How do you American men feel about this?
Replies
-
That's it! I'm going on a 100 day juice diet followed by clean eating and mega doses of raspberry ketones and ephedra!0
-
I kept staring at the "average American" in that picture, thinking that looked like me, but it didn't. I was trying to find what didn't fit. My arms are a little bigger and my gut is a little smaller, but that wasn't it. My chest is a little more defined, and my legs are pillars of steel, but that wasn't it either. I couldn't quite put my finger on it... I was really scratching my head...
... and that's when it hit me. :laugh:0 -
Falling outside of an index that by definition is a generalization does not make one a "special snowflake".
Yes, it does. It is the definition of a special snowflake. Those that do not conform to the general. Outliers.
No, falling outside of a generalized index based on averages does not make one special. And an index developed more than 150 years ago probably needs to be re-evaluated for applicability.
Yes, the calculation for BMI was developed 150 years ago. It is an absolute calculation, just like height, weight or eye colour.
What we are talking about is where one draws the line. Is a BMI of 15 healthy? What about a BMI of 35?
For western countries the generalised range of 18-25 means that people within that range are at a lower risk of xyz diseases. Anyone outside that range are, generally, at risk.
I was on a thread recently where an Indian lass said that a BMI over 23 put her at risk of weight-related diseases due to her ethnicity. This is also a generalisation, and she could have ignored it and hoped that she is the special snowflake, but she elected to play the odds and stay below 23.0 -
Oh no they didn't just diss our American men..
They are the finest.
0 -
"culture" could also be something like "higher tendency to lift weights"...which would raise a healthy BMI range on average for a population.0
-
Falling outside of an index that by definition is a generalization does not make one a "special snowflake".
Yes, it does. It is the definition of a special snowflake. Those that do not conform to the general. Outliers.
No, falling outside of a generalized index based on averages does not make one special. And an index developed more than 150 years ago probably needs to be re-evaluated for applicability.
Yes, the calculation for BMI was developed 150 years ago. It is an absolute calculation, just like height, weight or eye colour.
What we are talking about is where one draws the line. Is a BMI of 15 healthy? What about a BMI of 35?
For western countries the generalised range of 18-25 means that people within that range are at a lower risk of xyz diseases. Anyone outside that range are, generally, at risk.
I was on a thread recently where an Indian lass said that a BMI over 23 put her at risk of weight-related diseases due to her ethnicity. This is also a generalisation, and she could have ignored it and hoped that she is the special snowflake, but she elected to play the odds and stay below 23.
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused as to how height and eye color are calculations. Beyond that, the medical profession is beginning to move away from BMI as a means of screening. Waist to hip ratio is a better tool, as is body fat percentage (using measuring tape and/or calipers). Either of these metrics take about a minute longer than BMI and are much more accurate. BMI is highly inaccurate for males that do any resistance training. That doesn't make us special, it makes us normal.0 -
"culture" could also be something like "higher tendency to lift weights"...which would raise a healthy BMI range on average for a population.
Word0 -
Oh no they didn't just diss our American men.. They are the finest.
No-one spoke against their character.
Except, how's that debt ceiling going?0 -
As an American man, I give no ****s. Foreigners do not matter.0
-
Falling outside of an index that by definition is a generalization does not make one a "special snowflake".
Yes, it does. It is the definition of a special snowflake. Those that do not conform to the general. Outliers.
No, falling outside of a generalized index based on averages does not make one special. And an index developed more than 150 years ago probably needs to be re-evaluated for applicability.
Yes, the calculation for BMI was developed 150 years ago. It is an absolute calculation, just like height, weight or eye colour.
What we are talking about is where one draws the line. Is a BMI of 15 healthy? What about a BMI of 35?
For western countries the generalised range of 18-25 means that people within that range are at a lower risk of xyz diseases. Anyone outside that range are, generally, at risk.
I was on a thread recently where an Indian lass said that a BMI over 23 put her at risk of weight-related diseases due to her ethnicity. This is also a generalisation, and she could have ignored it and hoped that she is the special snowflake, but she elected to play the odds and stay below 23.
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused as to how height and eye color are calculations. Beyond that, the medical profession is beginning to move away from BMI as a means of screening. Waist to hip ratio is a better tool, as is body fat percentage (using measuring tape and/or calipers). Either of these metrics take about a minute longer than BMI and are much more accurate. BMI is highly inaccurate for males that do any resistance training. That doesn't make us special, it makes us normal.
They are absolutes. Your eyes are blue, or green, or brown. Your height is 180cm. Your weight is 63 kg. Your BMI is 25.
Statistically, you are at a higher risk of illness if your BMI falls outside the range 18-25 for a westerner. If you are a stacked guy with a million muscles and no fat then of course the stats don't apply to you - you don't represent the average.
Statistically, generally,
if your BMI is outside 18-25 you are at greater risk of:
high blood pressure
Type 2 diabetes
some cancers
heart disease
stroke
gallbladder disease
osteoarthritis
sleep apnea and respiratory problems0 -
If that is the average American, than I think we're doing better than I thought. Most guys I know that are my age have much larger bellies. I'm a 26.3 on the BMI but at a perfectly healthy BF%...guess a little bit of muscle will do that.0
-
This is the dumbest study ever simply based on the fact they use the term "american man" as if there is such a specific and recognizable thing. America is a melting pot of the entire world. It's idiotic to entertain the idea we are as distinct as men from the Neatherlands (Islands), Japan (Island) and France (where frogs stay and no one immigrates to). It's like comparing a box of assorted cholcolates to a snickers, butterfinger and mars bars.0
-
Falling outside of an index that by definition is a generalization does not make one a "special snowflake".
Yes, it does. It is the definition of a special snowflake. Those that do not conform to the general. Outliers.
No, falling outside of a generalized index based on averages does not make one special. And an index developed more than 150 years ago probably needs to be re-evaluated for applicability.
Yes, the calculation for BMI was developed 150 years ago. It is an absolute calculation, just like height, weight or eye colour.
What we are talking about is where one draws the line. Is a BMI of 15 healthy? What about a BMI of 35?
For western countries the generalised range of 18-25 means that people within that range are at a lower risk of xyz diseases. Anyone outside that range are, generally, at risk.
I was on a thread recently where an Indian lass said that a BMI over 23 put her at risk of weight-related diseases due to her ethnicity. This is also a generalisation, and she could have ignored it and hoped that she is the special snowflake, but she elected to play the odds and stay below 23.
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused as to how height and eye color are calculations. Beyond that, the medical profession is beginning to move away from BMI as a means of screening. Waist to hip ratio is a better tool, as is body fat percentage (using measuring tape and/or calipers). Either of these metrics take about a minute longer than BMI and are much more accurate. BMI is highly inaccurate for males that do any resistance training. That doesn't make us special, it makes us normal.
They are absolutes. Your eyes are blue, or green, or brown. Your height is 180cm. Your weight is 63 kg. Your BMI is 25.
Statistically, you are at a higher risk of illness if your BMI falls outside the range 18-25 for a westerner. If you are a stacked guy with a million muscles and no fat then of course the stats don't apply to you - you don't represent the average.
Statistically, generally,
if your BMI is outside 18-25 you are at greater risk of:
high blood pressure
Type 2 diabetes
some cancers
heart disease
stroke
gallbladder disease
osteoarthritis
sleep apnea and respiratory problems
BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors.0 -
"BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors. "
I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.
BMI equals nothing more than mass versus height.
If your BMI is over 25 you are at an increased risk of....stuff.
There are some people who don't fit into the above generalisation. Yay for them. For everyone else, stick to the 25.0 -
I think they are looking at it all wrong. They should just look at it like this:
0 -
"BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors. "
I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.
BMI equals nothing more than mass versus height.
If your BMI is over 25 you are at an increased risk of....stuff.
There are some people who don't fit into the above generalisation. Yay for them. For everyone else, stick to the 25.
I'll go as far as saying that this index rarely applies to active western men. Period.0 -
"BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors. "
I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.
BMI equals nothing more than mass versus height.
If your BMI is over 25 you are at an increased risk of....stuff.
There are some people who don't fit into the above generalisation. Yay for them. For everyone else, stick to the 25.
I'll go as far as saying that this index rarely applies to active western men. Period.
As ET said above the "index" is mass vs height. Are you saying you don't think the health associations apply? Based on what?0 -
We're fat, and your women are still mail ordering themselves to us as wives...
I'll be right back, I'm off to get some fried chicken.
LOL the male ego.
That's cause the American wallet is pretty fat too.0 -
-
"BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors. "
I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.
BMI equals nothing more than mass versus height.
If your BMI is over 25 you are at an increased risk of....stuff.
There are some people who don't fit into the above generalisation. Yay for them. For everyone else, stick to the 25.
I'll go as far as saying that this index rarely applies to active western men. Period.
Active western men don't usually have periods.
splleing0 -
"BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors. "
I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.
BMI equals nothing more than mass versus height.
If your BMI is over 25 you are at an increased risk of....stuff.
There are some people who don't fit into the above generalisation. Yay for them. For everyone else, stick to the 25.
I'll go as far as saying that this index rarely applies to active western men. Period.
As ET said above the "index" is mass vs height. Are you saying you don't think the health associations apply? Based on what?
Based on the fact that the medical community is moving away from it. It was never meant to provide more than a screening that was to be confirmed by other metrics, e.g. body fat percentage.
From the CDC site, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/:
How reliable is BMI as an indicator of body fatness?
The correlation between the BMI number and body fatness is fairly strong; however the correlation varies by sex, race, and age. These variations include the following examples: 3, 4
At the same BMI, women tend to have more body fat than men.
At the same BMI, older people, on average, tend to have more body fat than younger adults.
Highly trained athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness.
It is also important to remember that BMI is only one factor related to risk for disease. For assessing someone's likelihood of developing overweight- or obesity-related diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines recommend looking at two other predictors:
The individual's waist circumference (because abdominal fat is a predictor of risk for obesity-related diseases).
Other risk factors the individual has for diseases and conditions associated with obesity (for example, high blood pressure or physical inactivity).0 -
New question: How do you American men feel about being drawn with a microscopic penis?
its total bogus every one knows that it's just a ratio of length to girth0 -
"BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors. "
I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.
BMI equals nothing more than mass versus height.
If your BMI is over 25 you are at an increased risk of....stuff.
There are some people who don't fit into the above generalisation. Yay for them. For everyone else, stick to the 25.
I'll go as far as saying that this index rarely applies to active western men. Period.
As ET said above the "index" is mass vs height. Are you saying you don't think the health associations apply? Based on what?
Based on the fact that the medical community is moving away from it. It was never meant to provide more than a screening that was to be confirmed by other metrics, e.g. body fat percentage.
From the CDC site, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/:
How reliable is BMI as an indicator of body fatness?
The correlation between the BMI number and body fatness is fairly strong; however the correlation varies by sex, race, and age. These variations include the following examples: 3, 4
At the same BMI, women tend to have more body fat than men.
At the same BMI, older people, on average, tend to have more body fat than younger adults.
Highly trained athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness.
It is also important to remember that BMI is only one factor related to risk for disease. For assessing someone's likelihood of developing overweight- or obesity-related diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines recommend looking at two other predictors:
The individual's waist circumference (because abdominal fat is a predictor of risk for obesity-related diseases).
Other risk factors the individual has for diseases and conditions associated with obesity (for example, high blood pressure or physical inactivity).
Totally agree, I don't think anyone would argue the claim that it can't be used alone in evaluating the health or disease risk of a specific individual. That doesn't mean it isn't useful as a public health (vs medical) metric. My understanding is that it developed as a public health population-level measure of disease risk based on studies of disease prevalence. When you get down to the individual level its predictive value is less, but that doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant.0 -
Totally agree, I don't think anyone would argue the claim that it can't be used alone in evaluating the health or disease risk of a specific individual. That doesn't mean it isn't useful as a public health (vs medical) metric. My understanding is that it developed as a public health population-level measure of disease risk based on studies of disease prevalence. When you get down to the individual level its predictive value is less, but that doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant.
It's less relevant today than it was in 1850.0 -
I personally think its a great thing. The fatter the average gets the better I look in comparison without having to work harder. I guess I'm kinda a glass half full kind of guy anyway though.0
-
"BMI is not causal. It's an outdated index used to correlate height/weight and health data. That correlation neglects other important factors. "
I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.
BMI equals nothing more than mass versus height.
If your BMI is over 25 you are at an increased risk of....stuff.
There are some people who don't fit into the above generalisation. Yay for them. For everyone else, stick to the 25.
I'll go as far as saying that this index rarely applies to active western men. Period.
As ET said above the "index" is mass vs height. Are you saying you don't think the health associations apply? Based on what?
Based on the fact that the medical community is moving away from it. It was never meant to provide more than a screening that was to be confirmed by other metrics, e.g. body fat percentage.
From the CDC site, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/:
How reliable is BMI as an indicator of body fatness?
The correlation between the BMI number and body fatness is fairly strong; however the correlation varies by sex, race, and age. These variations include the following examples: 3, 4
At the same BMI, women tend to have more body fat than men.
At the same BMI, older people, on average, tend to have more body fat than younger adults.
Highly trained athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity rather than increased body fatness.
It is also important to remember that BMI is only one factor related to risk for disease. For assessing someone's likelihood of developing overweight- or obesity-related diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines recommend looking at two other predictors:
The individual's waist circumference (because abdominal fat is a predictor of risk for obesity-related diseases).
Other risk factors the individual has for diseases and conditions associated with obesity (for example, high blood pressure or physical inactivity).
From the site that you quoted:
Calculating BMI is one of the best methods for population assessment of overweight and obesity.
The standard weight status categories associated with BMI ranges for adults are shown in the following table.
BMI
Weight Status
Below 18.5 Underweight
18.5 – 24.9 Normal
25.0 – 29.9 Overweight
30.0 and Above Obese0 -
Totally agree, I don't think anyone would argue the claim that it can't be used alone in evaluating the health or disease risk of a specific individual. That doesn't mean it isn't useful as a public health (vs medical) metric. My understanding is that it developed as a public health population-level measure of disease risk based on studies of disease prevalence. When you get down to the individual level its predictive value is less, but that doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant.
It's less relevant today than it was in 1850.
I'm getting the sense that you actually have reasons for the things you say but when you just state arguable claims without any supporting facts it's hard to know what to do with it.
BMI may have been developed in 1850 but that doesn't mean the disease correlates have not been updated since that time.0 -
My hubby's 40, and he looks WAAAAAAAY better than that "average American" male!!! It's just an average. And, I don't think I've seen a man with a bubble butt like that illustration showed. Yowza!0
-
From the site that you quoted:
Calculating BMI is one of the best methods for population assessment of overweight and obesity.
The standard weight status categories associated with BMI ranges for adults are shown in the following table.
BMI
Weight Status
Below 18.5 Underweight
18.5 – 24.9 Normal
25.0 – 29.9 Overweight
30.0 and Above Obese
And?
BMI is not intended to identify individuals at risk. It has not been updated to reflect changes in diet and activity. It is being used less and less as even the index that it was intended to be. If I were to use it as an approximation of a population, I would compare apples to apples; not Americans to Japanese. All that such a comparison would provide is a gap that might merit further analyses.0 -
No. It does not identify individuals. Everyone with a BMI above 25 is at risk of blah blah. Do you think I can run your numbers and predict the day upon which you will develop cancer of the colon?
18-25 is a generalisation.
Oh, ffs, what do I care. Do you see what India did to Australia tonight?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions