United States of Obesity

BMI is not a guide for body builders though is it? A 6'5" 260lb body builder that is technically 'obese' is far more savvy about diet and exercise than a 5'6" 200lb couch potato!

Stop making excuses for fat people!

You completely missread what I was saying. I am saying BMI is no standard for anything. It is flawed. I made an example.

I'm not making excuses at all. What I am saying is that to judge being overweight/obese, we need to judge it based on bodyfat/totalweight ratio... BF %.

BMI is poor because all it takes into account is height and total weight. A 270 lb bodybuilder that is 6'1 will have a BMI of 35.6. This is considered obese. But he is not. If his lean bodymass is 250, his bodyfat % is 7%... and he's not fat/overweight by the better standard.

Someone that is 6'1 that weighs 270 and a lean body mass of 180 has a bodyfat % of 33%. THIS is obesity.
 
I think if anyone needs some special bullshit scales and methods to determine whether someone is obese or grossly overweight, then they're only fooling themselves and are likely to be obese or grossly overweight themselves!

Oh, you are correct. If someone does not know he/she is obese or really overweight, they need some mental help.

However, the statistics are somewhat misleading. Not fully... I understand there is a problem with overeating/underactivity in the US. One can see it if one is not blind.

However, if there is a group of 10 people... 2 are obese, 1 is overweight, and another is only 1 pound overweight... the latter guy will be included in the statistics. That is, 40% are overweight or obese. And when the average person sees this statistic, they think of pot-bellies for 2 out of 5 people. However, that guy 1 pound over doesn't have a pot-belly... and he isn't all that much at risk for problems like the other 3 have. There is a significant difference between 30% and 40%.

I just want to know how they collected stats. If it was by BF%, they need to inform us of the distribution curve so we get a better idea how many "slightly overweight" was included, like this 1 pound guy.

If they collected it using BMI... the study is needs to tell us the kinds of people included int he study. Weight lifters? Truck drivers? Garbage men?

But I would rather any BMI study be thrown out.
 
Do you believe that people with a BMI of over 30 are seriously all muscle builders?:)

No.

But it does not take much to hit the "overweight" side on the BMI scale.

For example... I am 190 pounds 6'1".

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

This site puts my BMI at 25.1 and that is considered overweight.

The last time I checked, my BF % is about 17.5. This is condsidered normal/above normal depending on who you talk to.

Now, all I have to do is lose 5 pounds of fat and put on 5 pounds of lean body mass to have the same BMI but much much less BF %.
 
Absane, BMI is a guide for people who are bit tubby, to work out if they are overweight or obese. It's not for body builders. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR FAT PEOPLE. You start questionig the merits of BMI, all the obese people will start saying 'well, BMI is flawed, I'm big boned' etc etc.
 
Absane, BMI is a guide for people who are bit tubby, to work out if they are overweight or obese. It's not for body builders. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR FAT PEOPLE. You start questionig the merits of BMI, all the obese people will start saying 'well, BMI is flawed, I'm big boned' etc etc.

How the fuck am I making excuses for fat people? I wish fat people would do something about it.

You do not see the flaw in it? It's Weight/height. That's it. It says NOTHING about fat. Nada. It fucks up the statistics. Someone with a high lean body mass that is a bit "tubby" as you call it will have HIGH OVERWEIGHT to OBESE rating. They are just a little "tubby" by my set-up. Don't you see the flaw?

I am questioning the system, not giving fat people a free pass. You seem to IGNORE the that I advoate basing overweight/obesity with the BF%... that is, (weight of bodyfat)/(total weight).

If FAT is the issue (having too much fat or too little), we need to base the system on how much fat someone has, not how much one weighs and how tall they are. BMI neglects how one's body is composed.

BMI is basically just a "weight per inch" thing.

Ectomorphs tend to have a smaller bone structure than endomorphs. Yes, endomorphs tend to be overweight, but not all of them. (not much to do with BMI, though it may affect it a bit. I am just pointing this out to correct a statement of yours).


Also, I never said BMI is for bodybuilders. What I am saying is that to not include bodybuilders in determining how many people in the US is overweight is misleading. To take them out of the statistics is miss leading. And in fact, some bodybuilders are considered overweight for half the year when they "bulk up" by BF % standards.

Explain to me how BMI is much better than BF %, when the former neglects fat completely.
 
Last edited:
Study of interest: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050302/ai_n12945442

56% of NFL players are obese.

I know a few people that were big in terms of body frame, compostion, muscle, etc. Then they let themselves so. They look slightly overweight, but according to BMI they are obese.

Should we just change the scale based on the individual? This makes no sense.

18% bodyfat or so is considered overweight. That means.. for every pound of your body, 18% of it is fat.

BMI of 25 says for every pound, there is 5.3 inches to your height. What does this say about fat?

