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.
why do people think you can be healthy at every size?
Replies
-
Plus, being overweight is a visible failing that everyone can see and judge you for. Having a stressful job, a dangerous hobby, poor posture at work, failing to get enough sleep, taking drugs, any number of other things have similar or worse health risks; but they're not visible, so it's harder for random people in the street to shame you for them. Being fat is an equal-opportunities bullying-fest.
I say 'bullying' with good reason. Because continually being told you're undisciplined, shameful, unattractive, and generally unworthy is also a health risk. It's funny how the same people who used to chide me about my weight 'for my own good' weren't interested in supporting me during the episodes of depression that actually threatened my life.13 -
The idea that health is really what matters comes in when the activity is seen as not self-punishing enough, perhaps, or indulgence, not toughness.
Get by on 4 hours of sleep regularly, have a stressful job, pull all-nighters, pound out the last 10 miles of a marathon on an injured knee -- toughness. (I used to do all these but the last regularly, and mostly got praise or admiration for it, and even now I have trouble not seeing a virtue in sacrificing self care for such things, not sacrificing sleep first and feeling proud that I don't need to sleep that much, in my mind -- that's kind of messed up, actually.)
No wonder so many people want weight loss to be in that vein too -- eat 900 cal a day, fast for a week, never eat [insert foods you might enjoy here]. Not really consistent with a focus on health as the goal, though.
That aside, I would personally agree that in my own case not losing weight for a period of time was in part that I was confused about what to do and thought it would be harder than it was, feared failure and pity (I felt better pretending to be cool with being fat than letting others know I'd tried to lose and failed or that it bothered me -- I didn't tell anyone when I did decide to lose and tried to hide the fact I was dieting even), and because I did not care as much about it as the other things I was prioritizing (when all your stress and will power is used up on other things it's hard to add more things). I just don't think it's some terrible sin or anyone else's business that I had a period of time between when I decided I was unhappy with my weight and when I decided to lose.
To go back to the actual topic of the thread (which was not "expressing moral superiority over fat people or people who used to be fat"), I was lucky in that I was not heavy when younger and did not have a history of bad and counterproductive efforts at dieting and feeling shame and self-hatred connected with that. As a result, it was not super charged for me to decide to try to lose, although even I expected it likely would not work and so framed it for myself as eating heathfully and getting as fit as possible.
If someone finds a focus on weight loss something that tends to make them less likely to make efforts to be healthier and finds it much easier to focus on other good things (like eating well, exercising more, adding in more vegetables and lean protein and reducing high cal/low nutrient options), why complain that they aren't framing it about weight loss?8 -
trulyhealy wrote: »that can’t really be true if you’re fat/obese/underweight bc being bc if you were healthy you wouldn’t get fat
@trulyhealy yes today we know typically a health failure proceeds obesity. Underweight to a point may not be unhealthy but we know on average being obese cuts life expectancy by 7 years and morbid obesity by 14 years.7 -
It's not that hard to gain 30-40 lbs (even 50 lbs) over a period of years.
I gained around 30 pounds in my mid-twenties after my dad died, and since I have always been on the smaller side, I justified eating junk and lots of it because I wasn't heavy. I didn't weigh myself back then, and hit the bar more than the gym, living the life of a college kid, and it truly snuck up on me. I lost about half of the weight gained a couple of years later, but didn't get back down to my original weight until after the birth of my first son. I agree that it's easier than you might think to gain.
5 -
And harder to lose the weight afterwards!
3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Just as a hypothetical thought experiment, I decided to run the numbers for an 'average' (5'9") 30 year old male in Scooby's calculator. If he's at a median healthy BMI (22), his weight is 150 and his TDEE at a moderate (3-5 hrs/wk) level is 2592. Supposing his activity drops to 1-3 hrs/wk, his TDEE will drop to 2300.
With that 292 cal/day difference, if his intake stays the same he'll gain slightly faster than .5 lb/wk until his weight reaches the point his maintenance matches his intake, which I estimated at about 185 lbs or a bit over 27 BMI (median overweight range). He'll reach that point in a bit under 70 weeks.
It's easy to factor in portion creep or eating out more to allow for that push him into the obese category, which again does not require any disordered or otherwise unhealthy behaviors or conditions to be present. Just following habit and not deliberately changing their intake to match their activity.
Ideally, should a person be mindful they've put on weight and course correct? Absolutely! But people often have other priorities going on in their lives and coast on their habits until they get a jarring reminder that things have changed over time. Our mental self-image often doesn't let us see those changes in the mirror unless we take measurements or weigh ourselves to do that assessment.
What priorities prevent one from putting less food in their mouth?
Seems a rather loaded question that assumes people inherently know the relative amounts of food people are putting in their mouth at any given instant.
