Hello,
I have seen the waist circumference and BMI video and I’m a bit confused.
As far as I understood it, the up the waist goes, the more the overweight / obese BMI is associated with risk factors.
Question is,
For a fixed waist circumference (say 100cm), would a BMI of 25 be less risky than a BMI of 35?
I mean, as the BMI goes up but the waist circumference stay the same, I guess it mean that bodyfat is lower, and muscle mass is higher. So, it seem to be reasonable that a 100cm waist on a 25 BMI would be more risky than a 100cm waist on a 35 BMI.
Do I get it right?
Muscle mass is not really protective when there is higher amounts of fat, which would be the case at 35 compared to 25. There’s no difference in cardiometabolic risk factors for those with low levels of LBM or high levels of LBM when their BMI is > 30, based on present evidence.
So the problem is not bodyfat percentage, but total absolute bodyfat?
Meaning that 15% bodyfat at a BW of, say, 100kg (total BF 15kg) is the same as 25% bodyfat at a BW of 60kg (still a total of 15kg bodyfat) ?
I don’t mean the same in everything, but I mean the same in this specific risk factors, of course…
With respect to body fat, the biggest predictor of health risk is amount of abdominal fat, e.g. visceral fat. In general, people with higher body fats and BMI’s will tend to have higher visceral fat.
By “amount”, do you mean total amount or amount related to total bodyweight?
X total amount of abdominal fat for me, is the same risk of X total amount of abdominal fat for someone who’s 20kg heavier than me?
Sorry if it has already been addressed and it’s my fault for missing
