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?

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • ceiswyn
    ceiswyn Posts: 2,256 Member
    edited March 2019
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ceiswyn 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?
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    Options
    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: »
    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.
    The CDC also defines obesity:
    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 can
    magnusthenerd 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.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    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: »
    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.
    The CDC also defines obesity:
    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 can
    magnusthenerd 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.

  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    Options
    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.

  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    Options
    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.
    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.
  • lisa0527
    lisa0527 Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    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.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,005 Member
    Options
    Yes that is what I have said many times on these threads: some sporty young men or (young men in occupations of heavy physical work) can be at their healthiest and not overweight with Bmi's slightly above standard range.

    Slightly above - say, to around 27 or 28.

    Like I have also said many times, anybody seriously assessing an individual's BMI will do so with clinical picture - ie the actual patient's body, in front of them.

    I'm sure no doctors will be telling sporty looking young men with BMI's of 28 to lose weight.

    They might be telling middle aged non sporty women like myself with then BMI's of 28 that it would be best to lose some weight.
  • stephaniedenise28
    stephaniedenise28 Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    I have a BMI of 27 at 5"3 and 70kg.. I know that I could stand to lose a few lbs, but I don't always look like it as I have a narrow waist and seem to carry most of my weight in my lower body.

Categories