Surely you are aware that a person's emotional state shades their perception, right?6 -
It's especially hard to lose the weight when you're working with diet plans from organisations like Weight Watchers, Slimming World, Atkins and so on that don't teach you anything about calories but offer instead a specific way of eating that has, for most people, the side effect of reducing calories.
I say 'for most people' because I, for one, am capable of overeating on carrots. Because I like carrots. I also like meat. And salad. And nuts. And when I felt ravenous (which was anytime I was bored) I would cheerily binge on whatever free foods that particular diet plan offered in the comfortable certainty that doing so wouldn't affect my weight loss. Because the 'experts' said those foods didn't count, right?
Weight Watchers may not have counted it, but my body sure as heck did. Result: even more overweight despite following each plan to the letter. Result: hopelessness, despair, giving up, eating pizza and cake because what the heck, might as well, it wasn't like eating what I was 'supposed' to worked any better.5 -
The idea that health is really what matters comes in when the activity is seen as not self-punishing enough, perhaps, or indulgence, not toughness.
Get by on 4 hours of sleep regularly, have a stressful job, pull all-nighters, pound out the last 10 miles of a marathon on an injured knee -- toughness. (I used to do all these but the last regularly, and mostly got praise or admiration for it, and even now I have trouble not seeing a virtue in sacrificing self care for such things, not sacrificing sleep first and feeling proud that I don't need to sleep that much, in my mind -- that's kind of messed up, actually.)
No wonder so many people want weight loss to be in that vein too -- eat 900 cal a day, fast for a week, never eat [insert foods you might enjoy here]. Not really consistent with a focus on health as the goal, though.
That aside, I would personally agree that in my own case not losing weight for a period of time was in part that I was confused about what to do and thought it would be harder than it was, feared failure and pity (I felt better pretending to be cool with being fat than letting others know I'd tried to lose and failed or that it bothered me -- I didn't tell anyone when I did decide to lose and tried to hide the fact I was dieting even), and because I did not care as much about it as the other things I was prioritizing (when all your stress and will power is used up on other things it's hard to add more things). I just don't think it's some terrible sin or anyone else's business that I had a period of time between when I decided I was unhappy with my weight and when I decided to lose.
To go back to the actual topic of the thread (which was not "expressing moral superiority over fat people or people who used to be fat"), I was lucky in that I was not heavy when younger and did not have a history of bad and counterproductive efforts at dieting and feeling shame and self-hatred connected with that. As a result, it was not super charged for me to decide to try to lose, although even I expected it likely would not work and so framed it for myself as eating heathfully and getting as fit as possible.
If someone finds a focus on weight loss something that tends to make them less likely to make efforts to be healthier and finds it much easier to focus on other good things (like eating well, exercising more, adding in more vegetables and lean protein and reducing high cal/low nutrient options), why complain that they aren't framing it about weight loss?
Because lifestyle changes only improve your health if you pair it with public self-abasement for having been fat.
If you feel happy about yourself while you do it, the changes won't work.
Fact.6 -
I just want to thank all those for taking the time to patiently and compassionately explain the myriad reasons why life may get in the way of setting weight loss and achieving certain health goals for oneself a priority. I haven’t had time to respond to the gross oversimplification of the assumption that eating less is easy and there’s no good reason why anyone could ever possibly struggle with it unless just lazy.
It’s actually a great counterpoint to why the OP asked about HAES and why that’s a thing. It’s a response to the pervasive fat shaming that is so prevalent in our society, which has been barely veiled here in recent responses. I do think that the HAES movement has taken the pendulum too far in the other direction but again appreciate everyone’s efforts to combat the snide judgement that was on display for the last couple pages.15 -
trulyhealy wrote: »that can’t really be true if you’re fat/obese/underweight bc being bc if you were healthy you wouldn’t get fat
I think the issue here in terms of people seeing eye to eye is that "healthy" is subjective, it isn't some objectively defined thing. Depends what you mean by "healthy".
If by "healthy" you mean only doing things that are conducive to optimal health then I suppose you are correct in what you say, but then again if your definition is that strict I don't think that anyone would qualify as being truly "healthy".
If by "healthy" you mean that at the current time your body is in a condition that gives you the most statistical chance of future health then that would mean that people who were obese would not be healthy as being obese comes with statistical health risks.
If by "healthy" you simply mean that right now, in this moment, you aren't physically sick or suffering from any specific ailment then an obese chain-smoker could be considered to be healthy as long as at that moment they weren't having any medical issues.4 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »The idea that health is really what matters comes in when the activity is seen as not self-punishing enough, perhaps, or indulgence, not toughness.
