Fat Shaming/Fat Acceptance Movement

[Noname123]

This is really the fairest way to do it (short of insurance being like car insurance where it's baseed on your actual health history), but you have to use the right metrics. Right now they use BMI a lot, which if you've ever heard me beat the drum on before (I'm sory), is not meant to be used on an individual basis. Anyone with a muscular frame (lifters like myself, which is why I personally know about it), or just stocky like a farmer, gets labeled as overweight or obese, or at least in higher categories than they actually are.

 

I love that they're actually measuring- I think waist to hip ratio is a decent and quick measurement that can be applied state-side. Although it's fair when you think of it insurance wise putting the pressure on the company it opens up a whole new level of potential discriminatory behavior and accusations (the company didn't hire me because of my size type issues). I'm trying to help set up a Wellness program and the red tape you have to think about is pretty ridiculous. 

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

 

Look at these obese fat-asses. Makes me sick...

 

Yeah, this is a great example. The middle one is Rich Froning, Fittest Man on Earth (title for winning of crossfit games) 4 years running. He is 5'9" and 195 lb, which is 28.8 BMI. That's in the overweight category adn only 1.2 points form obese.

[Sylvaa]

I love that they're actually measuring- I think waist to hip ratio is a decent and quick measurement that can be applied state-side. Although it's fair when you think of it insurance wise putting the pressure on the company it opens up a whole new level of potential discriminatory behavior and accusations (the company didn't hire me because of my size type issues). I'm trying to help set up a Wellness program and the red tape you have to think about is pretty ridiculous. 

 

My company currently has an incentive program where if you are in a certain range for a number of metrics, you have a lower yearly rate (it's $50 a month less for the family rate). You either have to be in the range or show a specific % improvement from the year before to quality. I also think you only have to have like 3 out of 4 metrics within the correct range (which would negate the BMI issue).

 

The problem I see with a program like this, is with people like me. I have the family plan and fall within the metrics, we get the discount. However, my husband, who is on my insurance, is obese. He could potentially have all of the associated health issues, however because I am within their ranges, we get the discount. Boom! cost saving program is ineffective.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

I love that they're actually measuring- I think waist to hip ratio is a decent and quick measurement that can be applied state-side. Although it's fair when you think of it insurance wise putting the pressure on the company it opens up a whole new level of potential discriminatory behavior and accusations (the company didn't hire me because of my size type issues). I'm trying to help set up a Wellness program and the red tape you have to think about is pretty ridiculous.

 

I can imagine it's a hard line to walk. I can see people who are out of shape tend to take anyone pointing it out, or it costing them more money in any way, pretty poorly. As someone who has been severly overweight at times (topped at 37.7 BMI recently, which is obese any way you slice it), I know that's how I was before I took ownership of being out of shape and overweight. It's easy to ignore it as a personnal issue that doesn't affect anyone else, so they should keep their noses out if it.

 

 

My company currently has an incentive program where if you are in a certain range for a number of metrics, you have a lower yearly rate (it's $50 a month less for the family rate). You either have to be in the range or show a specific % improvement from the year before to quality. I also think you only have to have like 3 out of 4 metrics within the correct range (which would negate the BMI issue).

 

The problem I see with a program like this, is with people like me. I have the family plan and fall within the metrics, we get the discount. However, my husband, who is on my insurance, is obese. He could potentially have all of the associated health issues, however because I am within their ranges, we get the discount. Boom! cost saving program is ineffective.

 

This is definitely a better wya to approach it. Overwieght people aren't penalized, they just don't get the bonus for hitting the numbers. The later part could be adjusted by making all 18+ people on the plan have to "measure in" yearly for you to qualify for any incentives.

[dijos]

Yeah, this is a great example. The middle one is Rich Froning, Fittest Man on Earth (title for winning of crossfit games) 4 years running. He is 5'9" and 195 lb, which is 28.8 BMI. That's in the overweight category adn only 1.2 points form obese.

 

 

Ok, I have a problem with this example. Rich and co are among probably .00001 of the population in that kind of shape. They are such ridiculous outliers that they are statistically insignificant. whenever BMI comes up, somebody points out this kind of potential discrepancy. for the other 99%, bmi, while not perfect, is an ok measure. Fwiw, I'm about his height/weight. and as of this morning, 22% bodyfat. I can say that while I am not obese, I am way fatter than I should be. 

[Waldo]

Ok, I have a problem with this example. Rich and co are among probably .00001 of the population in that kind of shape. They are such ridiculous outliers that they are statistically insignificant. whenever BMI comes up, somebody points out this kind of potential discrepancy. for the other 99%, bmi, while not perfect, is an ok measure. Fwiw, I'm about his height/weight. and as of this morning, 22% bodyfat. I can say that while I am not obese, I am way fatter than I should be.

Yes but were his insurance premiums based on his BMI, he would be charge more because he is overweight.

I have the same issue, @ 6'1" 205lb, I'm overweight, yet you can see my abs, flexing or not. I just did the health assessment at work (which you get a medical expense gift card for doing), and was told that I should lose weight because I'm overweight. LOL.

[Silo]

I love that they're actually measuring- I think waist to hip ratio is a decent and quick measurement that can be applied state-side. Although it's fair when you think of it insurance wise putting the pressure on the company it opens up a whole new level of potential discriminatory behavior and accusations (the company didn't hire me because of my size type issues). I'm trying to help set up a Wellness program and the red tape you have to think about is pretty ridiculous. 

 

Eh, I'm not a big fan of waist to hip either, just based on my own experience. I am fit but also built like a ruler, with a .9 ratio. I just don't know what would be the best (or a better) way to measure for fitness. I think it would have to take into consideration lifestyle choices that consider issues beyond how employees come out number-wise in their measurements.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

Ok, I have a problem with this example. Rich and co are among probably .00001 of the population in that kind of shape. They are such ridiculous outliers that they are statistically insignificant. whenever BMI comes up, somebody points out this kind of potential discrepancy. for the other 99%, bmi, while not perfect, is an ok measure. Fwiw, I'm about his height/weight. and as of this morning, 22% bodyfat. I can say that while I am not obese, I am way fatter than I should be. 

 

.00001 at that bodyfat and muscle level, sure, but there are plenty of people that have that amount of muscle but more bodyfat. I'm overweight at 260 lb, not morbidly obese as my 35.3 BMI would suggest. I really only have about 20 more lb to lose to not be overweight, but at 240 (roughly 18% bodyfat) by BMI would be 32.5, still all the way up in the obese category. To get down to BMI 25, which is the cutoff for healthy vs overweight, I'd have to get down to 184 lb. For reference, my lean bodymass is estimated to be around 195 lb right now. I'd have to get to 0% bodyfat and lose another 10 lb of muscle to start getting the insurance benefits where BMI is used.

[Noname123]

Eh, I'm not a big fan of waist to hip either, just based on my own experience. I am fit but also built like a ruler, with a .9 ratio. I just don't know what would be the best (or a better) way to measure for fitness. I think it would have to take into consideration lifestyle choices that consider issues beyond how employees come out number-wise in their measurements.

 

The only issue with this is people lie. You can't rely on any self-report measure to be accurate so some kind of scale such as BMI or waist-to-hip has some kind backing and static measure across your entire employee population. 

 

Also, not saying you have to be skinny to be fit, but employers aren't looking for 'fit' employees- these tests are done not only for a healtheir/happier employee (which is an upside to the employee) but for ROI reasons. I think the reason why scales like BMI and waist to hip measures are used because they're correlated (for the majority of the population) with certain sicknesses that drive medical costs. Honestly most companies probably would not give a care to whether employees can run a mile, a marathon or lift 300 lbs. They're trying to minimize medical costs for insurance they provide (which is why smoke cessation is also a HUGE push right now). 

[Juni0r83]

I personally think v02 Mac is probably the best measure of health/fitness. It's just too extensive a test to efficiently measure any significant population.

[Silo]

The only issue with this is people lie. You can't rely on any self-report measure to be accurate so some kind of scale such as BMI or waist-to-hip has some kind backing and static measure across your entire employee population. 

 

Also, not saying you have to be skinny to be fit, but employers aren't looking for 'fit' employees- these tests are done not only for a healtheir/happier employee (which is an upside to the employee) but for ROI reasons. I think the reason why scales like BMI and waist to hip measures are used because they're correlated (for the majority of the population) with certain sicknesses that drive medical costs. Honestly most companies probably would not give a care to whether employees can run a mile, a marathon or lift 300 lbs. They're trying to minimize medical costs for insurance they provide (which is why smoke cessation is also a HUGE push right now). 

 

I think that's a great way to piss off some very healthy employees and encourage distrust of an employee wellness plan. Employee wellness plans are supposed to encourage healthy behaviors. Once you get to the point where you say that it doesn't matter how healthy (which I use interchangeably with "fit" but I can't tell if you do or not) a person is, he doesn't qualify for whatever benefits are available because his body shape doesn't fit a certain metric, the program loses its legitimacy.

[RisenPhoenix]

.00001 at that bodyfat and muscle level, sure, but there are plenty of people that have that amount of muscle but more bodyfat. I'm overweight at 260 lb, not morbidly obese as my 35.3 BMI would suggest. I really only have about 20 more lb to lose to not be overweight, but at 240 (roughly 18% bodyfat) by BMI would be 32.5, still all the way up in the obese category. To get down to BMI 25, which is the cutoff for healthy vs overweight, I'd have to get down to 184 lb. For reference, my lean bodymass is estimated to be around 195 lb right now. I'd have to get to 0% bodyfat and lose another 10 lb of muscle to start getting the insurance benefits where BMI is used.

 

^All of this.

 

Not much to add besides this, especially since I've never been someone who "looked" his weight his entire life.  Pretty much have always looked 20-30 pounds lighter than I actually was - the few people who were more accurately able to estimate my weight on sight were wrestlers and active lifters.  Gain's comment did make me realize that my goal weight of 190 might be extra tricky, since my estimated LBM is currently 160-170 poundsish.  Never thought to take that into account. >.> <.<

[Noname123]

I think that's a great way to piss off some very healthy employees and encourage distrust of an employee wellness plan. Employee wellness plans are supposed to encourage healthy behaviors. Once you get to the point where you say that it doesn't matter how healthy (which I use interchangeably with "fit" but I can't tell if you do or not) a person is, he doesn't qualify for whatever benefits are available because his body shape doesn't fit a certain metric, the program loses its legitimacy.

 

I agree, but I'm stating things i see from my experience- in essence, yes, wellness plans are supposed to help employees be healthy. However setting them up costs money (for a medium sized company 1/2 million to start is not unusual) so based on my experience ROI is a heavy influence on whether or not one gets implemented. You don't have accurate reliable metrics to show people are improving and that costs are going down in some way or productivity is going up in some way I doubt most organizations would keep them (Unless they're a fitness/wellness related company themselves). 

[Roldanis]

Didn't get to read whole thread but here are my $.02.  What bothers me is an apathetic or condescending attitude for fitness or bettering yourself in general. 

 

One night my cousin, my best bud and I were going to a whiskey tasting even.  Both my cousin and friend are overweight borderline obese. I was this way about 5 months ago as well, but I digress.  So as we're getting ready to leave the event I toss my friend the keys and told him "you're driving."  

He gives me a strange look and says, "dude it wasn't that much whiskey."

I reply "Well thats true but I'm also 80 lbs lighter and haven't drank with any regularity in 6 months." (My friend is a bit of a lush)  

So his reply with a negative tone is "Well it must be nice to be all skinny and s***."

Me: "Damn right it is. I worked my ass off to lose that weight. You could do it too man."

Him: "If I wanted to lose weight I'd just get i different job where I worked more."

 

My cousin had to play moderator after that...

[Raincloak]

How about we just not shame anybody? Is that, like, too hippie for the internet? Gossip is a form of bullying. It is bad manners, cruel, and a waste of valuable time. Proclaiming your vices loudly may be empowering, but it's only slightly less obnoxious.

Personally I pity people who are out of touch with their bodies. I feel sorry for anyone who is gorging on frozen pizzas or starving on iceberg lettuce, or sitting on the couch when they could be at the park, or grinding on a treadmill when they really need a nap. They are all missing out on the delights that they could be having. It's like having a partner who is mean or indifferent to them, instead of having one who loves and treasures them. It is sad. I help when I can, but mostly their choices aren't my business. People don't get dysfunctional overnight and they don't get cured overnight either.

If I meet someone glowing with health, super duper: I will admire with quiet envy and perhaps give them a compliment or make small talk about workouts, since this may be a topic of interest to them. Or maybe I won't. In my family we just don't talk much about how people look, apart from "brush your hair" or "I think the green dress looks better."

If a large person hogs the plane seat next to me I will be quietly annoyed, but I won't give them grief over it, because 1) that would be Rude, and courtesy is not f**king dead yet, 2) I'm spending the next several hours next to them so we'd better get along, 3) they already know they're large and probably don't want any more crap than they already get. It's not my business to make other people's lives harder and more painful. I'm no saint, my patience has limits, but it's important to be nice to people, especially to people with a chronic illness.

[Dleffe]

Hm I remember a fellow trainee when I joined the army. He had to drop about 10 pounds of lean mass to make the BMI cut, thank god they stopped looking at BMI.

[Machete]

Ok, I have a problem with this example. Rich and co are among probably .00001 of the population in that kind of shape. They are such ridiculous outliers that they are statistically insignificant. whenever BMI comes up, somebody points out this kind of potential discrepancy. for the other 99%, bmi, while not perfect, is an ok measure. Fwiw, I'm about his height/weight. and as of this morning, 22% bodyfat. I can say that while I am not obese, I am way fatter than I should be. 

 

I'm BMI overweight. (Sometimes obese when adjusted for Asian-ness.) I'll be damned if I have to pay increased insurance premiums just because I have a Latino booty.

 

Not pictured: Latino booty

 

Eh, I'm not a big fan of waist to hip either, just based on my own experience. I am fit but also built like a ruler, with a .9 ratio. I just don't know what would be the best (or a better) way to measure for fitness. I think it would have to take into consideration lifestyle choices that consider issues beyond how employees come out number-wise in their measurements.

 

I remember the Army recruiter inputting my measurements, neck-to-waist ratio, in the computer to "measure" body fat percentage. My percentage was "ERROR". They had to add an inch to my waist or subtract an inch off my neck or something for it to show up with like a "2".

 

I personally think v02 Mac is probably the best measure of health/fitness. It's just too extensive a test to efficiently measure any significant population.

 

VO2max, while definitely trainable, is largely genetic. Mine sucks, but I can do over 100 pushups, 40 pullups, 100 burpees in less than 5 minutes, and pull 350. I would be pissed if I was fined because I didn't spend enough time jogging.

 

The only issue with this is people lie. You can't rely on any self-report measure to be accurate so some kind of scale such as BMI or waist-to-hip has some kind backing and static measure across your entire employee population. 

 

Also, not saying you have to be skinny to be fit, but employers aren't looking for 'fit' employees- these tests are done not only for a healtheir/happier employee (which is an upside to the employee) but for ROI reasons. I think the reason why scales like BMI and waist to hip measures are used because they're correlated (for the majority of the population) with certain sicknesses that drive medical costs. Honestly most companies probably would not give a care to whether employees can run a mile, a marathon or lift 300 lbs. They're trying to minimize medical costs for insurance they provide (which is why smoke cessation is also a HUGE push right now). 

 

Maybe blood tests or something, like HDL/LDL, blood pressure, and glucose? And injury history? (I'm in a constant state of pre-hypertension though, so I'd also be fined for that. Goddamn it, there's no escape.)

 

 

 

"STFU, Socrates! I have the right to do whatever I want! AMERICA!"

[Suited hippy]

I'm also BMI "Overweight" Not as Cut as Waldo or ^^ but another person that prooves the flawed system.

 

But BF% is pretty quick to measure, why not use that?  

[Kaylya]

Shaming people for being fat doesn't help anyone. In fact, it can make the problem worse, since, it's not uncommon for weight issues to be at least in part influenced by emotional issues.

 

Trying to pretend that there is never a time when being overweight impacts someone's health in a bad way doesn't help anyone. At the same time, it is possible to be healthy while overweight or obese (and I'm not just talking about the highly muscular types), And a focus on weight loss can make people give up on healthy behaviors (exercise, eating better) if they aren't seeing results on the scale even though there may be all kinds of good things happening in their body.

 

Any scheme rewarding/penalizing people based only on BMI  (e.g. higher insurance premiums) is so flawed that it should be illegal in my book (BMI as part of some sort of combined metric or flag for further screening is a different story). BMI has some usefulness on a population level, but very little on an individual level.

[Zorch]

This is really the fairest way to do it (short of insurance being like car insurance where it's baseed on your actual health history), but you have to use the right metrics. Right now they use BMI a lot, which if you've ever heard me beat the drum on before (I'm sory), is not meant to be used on an individual basis. Anyone with a muscular frame (lifters like myself, which is why I personally know about it), or just stocky like a farmer, gets labeled as overweight or obese, or at least in higher categories than they actually are.

 

My company's fitness reimbursement plan(reimburses 75% of gym membership costs) used to have a set of metrics.  You didn't have to meet all of them, but you had to meet a certain number.  It was something like:

• healthy/normal BMI
• healthy/normal blood pressure
• healthy/normal cholesterol
• non-smoker
• maybe 1 or 2 others metrics I've forgotten

 

I think it required 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 6 to be in the "good" range.  Folks in the "really muscular and thus technically overweight via BMI" category would have no issues achieving numbers that would qualify for reimbursement.

 

Interestingly, my company has since changed the reimbursement plan to focus solely on gym attendance(gym tracks visits, you need X number of visits per year to be eligible for reimbursement).  I actually think this is a better plan to some extent(though it would be even better with a more comprehensive set of behavior-based metrics), as it rewards healthy behaviors rather than simply having good "right now" numbers.  From a psychological perspective, the more closely a reward is linked to a behavior, the more effective it usually is.  And from the perspective of employee morale(and not attracting charges of discrimination), it's a very good approach as well.

 

Similarly, I like the approach(mentioned by another poster) of rewarding progress for folks who may not be at a healthy weight/body composition at a given moment in time.  Rewarding healthy behaviors while steering clear of a "be thin or be punished" approach should be the most effective over the long term.

[kaelvan]

I'm still magically classified as overweight. I barely even have a stomach anymore, I exercise and eat pretty well; yet I'm still classified as a fat ass.

 

http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth1.3.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

[Dleffe]

If you do it based on cholesterol you'll be screwing people like me over. I'm perfectly healthy, no plaque, no heartproblems, but my LDL is somewhere in the 270.

 

The big issue is that no one really knows what all the numbers mean, lots of it is guesswork or based on bad research. The only thing they do know is that the more processed your food the worse your health

[Kaylya]

My company's fitness reimbursement plan(reimburses 75% of gym membership costs) used to have a set of metrics.  You didn't have to meet all of them, but you had to meet a certain number.  It was something like:

• healthy/normal BMI
• healthy/normal blood pressure
• healthy/normal cholesterol
• non-smoker
• maybe 1 or 2 others metrics I've forgotten

 

I think it required 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 6 to be in the "good" range.  Folks in the "really muscular and thus technically overweight via BMI" category would have no issues achieving numbers that would qualify for reimbursement.

 

Interestingly, my company has since changed the reimbursement plan to focus solely on gym attendance(gym tracks visits, you need X number of visits per year to be eligible for reimbursement).  I actually think this is a better plan to some extent(though it would be even better with a more comprehensive set of behavior-based metrics), as it rewards healthy behaviors rather than simply having good "right now" numbers.  From a psychological perspective, the more closely a reward is linked to a behavior, the more effective it usually is.  And from the perspective of employee morale(and not attracting charges of discrimination), it's a very good approach as well.

 

Similarly, I like the approach(mentioned by another poster) of rewarding progress for folks who may not be at a healthy weight/body composition at a given moment in time.  Rewarding healthy behaviors while steering clear of a "be thin or be punished" approach should be the most effective over the long term.

 

So healthy people would get their gym membership covered but less healthy people wouldn't? That seems quite backwards... the new approach of rewarding attendance sounds quite a lot better! There's of course ways to game the system by signing in and doing nothing, but, I doubt many people would actually do that regularly. For most people just getting to the gym in the first place is most of the battle. The only downside is for people who are active but prefer to be active outside of a "gym" (who could be doing something like running outside or a home based workout that doesn't cost a lot, or, who could be doing a martial art or something that does).

 

My company will reimburse $200 for fitness related expenses. So you bring in a receipt for your gym membership or a pair of running shoes etc.

[Noname123]

 

My company will reimburse $200 for fitness related expenses. So you bring in a receipt for your gym membership or a pair of running shoes etc.

 

I love this! A lot of people at work use our gym membership because it's practically free (between 0-12 dollars a month depending on the level-single, spouse, family)

 

But I can say that I'm sure about 20 percent of those who have it actually use it. So the other 80 percent are costing the company 50-80 dollars per person per month for not going. A use based system would help with the subsidy but implementing a program that supports out of gym workouts for those who don't use it but want to be active supports both the employee and saves on wasted gym dues!

[Estrix]

Not sure if this has been said, but just my thought on the BMI thing. While it's true that it was developed to be applied to whole groups in the population, it works on averages and therefore should apply more or less accurately to most individuals in that population group. The only people I know that have been able to use the "BMI doesn't reflect my body type" are statistical outliers generally courtesy of years in the gym. And you can tell by looking that the extra weight is not fat. My brothers doctor actually put a note in his medical file to this effect (6 foot tall, 10 years of serious lifting and single digit body fat). I'm pretty sure Machete up there is an example of the same

 

What I'm getting at is that as a general point, "BMI is not accurate" is an excuse people use for a system that actually does do a good job of general measurement.

 

Also, work weight loss programs are awful. My mates company is running one apparently, but he can't win because he's already fit and it's on total pounds lost. Doesn't seem fair.

 

As to the shaming thing, screw it and be happy. Just don't force it on other people.