This is new? I thought they have been saying this for years

I thought this was pretty well known already. Being “overfat” is the problem, not being overweight (though they’re often correlated). BMI is really easy to measure, and is mostly accurate, that’s why it’s so pervasive. However it remains a pretty rudimentary metric (and really should use the third power or your height instead of the second).

> Studies have shown that visceral fat, which is fat that surrounds the internal organs in the abdominal area, is associated with chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, while subcutaneous fat, which is located directly under the skin, is not as strongly associated.

How does one determine if one has an excess of visceral fat?

Those who fart in short, loud bursts versus those who fart slowly versus those who don’t fart at all (they have mastered the sphincter to the point they can control a slow, steady, barely audible hiss that can be disguised by a concurrent stream of pee or nearby running faucet), are correlated with higher intelligence, believed to be related to how the gut flora FEASTS on bacteria.

For two people that are the same height, one could have X lbs of pure muscle, and one could have X lbs of pure fat, and they would have the same BMI. Color me shocked that it is not always a good predictor of disease.

The irony of BMI is that people with plenty of muscle mass are more likely to have a high BMI as well as lowered risk for heart disease.

BMI was never meant to be used as a diagnostic measure. BMI is just a rough filter for large data sets, and entirely dependent on the average height and habits of that population.

Anyone taller than about 6'3" could tell you the recommended weight according to their BMI has always been absurdly low. If it's a printed chart on the wall, they might not even be on it.