• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

As far as body fat and BMI goes, the old " how do I look naked in the mirror " test, should be good for 99.99% of us..

If you need more than that, you are in the group that checks nutrition information on potato chips, candy bars and ice cream....
 
jimbob said:
Yes, but, to take someone at complete random, there aren't that many 17 1/2 stone people with a 28" waist regardless of whether they can run 100m in 10.5 seconds.

Professional athletes are outside the normal population.
Click to expand...

And so am I at 98% of height.

One of the studies I read re: BMI & Mortality mentioned that the results did not hold for the very tall. But they didn't say any more than that, and I've never heard it anywhere else. Which just shows the poor science behind the BMI to begin with.

Tell me, who decided where the lines get drawn between weight classes? I suspect carry-over from the Met weight tables- and nobody know where their research pointed. But if there was any science behind the Met, it was measurements done in the 1920s.

BMI is good on a demographics scale, NOT on an individual's health score.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
And so am I at 98% of height.

One of the studies I read re: BMI & Mortality mentioned that the results did not hold for the very tall. But they didn't say any more than that, and I've never heard it anywhere else. Which just shows the poor science behind the BMI to begin with.

Tell me, who decided where the lines get drawn between weight classes? I suspect carry-over from the Met weight tables- and nobody know where their research pointed. But if there was any science behind the Met, it was measurements done in the 1920s.

BMI is good on a demographics scale, NOT on an individual's health score.
Click to expand...

Who said it was?

It's great for populations, and a starting point, one indicator for individuals. If you're in the overweight range and have ans, you're an outlier. Other metrics can be used. If not...
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
So once again a study shows overweight is OK, only BMI over 35 is bad.

So should we even use the term overweight ?

And I wonder about the shape of the curve? How much worse is 36 than 34?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you read the study I linked, as it answered your questions. Even had charts.
 
For individuals, the gold standard is a DEXA scan (essentially an x-ray meant to measure bone density, but can also measure body fat). In comparison, BMI underestimates overweight and obese individuals by a large margin. The other way around (BMI overweight but BF% normal) is a much small number.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19360011

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/05/body-mass-index-bmi-measure-obesity-accurately.html

But of course we can't get everyone x-rays. BMI has been shown to correlate enough with health outcomes and is accessible enough. I'm not sure who people are "debunking" by noting that swole outliers exist. It's a known quantity.
 
If I attached a file right, this scatter chart shows fat% / BMI. If we assume that BMI 25% is best, we can equate it to 15% fat. So, for outliers like PipeLineAudio and I, we can calculate a realistic Ideal Weight. For me, with a lean body mass of 220, about 240-250. BMI of "obese".

Now, why the assumption that even excess lean body mass is detrimental? Seems superficial, don't want all the facts, reasoning. Unless there is a study out there of fat%/mortality?
 

Attachments

  • heritage.gif
    heritage.gif
    11.6 KB · Views: 1
rustypouch said:
Yes.

It's really hard to tell from the video. Low res and baggy clothes don't help.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, but if a size L shirt and size 26 shorts are baggy that should be a pretty good cue

From yesterday https://www.instagram.com/p/BKhcKpjBNbG/?taken-by=pipelineaudio

There's a thing about weight though. I'm really happy that my size is going down, I'm really happy that for the first time in my life, I can lift my bike over my head even when rotational weight is added, even with one hand, but:

Weight SUCKS! It hurt like hell to land anything over four feet when I was 100 pounds heavier, but now I'm going way higher. Its like your knees are a meter and every pound is yelling at you in pain. When I hit my lowest weight, though nowhere near my lowest size, landing hurt less. I wish I could be fifty pounds at this size
 
Last edited:
Let's say someone goes diving into shallow water without checking first and gets paralyzed, they're disabled despite it being their own fault.

Or someone chooses to chop off a hand, they're disabled despite it being their own choice.

Or someone is morbidly obese and unable to function as well mobility-wise or otherwise as others - well, even if the disability is in whole or in part based on personal choices, that doesn't mean the person isn't disabled.

It might be that for reasons of principle you want to treat disability caused or contributed to by personal choices differently - if someone does extreme sports, or motorcycles without a helmet, or uses drugs, or eats a lot, and suffers impairment of functions, then screw them (I'm not so unsympathetic). But if the question is just disabled or not, I don't see what the degree of self-contribution has to do with it.
 
epeeist said:
Let's say someone goes diving into shallow water without checking first and gets paralyzed, they're disabled despite it being their own fault.

Or someone chooses to chop off a hand, they're disabled despite it being their own choice.

Or someone is morbidly obese and unable to function as well mobility-wise or otherwise as others - well, even if the disability is in whole or in part based on personal choices, that doesn't mean the person isn't disabled.

It might be that for reasons of principle you want to treat disability caused or contributed to by personal choices differently - if someone does extreme sports, or motorcycles without a helmet, or uses drugs, or eats a lot, and suffers impairment of functions, then screw them (I'm not so unsympathetic). But if the question is just disabled or not, I don't see what the degree of self-contribution has to do with it.
Click to expand...

The difference comes in with mitigation. If I chop off my hand it stays chopped - I am permanently disabled because of it. So too with your other examples. However, if I am a fatty, I am doing the opposite. To remain fat I have to continuously self harm.

It's a weird kind of disability that requires constant action to maintain and would go away if no action were taken at all. A better comparison is with being drunk. If I go out drinking am I disabled? We don't usually say it that way because I will sober up by tomorrow.

It's not just that it's their own fault, but the ongoing nature of it, the continuity.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
The difference comes in with mitigation. If I chop off my hand it stays chopped - I am permanently disabled because of it. So too with your other examples. However, if I am a fatty, I am doing the opposite. To remain fat I have to continuously self harm.

It's a weird kind of disability that requires constant action to maintain and would go away if no action were taken at all. A better comparison is with being drunk. If I go out drinking am I disabled? We don't usually say it that way because I will sober up by tomorrow.

It's not just that it's their own fault, but the ongoing nature of it, the continuity.
Click to expand...

Yep, obesity to the point to disability takes years of dedication. It's the results of thousands of choices, rather than just one unfortunate event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom