A New Look at BMI standards
I fully believe everyone should check this out ASAP. It gives a visual to the already pretty widely known fact that the BMI calculator is complete and utter bullshit. I think this would be a wonderful addition to anyone's "you're not fat" arsenal. I made me feel better about some asshole male gynecologist telling me I'd be a 'less than' desirable candidate for egg donation because of my 'almost' overweight BMI.
I am not overweight, and no BMI calculator is gonna make me believe otherwise.
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A New Look at BMI standards.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15164
I second that BMI is total b.s. Waist to hip ratio is a much better measure for gaging whether someone is overweight, but even that is predicated on the notion that there is an ideal body size to which we should aspire.
The slideshow in your link says it's empty. And I can't get to the other part (my work blocks it). Did it show females who had high BMIs but were thin?
Are you saying that "BMI" is completely useless? What about methods such as dunking people in water? Is the whole concept a farce? (And I was so proud of my 16%.)
it's useless for determining whether people are healthy. It doesn't take into account sex, age, or even muscle tone. Plus, even % of fat doesn't reflect a person's health. Please check out this link to learn more about Fat Acceptance and the myths around the "obesity crisis". It's really enlightening!
http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/
Thank you for the link.
Ok, maybe I'm talking about something else. Not the BMI calculator that only looks at weight and height. I held some small machine at my gym that they said detects impulses or something. I went from 21% to 16% in 9 months. While it may not be an accurate representation of the true amount of body fat in me, I know and can see how toned my body has become. Which is why I asked about measuring body fat in water, which is supposed to be pretty accurate.
I think there is merit in using some kind of electronic device or whatever to measure body fat. But you need to do more than just look at height and weight. I don't think body fat percentage should be used to shame people or deny them the opportunity to donate eggs. But I see nothing wrong in using it to chart your progress in terms of overall fitness.
The BMI is not a measurement of body fat percentage. They're two totally different concepts. BMI is a number based on the ratio of height squared to body weight (plus some other measurements). Body fat percentage can be measured by caliper skin test, dunking in water, and electrical impulse.
But that's not the point. The point is that no one number can tell the whole story and it's harmful if people think it can.
Having looked at the slide show, I think many of the people rated "obese" or "morbidly obese" indeed are overweight. Yes, the BMI measure is not precise. But if it says you're obese, there is a good chance you could be healthier. Most Americans, and presumably most American women, eat too much, exercise far too little, and have the bodies (and diabetes, vascular disease, etc.) to show for it.
You can see the effect of moderate routine exercise by going to your local 5K foot race. Casual runners' bodies come in all shapes, but most of them look healthier than the "morbidly obese" women in the slide show.
That's what I thought the first time I saw this slideshow (this is my second viewing).
The underweight people do look underweight.
The normal people do look "normal."
The overweight people do look overweight.
I don't get it.
Me too. The underweight and normal women looked like the majority of women I see on the street living here in Lyon, France, while those who were close to being overweight, or anything above it, looked notably larger than what my eyes are used to. A few of the 'nearly overweight' or 'overweight' women simply look as though they have quite large frames/bone structures.
This is not to say that what my eyes are used to is a way of measuring healthy body size, just that I don't instantly get a sense of disconnect between the captions and the photos.
Also, the thing about 'depending on what she's had for breakfast' - I always thought that you were supposed to weigh yourself when you woke up BEFORE eating or drinking. Perhaps inaccurate weighing practices have contributed to some of the misconceptions about what BMI category these women fall into?
Do you really think you could distinguish between the "normal" and "overweight" women if you were asked to guess? I can see that most of the obese women that look bigger. But I think when people hear two thirds of people are either overweight or obese they think it's a big crisis when a lot of the overweight people probably look a lot like themselves. The standards for "normal" do seem pretty high after I watch that slideshow.
Um, it's hard to think now and there were so many women in each category, all with obviously different builds, that generalising is difficult: however most of the 'normal' women looked about as big as I'm used to seeing women. In any system with a clear cut-off point there will obviously be absurdities around that point: 1 pound will make the difference between being normal and between being overweight, while you'd be hard-pressed to notice the difference 1 pound would make to someone's appearance! Another reason why the medical obsession with BMI is unfortunate.
What was surprising to me was how thin the "normal" bodies were.
BMI is definitely NOT precise. Based on my weight and height, I would be considered "obese" to "morbidly obese" but I'm a size 12.
I'm not thin, but definitely curvy and I (and many others :)think I look good (and I'm healthy). I do have a lot of muscle, which may account for some of it.
I have to work hard to be a size 12 (eating carefully and exercising a lot)---to get any smaller, I would have to take drastic measures.
I remember being a high school athlete and having to fill out health forms, including weight information.
At 14 years old, I was the same size as many of the girls on the field hockey team (about an 8 back then) but I weighed about 150 pounds and most of them weighed about 120. Not to mention, I could run faster than many of them.
I was a little ashamed about the number on the scale, but much more amazed. I couldn't figure out where those 30 pounds came from.
I also want to echo lgm's comment about local 5ks. They are a lot of fun (people along the route cheering you on) and people of all shapes and sizes participate. Don't worry about running fast, just make it your goal to finish.
It's easier to stick to working out when you have a goal to work toward, and although three miles might seem like a lot at first, you'll notice a big change in your well-being if you can work up to it. I'm training for my first 10k now :)
I'm right there with you...I have to work really hard to stay in my size-12 jeans, but my BMI still borders on "overweight." BMI is definitely NOT an accurate tool for measuring fitness and health.
That said, I'm totally down with the pro-self-esteem movement, but I remain somewhat unconvinced by the "fat acceptance" movement. While fat is relative, and while it can be difficult to ascertain what constitutes "overweight" or "normal", the fact remains that individuals with excess body fat are more prone to various health conditions. And I'm saying this as a woman who used to be 225 pounds (I'm 5'8, and I lost about 65 of those a year ago). I know what it's like to be "fat", and I know how hard it can be to feel good about yourself when you don't like the way you look. However, I also know that I'm a hell of a lot healthier now that I'm watching what I eat and exercising regularly.
And obviously, weight isn't the ONLY measure of good healthv...there are "overweight" people who eat right and work out, but due to their genetics/body makeup will never be "skinny", as well as plenty of slender people eat junk food and are lazy (like my boyfriend!) But the science and statistics don't lie. I believe that everyone should love their bodies and their appearance, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage folks to make healthy changes that might ultimately improve their quality of life!
"But the science and statistics don't lie."
Well...it's not exactly that simple. The first study that tried to estimate how many people die annually from weighing too much estimated 280 000 to 350 000 people per year. This is not an easy thing to determine because so many things can affect both time of death AND weight. This first study didn't have a representative sample of the U.S. population and asked people their weight and height. Two other researchers got help from researchers experienced with estimating cancer risks, did something different with statistics on a representative sample that they weighed and measured themselves and found a death toll that wasn't nearly as bad with the very thin and very obese being most at risk.
However, this second study was disputed/ignored by certain people while many statisticians praised it.
But yes, encouraging ALL folks to make healthier decisions as far as food and exercise is good I think.
Yeah, I noticed that, too, that the "normal" people were pretty damn thin. My boyfriend is 6'4" and 170 pounds, and he's "normal" in the BMI calculator but he looks like a stick. His body type is decidedly NOT normal, very few people are that tall and that thin. What's really crazy is that he could lose almost 20 pounds and still be considered "normal."
It seems you reposted the slideshow but did not read much of the website it's from.
While the point of the slideshow is that "obese" and "overweight" do not correlate visually to what we picture when we hear those words, the point of the website is not "hey, I'm not fat!" but "Who cares if I'm fat? It's not a moral issue and it's no one else's business."
It's pretty obnoxious to those of us who quite solidly *are* fat for you to post this with the line "this is for your 'I'm not fat' arsenal!" Some of us are indeed fat, and denying it is tantamount to saying there's something wrong with that.
another interesting (sad) aspect of the medical community's use of the BMI is for eating disorders. many medical providers do not recognize what they view as 'real' anorexia in many patients because the person presenting to them isn't low enough on the BMI scale. this then exempts the person from getting proper treatment for an eating disorder because they don't fit the 'profile' of a true anorexic. i have had several friends told by psychiatric practitioners that their eating wasn't clinically disordered because they maintained a BMI above 17, even though these people clearly starved themselves and had unhealthy relationships with food. the BMI causes all sorts of improper medical responses to people's weight, either recommending dieting when it's not necessary, to withholding helpful treatment when weight is too low.
This.
I have doctors recommend weight loss for me, even though if I relapse into a restricting phase of my eating disorder I will die of malnutrition-related problems long before I even got into the "overweight" class, nevermind qualifying for anorexia treatment.
i have hit that brick wall SEVERAL times. like the stigma of having an E.D. isn't bad enough, once you recover, you get the stigma of allegedly being overweight, always criticized no matter what. =/
sigh. that said, i am sort of relieved to see anyone else have these experiences. it's really isolating to think something like this: when i was sick, i was encouraged to stay sick. when i got well, i was encouraged to get sick again.
Thats fucked up.
I completely agree. 17.5 BMI is the criterion for anorexia, as determined by the medical community. It's ridiculous to me that at the end of the day, a disorder that isn't all about weight is reduced to being all about weight. If you don't read as anorexic, then you aren't sick.
Thank you so much for posting this. I have been eating disordered for over 10 years with a BMI that has fluctuated between 17-25; and some of my most dangerous and disordered behaviors occured at a higher BMI. I have used my "healthy" BMI (currently low 20's,I'm 5'10 and can fit into as small as a size 4 dress, to give some perspective) as an excuse for years not to seek help. I'm "normal" right? "healthy" even? hmmmm....
Something else that is so dangerous about the strict BMI requirments to is that it can give eating disorded individuals:
a)something to strive for/goal weight
b)the sense that they are not sick enough to seek help
c)difficulty with insurance companies
Eating disorders are as much (or more so) about the need for conrol, self esteem, and other factors than about BMI, yet it remains part of the central criteria. Frustrating.
i agree with every single point you made. very well said.
thank you.
Yes! So much this!
A friend of mine has struggled with bulimia for years, but the BMI classifies her as "obese" (and she "looks" overweight, too, because she is round). It is so hard for her to find a doctor who will take her seriously. We, as her friends, try to help in any way we can, but our imput is not enough to counter the very damaging words of a medical professional.
That is a pretty awesome slideshow.
My initial thought was that this would be a great slideshow to show in a communications/women's-gender studies/psych class.
But then the thought that depressed me was that many students wouldn't get it - they'd take a look at the overweight and obese folks and think the categories were accurate.
Some deconstruction of the fat epidemic panic beforehand though should help get through to some of them. One point I make to them is that from an evolutionary perspective, the obsession with thinness is still somewhat of a mystery. Fat is incredibly value as a source of stored energy during times of famine, and in the vast majority of rural non-industrial cultures plumpness is valued as attractive.
I actually had a really interesting conversation with my doctor the other day about this. I went in for my yearly check-up and she did my BMI scale because our state law requires her to do so and if we are overweight she is required to send that info into the state health dept. But anyways, we were talking about the BMI scale and she told me that she thinks it is the worst thing to ever come about. A person's weight cannot be determined by a chart, because we are all different and all of our bodies have different things that need to be taken into account. My BMI is a 24 but I am by no means overweight. I wear a size four for goodness sake. I have a really high muscle mass from dancing when I was young, and since muscle weighs more than fat I am going to be naturally heavier, because so much of my body is muscle. I do have body fat in areas that it is supposed to be in, but its not an over amount. I'm exactly where I need to be, but that stupid scale calls me borderline overweight. Its just an absurd thing that someone came up with in order to be able to set standards for women's bodies that are absurd
ITT: A lovely mixture of fat hate, people chiming in with "I'M NOT FAT EITHER!!!!" and the occasional commenter who makes a genuine point that isn't about themselves, or being able to "totally tell that that chick there is overweight from her picture!"
Hi Ashley,
I'm apologize over the poor wording of my comment. I am not a "hate fat" person. And I definitely think most fashion models look unhealthily thin. (I actually knew a triathlete who worked at the big NYC fashion show who said most of the models were very weak.) Though, some serious runners, both women and men, do give the impression of being too thin. Other very healthy people look overweight (especially next to the skinny ones). It's very hard to know from a single look, and it doesn't help to be judgmental.
That said, some of the people in the slide show look in the pictures to be unhealthily overweight. There's lots wrong with that -- disease, not being able to do fun stuff like hiking, general lack of energy, ... .
Thanks for responding.
1. The point of the pictures isn't to show you how healthy fat people are, it's to show you how the BMI standards aren't very consistent when compared to real life people, instead of just numbers. When a face is put to a name, like "overweight" or "obese" it's easy to see that BMI, at least superficially, really means jack.
2. No one can tell who is healthy and who is not simply by looking at them. Sure, you can tell if someone has a higher risk for whatever by lumping them into categories, but you can't possibly look at a single person and say "ah, that person has high blood pressure."
As a point of correction, muscle does not weigh more than fat, a pound of muscle is exactly the same weight as a pound of fat. The difference is that muscle is more dense, taking up less room than fat.
BMI is not an accurate measure of health, but then I don't think it was designed to be so.
Lol, a ton of feathers and a ton of bricks weigh the same but you wouldn't say a feather weighs the same as a brick. :P You can have the same amount of muscle as someone with the same amount of fat and be heavier than them because muscle does weigh more than fat because it is denser. I think you just got a bit confused at the beginning there. :)
A pound of anything weighs the same as a pound of anything else. When people say that muscle weighs more than fat, they're talking about equivalent volumes, not equivalent weights... so yeah, it's the same as saying that muscle is more dense, seeing how d=m/v and all.
BMI wasn't designed to be an accurate measure of health but it is commonly used that way today, even by doctors.
Also to consider: BOOBS. Boobs can be heavy or light.
Just sayin'.
Man, helium filled boobs would make it so much easier to jog. :D I swear my boobs are about half my body weight. They're the whole reason I'm "overweight!" D:
... At a certain point, wouldn't some women start to float? That would be disconcerting to me.
Unless I were one of the lucky ones. *dreams of flying*
But what if you floated into space?! TERRIFYING. You'd have to walk around with those sandbag weights like on hot-air balloons, or pop your boobs with a pin when you floated up too high!
I know, right? I really wish I could detach boobs for the purpose of physical activity. I know they make super-sports bras, but who can shell out major dough for that?
My friend once weighed her large boobs and each one was about fifteen pounds. No kidding.
lol. I've been meaning to weigh my boobs. I didn't know about the super sports bras but I use a combination of a normal bra under a regular sports bra or two. works pretty well but increases my laundry loads a bit. :)
Oh god, this so much. I've been given the oh-so-wonderful combination of a small frame (5'2, 125ish lbs) and fairly large breasts (34DDs), which makes running pretty much impossible - I hate running anyway, so it's not a huge loss of enjoyment for me, but it would be nice to take a jog around the block without feeling like I have to strap them down with industrial-strength duct tape!
Hence the reason why I stick to sex and yoga as my "exercise plan," ha. XD
There's also biking (outdoors and indoor spinning groups), elliptical and stair climbing machines, lifting, rock climbing (indoors is safer), swimming, ...
Maybe thats why my BMI says I'm underweight. I can wear a training bra.
Yes! Boobs! As a teen I used to hate my lack of boobs, but now I consider myself very, very lucky. Boobs can be such a pain. And depending on their relative size, you could be underweight or obese just because of boob mass!
I've often questioned the BMI for many of the reasons some of you have cited. My biggest gripe is that it doesn't consider age (I'm probably older than most of you).
When I hit 40 I started gaining weight, mostly in my stomach(an area that I never had a problem with before). According to many doctors, gaining this weight is natural because it is a way for your body to produce more estrogen. One doctor refers to it as a "third ovary."
I'm not looking for an excuse to be overweight but if weight gain is natural and happens to so many women, shouldn't the BMI take that into consideration?
The only exception that I've read or heard is for atheletes. Many are overweight but it's "okay" 'cause it's muscle. I think there needs to be a more complex approach that considers age, body type, etc.
And yes, being busty can add pounds. Having a nice butt adds pounds too.
BTW, the posters who have said the pics of overweight people "look" overweight have been duped by the media. Actresses and models are notorious for being underweight in order to appear normal. They are also photographed in ways to make them look slimmer that they are.
When someone like Jennifer Love Hewitt has candid swinsuit photo published and the commentary is that she's fat, there's a problem. She probably a size 2 or 4 at the most. And Patricia Arquette (Medium) has been refered to as "full-figured"--she's probably a size 10.
"I'm not looking for an excuse to be overweight"
I excuse you anyway. Not that you need an excuse to exist in your own body, but perhaps you're one of the many who needs one.
"Having a nice butt adds pounds too."
Oh..well at least my little supposedly not nice butt isn't adding to my ~BMI number~. I guess that is one perk.
The slideshow was interesting. I've always fluctuated between the "normal" and the "overweight" categories, even as athletic as I am. When I was in high school I told my doctor I was overweight. He rolled his eyes and told me I was perfectly healthy.
I stumbled across this article http://www.slate.com/id/2223095/ recently and it cleared up so much. BMI was NEVER designed to be a measure of health or "good" body type. After years of agonizing over why I couldn't lose those last two pounds to be considered "normal," I now realize it's complete crap. Like thinking I had to be a certain dress size wasn't enough, right? I really hope that the myth behind BMI is debunked enough so it disappears forever. It's useless.
Agreeing that the BMI is a flawed metric, what are the other metrics that can measure body fat more accurately?
From http://www.slate.com/id/2223095/pagenum/all these are :
1. caliper-measured skinfold thickness
2. hydrostatic weighing
3. circumference around a person's waist
How would those of you who are:
1. Classified as overweight/obese by BMI
2. Personally do not consider yourselves overweight/obese
,are classified as overweight/obese by the above 3 methods, react to the above measures? Will you:
1. Accept that you are overweight/obese
2. Criticise the above metrics?
Latest research also shows that obesity is expensive:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32170526/ns/health-health_care/
"New research shows medical spending averages $1,400 more a year for an obese person than someone who's normal weight."
"Overall obesity-related health spending reaches $147 billion, double what it was nearly a decade ago, says the study published Monday by the journal Health Affairs."
Considering that the nation is inching towards universal health care with a government funded public option, it is time to declare a "War on Fat" so that obesity does not bankrupt the nation?
You're right. I'm sorry I'm costing the world so much money. I'll accept I'm fat right away. Not that it changes anything; I knew I was fat yesterday.
I'm just wondering though. Since I'm so fat that it will take me a long time to lose weight, would it be better for me to just kill myself in a way that's inexpensive for others to clean up? Or should I do the yo-yo diet thing for the rest of my life? I'd get to look forward to being dumped on by assholes for being a drain on the system AND be starving, considering that there's no scientific evidence that the vast majority of overweight people can change that permanently, even with "lifestyle changes" AKA boot camp and a starvation diet.
Been there, done that.
I think you are missing the point here JustACommenter. Being overweight can cause certain health problems, yes. However, being above a number which has been set as the bar for "health" does not guarantee that these problems exist, which would in turn cost all of this money you are so worried about. Different people are healthy at different weights. This makes BMI an extremely poor method of determining health. In fact, the only way it should be used is to collect large-scale population data (because it is easy and cheap).
For example, professional bodybuilders are often considered morbidly obese. They are most certainly not prone to some of the health problems related to obesity according to the research.
While BMI functions as a poor predictor of physical health, it is excellent for causing a lot of problems socially/psychologically/emotionally. This rigid type of measurement for determining health leads directly to fat-shaming (your "War on Fat" for example) by pushing a single (and false) ideal bodytype on everyone. Nepenthe, and several others on this board, make the excellent point that some people's bodies find equilibrium at a higher weight. That is not unhealthy. That's diversity.
Is there a problem with people's diets and exercise levels in North America? Yeah, sure. But it is not the crisis it is being made out to be and it can be dealt with in better ways than proclaiming a war on a large group of people who happen not to fit into the "healthy" section of a chart based upon a poor system of measurement.
P.S. - All of the other methods of measurement you listed can give varying results as well. I performed them in a lab myself. The only foolproof way of accurately measuring bodyfat percentage is MRI... speaking of expensive.
I think a "War on Fat" was declared already ten years ago and it hasn't made anyone healthier or thinner as far as I can see. It has only made people keep spending money on weight loss programs to lose weight they will probably gain back. It has made it even more okay to judge fat people. Lots of the research is flawed or uncertain though.
I really don't like BMI and other methods that try to put everyone in the same box. None of them seem to work very well for short women (and probably tall women as well) plus everyone just has a different frame.
That slide show is really disgusting, especially seeing as how almost all of the people in the "overweight" category looked like size 10/12.
Also, I think it's interesting that I know of a fitness instructor and several women who consistently pass military physicals that are categorized as "overweight". I do believe there is some validity, but at the same time do not believe it is the best measure, nor that it should ever be used alone. I mean seeing some of those women as "overweight" and "obese" was sick.I remember being "overweight" by BMI standards when I was 135lbs and working out four times a week.
IMO most of the women listed as normal looked skinny (and not very different than the underweight ones, who looked skinny but not unhealthy), most of the women listed as overweight looked average, and most of the obese women just looked curvy. There were a few obese ones who had really good figures. BMI doesn't take women with big natural curves into account. It also doesn't take age and gender into account.
My BMI is 15.8 which would make me really underweight to the point I must have an eating disorder. But I don't. I eat when I'm hungry and until I'm full. Pizza is my favorite food and I never eat anything low-fat or diet because if something is healthy and natural it probably wouldn't come in "low-fat" and if it's not I'm going to enjoy it. I'm just really tall and thin and I don't have a lot of curves. Plus I'm still young. If I was shorter and older and ate the exact same things I do now I could be listed as overweight by BMI standards.
According to MedicineNet.com, A person has traditionally been considered to be obese if they are more than 20 percent over their ideal weight. That ideal weight must take into account the person's height, age, sex, and build.
So if your ideal weight is 125, you’re obese if you’re 150. According to that definition, a whole lot of people are “obese.” They should think up new word. “Obese” is so negative. I’d agree with “overweight”, but “obese” sounds like you should be at least 100 pounds or more overweight. It’s so demoralizing.
Thank you for posting this, it was very eye-opening.
I think the focus needs to be less about fat, thin, overweight, underweight, and more about healthy eating and regular exercise. If people are eating healthily (for them, different people need different nutrients at different times in their lives) and getting enough regular exercise, their body will find it's own equilibrium.
Obviously eating nothing but junk food and sitting on your arse all day isn't healthy, but neither is running 500ks every morning and eating nothing but a celery stick and a spoonful of yoghurt.
There also needs to be a wider definition of exercise than the one currently in popular culture. Exercise is more than just a trip to the gym. I actually think a really good example is the "Find 30" ads on TV in Australia. I'll try to find some to post later.
The difference between your examples, though, is that nobody's ought running 500k's and then eating some celery and yoghurt, but a lot of people are eating junk food and lounging around. It's a false dichotomy presenting what appears to be two sides of the same coin, but really isn't. The opposite of sedentary and junk food is not dying of exhaustion, it's healthy eating and active living, neither of which are all that radical.
Exercise really does need to be about more than gyms and home exercise equipment, especially in pop culture, but that's not the same as expanding the definition, which I don't think helps anyone.
My issue is that I see a lot of people conflating activity with exercise, when they're two different things. Physical activity in and of itself is not necessarily exercise, and most people need to not only be active, but also exercise. I know plenty of folks who say they get exercise, but what they mean is they do physical activities like walking or gardening, neither of which is really vigorous exercise.
Encourage physical activity? Yes. Expand the parameters in which we exercise? Yes. Expand the definition of exercise? Not so much.
But walking and gardening can be exercise. If it's elevating your heart rate a certain amount for a certain length of time, it's exercise. I find a lot of my work with children to be exercise: I run, I lift, I clean, and it all elevates my heart rate.
I'm not using my examples as a dichotomy, I'm using them as opposite extremes. Not many people eat NOTHING but junk food and do absolutely NOTHING which could be considered exercise.
Exercise really does need to be about more than gyms and home exercise equipment, especially in pop culture, but that's not the same as expanding the definition, which I don't think helps anyone.
I think we might actually be talking about the same thing here. Perhaps "expanding the definition" wasn't the best phrasing.
See, this is the thing. Vigorous physical activity can get the heart pumping, certainly, and it's definitely good for you. In fact, if you're doing vigorous physical activity every day of the week you're doing pretty well. But most folks do need to throw actual exercise into the mix, which is to say purposeful exertion that goes above and beyond simply being active.
Both need to be encouraged, and we need to realize that a lot of folks can exercise at home pretty easily. You don't need a treadmill to run, and all you need is a floor to do sit-ups and push-ups. But if exercise gets confined to going to a gym a lot of folks aren't likely to make the effort to exercise in ways that are totally free.
Both activity and exercise have to be emphasized, but they are two different things, and when we blend them together we risk minimizing a pretty important distinction. I know when I'm being active, and I know when I'm exercising. It's important to do both, but you can't do both if you don't make a distinction.
I'm not sure people also need to exercise. The book Big Fat Lies talks about studies that have shown whether you do vigorous exercise regularly or moderate exercise/activity you are likely to live longer than someone who isn't active at all in their spare time. Putting the emphasis on exercise makes people think of a gym and think that's something the will not do. An emphasis on physical activity can make people expand their ideas of what can count.
Ok, the commercial section on this site is the "Find Thirty" campaign I was talking about.
I don't get the point of the slideshow either. Overweight people are overweight? Morbidly obese people are morbidly obese? I don't see why anyone would find this liberating.
Many people seem to have found comfort that 'overweight' looks 'normal' to them. Isn't that clearly due to the average being much fatter than it used to be? I'm skinny and my friends are skinny, so all the 'overweight' look to me like... well, overweight. What does that prove? Exactly nothing. Average is so subjective as to be meaningless.
The whole thing is attacking a straw man. Everyone knows BMI is of limited use and shouldn't be seen as rigidly prescriptive.
PS I read all the comments on the slideshow page, and I have to say there are some Mean and Rude girls on there. Hence why I'm commenting here instead :)
'I am not overweight, and no BMI calculator is gonna make me believe otherwise.'
While I think I and the poster are probably on the same side of the argument, this last statement seems to me to contribute towards the stigmatisation of fat people.
If there's nothing wrong with being overweight (i.e. fatter than the average, or the recommended weight, or whatever we measure it by) then what's wrong with saying 'I am overweight'? Because even if we take into account potential medical concerns associated with excess body fat, in our society, there's no shame in saying 'I have high/low blood pressure' or 'I have really dry skin' or lots of other things which suggest a deviation from the norm and potential discomfort or medical concern. However, saying 'I am overweight' clearly carries a LOT more baggage.
Surely we should be trying to untangle issues of weight from all the issues of moral and aesthetic judgement-passing that surround it? Saying 'I refuse to be called overweight' implicitly suggests that there is something shameful or 'wrong' with being overweight. And there isn't. There isn't even necessarily any call for medical concern, as long as your blood pressure, cholesterol levels, body fat percentage, etc. are all fine.
This.
I am fat. I describe myself as fat. (For the record, I also think the BMI is ridiculous. According to BMI, I am pretty much ready to drop dead any second at 5'7 and 190lbs, despite being in GREAT health in terms of cholestoral and blood pressure and all that good stuff).
Fat, for me, is just part of describing who I am. No different than describing my hair colour, or the fact that I need glasses. However, I have met A LOT of resistance from people. I am so tired of hearing "Nooo...you're not fat!" because its simply not true. I understand that people don't want to hurt my feelings or whatever, but how is lying to me about something I know to be true NOT hurtful?
I really think that as a society, one of the first steps we need to take is to stop denying fatness, because by acknowledging that our friends and loved ones are fat (in a non judgemental way), we can begin to destigmatize fatness.
I'm not a pro body builder, but I do work out several hours per day and know quite a few people in the BB circuits. All of us would be considered obese to morbidly obese by the BMI chart (I have a BMI of 30.5). When I played sports in high school and college, I am fairly sure everyone I knew would be overweight on the BMI scale. However, athletes are not the "norm". Most people have considerably less muscle mass, women less than men. Thus, using body fat is by far a more accurate measurement of obesity.
That said, I wonder at the replies made to this post. You might feel comfortable being fat (excessive adipose tissue), but that doesn't mean it is healthy. Body shape is only peripherally related to body fat; this is a topic few address. You can alter your body shape with effort, but for the individual interested in only casual fitness, it's going to be extremely time consuming. Strict dieting and extreme amounts of exercise are required, which isn't very reasonable if you have a real job. However, simply eating better (no fast food, no soda, etc.) will generally help 90% of the people out there. Most people are far too inactive on a daily basis.
Check your body fat (the only 100% reliable method is immersion, but calipers are good and easy to use). If you're female and the range is within 20 - 28%, you're fine. Once you begin going over that, health risks increase. If your body fat is 25%, for instance, but you look "fat", that is an indication that you're endomorphic. Again, only through a major lifestyle change can you alter this. I wouldn't worry about it in that case. However, my guess from reading the replies is that most people do not know their actual body fat percentage. It's easy to check and helps to maintain a healthy life.
You're missing the point---it's nobodies business if someone who is fat is healthy or not, except for the fat person in question. Why do you think you have any business telling someone what they need to do in order to be healthy, especially people you've never so much as met? I sure as hell would never presume to do that to you or anyone else.
I'm not missing the point. It is the business of a doctor telling a patient that they are fat and need to lose weight if they are in fact fat. Being fat is a health risk; I'm at a loss as to why you disagree. As I pointed out, however, BMI is essentially a useless metric. Body fat percentage does work and is easy to measure. I didn't realize pointing out how to measure body fat was "telling someone what to do". Further, I was quite explict in my post that being "perceived" as fat has nothing to do with actually being fat, and that the focus should be on concrete numbers, not aesthetics.
After reading this website for quite some time, it seems to me that far too many posters have a massive knee-jerk reaction to anything that might be misconstrued as an insult, and blindly ignore facts in logic. You seem to take issue with my post simply because you don't want to agree with it, instead of arguing against any technical merit. That is intellectually dishonest.