Get by on 4 hours of sleep regularly, have a stressful job, pull all-nighters, pound out the last 10 miles of a marathon on an injured knee -- toughness. (I used to do all these but the last regularly, and mostly got praise or admiration for it, and even now I have trouble not seeing a virtue in sacrificing self care for such things, not sacrificing sleep first and feeling proud that I don't need to sleep that much, in my mind -- that's kind of messed up, actually.)
No wonder so many people want weight loss to be in that vein too -- eat 900 cal a day, fast for a week, never eat [insert foods you might enjoy here]. Not really consistent with a focus on health as the goal, though.
That aside, I would personally agree that in my own case not losing weight for a period of time was in part that I was confused about what to do and thought it would be harder than it was, feared failure and pity (I felt better pretending to be cool with being fat than letting others know I'd tried to lose and failed or that it bothered me -- I didn't tell anyone when I did decide to lose and tried to hide the fact I was dieting even), and because I did not care as much about it as the other things I was prioritizing (when all your stress and will power is used up on other things it's hard to add more things). I just don't think it's some terrible sin or anyone else's business that I had a period of time between when I decided I was unhappy with my weight and when I decided to lose.
To go back to the actual topic of the thread (which was not "expressing moral superiority over fat people or people who used to be fat"), I was lucky in that I was not heavy when younger and did not have a history of bad and counterproductive efforts at dieting and feeling shame and self-hatred connected with that. As a result, it was not super charged for me to decide to try to lose, although even I expected it likely would not work and so framed it for myself as eating heathfully and getting as fit as possible.
If someone finds a focus on weight loss something that tends to make them less likely to make efforts to be healthier and finds it much easier to focus on other good things (like eating well, exercising more, adding in more vegetables and lean protein and reducing high cal/low nutrient options), why complain that they aren't framing it about weight loss?
Because lifestyle changes only improve your health if you pair it with public self-abasement for having been fat.
If you feel happy about yourself while you do it, the changes won't work.
Fact.
Ben Shapiro has assured us multiple times that facts don't care about feelings.2 -
It's especially hard to lose the weight when you're working with diet plans from organisations like Weight Watchers, Slimming World, Atkins and so on that don't teach you anything about calories but offer instead a specific way of eating that has, for most people, the side effect of reducing calories.
I say 'for most people' because I, for one, am capable of overeating on carrots. Because I like carrots. I also like meat. And salad. And nuts. And when I felt ravenous (which was anytime I was bored) I would cheerily binge on whatever free foods that particular diet plan offered in the comfortable certainty that doing so wouldn't affect my weight loss. Because the 'experts' said those foods didn't count, right?
Weight Watchers may not have counted it, but my body sure as heck did. Result: even more overweight despite following each plan to the letter. Result: hopelessness, despair, giving up, eating pizza and cake because what the heck, might as well, it wasn't like eating what I was 'supposed' to worked any better.
Carrots and hummus! I could eat a whole bag and container if I weren't tracking. So delicious, and healthy, but so easy to overdo.
1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »trulyhealy wrote: »that can’t really be true if you’re fat/obese/underweight bc being bc if you were healthy you wouldn’t get fat
@trulyhealy yes today we know typically a health failure proceeds obesity. Underweight to a point may not be unhealthy but we know on average being obese cuts life expectancy by 7 years and morbid obesity by 14 years.
Do we know that? What data is showing us that?3 -
Pretty sure a person who fit perfectly into the " healthy" category can be sick and unhealthy, ie blood pressure, other heart related issues, anything... Just because you are "skinny" doesn't mean you are healthy... There are many factors that play into health.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »trulyhealy wrote: »that can’t really be true if you’re fat/obese/underweight bc being bc if you were healthy you wouldn’t get fat
@trulyhealy yes today we know typically a health failure proceeds obesity. Underweight to a point may not be unhealthy but we know on average being obese cuts life expectancy by 7 years and morbid obesity by 14 years.
Do we know that? What data is showing us that?
Same thing came to my mind. Also, what about all the health failures that are a result of obesity? High blood pressure, joint problems, T2D and insulin resistance, cardiac issues. To me, the idea that a health failure proceeds obesity is mostly nonsensical in most cases.4 -
I wonder whether by 'proceeds' GaleHawkins actually meant 'proceeds from' rather than the 'precedes' that we're assuming?1
-
-
I think you can be healthy at a lot of different sizes. My co-worker works out 5 times a week at Orange Theory, rides her bike to work in good weather, is very active, eats well - says her BP and all tests come back fine....yet if you look at her - you'd think she needed to lose 35-45+#. She is solid and in great physical shape (and who knows what she really weighs since she is solid muscle...but I just think genetically she will never be a 110# at 5' tall or a skinny little girl. I would never ask her what she weighs....but guessing she looks to be about 160ish. I know at my worst I was 160 and 5' tall - but I couldn't do anything....barely get up the stairs here at the office. Sometimes you can't fight your body type.3
-
I wonder whether by 'proceeds' GaleHawkins actually meant 'proceeds from' rather than the 'precedes' that we're assuming?
Sadly I think that is an incorrect assumption based on what I recall from similar posts from Gale in the past. Paraphrasing but there was some mention of how there aren’t obese wild animals which contributed to his theory that any human who is obese has a mental illness prompting them to eat more total calories than their body needs.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »trulyhealy wrote: »that can’t really be true if you’re fat/obese/underweight bc being bc if you were healthy you wouldn’t get fat
@trulyhealy yes today we know typically a health failure proceeds obesity. Underweight to a point may not be unhealthy but we know on average being obese cuts life expectancy by 7 years and morbid obesity by 14 years.
Do we know that? What data is showing us that?
Same thing came to my mind. Also, what about all the health failures that are a result of obesity? High blood pressure, joint problems, T2D and insulin resistance, cardiac issues. To me, the idea that a health failure proceeds obesity is mostly nonsensical in most cases.
Yeah, folks who insist one way of eating is better or healthier often conflate the results of obesity as being caused by a way of eating, and the benefits of weight loss with the benefits of the way of eating they are invested in. And it is ridiculously difficult to convince them to take a step back and be mindful of that.
*
*
It's a shame that moral judgement has to come into this conversation. It is fairly easy for a normal, healthy individual to become underweight or overweight slowly over time without consciously realizing it has become a problem. I think it is more prevalent that someone who becomes obese has either consciously decided to allow it to happen or has physical or mental health issues affecting the situation, but I wouldn't say that's absolutely true.
The HAES movement is rather complex. I think there is an understandable part of it that is essentially saying everyone has value at every size, a person's health shouldn't be written off just because of their size, and the medical community shouldn't diminish every health concern down to "You need to lose weight". But while being obese or underweight might not immediately make you unhealthy, I think the stress it puts on different body systems which increases your risk of all sorts of issues is important not to lose sight of.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I wonder whether by 'proceeds' GaleHawkins actually meant 'proceeds from' rather than the 'precedes' that we're assuming?
Sadly I think that is an incorrect assumption based on what I recall from similar posts from Gale in the past. Paraphrasing but there was some mention of how there aren’t obese wild animals which contributed to his theory that any human who is obese has a mental illness prompting them to eat more total calories than their body needs.
I wonder how that would work for overweight and obese children, who aren't making their own food choices?1 -
Well, it is the debate thread, so it's not unreasonable to expect that people will debate.
Seems to me, the flow chart is to calculate BMI and if it's overweight or greater, (and probably underweight too) have a trained medical professional evaluate the results.
Are you arguing against that?magnusthenerd wrote: »
The CDC also defines obesity:tbright1965 wrote: »Yet the CDC and suspect others say something similar,CDC wrote:Note: At an individual level, BMI can be used as a screening tool but is not diagnostic of the body fatness or the health of an individual. A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments in order to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks. If you have questions about your BMI, talk with your health care provider.
So according to the CDC it is a screening tool, but the results need interpretation.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html
Seems to be the same page you are quoting which says:If your BMI is 30.0 or higher, it falls within the obese range.tbright1965 wrote: »Yet the CDC and suspect others say something similar,
So one may initially show up as obese, but interpreting the initial findings must occur to determine if the person is actually obese.
If I lost a leg, I could arrive at a “normal” BMI and still be obese because I have a large, fat belly compensating for the missing limb.
Mindless pointing to a chart does nothing to help a patient.
You're just arguing that it is instrumental rather than having a particular etiological disease. It isn't my point. I'm not sure what mindless pointing to chart has to do with anything.
Can you quote me where I said "obesity is having a BMI above 30 and it instantly means you need to fix your life or bad thing happen immediately" or anything like that? You don't get to redefine a tool just because you're worried someone will misuse it. In truth, understanding exactly that it is defined that way is important to understanding one can't blindly apply it.
Yes I canmagnusthenerd wrote: »No. Obesity is medically defined by having a BMI over 30. That is the only standardized use of the term medically.
The concept proxies having excess fat, but there are aspects of obesity that persist regardless of body fat percentage. For example, both sleep apnea and risk of knee issues are both predicted by being obese, even when a person has what would be considered "acceptable" body fat percentage.
No one is redefining the tool, well at least I'm not. You are saying the tool says what it says and if your BMI is over 30, you are obese, period.
But it does look like you double back and say maybe, maybe no (paraphrase.) So which is it? Do people who are over a BMI of 30 need to fix their life if they are muscular? I'll take out the immediately, as that's certainly not what I'm suggesting.tbright1965 wrote: »Saying the Rock is obese probably doesn’t motivate people to make changes.magnusthenerd wrote: »Again, he's almost certainly on PEDs. I don't see why anyone wants to use him as any kind of talking point or inspiration.
Finally, do you have any documentation he's on PEDs? Or at least today. He does say he used them when he was still a teen (18-19.) Not sure how relevant it is as he's 40 something IIRC. Or is that merely a guess, speculation or an ad hominem?
I'm just pointing out the weaknesses in using BMI to determine if someone carries too much fat.
I don't doubt people will fool themselves and suggest because they are "muscular" they are not obese.
Heck, I did it. Technically, I'm still obese at 5'11" and 215 pounds. Or maybe at the high end of overweight. Yet with my 48-49" chest, 34" waist, short 29" inseam, it's hard to make a case that I'm obese. I'm probably just into overweight, and I do think I'll get myself a Dexa scan for my 54th Birthday this year.
So I get both sides of the view. One can lie to themselves. I was able to tell myself that because I didn't look that bad and could ride my bicycle 50-60 miles on a Saturday morning that I had a "few" pounds to lose.
I suspect I have about 20 pounds more to go. That's what I got down to in 1994 when I was going through chemotherapy and had no appetite. That's what I weighed when I was in the Army and was getting a lot of exercise and other physical activity. But when taped, I was in the normal body fat range at that weight.
So I'm only saying you really need to know more than just your weight and height.
Finally, maybe I'm missing something in reading what you said. It's quite possible that I'm missing something and we are really saying the same thing.
3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Well, it is the debate thread, so it's not unreasonable to expect that people will debate.
Seems to me, the flow chart is to calculate BMI and if it's overweight or greater, (and probably underweight too) have a trained medical professional evaluate the results.
Are you arguing against that?magnusthenerd wrote: »
The CDC also defines obesity:tbright1965 wrote: »Yet the CDC and suspect others say something similar,CDC wrote:Note: At an individual level, BMI can be used as a screening tool but is not diagnostic of the body fatness or the health of an individual. A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments in order to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks. If you have questions about your BMI, talk with your health care provider.
So according to the CDC it is a screening tool, but the results need interpretation.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html
Seems to be the same page you are quoting which says:If your BMI is 30.0 or higher, it falls within the obese range.tbright1965 wrote: »Yet the CDC and suspect others say something similar,
So one may initially show up as obese, but interpreting the initial findings must occur to determine if the person is actually obese.
If I lost a leg, I could arrive at a “normal” BMI and still be obese because I have a large, fat belly compensating for the missing limb.
Mindless pointing to a chart does nothing to help a patient.
You're just arguing that it is instrumental rather than having a particular etiological disease. It isn't my point. I'm not sure what mindless pointing to chart has to do with anything.
Can you quote me where I said "obesity is having a BMI above 30 and it instantly means you need to fix your life or bad thing happen immediately" or anything like that? You don't get to redefine a tool just because you're worried someone will misuse it. In truth, understanding exactly that it is defined that way is important to understanding one can't blindly apply it.
Yes I canmagnusthenerd wrote: »No. Obesity is medically defined by having a BMI over 30. That is the only standardized use of the term medically.
The concept proxies having excess fat, but there are aspects of obesity that persist regardless of body fat percentage. For example, both sleep apnea and risk of knee issues are both predicted by being obese, even when a person has what would be considered "acceptable" body fat percentage.
No one is redefining the tool, well at least I'm not. You are saying the tool says what it says and if your BMI is over 30, you are obese, period.
But it does look like you double back and say maybe, maybe no (paraphrase.) So which is it? Do people who are over a BMI of 30 need to fix their life if they are muscular? I'll take out the immediately, as that's certainly not what I'm suggesting.tbright1965 wrote: »Saying the Rock is obese probably doesn’t motivate people to make changes.magnusthenerd wrote: »Again, he's almost certainly on PEDs. I don't see why anyone wants to use him as any kind of talking point or inspiration.
Finally, do you have any documentation he's on PEDs? Or at least today. He does say he used them when he was still a teen (18-19.) Not sure how relevant it is as he's 40 something IIRC. Or is that merely a guess, speculation or an ad hominem?
I'm just pointing out the weaknesses in using BMI to determine if someone carries too much fat.
I don't doubt people will fool themselves and suggest because they are "muscular" they are not obese.
Heck, I did it. Technically, I'm still obese at 5'11" and 215 pounds. Or maybe at the high end of overweight. Yet with my 48-49" chest, 34" waist, short 29" inseam, it's hard to make a case that I'm obese. I'm probably just into overweight, and I do think I'll get myself a Dexa scan for my 54th Birthday this year.
So I get both sides of the view. One can lie to themselves. I was able to tell myself that because I didn't look that bad and could ride my bicycle 50-60 miles on a Saturday morning that I had a "few" pounds to lose.
I suspect I have about 20 pounds more to go. That's what I got down to in 1994 when I was going through chemotherapy and had no appetite. That's what I weighed when I was in the Army and was getting a lot of exercise and other physical activity. But when taped, I was in the normal body fat range at that weight.
So I'm only saying you really need to know more than just your weight and height.
Finally, maybe I'm missing something in reading what you said. It's quite possible that I'm missing something and we are really saying the same thing.
I think the point of saying that someone potentially built their body mass through PEDs isn't to make an ad hominem, but to underscore the meaninglessness of using them as any sort of reference point as to what BMI means to the rest of us. Most Americans who qualify as obese using the BMI charts aren't there because they're much fitter than average and/or because they've used substances to increase the amount of muscle they're building.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I think the point of saying that someone potentially built their body mass through PEDs isn't to make an ad hominem, but to underscore the meaninglessness of using them as any sort of reference point as to what BMI means to the rest of us. Most Americans who qualify as obese using the BMI charts aren't there because they're much fitter than average and/or because they've used substances to increase the amount of muscle they're building.
Perhaps. However, unless you know he built the body that way, it's speculation, right?
I'm not saying he's a result of PEDs or not. As I said, he does admit to using when he was much younger. But also said once he learned of the negatives, he stopped.
So maybe he's not the best example to cite with respect to PEDs. I really don't know.
He's big, but he doesn't seem to be PED big to me. He's big consistent with having played football and wrestling and his genetic background.
2 -
Yes, I am arguing against it. The link itself is against it. Read the example, it says "BMI over 30, Considered Obese". So, can a person be considered obese but not be obese? What does that even mean?tbright1965 wrote: »Well, it is the debate thread, so it's not unreasonable to expect that people will debate.
Seems to me, the flow chart is to calculate BMI and if it's overweight or greater, (and probably underweight too) have a trained medical professional evaluate the results.
Are you arguing against that?
You on the other hand are arguing seem to be arguing somewhere the CDC defines obesity as having some form of excess fat. Nowhere on the page or in anything you've provided has there been anything defining obesity as the actual excess fat condition.
Yeah, none of that says "and you must fix bad thing immediately". I did say being over BMI 30 is obesity because, again, that's how it is defined. You could be obese and not have issues, including not having excess fat.tbright1965 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
The CDC also defines obesity:tbright1965 wrote: »Yet the CDC and suspect others say something similar,CDC wrote:Note: At an individual level, BMI can be used as a screening tool but is not diagnostic of the body fatness or the health of an individual. A trained healthcare provider should perform appropriate health assessments in order to evaluate an individual’s health status and risks. If you have questions about your BMI, talk with your health care provider.
So according to the CDC it is a screening tool, but the results need interpretation.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html
Seems to be the same page you are quoting which says:If your BMI is 30.0 or higher, it falls within the obese range.tbright1965 wrote: »Yet the CDC and suspect others say something similar,
So one may initially show up as obese, but interpreting the initial findings must occur to determine if the person is actually obese.
If I lost a leg, I could arrive at a “normal” BMI and still be obese because I have a large, fat belly compensating for the missing limb.
Mindless pointing to a chart does nothing to help a patient.
You're just arguing that it is instrumental rather than having a particular etiological disease. It isn't my point. I'm not sure what mindless pointing to chart has to do with anything.
Can you quote me where I said "obesity is having a BMI above 30 and it instantly means you need to fix your life or bad thing happen immediately" or anything like that? You don't get to redefine a tool just because you're worried someone will misuse it. In truth, understanding exactly that it is defined that way is important to understanding one can't blindly apply it.
Yes I canmagnusthenerd wrote: »No. Obesity is medically defined by having a BMI over 30. That is the only standardized use of the term medically.
The concept proxies having excess fat, but there are aspects of obesity that persist regardless of body fat percentage. For example, both sleep apnea and risk of knee issues are both predicted by being obese, even when a person has what would be considered "acceptable" body fat percentage.
Yes, you are trying to redefine the tool. You want redefine obesity as being the actual excess fatness. It isn't how obesity is defined. Obesity is defined on BMI, and obesity suggests the need for lifestyle changes - that is the part that needs assessing by a healthcare professional - not the actual obesity itself, that's just the result of taking height and weight.tbright1965 wrote: »No one is redefining the tool, well at least I'm not. You are saying the tool says what it says and if your BMI is over 30, you are obese, period.
But it does look like you double back and say maybe, maybe no (paraphrase.) So which is it? Do people who are over a BMI of 30 need to fix their life if they are muscular? I'll take out the immediately, as that's certainly not what I'm suggesting.
There is nothing I've said that someone needs to fix their life if they are obese from their muscle mass, other than there is a concern for increased risk of knee strain and sleep apnea.
I can make an inductive conclusion he's on PEDs based on his Fat Free Mass Index FFMI. Before PEDs existed, no bodybuilder had an FFMI over 30. Almost none had an FFMI over 25. I've also seen his discussed workouts - they're either lies themselves, or they're the kinds of lifting that only people on steroids would benefit from. The volume becomes unrecoverable for a natural lifter.tbright1965 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Saying the Rock is obese probably doesn’t motivate people to make changes.magnusthenerd wrote: »Again, he's almost certainly on PEDs. I don't see why anyone wants to use him as any kind of talking point or inspiration.
Finally, do you have any documentation he's on PEDs? Or at least today. He does say he used them when he was still a teen (18-19.) Not sure how relevant it is as he's 40 something IIRC. Or is that merely a guess, speculation or an ad hominem?
To consider it an ad hominem would depend on someone's views on PEDs. I don't particularly care what he does with his own body. It certainly isn't an ad hominem fallacy because I'm not using him being on steroids to conclude he's wrong about something.
Not relevant. I'm not arguing that about how to interpret obesity or BMI. I'm very specifically stating how obesity is defined as in medicine. That's part of the issue. You think I'm disagreeing more broadly than I am - something that people tend to do in debate is assume that someone else disagreeing with them has reflexive burden to disagree with every point they are raising. My point is incredibly narrow.tbright1965 wrote: »I'm just pointing out the weaknesses in using BMI to determine if someone carries too much fat.
I don't doubt people will fool themselves and suggest because they are "muscular" they are not obese.
Heck, I did it. Technically, I'm still obese at 5'11" and 215 pounds. Or maybe at the high end of overweight. Yet with my 48-49" chest, 34" waist, short 29" inseam, it's hard to make a case that I'm obese. I'm probably just into overweight, and I do think I'll get myself a Dexa scan for my 54th Birthday this year.
So I get both sides of the view. One can lie to themselves. I was able to tell myself that because I didn't look that bad and could ride my bicycle 50-60 miles on a Saturday morning that I had a "few" pounds to lose.
I suspect I have about 20 pounds more to go. That's what I got down to in 1994 when I was going through chemotherapy and had no appetite. That's what I weighed when I was in the Army and was getting a lot of exercise and other physical activity. But when taped, I was in the normal body fat range at that weight.
So I'm only saying you really need to know more than just your weight and height.
Finally, maybe I'm missing something in reading what you said. It's quite possible that I'm missing something and we are really saying the same thing.6 -
I think far more football players are on PEDs than most people would. I don't deny it is possible to be over a FFMI of 25 without them, but I tend to doubt people over an FFMI of 25 being PED free. Most people's beliefs about professional athletes is, I would guess, based on a just world - that people breaking rules are caught and most people follow the rules. My inferences on the subject come from what has been studied about athleticism prior to the development of steroids.tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I think the point of saying that someone potentially built their body mass through PEDs isn't to make an ad hominem, but to underscore the meaninglessness of using them as any sort of reference point as to what BMI means to the rest of us. Most Americans who qualify as obese using the BMI charts aren't there because they're much fitter than average and/or because they've used substances to increase the amount of muscle they're building.
Perhaps. However, unless you know he built the body that way, it's speculation, right?
I'm not saying he's a result of PEDs or not. As I said, he does admit to using when he was much younger. But also said once he learned of the negatives, he stopped.
So maybe he's not the best example to cite with respect to PEDs. I really don't know.
He's big, but he doesn't seem to be PED big to me. He's big consistent with having played football and wrestling and his genetic background.3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Just as a hypothetical thought experiment, I decided to run the numbers for an 'average' (5'9") 30 year old male in Scooby's calculator. If he's at a median healthy BMI (22), his weight is 150 and his TDEE at a moderate (3-5 hrs/wk) level is 2592. Supposing his activity drops to 1-3 hrs/wk, his TDEE will drop to 2300.
With that 292 cal/day difference, if his intake stays the same he'll gain slightly faster than .5 lb/wk until his weight reaches the point his maintenance matches his intake, which I estimated at about 185 lbs or a bit over 27 BMI (median overweight range). He'll reach that point in a bit under 70 weeks.
It's easy to factor in portion creep or eating out more to allow for that push him into the obese category, which again does not require any disordered or otherwise unhealthy behaviors or conditions to be present. Just following habit and not deliberately changing their intake to match their activity.
Ideally, should a person be mindful they've put on weight and course correct? Absolutely! But people often have other priorities going on in their lives and coast on their habits until they get a jarring reminder that things have changed over time. Our mental self-image often doesn't let us see those changes in the mirror unless we take measurements or weigh ourselves to do that assessment.
What priorities prevent one from putting less food in their mouth?
It isn't that simple.
I think lots of priorities can prevent someone from focusing on weight loss - working, raising children, caring for relatives etc - ordinary real life just presents many issues and sometimes looking after yourself gets put on the back burner.
That isn't that hard to understand, is it?
To me it honestly sounds like a lot of excuses. How much focus does it take to notice your pants don't fit and eat less? You save more time for other things in your life if you're not eating the extra serving of whatever.
To me honestly it seems like you have no concept of the lives of other people and judgementally simplify weight gain to some sort of personal failing of others and personal superiority of yourself.
15 -
People think this because we all observe that there isn’t a perfect correlation between body size/weight and fitness level. We all know heavier fit people and unfit/unhealthy skinny people. Not that there isn’t a correlation, it’s just not a perfect one.
I have a BMI of 28 and play a competitive aerobic sport (medals at the World Masters level) and stress testing shows my fitness level is “high”. My blood pressure and heart rate are low, and I’m maybe unusually strong for my age. I have to work at it though, and maybe harder than someone of normal weight. But it’s definitely not impossible.4 -
Excuse my having posted this elsewhere recently but I think it's pertinent...
People often use the argument that 'athletes' can be labelled obese due to their level of muscularity so BMI is useless. However, one day curiosity got the better of me. I worked out the BMI of a range of female athletes in various sports. Surprise, surprise, the ones I randomly checked were all in the healthy range. This included Ronda Rousey, a UFC fighter, Jessica Ennis-Hill, Olympic gold Heptathlete and owner of the most defined abs in the business, Simone Biles, gymnast, Nicola Adams the boxer- all of whom muscular was/is definitely a way to describe them. Even Sophie Hitchon and Holly Bradshaw who are throwers and look 'bigger' and less toned than these were still within a healthy BMI. Icing on the cake was Usain Bolt! I'd never have guessed his BMI was healthy given his level of muscle.
Unless you want to compare yourself to a heavy weight judoka, rugby player or American footballer, BMI is pretty good. Also, if the judoka, rugby player or American footballer kept their weight on after they finish competing, their body is going to be just as pummeled through the extra weight as any other mortal.
6 -
Excuse my having posted this elsewhere recently but I think it's pertinent...
People often use the argument that 'athletes' can be labelled obese due to their level of muscularity so BMI is useless. However, one day curiosity got the better of me. I worked out the BMI of a range of female athletes in various sports. Surprise, surprise, the ones I randomly checked were all in the healthy range. This included Ronda Rousey, a UFC fighter, Jessica Ennis-Hill, Olympic gold Heptathlete and owner of the most defined abs in the business, Simone Biles, gymnast, Nicola Adams the boxer- all of whom muscular was/is definitely a way to describe them. Even Sophie Hitchon and Holly Bradshaw who are throwers and look 'bigger' and less toned than these were still within a healthy BMI. Icing on the cake was Usain Bolt! I'd never have guessed his BMI was healthy given his level of muscle.
Unless you want to compare yourself to a heavy weight judoka, rugby player or American footballer, BMI is pretty good. Also, if the judoka, rugby player or American footballer kept their weight on after they finish competing, their body is going to be just as pummeled through the extra weight as any other mortal.
Runner's World did articles about this.
They give a rundown of then-recent (2013) Olympic gold medalists; most people would consider them at least "of athletic build". (No, it's not just about elite runners; someone made that conceptual mistake on another thread where I shared the links. It's cross-sport.) By BMI, a few are obese, a few are overweight, a few are underweight, and substantially the largest number (for each sex) are normal weight.
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20811275/bmis-of-champions-mens-edition/
https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20793992/bmis-of-champions-womens-edition/
IMO, a few regular people (such as some sub-elite or serious recreational athletes; some people with strength-intense occupations) are at a healthy weight but with an overweight/obese BMI, but it's not that usual. Personally, I'm pretty convinced that most (not all) people saying they should not healthfully fall below an overweight BMI, but who are not pretty serious recreational athletes or in strength-intense professions, are thinking wishfully. (I'm denying neither their health, not their right to personal appearance preference. I'm saying that most would not be unhealthful somewhere in the normal range.)
I'd say something similar about people who argue that if you're at the lower end of the healthy BMI range, you're necessarily weak or devoid of muscle ("all skin and bones", etc.). As a woman of narrow build, I'm happiest around BMI 20, which is about 10 pounds above underweight BMI for my height. I'm far from a serious athlete, but not completely lacking in muscle, and pretty sure that extra 10 pounds is not what makes the difference.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions