The big fat con story - Page 11 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

05-12-2004, 06:27 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (TopCounsel) wrote in message news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>...
> The overall thrust of this story, that being fat is perhaps medically OK, is
> grossly wrong.

I looked at the article the way I used to watch "Point-Counterpoint"
on "60 minutes" -- this is one somewhat overblown side of the
argument, which makes me more conscious that the other side of the
argument has perhaps been overblown as well.

If I'd had more philosophy courses, I might be more comfortable saying
this is a Hegelian dialectic -- stories like this are an "antithesis"
that fights against the original, orthodox thesis to produce an
improved synthesis.

It's also notable that the article mixes overweight with obese with
grossly obese. While they grade into one another, they aren't the same
thing at all.

I found it interesting that at least part of the large diabetes
increase was due to a change in definition.

05-12-2004, 04:42 PM

I came into this thread a bit late so missed most of it but here is my
take. I am 5'7" and 155 pounds which puts me at the high end of healthy
according to the BMI charts. I can ride up to 40 miles without even taking
water at up to 14-15MPH no problem. With water and food 70 miles is not a
problem. The BMI says that healthy/skinny is about 115-120 for me, at
which point I can barely ride ten miles without dropping. These charts
must be for couch potato types, not we who like to be active. My wife and
friends even told me I looked ridiculous at 120 so I am not even going
there again. At about 145 I start to show a 6 pack, which is ridiculous
for my age, 55, and my riding does not improve, but I can run longer and
faster (less weight?).
My 2 cents is to stay where you feel best.
Bill

05-12-2004, 04:42 PM

I came into this thread a bit late so missed most of it but here is my
take. I am 5'7" and 155 pounds which puts me at the high end of healthy
according to the BMI charts. I can ride up to 40 miles without even taking
water at up to 14-15MPH no problem. With water and food 70 miles is not a
problem. The BMI says that healthy/skinny is about 115-120 for me, at
which point I can barely ride ten miles without dropping. These charts
must be for couch potato types, not we who like to be active. My wife and
friends even told me I looked ridiculous at 120 so I am not even going
there again. At about 145 I start to show a 6 pack, which is ridiculous
for my age, 55, and my riding does not improve, but I can run longer and
faster (less weight?).
My 2 cents is to stay where you feel best.
Bill

05-12-2004, 04:42 PM

I came into this thread a bit late so missed most of it but here is my
take. I am 5'7" and 155 pounds which puts me at the high end of healthy
according to the BMI charts. I can ride up to 40 miles without even taking
water at up to 14-15MPH no problem. With water and food 70 miles is not a
problem. The BMI says that healthy/skinny is about 115-120 for me, at
which point I can barely ride ten miles without dropping. These charts
must be for couch potato types, not we who like to be active. My wife and
friends even told me I looked ridiculous at 120 so I am not even going
there again. At about 145 I start to show a 6 pack, which is ridiculous
for my age, 55, and my riding does not improve, but I can run longer and
faster (less weight?).
My 2 cents is to stay where you feel best.
Bill

05-12-2004, 04:42 PM

I came into this thread a bit late so missed most of it but here is my
take. I am 5'7" and 155 pounds which puts me at the high end of healthy
according to the BMI charts. I can ride up to 40 miles without even taking
water at up to 14-15MPH no problem. With water and food 70 miles is not a
problem. The BMI says that healthy/skinny is about 115-120 for me, at
which point I can barely ride ten miles without dropping. These charts
must be for couch potato types, not we who like to be active. My wife and
friends even told me I looked ridiculous at 120 so I am not even going
there again. At about 145 I start to show a 6 pack, which is ridiculous
for my age, 55, and my riding does not improve, but I can run longer and
faster (less weight?).
My 2 cents is to stay where you feel best.
Bill

05-12-2004, 04:42 PM

I came into this thread a bit late so missed most of it but here is my
take. I am 5'7" and 155 pounds which puts me at the high end of healthy
according to the BMI charts. I can ride up to 40 miles without even taking
water at up to 14-15MPH no problem. With water and food 70 miles is not a
problem. The BMI says that healthy/skinny is about 115-120 for me, at
which point I can barely ride ten miles without dropping. These charts
must be for couch potato types, not we who like to be active. My wife and
friends even told me I looked ridiculous at 120 so I am not even going
there again. At about 145 I start to show a 6 pack, which is ridiculous
for my age, 55, and my riding does not improve, but I can run longer and
faster (less weight?).
My 2 cents is to stay where you feel best.
Bill

05-12-2004, 06:36 PM

Ryan Cousineau <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> What really worried me is that the article didn't contemplate a
> relationship between BMI and fitness levels. I'll bet there is one,
....
> I'm also pretty appalled that it pulls fun stunts like lumping in the
> "overweight" (BMI 25-30) and "obese" (BMI 30+) numbers to get the big
> scary 64.5% figure. This allows fun fudges like pointing out that "fat"
> people (meaning those 27 BMI types) have very good health if they keep
> active, while ignoring the specific ailments that affect the (growing)
> population of obese (30+ BMI) adults.

BMI is a broken diagnostic tool. It doesn't work, because it doesn't
scale correctly. It is an index based on weight divided by height
squared, when weight scales as the cube of height.

At the moment, I have a BMI of 43. If I were 5 feet tall, with
exactly the same body composition and proportions, my BMI would be 31.
That's no small difference for two people of identical physique. And
while I could never claim to cut a fashionable profile, I am fitter,
healthier, and more active than many folks of "normal" BMI.

Someone measuring 5 feet even, and barely qualifying as "obese" on the
BMI scale, would weigh 154 lbs. Obese? Maybe. Li'l dumplin'? Sure.
But looking at the other end of the scale, a 7 footer who barely
makes it to "obese" would weigh 301 lbs. For those unfamiliar with
folks that tall, that's a lean and healthy weight for a seven-footer.
Quite a bit leaner than say, Shaquille O'Neal, who with a BMI of 33 is
neither "obese" nor even heavyset for his size.

Trying to correlate BMI with any figure of merit is a fool's errand--
it simply doesn't correlate to anything, not even body shape and
composition.

Chalo Colina

05-12-2004, 06:36 PM

Ryan Cousineau <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> What really worried me is that the article didn't contemplate a
> relationship between BMI and fitness levels. I'll bet there is one,
....
> I'm also pretty appalled that it pulls fun stunts like lumping in the
> "overweight" (BMI 25-30) and "obese" (BMI 30+) numbers to get the big
> scary 64.5% figure. This allows fun fudges like pointing out that "fat"
> people (meaning those 27 BMI types) have very good health if they keep
> active, while ignoring the specific ailments that affect the (growing)
> population of obese (30+ BMI) adults.

BMI is a broken diagnostic tool. It doesn't work, because it doesn't
scale correctly. It is an index based on weight divided by height
squared, when weight scales as the cube of height.

At the moment, I have a BMI of 43. If I were 5 feet tall, with
exactly the same body composition and proportions, my BMI would be 31.
That's no small difference for two people of identical physique. And
while I could never claim to cut a fashionable profile, I am fitter,
healthier, and more active than many folks of "normal" BMI.

Someone measuring 5 feet even, and barely qualifying as "obese" on the
BMI scale, would weigh 154 lbs. Obese? Maybe. Li'l dumplin'? Sure.
But looking at the other end of the scale, a 7 footer who barely
makes it to "obese" would weigh 301 lbs. For those unfamiliar with
folks that tall, that's a lean and healthy weight for a seven-footer.
Quite a bit leaner than say, Shaquille O'Neal, who with a BMI of 33 is
neither "obese" nor even heavyset for his size.

Trying to correlate BMI with any figure of merit is a fool's errand--
it simply doesn't correlate to anything, not even body shape and
composition.

Chalo Colina

05-12-2004, 06:36 PM

Ryan Cousineau <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> What really worried me is that the article didn't contemplate a
> relationship between BMI and fitness levels. I'll bet there is one,
....
> I'm also pretty appalled that it pulls fun stunts like lumping in the
> "overweight" (BMI 25-30) and "obese" (BMI 30+) numbers to get the big
> scary 64.5% figure. This allows fun fudges like pointing out that "fat"
> people (meaning those 27 BMI types) have very good health if they keep
> active, while ignoring the specific ailments that affect the (growing)
> population of obese (30+ BMI) adults.

BMI is a broken diagnostic tool. It doesn't work, because it doesn't
scale correctly. It is an index based on weight divided by height
squared, when weight scales as the cube of height.

At the moment, I have a BMI of 43. If I were 5 feet tall, with
exactly the same body composition and proportions, my BMI would be 31.
That's no small difference for two people of identical physique. And
while I could never claim to cut a fashionable profile, I am fitter,
healthier, and more active than many folks of "normal" BMI.

Someone measuring 5 feet even, and barely qualifying as "obese" on the
BMI scale, would weigh 154 lbs. Obese? Maybe. Li'l dumplin'? Sure.
But looking at the other end of the scale, a 7 footer who barely
makes it to "obese" would weigh 301 lbs. For those unfamiliar with
folks that tall, that's a lean and healthy weight for a seven-footer.
Quite a bit leaner than say, Shaquille O'Neal, who with a BMI of 33 is
neither "obese" nor even heavyset for his size.

Trying to correlate BMI with any figure of merit is a fool's errand--
it simply doesn't correlate to anything, not even body shape and
composition.

Chalo Colina

05-12-2004, 06:36 PM

Ryan Cousineau <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> What really worried me is that the article didn't contemplate a
> relationship between BMI and fitness levels. I'll bet there is one,
....
> I'm also pretty appalled that it pulls fun stunts like lumping in the
> "overweight" (BMI 25-30) and "obese" (BMI 30+) numbers to get the big
> scary 64.5% figure. This allows fun fudges like pointing out that "fat"
> people (meaning those 27 BMI types) have very good health if they keep
> active, while ignoring the specific ailments that affect the (growing)
> population of obese (30+ BMI) adults.

BMI is a broken diagnostic tool. It doesn't work, because it doesn't
scale correctly. It is an index based on weight divided by height
squared, when weight scales as the cube of height.

At the moment, I have a BMI of 43. If I were 5 feet tall, with
exactly the same body composition and proportions, my BMI would be 31.
That's no small difference for two people of identical physique. And
while I could never claim to cut a fashionable profile, I am fitter,
healthier, and more active than many folks of "normal" BMI.

Someone measuring 5 feet even, and barely qualifying as "obese" on the
BMI scale, would weigh 154 lbs. Obese? Maybe. Li'l dumplin'? Sure.
But looking at the other end of the scale, a 7 footer who barely
makes it to "obese" would weigh 301 lbs. For those unfamiliar with
folks that tall, that's a lean and healthy weight for a seven-footer.
Quite a bit leaner than say, Shaquille O'Neal, who with a BMI of 33 is
neither "obese" nor even heavyset for his size.

Trying to correlate BMI with any figure of merit is a fool's errand--
it simply doesn't correlate to anything, not even body shape and
composition.

Chalo Colina