Originally Posted By jonvn Rates of obesity in this country are apparently leveling off, according to this article: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/28/national/a072703S06.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/28/national/a072703S06.DTL</a> Which is interesting, particularly for Disney fans, in that there was a big discussion about this problem and the Small World ride. The rates really are not that much higher than they were a few years ago. I think this is a shame, though, because I was enjoying being one of the thinner people in the room there for a while.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Is 2 years worth of data statistically significant enough to call this a "plateau?"
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I seem to remember some economics analysts calling a housing "bottom" last year based on a "slowing" trend. That certainly wasn't the case. I think these sorts of metrics aren't all that useful in identifying much of anything.
Originally Posted By LVCajun I don't really want to lose weight but after I pay for gas I can't afford my turkey legs and churros.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Studys like this really get me annoyed. According to the article they are basing their findings of obesity on the Body Mass Index, which the article calls "a standard of measure". The BMI is not a "true" measure of body fat. If it were then most every professional athelete would be labeled as obese. I'm just use me as an example to illistrate my point. As most people on this board know I have been loosing weight. Back in March of 2007, when I first joined a gym I weighted 193 lbs and according to the BMI I was at 25% body fat. As of today I weigh 213lbs. Now according to BMI that puts me into the obese catagory. But what it doesn't tell you is that I"m actually at 16.5% body fat. Muscle weights more than fat. Granted, most people in the USA are not as dedicated as I am to being physically fit and working out for two hours five days a week. But, I'm not the only exception to the BMI. My point, the BMI is not a standard tool and is a poor indication of obesity. The downside to this is that we now have a nation of people obsessed with their weight when they should be more concerned with their body fat percentages. Its easy to loose weight, you can starve and dehydrate yourself. Loosing body fat is much more involved ( unless you do lypo ). I would much rather see our Government encouraging people to eat right and exercise rather than encouraging our population to waste away.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << My point, the BMI is not a standard tool and is a poor indication of obesity. >> It is a standard tool. As long as everyone is measured against this standard, there shouldn't be too much concern with the survey results. While there might be anomalies that make BMI a poor measure of body fat in muscular populations -- I doubt that the survey group is heavily represented by those types. As long as the survey continues to use the same standard for measurement and is consistent, there is no problem in using BMI (or any other defined metric) to identify these trends. If they used different metrics to describe the amount of fat on different people, the survey would be meaningless.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Simply put, BMI uses weight as the predomant factor in body fat and dosen't take into consideration any extra muscle. It discourages muscle toning, bulking or general muscle growth and encourages wasting away.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I would also offer that BMI is a good measure of health regardless of whether it measures muscle or fat. People who are "fit," in the sense that they have bulked up on muscle, can have health concerns similar to those who have bulked up on fat. The human body performs optimally when it maintains a certain amount of mass. People who have massive muscle structures can often find they suffer from the same problems that afflict obese people -- the body just doesn't perform well trying to maintain excess weight regardless of the source. High blood pressure is very common among body builders and there have been studies conducted to show that the life expectancy of people with a high amount of muscle mass is less than the expectancy for healthy people that maintain a healthy weight.
Originally Posted By jonvn Good thing I'm a lazy sack, and have no muscles. The main point, though, is that obesity levels have plateued. They've stayed the same for the last few years.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd <<<High blood pressure is very common among body builders and there have been studies conducted to show that the life expectancy of people with a high amount of muscle mass is less than the expectancy for healthy people that maintain a healthy weight.>>> Where are these studies?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Where are these studies? >> I'm a bit of a fitness nut and have read several over the years. A quick Google search came up with the following website, which is short on details, but does describe the problem of obesity in terms of overall body mass regardless of whether it is fat or muscle. <a href="http://www.obesitymemphis.com/pages/Obesity.html" target="_blank">http://www.obesitymemphis.com/ pages/Obesity.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn This is what that site says: The American Society for Bariatric Surgery describes obesity as a life-long, progressive, life-threatening, costly genetically-related, multi-factorial disease of excess fat storage. The National Institute of Diabetes & Disease & Kidney Disease defines both obesity and overweight. Overweight refers to an excess of body weight compared to set standards. The excess weight may come from muscle, bone, fat, and/or body water. Obesity refers specifically to having an abnormally high proportion of body fat. One can be overweight without being obese, as in the example of a bodybuilder who has a lot of muscle. However, many people who are overweight are also obese.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I found this article. <a href="http://health.msn.com/dietfitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100141543" target="_blank">http://health.msn.com/dietfitn ess/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100141543</a> <<Although BMI may have limitations, generally, it is considered a reliable way to track the rise in obesity in the U.S. population. But if you are lean and fit, don’t worry about your BMI. The BMI is meant to express increased risks in disease and death. As a regular exerciser, you are reducing your risks of many diseases and early death.>>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B ody_mass_index</a> <<However, BMI has become controversial because many people, including physicians, have come to rely on its apparent numerical authority for medical diagnosis, but that was never the BMI's purpose. It is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals with an average body composition.>> <<The BMI is meant to broadly categorize populations for purely statistical purposes. As noted, its accuracy in relation to actual levels of body fat is easily distorted by such factors as fitness level, muscle mass, bone structure, gender, and ethnicity. People who are mesomorphic tend to have higher BMI numbers than people who are endomorphic, because they have greater bone mass and greater muscle mass than do endomorphic individuals.>> <<Despite this, BMI categories are regularly regarded as a satisfactory tool for measuring whether sedentary individuals are "underweight," "overweight" or "obese" with various qualifications, such as: Individuals who are not sedentary being exempt - athletes, children, the elderly, the infirm, and individuals who are naturally endomorphic or ectomorphic (i.e., people who don't have a medium frame). One basic problem, especially in athletes, is that muscle is denser than fat. Some professional athletes are "overweight" or "obese" according to their BMI - unless the number at which they are considered "overweight" or "obese" is adjusted upward in some modified version of the calculation. In children and the elderly, differences in bone density and, thus, in the proportion of bone to total weight can mean the number at which these people are considered underweight should be adjusted downward. Methods for actually measuring body fat percentage are preferable to BMI for measuring body fat. Body fat has been statistically linked to some health problems and trends, but again, this is often a spurious relationship and there are no simple proofs of health based on such measurement.>> <<Limitations and shortcomings The medical establishment has generally acknowledged some shortcomings of BMI. Because the BMI is dependent only upon net 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). In fact, some argue that the error in the BMI is significant and so pervasive that it is not generally useful in evaluation of health. 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. 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. Patients who were underweight or severely overweight had 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.>>
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, i don't, know, considering that you are not even saying anything other than posting these long things, one? You already kiled one thread like tihs because you didn't like what was being said, so you put in post after post after post of these long quotes that killed the conversation. If you have something to say, say it. If you want to link to something, do that. No one is reading all this stuff, and it halts the chat.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I am not a big fan of BMI and the purpose of my posts was to support my conclusion that BMI is not a valid measure of body fat. As I have posted BMI is a tool used for inactive adults and was not intended for statistical use for the whole population. If you conduct a study using a BAD tool then you get BAD results.
