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.

How do we judge a healthy weight range? BMI is no longer valid?

191012141521

Replies

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Your conspiracy theory ideas of vegans plotting social engineering by inventing the BMI scale don't help your case.

    Your unwillingness to question basic assumptions handed to you by self-appointed authorities doesn't
    help yours.

    Evidence of dishonesty and social manipulation by "those in charge" is everywhere, media, education, politics... why would govt supported health and nutrition guidelines be any different? We are living in Orwell's "1984" to a far greater degree than most people are willing to even consider.


  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    edited August 2016
    Hornsby wrote: »

    There seems to be some Tardis stuff going on with that person, since the parts of the 180 pound person come up to over 193 pounds.

    I would presume there may be some overlap between "blood, water and lymph system" and other organs. Even taking this link with a large grain of salt, 94 pounds does not sound excessive for lean mass excluding muscle.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    People's perception of a normal weight has changed as society has gotten heavier, but the health effects of carrying extra fat do not.

    This is an oft-repeated claim, but does not hold up when comparing the appearances of celebrities today with those from 60 or more years ago.


  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    ouryve wrote: »
    Celebrities are not representative of the general population. Your average supermarket is not awash with Brad Pitt body doubles.

    That's an understatement. I think I've only seen maybe five, ever. Then again, I do live in Richmond, VA, so there's that.
  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    People's perception of a normal weight has changed as society has gotten heavier, but the health effects of carrying extra fat do not.

    This is an oft-repeated claim, but does not hold up when comparing the appearances of celebrities today with those from 60 or more years ago.


    It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.

    "In 1960, the average American male weighed about 166.3 pounds, which was the average weight for American women in 2010 at 166.2 pounds, which marks about a 18.5 percent increase. The average weight for women in 1960 was 140 pounds, according to the CDC report." http://www.livescience.com/49-decade-study-americans-taller-fatter.html

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    ouryve wrote: »
    Celebrities are not representative of the general population. Your average supermarket is not awash with Brad Pitt body doubles.


    You're right, they are not, but they are pretty representative of what people -think- they should look like.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Dove0804 wrote: »
    Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.

    But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.

    The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.

    Scarlett Johansson is pretty clearly more lean/muscular than Marilyn Monroe was. I don't know that too many people would call either one of them either skinny or overweight. Comparing two people of the same height, if one has less fat and more muscle than the other, ten pounds difference isn't going to be terribly noticeable unless you're looking at them undressed (or in skin tight clothes.)

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.

    Scarlett Johansson is pretty clearly more lean/muscular than Marilyn Monroe was. I don't know that too many people would call either one of them either skinny or overweight. Comparing two people of the same height, if one has less fat and more muscle than the other, ten pounds difference isn't going to be terribly noticeable unless you're looking at them undressed (or in skin tight clothes.)

    At 5'5, 10lbs is a considerable difference in myself, clothed or unclothed. I imagine even more so for someone shorter.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    ...For at least half the population, even the high end of their "ideal" range is overly skinny without offering any health benefit. I suspect the category designations were established by vegans...

    LOL, Nope.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited August 2016
    Dove0804 wrote: »
    Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.

    But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.

    The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.

    Ashley is 5'9" 180. There are college wide receivers that get NFL shots that are 5'10" 180.

    She's a good sized girl
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Dove0804 wrote: »
    Exactly this. The weight of celebrities is a COMPLETELY different story and are in no way representative of the rest of the population. The average national weight has increased dramatically over the years.

    But we weren't talking about what people actually look like or the average actual weight. The point was regarding perceptions about what a "normal" weight looks like. If perceptions have actually shifted so much that the majority think a healthy weight looks overly skinny, then celebrities should be larger as a group, reflecting the changing tastes of their fans. This has not happened. If anything, celebrity media promotes an image that is leaner and more toned/defined than in decades past. Brad Pitt wouldn't be making nearly so much money if most movie fans didn't think he looks good.

    The trope about changing perceptions most often is touted by those who would call Ashley Grahm "fat", for example.

    Celebrities represent an "ideal", a daydream, a parallel world, certainly not what most normal people believe is achievable. In reality, people compare themselves to each other way more often than they do to celebrities. Ashley Graham is a celebrity, so celebrities are compared to celebrities and she is by no means thin, but I assure you if she weren't famous very few would be inclined to call her fat even she technically is.
  • ouryve
    ouryve Posts: 572 Member
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    It's not a claim, it's a fact. Marilyn Monroe's average weight was 118 pounds, despite spurious claims she was a plus sized woman. (During Some Like it Hot, she was pregnant then miscarried, the only time she was considered large). Scarlett Johansson, a reasonable comparison in type, weighs 127lbs.

    Scarlett Johansson is pretty clearly more lean/muscular than Marilyn Monroe was. I don't know that too many people would call either one of them either skinny or overweight. Comparing two people of the same height, if one has less fat and more muscle than the other, ten pounds difference isn't going to be terribly noticeable unless you're looking at them undressed (or in skin tight clothes.)

    At 5'5, 10lbs is a considerable difference in myself, clothed or unclothed. I imagine even more so for someone shorter.

    At 5'4, 10lb lost the gut shelf I can rest my lunch on!