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.
2006 vs 1988: BMI 2.3 higher today even when eating same diet
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »With every invention comes increased convenience and decreased activity.
I've heard that bicycles are the only thing we've ever invented for convenience that had the side effect of making us more healthy. While that can't literally be true (other forms of transport like canoes and skis do the same) it's pretty close. And I'd say it's the exception that proves your rule.
I would agree. When bicycles were first invented they were a more efficient means of travel; however with the invention of motorized travel bicycles did not get removed, but evolved into a sport, same with equestrian activities, canoes, skis, etc.
@Packerjohn I wholeheartedly agree. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.3 -
Portion sizes in restaurants have increased and most studies show people eat out more today and eat more take out when they eat at home. People still think they are eating a "serving" but a serving now is bigger than it was then.1
-
Growing up we ate until we got full or ran out of food then got up and stayed busy until the next meal time. There was no TV in our house so after dark I read about leaders and inventors. No TV commercials may have been a plus in my case. There was no golf cart to ride to the mailbox. 2
-
I suspect it's the general decrease in NEAT! as several others have pointed out.4
-
I was an adult in '88 (age 33). I agree it's mostly NEAT, with perhaps a bit of misreporting influence from (1) portion-size creep, (2) more-caloric restaurant food replacing less-caloric home-cooked (and other food, too - I think certain "identical" foods now contain more sugar and/or fat than in '88), and (3) the easily-forgotten ubiquitous sweet drinks and casual grazing that are more common now.4
-
...In the 80s I was on a skateboard and grew up with PSAs like this (imagine the public outrage if this aired today):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb_q9B3NpOY
...
I remember those PSAs, and was a child when they were on TV. It's true that those PSAs come from a time in which obesity was far less acceptable socially than it is today. It's also worth noting that given the rate of adult obesity today among the cohort who saw those PSAs as children, and the value that they place on reducing obesity in their own children, that the ads had little to no effect in actually instilling healthy values in the children who saw them. In fact, the generation raised on those PSAs have become the very generation at the forefront of the backlash against the attitudes that made those PSAs acceptable in the first place.
I don't think it's surprising that this is the case. The young children seeing those PSAs weren't the ones responsible for purchasing the family food, preparing the family meals, scheduling the family activities, approving of how their time was spent, or making sure the meals were eaten. They were the wrong targets for the message, and did not have the familial authority nor the maturity to evaluate the messages and put them into action. Perhaps that's why they grew to resent the message rather than embrace it.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
BMI is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration muscle to fat etc., actual activity level, etc.6
-
thickspo91 wrote: »BMI is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration muscle to fat etc., actual activity level, etc.
BMI was dumb when mind was 34 but now it is a 28.4 it is not looking so dumb in my mind. I do know one very short person who works out all of the time and has a ton of muscle and BMI wise she is still concerned obese so BMI is not as meaningful in her case.
I think maybe the waist size greater than 34 for female and greater than 38 inches for men indicating greater risk factor of a premature death may be more meaning to motivate me so I am working to get into a new 38 inch belt.
Most anyone with a BMI greater than 30 is still going to physically be overweight I expect.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »thickspo91 wrote: »BMI is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration muscle to fat etc., actual activity level, etc.
BMI was dumb when mind was 34 but now it is a 28.4 it is not looking so dumb in my mind. I do know one very short person who works out all of the time and has a ton of muscle and BMI wise she is still concerned obese so BMI is not as meaningful in her case.
I think maybe the waist size greater than 34 for female and greater than 38 inches for men indicating greater risk factor of a premature death may be more meaning to motivate me so I am working to get into a new 38 inch belt.
Most anyone with a BMI greater than 30 is still going to physically be overweight I expect.
I'm currently sitting at a 38 inch AC and a 32.8 BMI.
So, Meh.
