Couple set for repossession - BBC

BobProperty

phatbear wrote: »

For instance Jonny Wilkinson, according to the BMI calculator, is overweight and is about a stone away from being obese.

I think most people might manage to categorise Jonny Wilkinson as "athletic".

phatbear

BobProperty wrote: »

BMI isn't "a pile of poop"; it is used a a quick "rule of thumb" to check whether someone is in the right range. It doesn't work for athletes and body builders and any medical professional should know that. It would also be obvious if someone was a "body builder" or an athlete (unless you are a US doctor who signs firemen off sick, but that's another story).

BMI doesnt take into consideration individuals natural size no matter how hard i try I wil never be 12stone due to being broad shouldered and big legs im always gonna be overweight in the BMI's eyes, not everyone lives up to a basic calculation, which by the way for bmi is body weight divided by the square of the individuals height.

all the best

the bear

izzybusy23

Look, the reason people in Britain are overweight is GENETIC. These people are genetically programmed to eat food laden with fat, sugar and salt. They are programmed to avoid ANY food even remotely healthy and also to avoid any movement other than that which is essential - nothing excessive.

So stop being nasty, they can't help it!

But there is another theory to why the sudden explosion of overweight people.. according to my mother that is!

Its because of all the hormones and chemicals in the water for certain treatments that cannot be filtered out. Apparently in the US they have admitted to not being able to filter such chemicals out of the water. So think about how many women are on the pill, patients having chemo, steroids etc etc. That could explain why women are now averaged size 16 and men are getting those dreaded man boobs!!!

Seriously though, although the above theory is a bit out there and kooky, where do all those hormones and chemicals get flushed away too......

harbinger13

Interesting - I just read the first page and this page of comments - it seems the discussion has moved from Mortgage sob story to Sex Education to Health fitness.

Perhaps this thread has to have a new category - any mods looking?

mewbie_2

harbinger13 wrote: »

Perhaps this thread has to have a new category...

No need - its heading right back again...

Anyone wondered how all these fat lazy clueless slobs managed to get huge mortgages?

misskool

harbinger13 wrote: »

Perhaps this thread has to have a new category - any mods looking?

Please keep thread on topic, Any more off-topic posts and I will break them off into the arms

LillyJ

moanymoany wrote: »

LillyJ, if a woman was 11st 2lbs and 5' 8" tall would her BMI be in the right range?

Yup, 23.5!

LillyJ

phatbear wrote: »

BMI is a complete pile of poop, for instance I use to work with 20 odd stone bouncers who you would struggle to find an ounce of fat on yet according to their body mass index, which by the by was invented sometime between 1820 and 1850 so is a tad out of date, they would be morbidly obese, the BMI is just an easy get out clause for your doctors explaining everything thats wrong with you, another for instance at my height, 6ft, i would be over weight if I was 13st 3lbs, however even if i had zero percent fat i reckon I would struggle to be 13.3.

all the best

the bear

Nope, not a pile of pop at all, unless you are excessively muscly. My OH for example used to be an amateur body builder, so BMI of over 30 back then, but no one in their right mind would consider him obese, because of his build.
His body fat percentage was 7 which is similar to Premiership footballers.

I am afraid fat people just use it as an excuse to remain fat and blame it on their "bones".

BMI is an excellent rule of thumb, and the risk of things like diabetes go up hugely when you get over 25.

By the way no one has zero percent fat. Do you know what your body fat percentage is? I bet you would be surprised!

BMI isn't a hard and fast rule, and some people are healthy with a BMI of 26, and some with a BMI of 18, but if your BMI is high you are increasing your risk of all sorts of illnesses.

By the way unless the person is 7 foot to be 20 stone without an ounce of fat is massively unlikely. Some of the body builders we know are HUGE, competing nationally, and they weigh 17-18 stone tops.

phatbear

I was using the term "zero body fat" as an example that regardless of how much weight i lost I would never be "normal" weight.

Anyway some reading for anyone who is interested:

The medical establishment has generally acknowledged some shortcomings of BMI.[11] Because the BMI is dependent only upon weight and height, it makes simplistic assumptions about distribution of muscle and bone mass, and thus may overestimate adiposity on those with more lean body mass (e.g. athletes) while underestimating adiposity on those with less lean body mass (e.g. the elderly). For example Lance Armstrong was classified as "overweight" when he competed in the 1993 Tour de France.
One recent study (Romero-Corral et al, "Accuracy of body mass index in diagnosing obesity in the adult general population," International Journal of Obesity 32 no. 6 (June 2008): 959-66) found that BMI-defined obesity was present in 19.1% of men and 24.7% of women, but that obesity as measured by bodyfat percentage was present in 43.9% of men and 52.3% of women. Moreover, in the intermediate range of BMI (25-29.9), BMI failed to discriminate between bodyfat percentage and lean mass. The study concluded that "the accuracy of BMI in diagnosing obesity is limited, particularly for individuals in the intermediate BMI ranges, in men and in the elderly. . . . These results may help to explain the unexpected better survival in overweight/mild obese patients."
The exponent of 2 in the denominator of the formula for BMI is arbitrary. It is meant to reduce variability in the BMI associated only with a difference in size, rather than with differences in weight relative to one's ideal weight. If taller people were simply scaled-up versions of shorter people, the appropriate exponent would be 3, as weight would increase with the cube of height. However, on average, taller people have a slimmer build relative to their height than do shorter people, and the exponent which matches the variation best is between 2 and 3. An analysis based on data gathered in the USA suggested an exponent of 2.6 would yield the best fit.[12] The exponent 2 is used instead by convention and for simplicity.
Some argue that the error in the BMI is significant and so pervasive that it is not generally useful in evaluation of health.[13] Due to these limitations, body composition for athletes is often better calculated using measures of body fat, as determined by such techniques as skinfold measurements or underwater weighing and the limitations of manual measurement have also led to new, alternative methods to measure obesity, such as the body volume index. However, recent studies of American football linemen who undergo intensive weight training to increase their muscle mass show that they frequently suffer many of the same problems as people ordinarily considered obese, notably sleep apnea.[14][15]
In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, heart patients with normal BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the "overweight" range (BMI 25-29.9).[16] Patients who were underweight (BMI <20) or severely obese (BMI >35) did, however, have an increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease. The implications of this finding can be confounded by the fact that many chronic diseases, such as diabetes, can cause weight loss before the eventual death. In light of this, higher death rates among thinner people would be the expected result.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][U][COLOR=#0066cc]citation needed[/COLOR][/U][/URL][/I
A further limitation relates to loss of height through aging. In this situation, BMI will increase without any corresponding increase in weight

all the best

the bear

fc123

izzybusy23 wrote: »

But there is another theory to why the sudden explosion of overweight people.. according to my mother that is!

Its because of all the hormones and chemicals in the water for certain treatments that cannot be filtered out. Apparently in the US they have admitted to not being able to filter such chemicals out of the water. So think about how many women are on the pill, patients having chemo, steroids etc etc. That could explain why women are now averaged size 16 and men are getting those dreaded man boobs!!!

Seriously though, although the above theory is a bit out there and kooky, where do all those hormones and chemicals get flushed away too......

It's possible plus all the hormone and growth promoters put into animal feeds play a part. Felicity Lawrence has produced 2 great books on all the tampering that goes on with foods (generally to give big prfits to Tesco et al)
Her latest book ' Eat your heart out' is worth a read and discusses the impact of huge agribusinesses on our diet.

Corn syrups, corn starch, sugars of all types are used to pad out loads of products...and it sits around the middle.

I have just upped our size grades (again) for our clothing so that 12 is the average. Having dealt in vintage clothing years ago, I can verify that a modern day 12 (M + S) is equivalent to a 1960's size 18 at least.

We also dropped XL some years back and start at XXS instead therefore the old XL is now a L ...and we are thinking of getting rid of L altogether.....stopping the range at M (which is equal to generous size 14)

Means we will start sizes at size 4 but it's just a re-naming of the old size 8.

I have sold ladies clothing for 24 years and the size of bottoms and tummies are the biggest I've ever seen them (esp under 25's).....and they complain that items make them look fat too...it's the garments fault afterall.

Going to need bigger houses then.....just to keep on topic.