Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um, yes. Which is why BMI is calculated to allow for such a huge margin. Your BMI for a woman can be between 18.5-24.9 and you can still be healthy. That gives me almost 45 pounds to play around with. Meaning you can account for a person with a petite Asian body frame all the way to someone with a Swedish athletic frame, and still have a healthy BMI. Forty-five pounds is a lot. There is no reason someone shouldn't be able to stay within that and be healthy for their body type - when we die and everything wears away, we all look the same. That goes for men too. If you don't believe me, look at pictures of your great-grandparents - you haven't genetically evolved from them, so you really shouldn't look much different, except in the rare case of immigrants who get a bit more protein in their early years and grow taller (but not wider).
I think BMI, at least at the margins is a poor metric of health. I'm 5'7" and weigh 170. That puts my BMI at 26.6, overweight. But I am around 15-16% BFP and have a healthy cholesterol level. At this weight I could add 2 inches of height and still be overweight by BMI. At this height I would have to drop to 159 pounds to be at the very very top of the "normal weight." Now at 15-16% BFP I can certainly drop some pounds without sacrificing muscle mass, but I'd lose some serious strength gains if I dropped to 159. And by being a "normal weight" by BMI I would be less healthy than I am now.
I've heard the argument that BMI is not always reliable on an individual level but useful as an aggregate. I do data and statistical analysis in my day job and can tell you an aggregate with a lot of inherently flawed observations is a flawed aggregate. This is why I argue the stats that claim this country is 2/3 overweight are being grossly overstated because many of them use the BMI as the metric for this claim. The "overweight" category captures a lot of people like me who are far from overweight and the obese category will capture some who are overweight but not quite obese.
I don't doubt for a second you are well informed within your occupation but I know a few doctors who are dismissive of BMI as a garbage metric due to the reasons I've outlined. So there's definitely not consensus on the value of BMI within the medical professional community. And from a data analyst perspective a data pool that is "garbage in" results in "garbage out" analysis.
Last edited by iknowftbll; 03-04-2016 at 07:30 PM..
I'm a feminist and I think men are great. Sure super militant extreme feminists are probably anti male, but that's on the extreme end of feminism.
I think men and women are equal. Women are no better or worse than men.
This is an excellent point. Feminism has a long history, and many women will identify as being feminists without ever being exposed to the wacko extremists. Men who identify as being mras, red pill, etc are grouping themselves in with 100% wackos. Unless someone can provide a link to a non wacko MRA red pill organization....
ETA (now that I'm off my phone)
There actually could be a need for Men's Rights organizations, if they would only stick to real issues, like the higher rates of male suicide, and the sometimes complete nonsensical unfairness in family courts (like a man being forced to pay child support for a child that his wife had with another man). But it seems like these men's groups—at least the ones that everyone ever hears about—can't resist getting rapey. They complain about age of consent laws and think it's unfair that sex with a woman too drunk to consent is considered rape.
While I haven't made an extensive study of this, I don't think that most genuine "man-hating" feminists want to rape men. More typically, they want nothing to do with men. (Many go off the rails by claiming that any sex between men and women is "rape," so yes, they are wacko, no doubt!)
On the other hand, many "woman-hating" MRAs still want to have sex with women, and are very frustrated because these women are able to refuse! This is where much of the rapey stuff comes from.
One can self-identify as "feminist" in the classic sense, because historically, it wasn't that long ago that women couldn't vote, couldn't even own property. Women owe a lot to feminism, and many women still associate the term "feminism" with its roots.
The "modern feminism" is where it goes off the rails, and I associate that term with things like "trigger warnings" for every little stupid thing, "safe space" and so forth. I'm not very politically correct and so I want to distance myself from those things, because they seem silly and trivial compared to the real issues that feminism sought to address.
On the other hand, I don't consider it silly or trivial to be fed up with cat-calling and rudeness, because that's a matter of good manners. Nor do I think that it's okay that women are objectified to the extent that they are.
Which brings us back to the discussion of this thread, which is fat people, or more specifically, fat women, and the hate that is directed towards them.
Last edited by elvira310; 03-04-2016 at 09:22 PM..
I think BMI, at least at the margins is a poor metric of health. I'm 5'7" and weigh 170. That puts my BMI at 26.6, overweight. But I am around 15-16% BFP and have a healthy cholesterol level. At this weight I could add 2 inches of height and still be overweight by BMI. At this height I would have to drop to 159 pounds to be at the very very top of the "normal weight." Now at 15-16% BFP I can certainly drop some pounds without sacrificing muscle mass, but I'd lose some serious strength gains if I dropped to 159. And by being a "normal weight" by BMI I would be less healthy than I am now.
I've heard the argument that BMI is not always reliable on an individual level but useful as an aggregate. I do data and statistical analysis in my day job and can tell you an aggregate with a lot of inherently flawed observations is a flawed aggregate. This is why I argue the stats that claim this country is 2/3 overweight are being grossly overstated because many of them use the BMI as the metric for this claim. The "overweight" category captures a lot of people like me who are far from overweight and the obese category will capture some who are overweight but not quite obese.
I don't doubt for a second you are well informed within your occupation but I know a few doctors who are dismissive of BMI as a garbage metric due to the reasons I've outlined. So there's definitely not consensus on the value of BMI within the medical professional community. And from a data analyst perspective a data pool that is "garbage in" results in "garbage out" analysis.
I agree that statistically it is important to look at multiple factors when assessing data. Your point is also well taken in terms of gross national health studies and their implications. However, I do think that there is a big difference between being 11 lbs overweight and being 30-100 pounds overweight, which is the case with many Americans. In many cases, they are more than 100 pounds overweight. Certainly, I think it would be hard to make the case that the majority, or even 1/3 of Americans, or Ashley Graham is anywhere near only 11 lbs over a healthy weight. We even see many pregnancies being classified as high risk pregnancies now because the mothers are obese, and there are such serious implications to the women and the babies. That is pretty striking when we are talking about a single factor, obesity, and the effects it has upon something normal like a pregnancy.
I agree that statistically it is important to look at multiple factors when assessing data.
That's just the starting point. Cleaning data and trying to weed out biases and other factors that skew is huge. Then understanding the limits to the model is critical too. One of the key rules about regression models is "holding other factors constant." Of course we know this is not an accurate picture of reality. So when we say "excess weight may lead to risk of _______" it is important to understand that statement is a very basic, stripped down assessment that ignores a lot of factors and may not be a very accurate statement at all once all factors are included. This is why people say there are lies, lies, and stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senah
Your point is also well taken in terms of gross national health studies and their implications.
Thank you. In a thread that has been overly testy at times it's good that some can still make points and counter points!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senah
However, I do think that there is a big difference between being 11 lbs overweight and being 30-100 pounds overweight, which is the case with many Americans.
Perhaps I am nitpicking your statement but I wanted to be clear about something. I do not consider myself overweight. At my height, the max weight I can be to be "normal" by BMI is 159 so by BMI I am overweight. But if I've not made myself clear I put zero stock in that metric. I'm not going to go on and on about my physical abilities, but I will say with confidence that I am likely in the top 15% of fit men in this country. Controlling for age (I'm 35) I'd put myself top 10%. I'm basing these claims on strength and performance metrics from a variety of sources from Men's Fitness to ExRx.net. Again, I realize I am probably nitpicking you statement; I just felt this needed clarifying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senah
In many cases, they are more than 100 pounds overweight. Certainly, I think it would be hard to make the case that the majority, or even 1/3 of Americans, or Ashley Graham is anywhere near only 11 lbs over a healthy weight. We even see many pregnancies being classified as high risk pregnancies now because the mothers are obese, and there are such serious implications to the women and the babies. That is pretty striking when we are talking about a single factor, obesity, and the effects it has upon something normal like a pregnancy.
And this is another reason I often question the "2/3 of Americans are overweight" arguments. That simply does not pass the eye test. I don't live in the most health-conscious area. Before I lived here I lived in Denver/Boulder, San Diego, and Monterey. These areas are notoriously health conscious so moving here to Fredericksburg, Virginia just outside Washington D.C. was a bit of a culture shock. There isn't a prevalent culture of fitness here like some of the previous areas I've lived. And yet, anytime I'm out and about and have the presence of mind to take an informal (and admittedly unscientific) sample, the stats published in these studies simply don't pass the eye test. They start to once I venture into some of the lower income areas, but make no mistake: there are plenty of overweight people among the white collar and well educated too. And there are some freakishly athletic kids coming out of some of these low income neighborhoods too. The mall is a pretty good place to sample data because it is a pretty solid cross section of the area. There's an adjacent Costco and I believe that balances the data toward a demographic you'd otherwise not see in a mall any given weekend (people in their 40s-60s would likely be under-represented). And still...the 2/3 stats simply don't pass the eye test.
Do we have an issue with weight? I think we do. I think the insanely processed foods, what the FDA allows to pass as safe, a growingly sedentary culture, video games replacing actual sports, hypersensitive parenting (kids not allowed to play outside) and a whole mess of other factors combine to create this issue. But I balk at lamenting this issue (without offering any real solutions) or reacting to it by treating people deemed over society's ideal like second class citizens. There is a certain baseline amount of dignity a person deserves simply for being a person. Now he or she may develop into a person undeserving of said dignity based on his/her actions. Simply being overweight does not meet that criteria.
Ashley's measurements are public knowledge. She's a model and her measurements currently are 38/29.5/45. She is a D cup. I used to model and our measurements have to be accurate for bookings. She's overweight, not obese.
This is what has me wondering too. What would be the purpose of deliberately lying about one's measurements when seeking modeling work? Your true measurements will be found out when you take the job. What is the point of lying for the sake of vanity if it could damage your ability to get work? We can argue all day long about what her "real" measurements are, but we can't know.
If we plug in the waist measurement of 29.5 and the hip measurement of 45, we get a hip-to-waist ratio of .66 (it's supposed to be under .78 for women) and her BMI is 29.7, which is just below "obese." (Assuming her weight is 201, as I have seen listed.) But regardless of her weight, we can't get around the hip-to-waist ratio, which seems pretty good. This online chart lists her health risk as moderately elevated based on her hip-to-waist ratio.
But this is just a chart, which may be flawed. None of us are her doctor, and none of us have the ability to take her measurements.
She is lovely, as is Cheryl. I am from an era of Cheryl type bodies. I do understand the pendulum has swung in the other direction as it has through out history if one looks at paintings and photos of so called beauty. I imagine Ashley worries more about her looks then the everyday woman. She has a marketable image and needs to maintain it, just as every model does.
For me I will stay with my running 1/2s, biking 4,000 miles a year and vegetarian diet for life. I can gain a few pounds doing this, but it melts back off. It is just something that is important to me, not to judge anyone else and hopefully they won't judge me.
I'm not relying on any BMI scale to inform my observation.
I i) grew up in an America that was nowhere near as fat as it is today and ii) live in East Asia for the past 31+ years and frequently return to the US and see with my own two eyes how much fatter Americans are than a) Asians and b) Americans of just 40 years ago.
To even speculate that the level of overweight and obese Americans we have now is not as significant a problem as some point out is very odd, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
I think the insanely processed foods, what the FDA allows to pass as safe, a growingly sedentary culture, video games replacing actual sports, hypersensitive parenting (kids not allowed to play outside) and a whole mess of other factors combine to create this issue.
Well, of course.
And advocating for fat acceptance sustains and cultivates the problem and encourages even increased levels of overweight and obese Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
But I balk at lamenting this issue (without offering any real solutions)...
Real solutions? We know the solution. It isn't brain surgery or rocket science, but, it is science. Its easy. Its not a mystery. You've already identified some of the primary problems above. If you know the problem, then you know the solution, at least in this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
or reacting to it by treating people deemed over society's ideal like second class citizens. There is a certain baseline amount of dignity a person deserves simply for being a person. Now he or she may develop into a person undeserving of said dignity based on his/her actions. Simply being overweight does not meet that criteria.
Yeah. Of course. But, even if that exists on the scale that some have claimed here in this thread, it doesn't negate the facts that i) being overweight is unhealthy individually and costly to society, ii) we know the causes of fat and solutions for getting rid of fat, and iii) glamorising fat discourages weightless and encourages fat acceptance.
If we plug in the waist measurement of 29.5 and the hip measurement of 45, we get a hip-to-waist ratio of .66 (it's supposed to be under .78 for women) and her BMI is 29.7, which is just below "obese." (Assuming her weight is 201, as I have seen listed.) But regardless of her weight, we can't get around the hip-to-waist ratio, which seems pretty good. This online chart lists her health risk as moderately elevated based on her hip-to-waist ratio.
But this is just a chart, which may be flawed. None of us are her doctor, and none of us have the ability to take her measurements.
Do you think it more likely that she is i) fitter prior to her photo shoots and fattens up for the gigs or that she is ii) fatter before the photo shoots and loses a few pounds for the gigs?
I know how I'd guess.
Either way, she's way overweight if not obese (but, I think she's obese).
And in any event, I've already stated multiple times that my concern is not get her individually, but, for the collective population that IS getting ever fatter.
But, even if that exists on the scale that some have claimed here in this thread, it doesn't negate the facts that i) being overweight is unhealthy individually and costly to society, ii) we know the causes of fat and solutions for getting rid of fat, and iii) glamorising fat discourages weightless and encourages fat acceptance.
Why not send a message that fat is not horrible and monstrous, and in fact there are attractive fat people (like this model) but that obesity it still a health concern. Strive to encourage people to work to improve their health, not because:
1) they are repulsive and unlovable when they're fat
2) they are bad people who have no "willpower"
3) will only be "good" after they lose all their weight, but until then are bad and looked down upon by everyone else
If they can get the mindset that while they look okay—or even beautiful—as they are, it would be so much better if they'd eat this and not eat that. They'll have more energy and feel more comfortable if they work out more, and that's the only reason they should be working out, because it makes them feel better. Take the whole beauty and glamour thing out of it completely and make it all about how they feel. Stop making it about how nobody will love them if they're fat, how everyone is disgusted at seeing their flabby arms or they should be ashamed to wear that bathing suit. Emphasize that it's important to lose weight because it's the right thing for their health.
Studies have shown that when the main focus is on how ugly and horrible fat people are, how disgusting and unliked they are, it seems to push the fat person deeper into despair and they're more likely to give up. In fact, they're more likely to gain weight instead of lose it. 'Fat Shaming' Doesn't Motivate Obese People to Lose Weight: Study
And to answer your other post, if you want people to lose weight, I don't think having them feel more hideous and ugly is helping them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lies, and stats. 
