Thin as possible within healthy range to prevent cancer

A new report came out urging people to be as thin as possible within the healthy BMI range to prevent some forms of cancer, among other recommendations.

Here is a link to the report:

www.dietandcancerreport.org

I was wondering what people thought of this, since prevailing wisdom as far as I knew was that anywhere within the healthy BMI range (18.5- 25) was perfectly acceptable. Has this new report changed your goals? What do you think about it?

My thought is... let me get into the healthy range first. Then I'll decide from there if I think I need to lose more if I'd look really bad doing so.

Quite honestly, alot of people would look, in my opinion, terrible with a BMI of 18.5. Too thin. 

I think BMI should really just be used as a guideline, because some people may naturally be above or below the "healthy" range.  It really depends on your body composition and overall build.  I do think you should be as close to a thin "ideal" weight as possible, but what that is depends on the individual.  

wow, very interesting as i actually want to lose weight to prevent cancer. my mum died of cancer and so did my uncle. my 2 aunts are still fighting cancer, so this is THE topic for me. all i can say is i've read plenty of books on preventing cancer and yes summing up all of them in one sentence i would say - be as thin as possible within your healthy range and it will prevent cancer. that's the theory and that's what caused me to try to lose weight BUT out of the 4 people in my family only my Mum was overweight and the others were/are really thin so i guess life verifies this theory as not really true...? still being slim is healthy :)

What I've read on this suggests that only a third of cancers are preventable, but an important component to prevent this third is to have a low-healthy BMI. I, too, have a positive family history of cancer and would like to do everything in my power to avoid it. However, I'm at a BMI of 20 now, and to drop down further seems rather difficult. Plus, I think I would look pretty bony! I'm mulling it over and curious about other people's thoughts, particularly if this news has changed their weight goals.

I wonder how they can account for body fat % variations within the same BMI number.

I mean, a person with more muscle than typical has a higher BMI - but does that correlate to the risk of preventable cancer?

It seems an imprecise way to measure a risk factor for something that specific.

*shrug*

My ultimate goal from the time i was obese was to attain a BMI of 19.5-20, it's been really tough for me to get below 21 (which is the lowest BMI i've been), but I'm working on it. when they say 'thin as possible' perhaps they're refering to having the lowest body fat percentage that is still within healthy range? alot of us aren't very active, and alot of us are 'skinny fat' even at a healthy BMI, but atleast when u're at your lowest healthy BMI, the fat % will automatically go down even if u happen to be sedentary. that's for people who don't weight train i guess, and alot people don't or they don't have the time/commitment to stick to it, it's so much simpler to just lose as much weight as u can by controlling your intake and moving around as much as u can. For eg., I don't think I've ever come across anyone with 18.5-20 BMI with a BF% of over 24% (fit range: 21%-24%)...however at BMI's higher than 20, u'll just have to be an active person and/or weight train to have body fat levels that are excellent rather than average. ofcourse, it's also dependant on frame size and gender too, for eg., I can't imagine a guy (or a large boned female) having a BMI of 18.5 being healthy and fit. maybe the cancer risks are lowered, but what about osteoporosis and other ailments?

I used to volunteer in a cancer treatment clinic and I have to admit, whether they were fat or skinny, they still had cancer.  Maybe some types of cancers can be prevented by maintaining a healthy weight, but all of the worrying people will be doing trying to get to a healthy weight will probably cause a different kind of cancer.

These days, everything causes cancer.  At least according to the state of California.

I'm skeptical in general...

I'm a  little bit skeptical about all the medical studies constantly lowering the acceptable levels of weight, blood pressure, cholesterol and the like. Many medical studies are directly or indirectly funded by drug companies. And, I think studies like this fail to take into account different builds, musculature (as some have noted here), and metabolism, body types, etc.

I also think that those in the lowest range of BMI have other problems, like osteoporisis, iron deficiencies, etc.

So, while I have been working hard to lose weight, and would rather be thinner than fatter, I'm not that concerned about these findings. And I'm not giving up my evening cocktail either!

Man, do I miss cocktail hour.  Until I can learn to not get hammered within the first ten minutes, it's not coming back any time soon. =(

you have to know how these studies work.  higher bmi is an indicator that's correlated with higher cancer rates.  guess what else goes with higher bmi?  poor nutrition, little or no exercise, nicotine and alcohol, etc.  it's statistics. 

generally speaking, people who take care of themselves are smaller.  if you have bmi of 21 and it drops to 19, it's probably because you're getting better nutrition and more exercise.  hence - lower cancer risk.

I also think... and this is totally unscientific, my own hypothesis, observation of friends and relatives... so don't yell at me if I'm wrong... that people who have a little bit o' meat on their bones do better withstanding chemo and the damage it causes.

that might be true, but people who are generally healthier are candidates for stronger chemo.  i have a really good friend who had colon and liver cancer.  doctors gave her a 20% chance of survival.  because she was fit and healthy (and very lean), she was able to withstand the most aggressive possible treatment - a catheter delivering chemo directly to her liver 24/7 for one week out of every four.  she's now over six years cancer-free.

I'm a big believer in calorie restriction for longevity and disease prevention, and staying at the low end of the healthy scale sounds like a good idea. HOWEVER - I would not attempt to do it based on BMI, which is an extremely flawed measurement. Personally, I would use body fat % either from body fat meter or caliper measurements, and shoot for the recommended bodyfat (8-14% for men, 20-21% for women). Going by the BMI, people run the risk of getting underweight because of their individual body shape, and being chronically underweight and having insufficient fat stores can be as risky as being overweight. It's a much easier thing to stay at the middle of the healthy range of BMI, when you are talking about the low end of healthy, I think it's best to be careful and as precise as possible - and also to do so under a doctor's supervision.

Original Post by jsdamdam:

What I've read on this suggests that only a third of cancers are preventable, but an important component to prevent this third is to have a low-healthy BMI. I, too, have a positive family history of cancer and would like to do everything in my power to avoid it. However, I'm at a BMI of 20 now, and to drop down further seems rather difficult. Plus, I think I would look pretty bony! I'm mulling it over and curious about other people's thoughts, particularly if this news has changed their weight goals.

It may be that only a third of cancers are preventable, but it also stands to reason that cancers, being nothing more than clusters of abnormally growing cells, would tend to grow and metastasize faster if you are eating a great deal more.  There's no sure way to prevent all disease, but keeping one's weight down, along with not smoking, is a way to prevent a LOT of them all at once. 

i think its great that they are putting this out because people always go for wats easy and just try to hit the normal range, but this will really challenge people to get into true shape!!!

...or completely discourage them because they'll think "I can never get to a BMI of 20, so why even bother?!"

Until there's a better measure than BMI for assessment of healthy body composition I for one am NOT shooting for that kind of weight...there is no way anything less than 23 is going to be healthy for the way I'm built. 

I agree with you. I feel that BMI is merely a 'guideline'. I think the best way to assess a healty body comp is having your body fat percentage tested. This does not have anything to do with how much you weigh vs how tall you are, it is simply how much body fat you are carrying around.

Obviously you need have some fat on you in order to survive, 10-12% bare minimum. Unless you are a serious athlete, a healthy fitness range for body fat is 21-24% for women and 14-17% for men.

Acceptable body fat % ranges are 25-31% for women and 18-25% for men. Anything over 32% for women and 25% for men is considered obese.

You can go to your doctor to have your body fat tested, or many gyms also offer that service as well. It's a great information to have to be able to set realistic goals for your body and weight loss.

I got my info from http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm

Well, if we look at this way.

For the average sedentary female to have a body fat percentage of 20%-25%(which is ideal for optimum health) they would probably have to have a BMI of under 22. And perhaps this is why there are emphasising a low BMI. But for those females that work out with weights and have more muscle, this just doesn't apply.

So I think it's more to do with what body fat percentage generally corresponds to a low BMI in the average senentary women and that certainly doesn't apply to everyone.