t get into the science here; read the article to get the details–it is excellent.  Suffice it to say that the data shows evolution to be a long, drawn-out process, as natural selection takes time.

Okay, so what about obesity?  Well, let’s just say there is a gene, or genes, that increase one’s susceptibility to becoming obese; we might just find that that genetic makeup actually does lead to enough of a disadvantage that it eventually gets selected out of the human genome.

Think about it like this: obesity offers a disadvantage by making a person more susceptible to illness and disease–like many cancers, heart disease, stroke, and the list goes on and on.  Up until now it hasn’t conferred enough disadvantage to be selected out of the population–that is, obese people can still pass on their genes.

However, as more of the population gets obese–34% of all adults in the U.S. and 300 million worldwide–less and less may find the opportunity to reproduce.  What do you mean, Campos?  Just a thought, but when approximately 20% of our children here in the U.S. are obese…that’s a BMI over 30!…there may come a time when these people are just not considered reproduction material.

Biologically speaking, organisms seek out the most fit individuals with which to mate so that the possibility of passing on one’s genes increases.  That’s the idea anyway.  As the numbers of obese individuals increases, as well as society’s disdain (just read the news!) for obesity, you might just see more of these people ostracized sexually.  Not large numbers right away, mind you–this is where the article got me thinking–but over time.  Could be tens of thousands of years.  Remember, natural selection works slowly.  I mean, things would really have to change societally for this to be considered no big deal.

And yes, obese mating with obese is always a possibility, but that will simply raise the risk, in my opinion, for the genes to become selected out.  This, of course, all predicates on whether a genetic cause (susceptibility?) of obesity actually exists.

My advice to everyone is, once again, gene or no gene, you can prevent obesity by doing the right things.  If my thoughts are correct–and sorry, you and I will never get to know–then you’ll be assuring your genes get passed on to future generations by removing and preventing obesity in your life.  Just a thought, anyway.

Biggest Loser’s Biggest Problem

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), diets, exercise, obesity, The Biggest Loser, weight loss

I like The Biggest Loser–it’s good T.V. And I certainly see some value in the show. Saying that, however, it is not necessarily the best approach to weight loss.

According to some experts, The Biggest Loser is counterproductive and dangerous. The show takes obese contestants through extreme exercise conditions and carefully monitored diets, as they compete against each other for the greatest weight loss. The winner at the end of the show wins $250,000.

Last year’s season 8 saw two of the contestants collapse during a one-mile (1.6 km) foot race. And this year’s season 9 began with two contestants having complications during a 26.2 mile (42 km) race on stationary bikes. One of the contestants had to be dragged off the bike under her protests due to severe cramps, while a second, who weighed in at a massive 526-pounds, was treated for exhaustion.

Some criticisms of the show include that they take a group of people falling to the extreme side of obesity, or the largest people in society, the severely obese (BMI greater than 40) as contestants. Whereas the majority of obese Americans have a body mass index (BMI) of 30+, people with BMIs above 40 represent only 6% of the population. The show, however, uses mostly severely obese contestants. In fact, 17 of the 22 contestants (~80%) this season have BMIs over 40. The problem, critics say, is that it does not accurately represent the population and is, therefore, removed from real world conditions.

Another criticism is that the program is too strenuous and that weight loss happens too quickly, neither of which is healthy. Not only can this pose a danger to contestants but can also be discouraging for those viewers at home trying to lose weight. When people can’t match the numbers posted on the show, some being record weight losses (fastest 100-pound weight loss in seven weeks, and most weight lost in one week–34 pounds), people are bound to get discouraged.

The final criticism is that the rapid weight loss seen on The Biggest Loser is not likely to be maintained. Several former Biggest Loser contestants have regained some or all of the weight they lost while contestants on the show.

Well I’ve got to say…I couldn’t agree more. I do like The Biggest Loser, mostly because it shows that for any person to lose weight, one simple physiological principle must be satisfied: More calories must be burned than taken in. This principle is true whether one has the “obesity” gene, an underactive thyroid, or whether one just likes to eat. To lose weight you’ve gotta burn more than you bring in, period. I think the show demonstrates this princilple quite nicely.

But as I’ve said in a recent article, losing more than one pound per week is unhealthy. And if you are trying to lose weight for any other reason than your own inspiration, forget it–it will never happen, not with any permanence, that is.

If you really want to lose weight, you’ve got to set realistic goals, and do it over the long haul. Making some lifestyle changes will be a necessity, and getting over the mental barriers that attach you to eating will be of the utmost importance.

So as far as The Biggest Loser is concerned, it’ll keep on its game plan of getting the fattest people to lose the most extreme amount of weight in the shortest period of time, healthy or not. Even if they lose a couple contestants one year to heart attack or dehydration, they’ll keep going for one simple reason: It makes good T.V.

How Thin is Too Thin?

By On · Add Comment · In anorexia, body mass index (BMI), France, French women, thin, underweight
Mirror, mirror on the wall, which women are thinnest of them all? If you’ve guessed the French, then you’ve guessed right. Indeed, French women are the thinnest in Europe, according to new research conducted by France’s National Institute of Demographic Studies. The kicker, though, is that only half of them think they are too thin. So how thin is too thin?

Five percent of all French women are officially “underweight,” according to World Health Organization (WHO) standards. On the plus side, France is the only European nation whose women and men are both solidly in the normal weight category. But the proportion of overly thin women in France has long been the highest among all European nations.

The significance of this study is that it sheds light on what one culture sees as the norm with regard to body weight. In other European countries such as Britain, Spain and Portugal, women there tend to over-estimate their skinniness–that is, more women think they are too thin than actually are, according to the WHO standards. WHO uses body mass index (BMI) as an indicator for body weight. BMI is calculated by taking one’s weight in kilograms and dividing it by the square of one’s height in meters. The range of normal weight is 18.5-to-24.9.*

In France, however, only 50% of the women falling below 18.5 BMI think they are too thin. In that culture thin is obviously in. So while many European nations, and America, have a problem with obesity and overweight people, France has the opposite problem…and it is a problem.

We all know that anorexia is a health hazard, so France’s cultural attitudes toward weight perpetuate its own public health issues. The real scary part for the French is that despite being the thinnest women in Europe, many French women consider themselves “too fat.” For French women, “the body is related to beauty, and beauty to being thin,” said one of the scientists conducting the study

It just goes to show you that no culture is immune to body image issues. Too thin is unhealthy, and it doesn’t really look good, at least by health standards. But in France, it’s the look to go for. So I guess when you hear next how healthy the French are, keep this little fact in mind; they may be thin, but too thin isn’t necessarily good for the health.

*Check your own weight status on this BMI calculator (using British units weights).

Lean Toward Breakfast

By On · Add Comment · In blood sugar, body mass index (BMI), breakfast, diabetes, fat, habit, lose weight, obesity, snacking, teenagers

Want to know one simple habit that can reduce snacking, increase activity, and help you lose weight? Eating breakfast regularly is what: A study conducted at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health showed that teenagers who ate breakfast regularly had lower body mass index (BMI) relative to their breakfast-skipping peers. And they weighed about five pounds less on average too. Nice.

Although conducted on teens, I believe we can extrapolate the the research finding to adults as well; I mean, the conclusions make sense. According to Mark Pereira, lead author of the study, breakfast eaters probably have better control of their appetites throughout the day, and they are less likely to pick up sugary snacks, like doughnuts, muffins, or scones–items many of us grab on our run through Starbucks.

Think about this for a minute: Who’s more likely to gain weight–people who eat an early morning meal or people who skip it? Duh. It all has to do with blood sugar. Let yours get too low–easy to do if you don’t get fuel first thing in the morning–and your body will surely convert much of your first meal into fat. But guess what? It’ll be the least of your worries. That volatility in blood sugar concentration can lead to diabetes. Diabetes+weight gain/obesity=big problems.

Don’t do it to yourself: Eat a hearty breakfast. Skipping any meal, in my opinion, is a poor dietary practice; but breakfast, especially, should be eaten every day. If the risk of disrupting your blood sugar isn’t enough to get you noshing first thing in the morning, then the thought of packing on the pounds unnecessarily should. In a culture and society prosperous enough for us to even have this choice, we should never take our early morning meal for granted–breakfast truly is the most important meal of the day.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.