My Target BMI is 31.1 -
@stanmann571 that is a great target goal. I did not get to a 44 inch waist and BMI of 34 over night and after nearly 3 years before breakfast this AM the scales showed an estimated BMI of 28 and before eating breakfast a new pair of 38 pants is buttoning OK. This time around after 40 years of yo-yoing weight had just about killed me I am not focusing on just losing weight but getting all my labs looking good and all of my arteries as free of any blockages as much as possible since I am now 66. A third of my high school graduation class have passed already and it was due to lifestyle choices in most of the cases.
Best of continued success. MFP is key I find because it keeps me thinking about improving my health reading about others doing so. The HOW we do it does not seem that important and it all starts with changing our thinking or at least that is true in my case.0 -
thickspo91 wrote: »BMI is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration muscle to fat etc., actual activity level, etc.
Yeah, BMI should take your driving record and voting style into account too.
While no single metric tells the whole story, BMI gets a bad rep. It works for most people, the people it doesn't work for know it, you don't become an outlier by accident and overnight. What happens a lot of the time is people who have a spare tire say "BMI doesn't work for world class athletes so I don't have to worry about my belly."7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »thickspo91 wrote: »BMI is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration muscle to fat etc., actual activity level, etc.
Yeah, BMI should take your driving record and voting style into account too.
While no single metric tells the whole story, BMI gets a bad rep. It works for most people, the people it doesn't work for know it, you don't become an outlier by accident and overnight. What happens a lot of the time is people who have a spare tire say "BMI doesn't work for world class athletes so I don't have to worry about my belly."
And even for world class athletes, most of the time they're just barely into the overweight category.
People against BMI usually point out that it's not supposed to be used on an individual level, but at a population level.
BMI works as a population tracker. Why does it work as a population tracker? Because it works on an individual level for a majority of the population.
It doesn't work for everyone, but statistically, it probably does for you.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thickspo91 wrote: »BMI is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration muscle to fat etc., actual activity level, etc.
Yeah, BMI should take your driving record and voting style into account too.
While no single metric tells the whole story, BMI gets a bad rep. It works for most people, the people it doesn't work for know it, you don't become an outlier by accident and overnight. What happens a lot of the time is people who have a spare tire say "BMI doesn't work for world class athletes so I don't have to worry about my belly."
And even for world class athletes, most of the time they're just barely into the overweight category.
People against BMI usually point out that it's not supposed to be used on an individual level, but at a population level.
BMI works as a population tracker. Why does it work as a population tracker? Because it works on an individual level for a majority of the population.
It doesn't work for everyone, but statistically, it probably does for you.
And BMI as an indicator of obesity on the individual level actually tends to UNDER indicate the number of people who are obese. I.E., more folks are overweight by BF% but still within a normal BMI range than are at a healthy BF% and at too high of a BMI.
It's not surprising most folks views are so skewed on what a healthy body weight is when over 2/3 of America is overweight or obese. Being overweight is NORMAL at this point in history. The overweight are literally a supermajority and could override a veto or make a constitutional amendment if they were Congress...4 -
thickspo91 wrote: »BMI is dumb because it doesn't take into consideration muscle to fat etc., actual activity level, etc.
BMI is one metric, but it works for the vast majority. It's not particularly unusual for a guy who exercises/trains to be slightly overweight per BMI (I am)...but that guy would also be either a) a world class athlete (not me); or b) might be at a healthy BF%, but not super lean (that would be me). I'm mid teens in regards to BF% and about 6 Lbs overweight per BMI...I could easily get into the top end of BMI and just be a bit leaner than I am. At around 173 Lbs (high end for me) I'd be around 10-12% BF...still not "elite" leanness by any means...but pretty darn good.
I lift and cycle and have decent muscle mass...I could easily be in the high end of my BMI, so I can't say that it's "dumb"4 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »How accurate was their calorie counting in 1988? I know, for me, counting calories back then was laborious. Flipping through pages in a calorie counting book, I'm sure the info was not up to date.
I remember that... while not for myself... but when my grandfather had a heart attack and he had a book the size of a dictionary with the basic nutrition info of common foods... but by no means as extensive as it is today...
but aside from that, my thinking is it's just because we don't move as much as we did before.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions