The Illustrated BMI project
Check this out... pictures of women and their BMI... this should be good for some spirited "discussions"
mm
BMI.... take a look
Started by
maineman
, Oct 03 2007 07:28 PM
6 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 03 October 2007 - 07:28 PM
#2
Posted 05 October 2007 - 06:09 PM
Wow. That was interesting. Some of 'em made sense and some of 'em had me scratching my head.
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells
#3
Posted 06 October 2007 - 10:16 AM
Is a body fat percentage or BMI more accurate in determining " normal " ?
#4
Posted 06 October 2007 - 11:08 AM
...I like big butts and I can not lie...
Sir Mix-a-Lot
Big Hips May Be Healthy For Heart, Big Belly Is A Danger Sign
LINK
BETHESDA, MD -- August 23, 2001 -- People who store excess fat in their hips have a health advantage over those who store excess fat at the waistline, according to new research highlighted by the Public Information Committee of the American Society for Nutritional Sciences (ASNS) and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition (ASCN).
It seems that hip-fat stays put, whereas belly-fat tends to roam about in the bloodstream and wreak havoc on the cardiovascular system.
SOURCE: Public Information Committee for the ASNS/ASCN
Lay Off the Fatties
They're not hurting anybody -- maybe not even themselves.
Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America’s Obesity Epidemic, by J. Eric Oliver:
LINK
"But in this study, people who were merely “overweight,” with BMIs between 25 and 30 (meaning a weight between 169 and 202 pounds for an average-height man), did not have higher mortality than people of “normal” or “ideal” weight, which is in fact neither normal (since most Americans exceed it) nor, to judge by this study, ideal in terms of health. In fact, the death rate among chubby (but not obese) people in this study was lower than the death rate among thin (but not underweight) people, to the tune of 86,000 fewer deaths a year. Which makes you wonder exactly what it means to be “overweight” and why we should be worried about it.
Having shown that the medical case against fatness is much weaker than government officials and anti-obesity activists claim, Oliver and Campos ask why it is pushed so aggressively and accepted so widely.
“we have no clear idea whether any deaths at all can be attributed solely to a person’s body weight.”
"the real threats to our health are poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles"
"an unreasonable fear of fatness should be blamed for the bad health effects of anorexia, dangerous diet drugs, fluctuating weight, and even smoking (“a common weight loss and weight maintenance strategy,” Campos notes)
Sir Mix-a-Lot
Big Hips May Be Healthy For Heart, Big Belly Is A Danger Sign
LINK
BETHESDA, MD -- August 23, 2001 -- People who store excess fat in their hips have a health advantage over those who store excess fat at the waistline, according to new research highlighted by the Public Information Committee of the American Society for Nutritional Sciences (ASNS) and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition (ASCN).
It seems that hip-fat stays put, whereas belly-fat tends to roam about in the bloodstream and wreak havoc on the cardiovascular system.
SOURCE: Public Information Committee for the ASNS/ASCN
Lay Off the Fatties
They're not hurting anybody -- maybe not even themselves.
Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America’s Obesity Epidemic, by J. Eric Oliver:
LINK
"But in this study, people who were merely “overweight,” with BMIs between 25 and 30 (meaning a weight between 169 and 202 pounds for an average-height man), did not have higher mortality than people of “normal” or “ideal” weight, which is in fact neither normal (since most Americans exceed it) nor, to judge by this study, ideal in terms of health. In fact, the death rate among chubby (but not obese) people in this study was lower than the death rate among thin (but not underweight) people, to the tune of 86,000 fewer deaths a year. Which makes you wonder exactly what it means to be “overweight” and why we should be worried about it.
Having shown that the medical case against fatness is much weaker than government officials and anti-obesity activists claim, Oliver and Campos ask why it is pushed so aggressively and accepted so widely.
“we have no clear idea whether any deaths at all can be attributed solely to a person’s body weight.”
"the real threats to our health are poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles"
"an unreasonable fear of fatness should be blamed for the bad health effects of anorexia, dangerous diet drugs, fluctuating weight, and even smoking (“a common weight loss and weight maintenance strategy,” Campos notes)
"Nature's Failure to Function in a 'Predictable Way'... 500 years ago?"
BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER...Official records systematically 'adjusted'.
BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER...Official records systematically 'adjusted'.
#5
Posted 06 October 2007 - 01:03 PM
That's so cool!!! I'm glad to read it.
I think everyone has an ideal weight and it varies person to person. Some people are meant to be thinnner than others. Some are meant to be heavier. What's perfect for one person would be completely wrong for someone else even with the same height, age and sex.
I like that we all don't fit the same mode.
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells
#6
Posted 06 October 2007 - 04:24 PM
Defining "normal" in weight is like defining "normal" for people. No such thing. I think the visual BMI posted above is important... my read is that it is a poke in the eye to the high and mighty who pass judgement based on simple numbers.
Esther is right... everyone is different. On the other hand, gluttony is not good, and it is kind of no-brainer vis a vis common sense re: weight. Anyone with half a brain can tell if someone is too fat.
People want guidelines. One of the first questions my patients ask every year is "what should I weigh?" We have a very old weight chart, over 100 years old, that was based on weighing and measuring dead bodies in a morgue and crunching health data (this was done by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company). In other words it was an actuarial analysis of weight/death rate. That's the chart that's been hanging in doctor's offices for years.
The BMI is one of several attempts to improve on that data. If you really look at the BMI chart its an excellent guide. There is a WIDE range of "normal", followed by a WIDE range of "overweight". To be in the "obese" category, you really do have to be overweight.
I let patients look at all the charts and tell them that "somewhere" in the OK range is close enough for me if its okay with them. Then I try to steer the conversation to exercise, diet, blood pressure, lipids, smoking, drinking, etc. etc.
The best study I've read is the Harvard study... it showed that if you take a tape measure around your shoulders and a tape measure around your waist and compare them, if the ratio (shoulder to waist) is greater than 1 you are just fine.....think about it....
My best advice? Eat, laugh, exercise, laugh, don't smoke, don't get too hung up ....life is way too short anyway...
mm
#7
Posted 07 October 2007 - 01:32 PM
My best advice? Eat, laugh, exercise, laugh, don't smoke, don't get too hung up ....life is way too short anyway...
Great perscription!
"Nature's Failure to Function in a 'Predictable Way'... 500 years ago?"
BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER...Official records systematically 'adjusted'.
BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER...Official records systematically 'adjusted'.