BMI = weight-pounds / (height-inches ^ 2) * 703
 
With all that money and space America still complains of 12 million immigrants, people who's only crime is to find a way to live out their potential and be lieberated from their dictator led countries. Besides, the same country invaded Iraq and is making million in contracts and rebiulding efforts. America the greedy. Sometimes they make me laugh
 
Sam.. how did they calculate what overweight is? BMI? Of Bodyfat percentage? Because BMI is shit for telling us anything. Muscular people tend to have high BMIs but low BF. Are they overweight?

Data is based on information collected through the BRFSS. They have been tracking people since 1984 with increasing number of respondents every year.

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the world’s largest, on-going telephone health survey system, tracking health conditions and risk behaviors in the United States yearly since 1984.

http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm

Here is the questionnaire they are using this year:
http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/2006brfss.pdf

And they are denoting trends, so either the US is getting more and more muscular with each passing year or it is getting fatter. What do you think?

TF000000.JPG


Also they are using the median, not the mean.
 
Last edited:
And they are denoting trends, so either the US is getting more and more muscular with each passing year or it is getting fatter. What do you think?

Thank you for the data.

But why am I being accused of "excusing the obese" or that I think BMI is high just because of lean body mass?

I'm saying that BMI is flawed. If you know the forumla (which you should.. if not, I did post it)... it says NOTHING about how fat someone is. Nada. Zip. Aren't we talking about fat people? BMI talks about how much someone weights for every inch of their body. That's it. It neglects variations in body composition.

It is just a rough scale. A BMI of 21-28 does not account for lean body mass. Anything higher or lower and we start getting into how likely it is the individual is overweight or underweight. But within this range... you either have to look at them or find out their BF%.

And if I read it right.. they CALL people to ask them what their height is and weight is. Once the BMI is calculated... you would still have to ask them "do you consider yourself fat" in some fashion, especially if they have a BMI around 25 (for overweight).

Whatever the range is for obese... you have the same problem. Maybe they have a large body frame, slightly above average lean body mass.. and a bit of fat. It might put them in "obese" but really they are just overweight.

Hell, I posted the article that 56% of NFL players are "obese." One could say "well just don't include them in the calculation of BMI." One cannot change a scale of measurement to get the results one is looking for.

Why is BMI better than BF%? Seems many "scientists" use BMI and neglect bodyfat. And doesn't the scientific method require that one have only one variable change at a time? With BMI... many variables change from person to person.

Ugh.
 
Thank you for the data.

But why am I being accused of "excusing the obese" or that I think BMI is high just because of lean body mass?

I'm saying that BMI is flawed. If you know the forumla (which you should.. if not, I did post it)... it says NOTHING about how fat someone is. Nada. Zip. Aren't we talking about fat people? BMI talks about how much someone weights for every inch of their body. That's it. It neglects variations in body composition.

It is just a rough scale. A BMI of 21-28 does not account for lean body mass. Anything higher or lower and we start getting into how likely it is the individual is overweight or underweight. But within this range... you either have to look at them or find out their BF%.

And if I read it right.. they CALL people to ask them what their height is and weight is. Once the BMI is calculated... you would still have to ask them "do you consider yourself fat" in some fashion, especially if they have a BMI around 25 (for overweight).

Whatever the range is for obese... you have the same problem. Maybe they have a large body frame, slightly above average lean body mass.. and a bit of fat. It might put them in "obese" but really they are just overweight.

Hell, I posted the article that 56% of NFL players are "obese." One could say "well just don't include them in the calculation of BMI." One cannot change a scale of measurement to get the results one is looking for.

Why is BMI better than BF%? Seems many "scientists" use BMI and neglect bodyfat. And doesn't the scientific method require that one have only one variable change at a time? With BMI... many variables change from person to person.

Ugh.

Umm the BRFSS is not concerned with obesity, it is concerned with behavioural risk factors that predispose to chronic disease. Height and weight is collected as a matter of course and BMI is calculated alongwith other variables that correlate to chronic disease, so in isolation it may be a useless indicator of obesity (and is rarely used in isolation for that very reason) but along with increased incidence of diseases it is not.

Again they use the median value to denote their data, not the mean, so they do not cover the standard deviation of the range (ie the really high and really low values are not represented in the final value)

Yet again, they are denoting trends or changes in incidence over time, so unless American people are exercising so much that it is leading to increased number of deaths from heart disease, diabetes and cancer, then obesity is the natural assumption.
 
I'm sure they know more about this stuff than I do... I just don't understand why BMI is so popular. It's a poor standard for anything.
 
I'm personally against bans of any sort, that is like saying everyone is too stupid to decide for themselves.

However, a little push in the right direction now and then doesn't hurt, does it?;)

Why does every thread your in involve some kind of sexual inuenndo? And why do I only now realize this golden (to me the most) piece of information?
 
Last edited:
I'm sure they know more about this stuff than I do... I just don't understand why BMI is so popular. It's a poor standard for anything.

BMI is popular because it is simple to understand, apply and is the cheapest method available for large scale analysis. It is used by organisations like the CDC in detecting trends and has proved useful in determining health policies.

When you design a study involving tens of thousands of individuals, you don't need to calculate the power required to avoid getting a Type I error ( the probability of getting a false positive), especially when you are measuring more than one variable. For example if trends indicated that rates for cancer, diabetes and heart disease were plummeting, then it would be reasonable to assume that the increasing frequency of people above BMI30 are all recreational body builders.

In actual clinical studies done specifically for the purpose of ascertaining obesity, we assess body composition using DXA. (I use DXA for my rats too!)

http://www.nyorc.org/bcu/labs/dxa.html

Current DXA systems designed for body composition analysis can provide estimates for the three components of the whole body and for specific regions such as the arms, legs, and trunk. This unique capability of DXA provides several important opportunities: regional or total-body fat mass can be quantified using standard system settings or for investigator-initiated specific anatomic sites; appendicular lean soft tissue can be quantified and used as a measure of regional or total-body skeletal muscle mass ; and acquired bone mineral can be applied not only to the study of osteoporosis, but to development of more complex multicomponent models. DXA measurements provide valuable insights in longitudinal studies as measurement precision is very high. Many studies have now validated DXA body composition estimates against other reference methods with good overall agreement for body fat estimates. Some variation in fat and bone mineral estimates is usually observed when different instruments are compared, necessitating close scrutiny of the selected instrument with respect to calibration and accuracy. Although providing regional “total” fat estimates, unlike CT and MRI DXA is not capable of estimating visceral adipose tissue.

DXA systems are increasingly available, are accurate when properly calibrated and applied, and relatively safe to use in the majority of subjects. As a result, DXA is becoming the method of choice for accurately measuring fat and bone mineral mass at research centers lacking IVNA systems. Disadvantages are that DXA cannot be used in pregnant women, cost is reasonably high, and very large or obese subjects cannot be easily accommodated on most presently available systems.
 
HARVxCV1x0504.gif
HARVx050x0504.gif
HARVx051x0504.gif


http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050465.html
Everywhere in the world, the richest people build the biggest homes, but as the world's wealthiest nation, the United States is also building the biggest bodies. It's hardly cause for patriotic pride. "We're leading a race we shouldn't want to win," says associate professor of pediatrics David Ludwig. Many foreigners already view Americans as rich, greedy over-consumers, stuffing themselves with far more than their share of the planet's resources, and obese American travelers waddling through international airports and hotel lobbies only reinforce that image. Yet our fat problem is becoming a global one as food corporations export our sugary, salty, fatty diet: Beijing has more than a hundred McDonald's franchises, which advertise and price the same food in the same way, and with the same level of success.

The epidemic of obesity is a vast and growing public health problem. "Weight sits like a spider at the center of an intricate, tangled web of health and disease," writes Willett in Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating, arguably the best and most scientifically sound book on nutrition for the general public. He notes that three aspects of weight—BMI, waist size, and weight gained after one's early twenties—are linked to chances of having or dying from heart disease, strokes and other cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and several types of cancer, plus suffering from arthritis, infertility, gallstones, asthma, and even snoring. "Weight is much more important than serum cholesterol," Willett asserts; as a cause of premature, preventable deaths, he adds, excess weight and obesity rank a very close second to smoking, partly because there are twice as many fat people as smokers. In fact, since smokers tend to be leaner, the decrease in smoking prevalence has actually swelled the ranks of the fat.

The obesity epidemic arrived with astonishing speed. After tens of thousands of generations of human evolution, flab has become widespread only in the past 50 years, and waistlines have ballooned exponentially in the last two decades. In 1980, 46 percent of U.S. adults were overweight; by 2000, the figure was 64.5 percent: nearly a 1 percent annual increase in the ranks of the fat. At this rate, by 2040, 100 percent of American adults will be overweight and "it may happen more quickly," says John Foreyt of Baylor College of Medicine, who spoke at a conference organized by Gifford's Oldways group in 2003. Foreyt noted that, 20 years ago, he rarely saw 300-pound patients; now they are common. Childhood obesity, also once rare, has mushroomed: 15 percent of children between ages six and 19 are now overweight, and even 10 percent of those between two and five. "This may be the first generation of children who will die before their parents," Foreyt says.
 
Why is BMI better than BF%?

Because people can measure their BMI themselves. If you are tubby,and you come up overweight on a BMI check, you may then go to get the BF% checked out. I bet very few people casually get their BF% checked out of curiosity, BMI is the first very important step for most people realising they have a weight problem. The more you question and rubbish it, the less likely people are to use and take the next step.

Applaud BMI for what it is, a rough guide to help get fatties to the dietician.
 
I didn't need the BMI to tell me I have a weight problem...it only confirmed the obvious - I am obese.

I agree with Absane. The BMI is next to useless if your an athlete. The only thing the BMI tells you is that you have a large body mass and not the make up of that mass.
 
Back
Top