WHR (waist/height ratio) -and- BMI (body mass index)

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

- - -

This post includes

1) WHR (waist/height ratio) Graphic

2) Life Expectancy based on BMI Graphic

3) Google link allowing one to ascertain
their BMI based on weight and height

4) Ideal WHR (waist/height ratio)
-and- BMI (body mass index)?

5) World Status by Country - Life Expectancies
/ Median Income / % with High BMI

6) Unique Life Expectancy Graphic
(based on one scientist's work)

- - -

1) WHR (waist/height ratio) Graphic
(from the article linked to below):
https://mport.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Waist-to-Height_infographic.png

Why is waist to height ratio important?
https://mport.com/blog/why-is-waist-to-height-ratio-important/

Note - the diabetes word used in that article
is actually solely referring to Preventable
Cellosis (old name of diabetes is used without
clarifier but they should've used preventable
type 2 diabetes or better yet, the new ...

... clarifying name of Preventable Cellosis.
Most of the disparate High Glucose Conditions
(see my sig) are unpreventable / nonreversible
and are totally uncaused by weight or waist
size.

- - -

2) Life Expectancy based on BMI Graphic
(that I linked to yesterday):
https://images.sciencedaily.com/2009/06/090623133523-large.jpg

Risk of Death for Everyone
Based on Studies which do not
Include Confounding Factors

Highest risk of death = BMI < 18.5
2nd Highest risk of death = BMI 35 and higher
Middle risk of death = BMI 30 to 34.9
2nd lowest risk of death = BMI 18.5 to 24.9
Lowest risk of death = BMI 25 to 29.9

- - -

3) Google link allowing one to ascertain
their BMI based on weight and height:
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=bmi&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

- - -

4) Ideal WHR (waist/height ratio)
-and- BMI (body mass index)?

Article with the stance that higher life expec-
tancy in studies that show occurrence at BMI
being slightly higher than 25 (27 in most stu-
dies I've seen) have issues that actually don't
support that, and the actual healthiest weight
is somewhere in the neighborhood of 22:

- - -
February 4 13,810,000,005 (2018 CE)

The healthiest body mass index
isn’t as simple as you think
https://blog.oup.com/2018/02/healthiest-body-mass-index/
- - -

Comment: An explanation which explains that
some (unknown the extent) of the weight at
BMI < 25 results from smoking or from having
a disease which causes weight loss. The art-
icle takes the position that confounding fac-
tors are very difficult to ascertain/assess.

The article asserts that the healthiest weight
is actually BMI 18.5 to 25 because of the con-
founding factors.

Based on the totality of all I've read about
WHR and BMI, suffice to say I'm shooting for
a WHR (weight/height ratio) of 0.43 (waist
size 28.5 inches, height 66.25 inches) unless
I run across information that alters my stance
about that. I don't know what my BMI will ...

... be if I ever get down to a 28.5 inch waist
(which to the best of my recollection I have
not been at since my childhood years). I've
read (but don't know if it's true) that it
takes 6-8 pounds of weight loss to lose an
inch, so since I've got 4 inches to lose ...

... to get down to a waist of 28.5 inches,
that would = 24 to 32 pounds of weight loss.

I'm presuming that's the 28.5 inch waist &
whatever my BMI is if I get down to a 28.5
inch waste is the healthiest I can be at
considering the nature/burdens of Islit, ...

... abbreviation for new clarifying name of
Insulinitis, the near-total to total loss of
endogenous insulin that I've had since March
of 13,809,999,948 (1961 CE), age 5.

- - -

5) World Status by Country - Life Expectancies
/ Median Income / % with High BMI

General rule of thumb - high life expectancy
and higher median income yield higher % with
BMI = or > 30; the expected decrease in life
expectancy is *not* present in countries with
higher % with BMI = or > 30.

World Map of Life Expectancies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_average_life_expectancy_(2015).png

Note that a general rule of thumb is that
longer life is associated with higher aver-
age median income:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_gross_median_household_income_in_Int$_(PPP).png

2014 World Map of prevalence of BMI 30 or
higher in men 18 and older
https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54c127cfeab8ea447d9135d5-750-342.jpg

- - -

6) Unique Life Expectancy Graphic
(based on one scientist's work):
https://protonsforbreakfast.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/bmi-mortality-versus-age.jpeg

o The graphic is based on a 12-year study,
so it's difficult for me to comprehend
how a 12-year study can make claims re-
garding mortality (death, whose risk ...

... increases with each passing year;
one's risk of death at 80 & older is
much higher at all BMIs than is one's
risk of death at 30 & younger)

o The graphic only displays data for BMI
17 to 38

o For ages 25 to 59, the lowest risk is
at BMI 17; for all other categories
(Overall, Age 60+, Males, Females,
Ever Smoked, Never Smoked, the lowest
risk is at BMI 27.5 .

o Risk below BMI 27.5 slowly increases
down to BMI 22, the rapidly increases
at BMIs < 22 .

o Risk above BMI 27.5 steadily increases
up to BMI 32.5, then dramatically in-
creases at BMIs > 32.5 .

o His weight categories are

Blank (no name included) = BMI < 20
Normal = BMI 20 to 25
Overweight = BMI 25 to 30
Obese = BMI 30 to 35
Very-obese = BMI 35 to 38

No data present for BMI < 17 or BMI > 38,
although in the following he says data
at BMI 18 includes data for all people
with lower BMI and data at BMI 35 in-
cludes data for all people with higher
BMI (the actual data stops at BMI 17
and BMI 38)

o Page describing the scientist who created
the above graphic and who described that
graphic below:
https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/about/

My name is Michael de Podesta and I am
a scientist at the UK’s National Physical
Laboratory (NPL). This blog stems from a
course that I run at NPL called Protons
for Breakfast which aims to help the ...

... general public make sense of some of
the science that they encounter.

The course generally entertains, amuses
and educates but its primary aim is to
empower. ...

- - - end excerpt - - -

His description of that graphic appears
at the following section of this link
[with one clarifying insert included
in brackets, not part of his article]:
https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/category/health/

Overweight?
July 1, 2012 (13,809,999,999)

The upper curve shows the relationship between
body mass index (BMI) and mortality expressed
as relative risk of death compared to those
with a BMI in the range 22.5 to 25.

The data indicates quite robustly that being
in the overweight category is ‘protective’.
The data point at BMI=18 includes data for
all people with lower BMI and the data point
at BMI=35 includes data for all people with
higher BMI. ...

... I have looked at this issue before and
expressed my puzzlement at how ‘normal’ ever
came to be defined as having a BMI in the
range 20 to 25, when as far as I could tell,
it has never coincided with the central range
in the population.

My puzzlement appears to be vindicated by
research which shows that the relative risk
of death – mortality – is lower for people
who are overweight compared with people in
the ‘normal range’. These conclusions are
backed up by other studies.

But even so, it is important to understand
how the research was done in order to appre-
ciate what it really tells us.

The research followed 11,834 individuals in
Canada from 1994/5 to 2006/7, and saw how
mortality was affected by their BMI at the
start of the study in 1994/95.

Let me stress this. It saw how the BMI sta-
tistic in 1994/5 affected the rate at which
they died in the subsequent 12 years. This
large population included men and women,
smokers and people who never smoked, and
people in all age groups.

Could the ‘BMI effect’ have been protective
in young people, but harmful in older people?

This might make sense, since young people
are less likely to die in any case. This
might have masked the effect that I would
have expected to see: that being overweight
was harmful.

The researchers controlled for that and
looked at how the relative risk of death
varied with BMI categories for various
sub-populations within the group.

Surprisingly – to me at least – the effect
was seen in all categories.

BMI Mortality versus age for different sub-
populations within the study. The risk of
death is relative to those with BMI in the
‘normal’ range. The lowest and highest BMI
points include data for all individuals at
lower or higher BMI. ...

Mortality and Morbidity. This report recorded
the BMI of a population at a point in time,
and studied correlations between the BMI and
the rate at which people died in the follow-
ing 12 years: This is called the risk of
mortality.

It did not record whether the individuals
concerned became ill or unwell, and did not
study how their BMI affected their chance
of becoming unwell – that is called the
risk of morbidity.

I do not have data to hand but I would be
pretty sure that being in the ‘overweight’
category (as defined by a BMI in the range
25 to 30) would be a significant risk fac-
tor for diseases such as cardio-vascular
disease and type II diabetes.

[Risk of Getting Cellosis (new clarifying
name for type 2 diabetes) for Non-Islit
individuals; Islit is the abbreviation for
the new clarifying name of Insulinitis,
the near-total to total loss of endogenous
insulin:
http://healthhubs.net/images/diabetes-BMI.gif

BMI < 18.5 ... Women 10% ... Men 7%
BMI 18.5-25 .. Women 16% ... Men 19%
BMI 25-30 .... Women 32% ... Men 29%
BMI 30-35 .... Women 52% ... Men 55%
BMI > 35 ..... Women 72% ... Men 69% ]

...

- - - end excerpts - - -

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER, I got Insulinitis
(Islit) at age 5 in March, 1961 -- I used
a Dexcom G4 Continuous Glucose Monitor
(since October, 2013) -and- was using an
Omnipod Insulin Pump (since January, 2014).

However, due to losing my job & health
insurance on April 11, I've switched back
to using insulin injections on May 29
(regular insulin and NPH insulin, up ...

... to 10 injections daily, 2 with NPH,
the rest with regular) and to using the
relatively inexpensive Freestyle Libre
CGM (over $4,000 less per year than the
Dexcom G6 CGM).

C.ure I.nsulinitis A.ssociation
ASAP! https://prohuman.net/cureinsulinitisassociation.htm

Glucose Anomalies Research regarding
Potential Cures / Improvements in Treatments
The Sooner The Better! https://prohuman.net/glucoseanomaliesresearch.htm

- - -

The old confusing way which all-too-often
involves folks using the diabetes / diabetic
words without a clarifier:

diabetes / diabetic without a clarifier,
diabetes / diabetic guessing required
https://prohuman.net/pix2/diabetesdiabeticguessinggame.jpg

- - -

Logic and reasoning behind ceasing using
diabetes & diabetic & reactive hypoglycemia
words and phrases, replacing all that with
vastly superior names, ending diabetes &
diabetic & reactive hypoglycemia confusion,
misleading, & misunderstanding:

Diabetes Bubble / Diabetes Bubble Burst
Splendid! https://prohuman.net/diabetesbubblediabetesbubbleburst.htm

- - -

High Glucose Conditions, HGCs, unprevent-
ability / nonreversibility of all-but-one
of the specific types of High Glucose
Conditions (thus far, research is ongoing
to change that):

o 12 specific types of rapid-onset
Insulinitis (Islit), unpreventable &
nonreversible (thus far), predominate
type, Insulitis Insulinitis (sometimes
called type 1 diabetes, often confus-
ingly called diabetes with no clari-
fier).

o 1 specific type of slow-onset Islit,
Latent Autoimmune Islit, also unpre-
ventable & nonreversible (thus far)
(sometimes called latent autoimmune
diabetes in adults, often confusingly
called diabetes with no clarifier).

o Preventable Cellosis is the only spe-
cific type of HGC that is preventable
& reversible (for up to 10 years after
diagnosis, in some, sometimes called
type 2 diabetes, often confusingly
called diabetes with no clarifier).

o 20 specific types of Cellosis, unpre-
ventable & nonreversible (thus far,
sometimes called type 2 diabetes, all-
too-often confusingly called diabetes
with no clarifier)

o 1 specific type of High Glucose Condi-
tion only occurring in the late stage
of impregnation in women, a type that's
transient but that increases risk of ...

... later getting Cellosis, that condi-
tion called Gestational Cellosis (some-
times called gestational diabetes, some-
times confusingly called diabetes with
no clarifier).

o 11 specific types of Diminosis (new name
created in 2010 for a condition that is
sometimes called maturity onset diabetes
of the young, often confusingly called
diabetes with no clarifier), unpreven-
table & nonreversible (thus far).

o 12 specific types of Neonatal Diminosis
(new name created in 2010 for a condition]
that is sometimed called neonatal diabetes,
often confusingly called diabetes with no
clarifier), 8 types are permanent, but ...

... 4 types are transient, unpreventable
& nonreversible in the permanent specific
types (thus far).

o 24 specific types of Ohiglucons (new
name created in 2010 for other diabetes
mellitus, but often confusingly called
diabetes with no clarifier), unpreven-
table & nonreversible (thus far).

- - -

A mostly Non-Glucose Anomaly, Insipidus,
it's also unpreventable & nonreversible
(thus far):

o 6 specific types of Insipidus (new name
created in 2010 for diabetes insipidus,
sometimes confusingly called diabetes
with no clarifier), 4 specific types
don't include high glucose & are unpre-
ventable & nonreversible (thus far), ...

... 2 specific rare types do include
high glucose & are unpreventable &
nonreversible (thus far).

- - -

The following condition is apart from
the diabetes confusion problem, but has
confusion issues of its own.

A Low Glucose Condition, Hut:

o The 21 specific types of Hut (new name
created in 2010 for Hypoglycemia Un-
caused by Treatments for High Glucose,
often confusingly called reactive hypo-
glycemia, confusing in that it does
not occur as a reaction to treatment ...

... for High Glucose; one form is
sometimes called hyperinsulinism),
some specific types are preventable
& reversible, some aren't (thus far).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Click here to Reply