"Who's NOT Overweight?"
Replies
-
I'm not overweight5
-
Skipjack66 wrote: »As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.
That does happen with the decrease in estrogen - moving the woman to a more male pattern weight distribution. Unfortunately, that does not mean that it is not associated with increased cardiac risks. The lower relative estrogen levels and increased abdominal adiposity are still associated with more health issues.6 -
Geography plays a role, too. I lived in Southern California for several years & always felt HUGE compared to other women around me. I moved back to Texas & not only felt like I fit right in, but looked a little smaller than many other women (my BMI when I moved here teetered between obese & overweight).
I'm still in Texas, but after losing 55# and now sitting squarely in the middle of my normal BMI range, I'm typically one of the smallest (weight-wise) women everywhere I go. I have a feeling I'd finally look about average if I went back to SoCal.
NYC tends to have thinner people on average as well.0 -
richardpkennedy1 wrote: »I'm not overweight
I would be happy to lose a few pounds, but I'm well within the normal BMI range for my height and weight.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
Those two examples have nothing whatever to do with each other, though.
Portion sizes increasing is a big problem, a contributing factor to obesity, and a hindrance to those of us trying to lose/control our weight. Something should totally be done about that.
Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?
No, but they have more larger sizes, with plus size models glamorizing plus sizes, and thinner people are being shamed. I can hardly find xs these days or now they do vanity sizing ( labeling a medium a small) All these things attribute to society's acceptance of overweight or obesity rates.
I actually think it does contribute to the problem. Size 00/0 used to be meant for very thin people, now most healthy weight people fit into 0. The vanity sizing gives overweight people the impression they really aren't "that big" and reinforces the idea they are normal and that being overweight is normal because "hey I'm only a size ___". And I agree with you I can hardly find clothes that fit anymore. My mom gave me some of her old clothes from the 80s/90s and the size 4-6 fits snug. However, I now have to find 000/00 and xs in today's ridiculous vanity sizing. It disgusts me that as a country we are normalizing obesity more and more every year. I agree vanity sizing and all these 'plus size' campaigns show people "hey this is what normal is and it's completely fine to be this way".
I agree with this. Nobody wants to force fat people to go naked, that's quite extreme to write that. Just keep clothing sizes true to size. Someone is hurt they are a size 20? Too bad, it's reality. People have made fun of size 00/000 asking how someone can be below a size 0. That's kind of the point. A size 0 was originally meant as just that; for extremely petite people. Being a size 0 was rare, not some coveted number to aspire to. Size 00/000 was created for those who are actually closer to a true size 0 and even then, it's still off. Now because of vanity sizing, you have many people saying things like "I'm 170 pounds but a size 6!" Then they refer to Marilyn Monroe's size, etc as if those sizes are comparable to today's sizing. It's ridiculous.
is it extremely petite? or extremely skinny?
and i dont understand the concept of having a size below zero
i agree with the true to size in stores makes it easier to shop. each shop seems to do their own thing
Extremely petite and/or skinny, yes. Someone who is quite skinny, yet 5'10" may not have the bone structure to fit into a size 0. The reason a size below zero was created was because an actual size 0 is no longer an actual 0. When vanity sizing became a thing, let's say a true size 4 became a size 0, so what are people who are actually a true size 0 or 2 to do in that situation? What can they do for people that size? Create size 00 and 000 of course, which is just silly.
^^^ Size 0's are usually for more petite folks in general. I'm 5'10", 119lbs, and I wear an 8 in certain styles of jeans from American Eagle, 6 at Old Navy, and an 11 at Hollister. And the fact that there's such variance in the numbers that I just spouted off shows just how crazy women's sizing in America is.9 -
goldthistime wrote: »Skipjack66 wrote: »As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.
Using the other metric we discussed, waist to height, you're fine. You're 71.5 inches tall, more than double your waist.
Oh, don't know how I missed this! Thank you. That way of calculation makes me feel better - I also realized I was measuring around my waist too low, so my corrected ratio is down to .47 nowNoreenmarie1234 wrote: »Skipjack66 wrote: »As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.
I have always had "at risk" because of my hip/waist ratio, but because I have TINY hips. My waist is 27 (even when I was quite underweight) and my hips are 30. But I am much shorter.
Did you try the above waist to height calculator yet? This may correct for this since you seem to be really petite.wishiwasarunner wrote: »Skipjack66 wrote: »As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.
That does happen with the decrease in estrogen - moving the woman to a more male pattern weight distribution. Unfortunately, that does not mean that it is not associated with increased cardiac risks. The lower relative estrogen levels and increased abdominal adiposity are still associated with more health issues.
Thanks. This is probably especially relevant for overweight post-menopausal women. Hopefully I'm in the clear for health issues related to adiposity when taking into account the waist to height calculation. I've done intense cardio six days a week for most of my life and have super low blood pressure and RHR. I see a number of older women just like me at the gym actually - long distance runners, swimmers etc, who are incredibly fit but still can't lose that middle. It's the sum of all the parts, not just waist measurement, I hope!1 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
Those two examples have nothing whatever to do with each other, though.
Portion sizes increasing is a big problem, a contributing factor to obesity, and a hindrance to those of us trying to lose/control our weight. Something should totally be done about that.
Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?
No, but they have more larger sizes, with plus size models glamorizing plus sizes, and thinner people are being shamed. I can hardly find xs these days or now they do vanity sizing ( labeling a medium a small) All these things attribute to society's acceptance of overweight or obesity rates.
I actually think it does contribute to the problem. Size 00/0 used to be meant for very thin people, now most healthy weight people fit into 0. The vanity sizing gives overweight people the impression they really aren't "that big" and reinforces the idea they are normal and that being overweight is normal because "hey I'm only a size ___". And I agree with you I can hardly find clothes that fit anymore. My mom gave me some of her old clothes from the 80s/90s and the size 4-6 fits snug. However, I now have to find 000/00 and xs in today's ridiculous vanity sizing. It disgusts me that as a country we are normalizing obesity more and more every year. I agree vanity sizing and all these 'plus size' campaigns show people "hey this is what normal is and it's completely fine to be this way".
I agree with this. Nobody wants to force fat people to go naked, that's quite extreme to write that. Just keep clothing sizes true to size. Someone is hurt they are a size 20? Too bad, it's reality. People have made fun of size 00/000 asking how someone can be below a size 0. That's kind of the point. A size 0 was originally meant as just that; for extremely petite people. Being a size 0 was rare, not some coveted number to aspire to. Size 00/000 was created for those who are actually closer to a true size 0 and even then, it's still off. Now because of vanity sizing, you have many people saying things like "I'm 170 pounds but a size 6!" Then they refer to Marilyn Monroe's size, etc as if those sizes are comparable to today's sizing. It's ridiculous.
is it extremely petite? or extremely skinny?
and i dont understand the concept of having a size below zero
i agree with the true to size in stores makes it easier to shop. each shop seems to do their own thing
Extremely petite and/or skinny, yes. Someone who is quite skinny, yet 5'10" may not have the bone structure to fit into a size 0. The reason a size below zero was created was because an actual size 0 is no longer an actual 0. When vanity sizing became a thing, let's say a true size 4 became a size 0, so what are people who are actually a true size 0 or 2 to do in that situation? What can they do for people that size? Create size 00 and 000 of course, which is just silly.
^^^ Size 0's are usually for more petite folks in general. I'm 5'10", 119lbs, and I wear an 8 in certain styles of jeans from American Eagle, 6 at Old Navy, and an 11 at Hollister. And the fact that there's such variance in the numbers that I just spouted off shows just how crazy women's sizing in America is.
Those stores sound like they may have quite different target markets, which might explain it. Hollister, for example, targets the young woman, whereas, I think? Whereas Old Navy is more pitched at the middle-income, middle-aged market?Strawblackcat wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
Those two examples have nothing whatever to do with each other, though.
Portion sizes increasing is a big problem, a contributing factor to obesity, and a hindrance to those of us trying to lose/control our weight. Something should totally be done about that.
Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?
No, but they have more larger sizes, with plus size models glamorizing plus sizes, and thinner people are being shamed. I can hardly find xs these days or now they do vanity sizing ( labeling a medium a small) All these things attribute to society's acceptance of overweight or obesity rates.
I actually think it does contribute to the problem. Size 00/0 used to be meant for very thin people, now most healthy weight people fit into 0. The vanity sizing gives overweight people the impression they really aren't "that big" and reinforces the idea they are normal and that being overweight is normal because "hey I'm only a size ___". And I agree with you I can hardly find clothes that fit anymore. My mom gave me some of her old clothes from the 80s/90s and the size 4-6 fits snug. However, I now have to find 000/00 and xs in today's ridiculous vanity sizing. It disgusts me that as a country we are normalizing obesity more and more every year. I agree vanity sizing and all these 'plus size' campaigns show people "hey this is what normal is and it's completely fine to be this way".
I agree with this. Nobody wants to force fat people to go naked, that's quite extreme to write that. Just keep clothing sizes true to size. Someone is hurt they are a size 20? Too bad, it's reality. People have made fun of size 00/000 asking how someone can be below a size 0. That's kind of the point. A size 0 was originally meant as just that; for extremely petite people. Being a size 0 was rare, not some coveted number to aspire to. Size 00/000 was created for those who are actually closer to a true size 0 and even then, it's still off. Now because of vanity sizing, you have many people saying things like "I'm 170 pounds but a size 6!" Then they refer to Marilyn Monroe's size, etc as if those sizes are comparable to today's sizing. It's ridiculous.
is it extremely petite? or extremely skinny?
and i dont understand the concept of having a size below zero
i agree with the true to size in stores makes it easier to shop. each shop seems to do their own thing
Extremely petite and/or skinny, yes. Someone who is quite skinny, yet 5'10" may not have the bone structure to fit into a size 0. The reason a size below zero was created was because an actual size 0 is no longer an actual 0. When vanity sizing became a thing, let's say a true size 4 became a size 0, so what are people who are actually a true size 0 or 2 to do in that situation? What can they do for people that size? Create size 00 and 000 of course, which is just silly.
^^^ Size 0's are usually for more petite folks in general. I'm 5'10", 119lbs, and I wear an 8 in certain styles of jeans from American Eagle, 6 at Old Navy, and an 11 at Hollister. And the fact that there's such variance in the numbers that I just spouted off shows just how crazy women's sizing in America is.
Before we get into any question of 'vanity sizing', one thing must be acknowledged- one's shape changes with age.
Right now, I weigh the same as I did at 17/18, which was upper end of healthy BMI. No skinny minny, but not overweight either. Talk about goal, eh? I have got back to that weight, by broadly duplicating the very active life I had as a 17 year old, with an added side of "portion control". However, my body shape, post the hormonal effects of pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, is not the same. I seem to store fat in different places, and low-waisted jeans and crop tops are absolutely out of the question.
Shops aimed at young people make clothes to fit the bodyshapes of young women, so naturally their sizes run a little smaller than those at a store which deliberately targets an older market that includes women who have experienced pregnancy (with or without losing the baby weight) and includes women who have experienced, or are experiencing, peri-menopause and menopause.
5 -
goldthistime wrote: »Skipjack66 wrote: »As the topic of waist to hip ratio has come up, I have a question for anyone out there who knows a little more about the topic. Are there any adjustments for age or height? It seems to me as a very tall but post-menopausal woman, what is said about my ratio seems wrong to me. Those calculator sites tell me I'm "at risk". Yes, my weight distribution has changed, but this is common for most post menopausal women, often for even the thinnest women (like my mother at 100lbs and 5'8"). Fat redistributes itself to the tummy/waist instead of the hips. It just happens because of less estrogen!
So I'm 5'11.5" (lost an inch this decade) and 149 lbs which puts my BMI at a healthy 21, in the lower range of "normal". Yet my waist is 35" and hips are 40. Maybe my waist was a couple of inches smaller ten years ago, but no more, and heck, I'm really tall so my frame is always gonna be larger! My waist could never be that small, and 35 is the cut off!
Anybody have a similar issues with their waist to hip ratio? Just curious is all.
Using the other metric we discussed, waist to height, you're fine. You're 71.5 inches tall, more than double your waist.
Someone woo'd my comment above so I went looking further into it. The woo'er is right and I am wrong. According to wiki, waist to height is better than bmi, but waist to hip is better still. I stand corrected.
"A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that WHtR is a much better measure of the risk of heart attack, stroke or death than the more widely used body mass index. However, a 2011 study that followed 60,000 participants for up to 13 years found that waist-hip ratio (when adjusted for BMI) was a better predictor of ischaemic heart disease mortality than WHtR."
0 -
Having to put your hand up in that situation is awkward so perhaps people didn't want to come across as big-headed, I don't think I would put my hand up even if I was in shape just because I'm not that kind of person.
If being overweight in your office is that much of an issue, they should bring in policies like reduced gym memberships or free fruit for snacks to try and help the issue. Perhaps worth mentioning this to your manager who can perhaps help implement it, it's common in UK workplaces.
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
A number of people seem to be suggesting men's style waist measurements as a more appropriate for sizing - but I think you may be unaware that even men's clothes can be significantly vanity sized as well. My boyfriend had an unpleasant shock when he measured his waist size with a tape measure, he was 37 inches, even though he wears 34 inch jeans with room to spare! If you're a man, and you're reading this, I recommend you invest in a tape measure to see for yourself just how bad it's got.7
-
A number of people seem to be suggesting men's style waist measurements as a more appropriate for sizing - but I think you may be unaware that even men's clothes can be significantly vanity sized as well. My boyfriend had an unpleasant shock when he measured his waist size with a tape measure, he was 37 inches, even though he wears 34 inch jeans with room to spare! If you're a man, and you're reading this, I recommend you invest in a tape measure to see for yourself just how bad it's got.
Yeah, there is a 5-6 inch difference between my pant size and what the tape says my waist is.0 -
I would say in my office about half are overweight and half are not. But some of the ones I know who aren't overweight have gained some weight recently and are struggling with healthy lifestyles. Some days they do well with diet and exercise, other days are harder. I can only think of one person in the office who it seems being skinny just comes easily to him. One thing I'm glad about is that typically people do not bring in unhealthy food for everyone like donuts. I have a hard time controlling myself when they are in the breakroom.1
-
That makes sense. Isn't around two thirds of the States overweight and obese? Six out of seven being overweight is higher but it could be demographics.
Watch the animation in this article to see how obesity rates in the United States changed from 1985 to 2010:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/look-how-quickly-the-us-got-fat-1985-2010-animated-map/274878/2 -
Goober1142 wrote: »I was watching All in the Family last night and realizing in 1971 Archie was really fat. Now, 46 years later he just looks a little chubby...
This never becomes as obvious in real life as people change gradually over time. I've been watching several older movies lately and shocked at how skinny everyone looked - almost anorexic by today's standards. Even looking at family photos it is amazing how thinner everyone was.2 -
Having to put your hand up in that situation is awkward so perhaps people didn't want to come across as big-headed, I don't think I would put my hand up even if I was in shape just because I'm not that kind of person.
If being overweight in your office is that much of an issue, they should bring in policies like reduced gym memberships or free fruit for snacks to try and help the issue. Perhaps worth mentioning this to your manager who can perhaps help implement it, it's common in UK workplaces.
State-run work place in the US with 100,000’s of employees with more than a dozen different collective bargaining agreements, plus all the managers. Many of us have made suggestions in our annual climate surveys, but unfortunately it’s not as easy as making the suggestion to a manager for possible implementation. No one at the local level has that kind of authority/power.0 -
Apparently the average woman is a size 16-18. The average woman is obese.1
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
Clothing sizes getting bigger is just a necessity, though. It doesn't contribute to the problem at all. Unless you're suggesting that forcing fat people to go naked would somehow stop them being fat?
I think of it more as clothing sizes changing. Clothing that should be a size 8/10 being labeled as a 2, really isn't helping anyone in my opinion.
0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »A number of people seem to be suggesting men's style waist measurements as a more appropriate for sizing - but I think you may be unaware that even men's clothes can be significantly vanity sized as well. My boyfriend had an unpleasant shock when he measured his waist size with a tape measure, he was 37 inches, even though he wears 34 inch jeans with room to spare! If you're a man, and you're reading this, I recommend you invest in a tape measure to see for yourself just how bad it's got.
Yeah, there is a 5-6 inch difference between my pant size and what the tape says my waist is.
My husband likes to point out that he wears the same size pants as he did in high school. But a 1990 size 30 pant is not the same as a 2017 size 30 pant. A size 30 is still good, and he was pretty darn skinny in high school, which I wouldn't consider "good", but yeah, NOT the same dear.2 -
Someone posted a chart the other day, wish I could find it, of mortality risks by BMI. The lower end of "overweight" is about the same as the lower end of "normal," and "underweight" is significantly more risky than either one.
Obesity is a real health risk, but it's important to distinguish between obesity and overweight, and also to distinguish between what magazine ads think is healthy weight and what's really healthy weight.2 -
i don't work, but i live in an area (in usa) where alto of ppl are overweight. i would say prob like 6 out of 8 are very heavy. i would say working in an office would be about the same rate.
0 -
In my office most people are not overweight, I wonder if its because its a construction office where most employees worked construction prior. Maybe a good amount of muscle on their frames has kept them a little leaner.0
-
Geography plays a role, too. I lived in Southern California for several years & always felt HUGE compared to other women around me. I moved back to Texas & not only felt like I fit right in, but looked a little smaller than many other women (my BMI when I moved here teetered between obese & overweight).
I'm still in Texas, but after losing 55# and now sitting squarely in the middle of my normal BMI range, I'm typically one of the smallest (weight-wise) women everywhere I go. I have a feeling I'd finally look about average if I went back to SoCal.
NYC tends to have thinner people on average as well.
Hmmm, I’m from NYC and still live here and I feel like I see more overweight than thing day to day. Granted some may be tourists but here are my general observations:
1.) In College: A fair amount of overweight people- maybe more than half but of course many of my peers aren’t from NYC originally.
2.) At my internship (office setting): predominately overweight. See same 20 or so people daily, 4 are slender (no extra weight) and 3 are fit (muscle tone, etc). The rest are chubby at best, likely overweight.
3.) At my job (at a club / bar): Mostly slender with few overweight individuals in the crowd.
4.) In trains: About half and half.
These are just my observations of course I’m sure different people here see different things.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »My life insurance company charges extra if your BMI is 'obese' or higher. No penalty for 'overweight'. I think it's fair, to be honest, for life insurance - which is basically gambling. You pays your money, you takes your chance.
Health insurance is rather different. Putting hurdles between people and healthcare because they're unhealthy is absurd.
But from an insurance perspective, those who are obese are more likely incur more health care costs, just like smokers.
I'm 6 ft and 200 lbs. my body fat is roughly 10%. My vitals are near perfect. I'm "overweight" and approaching "obese" based on that. Total horseshit.
Do you really think your stats are the norm though?
Actually, I know a lot of guys, including myself who are overweight by BMI but are perfectly lean and healthy...I don't think it's that unusual for active males to be overweight per BMI but still lean and healthy. Someone bordering on obese is hitting the weight room pretty hard, which isn't particularly unusual either but probably more of a rarity than just being overweight.
I'm about 8 Lbs overweight as per BMI but at a perfectly healthy BF%...no love handles, no gut, etc...right around 15%. I'm by no means a body builder as I only lift 2x per week and spend most of my exercise time on my bike...but being active, I have enough muscle mass to class me as overweight by BMI.
I don't think BMI is total BS or anything, but I think using it as the sole measure to run up someone's rates is pretty asinine.
I agree with the bold but have a question about your first sentence--Are active males the norm? In my corner of the world, they are not. I don't think that many guys around me are in the overweight category BMI-wise due to their activity (actually muscle) level.
Even if we aren't the norm, we exist and depending on where one lives, we exist in larger numbers...if insurance rates were raised simply based on BMI, there'd still be quite a few people basically being punished for being fit.0 -
BMI is good enough for an estimate and applies and fits most. However, if I'm going to be charged more money for something, it better be an exact equation that holds every person under the same scrutiny. It also better account for people who are just outside of the ranges. I workout regularly, but I could stand to lose some weight. I would have a major problem if my insurance is trying to tell me to regulate my food intake when I'm not unhealthy. I could see if they applied this to MORBIDLY obese people, and I'm talking like extreme cases. Even then, I don't think that's fair. This type of premium should be to encourage you to get healthy and reward vs. penalize.
Back to your question, I've never seen that before. I live in a dense city, I see far less overweight people here than when I go back home in rural Ohio. I see a lot of overweight people on a day to day basis, but not overwhelming as in your situation.
When I was traveling in Europe, I noticed a lot less overweight people. It could have been the day/time/place and it was purely coincidental, but I found that interesting.1 -
It doesn’t affect our health care but my office is say most are not overweight. Maybe 70/30 split, not sure if it matters but we have a lot of international folks (I’m in the US) but my last office was about 90 overweight, 10 not.0
-
Queenmunchy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »That makes sense. Isn't around two thirds of the States overweight and obese? Six out of seven being overweight is higher but it could be demographics.
The SAHMs I know tend to be normal to overweight. There are a few obese. My guess is that it is a slimmer group than average for our age. I am one of the larger ones at 158lbs and 5'8". Normal BMI.
I'm a sahm as well and I literally do not know another sahm that's not overweight/very overweight. I'm definitely the odd one out in that sense, in my little circle.
It's almost backwards where I live. Most of the SAHMs I know are pretty darn skinny.
I'm on maternity leave right now, but definitely not part of that trend
I was going to say the same. Where I live (Colorado, south of Denver) the SAHMs in my neck of the woods are fit and look fantastic.0 -
Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
This. I cannot agree more with this. When I hear, 'The average US woman is a size 16' it makes me cringe. That should be an issue, of course this is a very unpopular opinion for me to share.
Same with, 'real women have curves' or 'men like meat on the bones' although for slightly different reasons.7 -
Queenmunchy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »That makes sense. Isn't around two thirds of the States overweight and obese? Six out of seven being overweight is higher but it could be demographics.
The SAHMs I know tend to be normal to overweight. There are a few obese. My guess is that it is a slimmer group than average for our age. I am one of the larger ones at 158lbs and 5'8". Normal BMI.
I'm a sahm as well and I literally do not know another sahm that's not overweight/very overweight. I'm definitely the odd one out in that sense, in my little circle.
It's almost backwards where I live. Most of the SAHMs I know are pretty darn skinny.
I'm on maternity leave right now, but definitely not part of that trend
I was going to say the same. Where I live (Colorado, south of Denver) the SAHMs in my neck of the woods are fit and look fantastic.
I live in New Mexico and we certainly have our fair share of obesity here...but we have a lot of active people around here too that are pretty fit. Our weather is pretty much ideal almost year around (Dec/Jan kinda suck) and it's kind of an outdoor person's paradise. Hiking and rock climbing and mountain biking and skiing are pretty huge here. In Albuquerque we have around 50 miles of multi-use trails...that doesn't even include the bike paths on the road, and they're adding more and they're always full with people having fun and staying fit.
So while it's not unusual to see obese people out and about, it's also not unusual to see healthy and fit people out and about.1 -
Obesity rate keeps rising, and yet instead of trying to solve the problem, we are just accepting it. Clothing sizes just keep getting bigger, food portions at restaurants keep getting larger.. when are we going to say, "no, it is not healthy to be overweight, let's do something about it". ?
This. I cannot agree more with this. When I hear, 'The average US woman is a size 16' it makes me cringe. That should be an issue, of course this is a very unpopular opinion for me to share.
Same with, 'real women have curves' or 'men like meat on the bones' although for slightly different reasons.
It definitely is an issue and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, with body positivity comes people thinking because this is the average it's totally healthy. No. Obese=unhealthy.3
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
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions