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.

Is every single body in the world intended to be within the so-called healthy BMI range?

145791022

Replies

  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I mean I wear a size 8-9 shoe ...that's pretty big for a woman...

    I'd absolutely LOVE to be in a size 8-9 shoe. In the US, anyway, every style out there shows up in those sizes, unlike in my size. I've been wearing an 11/12 shoe in women's (US sizes) since I was a teenager. And as I lose weight, while I know I'll hopefully move from WW widths down to W widths and perhaps even regular widths, I'd been surprised if the actually size number itself went down.

    And let me tell you - it is ever a pain to find shoes! This is why I have 1 pair of dress shoes and wear men's shoes for work as it's much easier to find loafers that fit in a men's 9 1/2 to 10 than a woman's 11......

    And to clarify, according to the chart I found online, a US women's 11 is a UK women's 10.5 and an EU 44-45.

    Shoe sizes are 2-2.5 sizes down in the UK. I know because I'm a UK 5/5.5 and buy US 7/7.5.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    1st one is an abstract and is from 2002...almost 20 years old????

    I'm sure you are capable of finding the full article and reading it. I know I managed to do it. And I'm not sure why you have an issue with an article published 15 years ago. Unless time itself invalidates science.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    and it doesn't address your assertion that bone size difference can account for 8+lbs in body weight variance of two people who are same gender, height and race.
    Except the first study does. And I didn't make any assertion in particular giving a number, you must be confusing me with another poster. HOWEVER...
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    and the 2nd one doesn't prove anything about your original assertion either...we know that Asians have a different BMI scale than we do and has nothing to do with your original argument or the original post...
    How is it that you can recognize interracial genetic frame differences that result in real health outcome differences related to BMI, but cannot accept that individual variation within populations is also real and significant?
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    My original assertion..BMI is a good measure for the average population and that there are few outliers in that population...and that it is not "bone size" that will account for people being categorized as overweight or obese it's fat.
    I don't argue that for an "average human being", whatever that is, BMI is a rough indicator of body fat. I do argue:
    1. that the cutoff of 25 is arbitrary and not supported by morbidity and morality data for all populations. The existence of separate recommendations for Asians is evidence.
    2. The BMI scale itself is flawed because it assumes a relationship of height to volume (mass) of h*h while volume is a cubic relationship. Being stochastically fitted for a height of 5' even, the error is linearly increasing with deviation from that height. This is not particularly controversial from a mathematics standing.
    3. As a matter of mathematical interest, if my bones alone, never mind the volume of everything else in me, account for 15% of my mass, and my friend's bones are 12% of hers, then exactly 7.6 lbs of our weight difference is just bones. Now, personally, I find it really stupid that if I gain 10 lbs I'm classified as "overweight" but she has to gain 35 lbs to be "overweight". Because my body is clearly larger in frame and muscle. That is a pretty good illustration of the arbitrary nature of BMI when applied to individuals not populations.
    4. Also on that matter, the fit of BMI to body fat is considered generally good... To one standard deviation. That's 68%. OK, great. That means if the population is normally distributed 32% are outliers.

    If you found the article why link in the abstract????

    2nd point you responded to me saying 8lbs of bone was a bit much imo with a negative assertion that it was possible based on you and your friend and there are 2 links...1 is an abstract that doesn't prove it and neither does the 2nd.

    No where did I say frame size of people was all the same...I said 8lbs of it was a bit much imo and that for those people claiming frame size keeps them in the overweight of bmi they were in denial...perhaps you have me confused with another poster.

    Now onto the meat of it.

    comparing 12% for your friend and 15% is flawed...apples to apples.

    and perhaps you are one of those individuals who is in denial because you are almost in the overweight category????and that is causing a bias in your argument...been there done that until I wasn't in the overweight category and still wearing a size 8 shoe...and still "big boned" but a hella lot less fat.

    I think accusing someone of being “in denial” about their body because you disagree with them on a point of them on a point of science is out of line and deserves an apology.

    Cosigned.

    And also? She's posted pictures. She's not in denial.

    Yes, this.

    People have different builds. I look kind of fat still at 25 BMI, since I have a more delicate build. I don't think it's because my bones weigh whatever, but it is a genuine difference. Other people my height look thinner than me at higher weights. And there are many things that go along with a bigger overall frame than bone weight -- different structure means fat is spread differently, perhaps, muscle may be naturally a bit higher. I don't know exactly why, but it's true.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,983 Member
    Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).

    Yours,

    Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.

    yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).

    Yours,

    Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.

    yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female

    That response wasn't aimed at you but at Stef who said she had big feet.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Also, size 8 feet (I'm assuming US sizing?) isn't large at all. It's average. It's on of the sizes that sells out fastest because it's the most common size (actually more like 7-8 but leaning more towards 8 now because we're all bigger).

    Yours,

    Someone who has worked in shoe retail more times than I'd ever hoped.

    yes, I know size 8 in US sizing isn't large at all. That's why I said I'd love to be in a size 8. I am in a US size 11/12, which is definitely considered large for a female

    That response wasn't aimed at you but at Stef who said she had big feet.

    Yes I umderstood. Surprised me tho that size 8 is considered average...none of my friend wear anything bigger than a 7.5 except me and 1 other..

    Yeah, back when I had my first weekend job it was in a shoe shop. Average then was a 5/38/7 depending where in the world you are. Now it's gone up one. My feet have shrunk too, usually more of a 5/7 than a 6/8 now!
  • KANGOOJUMPS
    KANGOOJUMPS Posts: 6,477 Member
    time for drinks