Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Fat Acceptance Movement
Replies
-
mskessler89 wrote: »
For individuals, BMI is arbitrary. BMI is used to assess populations on a large scale. You can't use BMI to determine if an individual is healthy, or even if an individual is overfat.
I have always been a "normal" BMI, but at my highest weight, I had a high enough body fat % to be considered obese. According to your argument, I was healthy. Reality is that, had I not lost weight, I would have stayed at higher risk for obesity-related health problems. On the flip side, there's tall or muscular people who get classified as overweight because BMI goes off height and weight alone, not accounting for fat %. Fat % is a much more accurate way of establishing risk in individuals, but according to your BMI-is-not-arbitrary stance, these lean-but-heavy individuals are unhealthy.
ETA: Definition of arbitrary
MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
The reason people keep calling BMI arbitrary is that while, yes, BMI has specified values, not everyone who falls into those categories actually ARE what the value specifies. A person with a BMI of 25 will not, by other quantifiable standards such as body fat %, be overweight (overfat and therefore unhealthy) every single time.
It isn't arbitrary. It's very specific. It's just that it's a terrible metric for this purpose.
But accepting this being a terrible measurement, the argument is still sound, and that is that generally people at an obese BMI will be generally unhealthier than they would be if they were at a normal BMI all else being equal. (And this generalized fact doesn't care how you or anyone else feels about it.)4 -
-
Yeah BMI is pretty much useless. I'm at the lower end of over weight according to BMI and I am 6'0", 33 inch waist, and washboard abs.3
-
People come in different sizes... no one makes anyone "feel". feelings are the choice and prerogative of the individual...and we typically reach for the feeling that best supports our preconceived notion of what WE think serves us best. MOST adults (North American) have access to educational material which helps identify appropriate food choices... activity level is also a choice... and we are all in part products of our environment and genetic predisposition. and as human beings fallible... and imperfect... THAT a few individuals feel empowered by standing up and saying " I am Fat and proud of it..." does not diminish the health risks associated with carrying extra weight... I defy anyone that is "proud to be fat" to stand beside chunks of fat equivalent to what they are presumed to be carrying as "extra" and not be motivated to make changes in their lifestyle. I look at people...as a hobby... and some people..."look" like that's the way they were born to look at a heavier weight than what would be considered a "healthy" weight" some people are wider... some are taller... some have long lithe bones.. some have stout strong bones... some people were meant for heavy hard work...others for less physically demanding pursuits... a rugby team is the epitome of the dichotomy of the physical purpose of an individuals personal evolution.
some people are fat... so what... some people are skinny... so what...some people are loud some are quiet.. some are fragile while others can suffer the slings and arrows and pretend to speak for those they think they have a right to represent... in the end...and we all face the end... it isn't what we looked like... or how we ate... it will be how we treated others that will matter... because those feelings we CHOOSE to feel... will all we take with us when we have breathed our last2 -
No, but many insurance companies in the US are talking about using BMI as a way to regulate how much your premiums are (if you're overweight or obese, you'll have higher premiums because you are associated with a higher burden of cost for health care expenses). As can be expected, a lot of people have problems with that.
My insurance company warned us that in a year we'd be screened for 5 metrics. And then at 6 months allowed us to take a test run so we could get our proverbial houses in order, if necessary. And then at that one year mark, screened everyone. Those who failed on two or more metrics paid higher premiums. As I recall, the metrics included smoking, waist size, blood pressure, and two others that elude me.
The point being that insurance should be for the unexpected, i.e. those things outside our control. We, the consumer, the insured, should be responsible for those things within our control. And if we're not willing to be, then we ought to pay some price, i.e. have some skin in the game, instead of wantonly pawning off our foreseeable costs on someone else.10 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »
My insurance company warned us that in a year we'd be screened for 5 metrics. And then at 6 months allowed us to take a test run. And then at that one year mark, screened everyone. Those who failed on two or more metrics paid higher premiums. As I recall, the metrics included smoking, waist size, blood pressure, and two others that elude me.
The point being that insurance should be for the unexpected, i.e. those things outside our control. We, the consumer, the insured, should be responsible for those things within our control. And if we're not willing to be, then we ought to pay some price, i.e. have some skin in the game, instead of wantonly pawning off our foreseeable costs on someone else.
Um, fine?
But BMI is not accurate FOR SOME. In general, most people fall under the bell curve for which it is applicable, but when you make it a hard and fast rule for defining coverage, then it does become a problem for those few outliers.2 -
Um, fine?
But BMI is not accurate FOR SOME. In general, most people fall under the bell curve for which it is applicable, but when you make it a hard and fast rule for defining coverage, then it does become a problem for those few outliers.
BMI is in fact pretty generous. Most Americans are not Greeks God and Goddesses or Olympic class athletes and it is *not* muscle mass that drives them towards the higher ends of the scale.
Where there are real exceptions, provisions are in place to accommodate them. This is a false argument.11 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
Cake...cookies...
STAHP ALREADY!!!
(I assume you've already made a pie reference in one of the posts I haven't read yet.)
My favorite was the "elephant in the room". I was gonna try to work "easy as pie" in there but didn't get the chance
1 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »
BMI is in fact pretty generous. Most Americans are not Greeks God and Goddesses or Olympic class athletes and it is *not* muscle mass that drives them towards the higher ends of the scale.
Where there are real exceptions, provisions are in place to accommodate them. This is a false argument.
Knowledge of BMI is not enough to be making judgments about a specific individual. It's a very simplistic calculation and while its fine to use for a population because one can assume a normalized distribution, it shouldn't be used for insurance calculations. I've already had one friend who was forced to lose 20 pounds of muscle mass so he could save money on his life insurance premiums. I'm not looking forward to the possiblity of being rated myself for health insurance.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Knowledge of BMI is not enough to be making judgments about a specific individual. It's a very simplistic calculation and while its fine to use for a population because one can assume a normalized distribution, it shouldn't be used for insurance calculations. I've already had one friend who was forced to lose 20 pounds of muscle mass so he could save money on his life insurance premiums. I'm not looking forward to the possiblity of being rated myself for health insurance.
The creator of the concept of BMI said that it was ONLY useful to measure population trends and was NOT an acceptable measure to diagnose individuals.4 -
The creator of the concept of BMI said that it was ONLY useful to measure population trends and was NOT an acceptable measure to diagnose individuals.
And the creators of Viagra originally said it was only to treat HBP and angina.7 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
And the creators of Viagra originally said it was only to treat HBP and angina.
Except its use for ED was found to be appropriate whereas using BMI for health insurance will punish individuals for building lean muscle mass.2 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Knowledge of BMI is not enough to be making judgments about a specific individual. It's a very simplistic calculation and while its fine to use for a population because one can assume a normalized distribution, it shouldn't be used for insurance calculations. I've already had one friend who was forced to lose 20 pounds of muscle mass so he could save money on his life insurance premiums. I'm not looking forward to the possiblity of being rated myself for health insurance.
I would be an example. I had to drop 5lbs fast for my life insurence to be a lower bracket. I cut out all lifting and ran daily for a week and cut down to 1200 calories a day so I would hit "healthy" BMI even with a 27% body fat. My goals to drop more body fat but I am no where near as unhealthy as someone with a 35% body fat at the top of there "heatlhy" BMI is when it comes to risks to my health.1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
And the creators of Viagra originally said it was only to treat HBP and angina.
I assume you have a point other than to demonstrate a very poor understanding of logic.-1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
It isn't arbitrary. It's very specific. It's just that it's a terrible metric for this purpose.
But accepting this being a terrible measurement, the argument is still sound, and that is that generally people at an obese BMI will be generally unhealthier than they would be if they were at a normal BMI all else being equal. (And this generalized fact doesn't care how you or anyone else feels about it.)
Agreed.
Of all the different possible equations one could have chosen to define obesity of a population based on variance of height it could be argued that the use of this formula is arbitrary versus another formula. In fact, it isn't that arbitrary - the formula has been statically studied, reviewed, criticised and even when found wanting, someone classified as obese or morbidly obese with this formula is highly unlikely to be found in the normal weight range by another method of evaluation. Sure, it might be off on the borderline cases or from one class to another for a few individuals but not for the majority of people.6 -
So all the people who "finish" the Boston Marathon but don't place officially are mediocre?
One of the victims from the 2013 marathon bombing lost a leg. She ran this year. I heard she didn't finish until around 7pm. May have been last or almost last. Is she mediocre?
I don't know who the fat girl runner is. I admire her that she has the courage to call herself that. I admire her that she runs.
I only walk. Don't want to know what you think of me.
I walk. And I look to continuously improve my duration and # of hills (as measured by Floors on my fitbit.) In the last year, I've more than tripled my duration.
I'd look at time as well, but do trail maintenance while I'm out there, which is hard if not impossible to factor in to time.2 -
I assume you have a point other than to demonstrate a very poor understanding of logic.
Classy Rob. (And yet still obtuse)0 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »0
-
Did you think his comment was classy?ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
Classy Rob. (And yet still obtuse)
The Viagra analogy had no relevance. Is that obtuse? I don't think so.
BMI is not diagnostic on an individual level. It is a measurement used at the population level.
1 -
coreyreichle wrote: »
It's no different. Notice we don't have a "Smoker Acceptance Movement" or an "Alcoholics Acceptance Movement" either. We treat them like the disease they are, as we should do for obesity, not create a "Fat acceptance movement".
(Note I'm agreeing with you here, although it might sound as though I'm not)
I see how FA could be on par with a "Smoker Acceptance Movement" or an "Alcoholics Acceptance Movement."
Speaking of shaming, and AA, I've heard lots of shaming language in AA meetings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-tompkins/alcoholics-anonymous_b_1383849.html0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Knowledge of BMI is not enough to be making judgments about a specific individual. It's a very simplistic calculation and while its fine to use for a population because one can assume a normalized distribution, it shouldn't be used for insurance calculations. I've already had one friend who was forced to lose 20 pounds of muscle mass so he could save money on his life insurance premiums. I'm not looking forward to the possiblity of being rated myself for health insurance.
Isn't there an appeal procedure? When I was in the military, I had muscular coworkers who regularly went in the dunk tank to show their lower than expected body fat trumped their BMI. I believe the first appeal was via tape measure.1 -
Did you think his comment was classy?
The Viagra analogy had no relevance. Is that obtuse? I don't think so.
BMI is not diagnostic on an individual level. It is a measurement used at the population level.
The fact that you do not see the relevance does not mean that the relevance does not exist.0 -
The people I know who are in my age group (seniors) and morbidly obese have ALL had knee and/or hip replacements as well as diabetes, etc. I think "Health At Any Size" may be hard to maintain over the long haul.
Well, I am also a senior and I am not morbidly obese, or fat or just plain obese. I never was. I am 102.6 lbs and I do have knee problems and in need of a replacement. It was not the weight that damaged my knees, it was the wear and tear of playing racketball, tennis, karate, kick boxing and dancing. OA in the joints can affect everybody regardless of their weight.
2 -
I assume you have a point other than to demonstrate a very poor understanding of logic.
My refusal to explain the parallel in a manner that you would understand (although I'm quite confident that others got it) has no bearing on my grasp of logic...
...especially since it was an analogous observation that the creator of something doesn't always get to dictate it's use or misuse and not some tenet of logic.
(Dammit. I guess I explained it anyhow.)4 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Except its use for ED was found to be appropriate whereas using BMI for health insurance will punish individuals for building lean muscle mass.
Which is why these programs keep adding exceptions to their (originally flawed) application of it...(something I've experienced as an "overweight" individual with BF% in the teens. /humblebrag)
But we digress. The question is, is someone who is obese healthier than that same person if they were not obese (all else being equal)?3 -
Did you think his comment was classy?
The Viagra analogy had no relevance. Is that obtuse? I don't think so.
BMI is not diagnostic on an individual level. It is a measurement used at the population level.
What bearing does the categorization of my comment as classy or not have on whether or not yours was classy? And you're questioning *my* understanding of logic? (And this time, unlike previously, we actually *are* dealing with logic.)2 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »
The fact that you do not see the relevance does not mean that the relevance does not exist.
Guess I should have kept reading before responding. Would have saved me some tiny keyboard typing.2 -
sunflowerhippi wrote: »
I would be an example... even with a 27% body fat...
I'm confused. 27% body fat is better than, say, 33%, but it isn't exactly the stuff of Adonis. So in this case BMI and body fat % would actually both confirm that one does not have to lose muscle in order to drop weight or BMI categories.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
Isn't there an appeal procedure? When I was in the military, I had muscular coworkers who regularly went in the dunk tank to show their lower than expected body fat trumped their BMI. I believe the first appeal was via tape measure.
Depends, and I don't count on insurance companies to be fair.
That said, mine is okay on this issue in that they call out people with overweight BMIs + bad waist to height ratios OR obese BMIs. Still tough for a muscle-y guy (quite unusual for a woman to be obese by BMI and not have overfat bodyfat), but perhaps there is an appeal process.
My understanding is that there are limits on how it affects insurance negatively anyway: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fswellnessprogram.html1 -
Yeah BMI is pretty much useless. I'm at the lower end of over weight according to BMI and I am 6'0", 33 inch waist, and washboard abs.
It is not a good indicator for someone in your situation. For around 85-90% of the population that doesn't know what a weight looks like it's pretty decent.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions