Fat Shaming/Fat Acceptance Movement

[Raincloak]

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.

 

I know right? That's the problem (well one of the problems) with weight loss contests generally. The folks on "Biggest Loser" and such who have the greatest advantage are the ones who were most obese to start with. Any nerd can see the flaw in that game system. Reminds me of an article I read about how sport fighters dehydrate themselves to the edge of kidney failure before weigh-ins, just so they can fight far below their true weight class. Or those athletes in the Olympics who threw a couple of early matches so they'd get seeded against weaker opponents in later rounds. Those setups encourage unsportsmanlike behavior, if not outright cheating,

But then, us folks who haven't got weight problems are winning more in real life, and there's no shortage of contests that actually reward physical prowess, so ... Let's not begrudge the "most improved" award.

[Dleffe]

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.

 

My biggest caveat isn't that it's taken for an average population. They looked at the statistics and made the formula fit what they knew. Cherrypicking the results that support the outcome you want is one of the major reasons conventional wisdom is so retarded when it comes to nutrition. It's an insult to science at the basic lvl.

[Vella]

I think I need a bit of a primer on BMI - I know the basics of why it can be unreliable, but can someone point me to sources about how it was developed?

 

I also like the idea of a gym membership allowance based on usage - it's a good incentive.  I wonder if there would also be programs encouraging use.  My mother's office regularly does a steps-per-day challenge, usually young vs. old in the office.  The young kids always think they'll win, but joke's on them, the oldies have three avid hikers and a triathlon runner in their ranks

I think things like that can do a lot for motivating people to do something active - they're less serious than regular work, they're communal, and they help blow off steam during crunch times.

[Estrix]

So my understanding of the very brief history of the BMI scale is as follows:

 

In the late 1880s-1890s a scientist who's name I've forgotten (and I'm to lazy to Google) invented "Social Physics" the idea that rule of hard science such as statistical analysis could be applied to complex social actions. He was attempting to prove that one could, in a hard scientific sense, define normal.

 

The first scale was called something like the Obesity Scale or Obesity Index or some such (I think BMI appears in the 1980s). The scientist in question I believe studied corpses to determine the relationship between height and weight and the amount of fat versus muscle. He then creates a chart proposing how mass scales with height (or should scale) using an exponential function...I think, I'm not very good at maths lol. So this is the first argument, whether that function is in fact correct, and other functions were proposed by him at the time and others since.

 

Now, doctors had anecdotal evidence for the adverse effects of obesity on health from probably as early as the 18th Century but proper in depth investigation doesn't really get off the ground until the 20th century. And once that link was established it needed a way to be factored into insurance policies. So companies began using height/weight charts on their policy holders on the basis that the heavier ones died sooner. This data is much easier to acquire, compile and use than say body fat tests on each individual client, so the tables were preferable.

 

However I don't think it's until the 1970s or 1980s that that original table and height/weight formula is actually turned into what we know as the BMI scale as an actual predictor of body fat based on where you fell on the scale. And I don't know that any changes were made, I think it was just found to be the most accurate formula for prediction. And again, its main bonus is that its cheap and easy compared to other methods, especially for mass application.

 

If memory serves, it should be noted that the very first study didn't actually define obesity. He was only hunting for "normal". And that's another critique, how normal is defined on the scale and by whom. Other critiques include making allowances for gender and age. And finally, issues with predictions in certain outliers as I mentioned in a previous post, i.e. you can be predicted that have more or less fat than you do, or get screwy (technical term) readings when comparing a body fat test to a BMI prediction, though again I think those tend to be outliers.

[kaelvan]

So my understanding of the very brief history of the BMI scale is as follows:

 

In the late 1880s-1890s a scientist who's name I've forgotten (and I'm to lazy to Google) invented "Social Physics" the idea that rule of hard science such as statistical analysis could be applied to complex social actions. He was attempting to prove that one could, in a hard scientific sense, define normal.

 

The first scale was called something like the Obesity Scale or Obesity Index or some such (I think BMI appears in the 1980s). The scientist in question I believe studied corpses to determine the relationship between height and weight and the amount of fat versus muscle. He then creates a chart proposing how mass scales with height (or should scale) using an exponential function...I think, I'm not very good at maths lol. So this is the first argument, whether that function is in fact correct, and other functions were proposed by him at the time and others since.

 

Now, doctors had anecdotal evidence for the adverse effects of obesity on health from probably as early as the 18th Century but proper in depth investigation doesn't really get off the ground until the 20th century. And once that link was established it needed a way to be factored into insurance policies. So companies began using height/weight charts on their policy holders on the basis that the heavier ones died sooner. This data is much easier to acquire, compile and use than say body fat tests on each individual client, so the tables were preferable.

 

However I don't think it's until the 1970s or 1980s that that original table and height/weight formula is actually turned into what we know as the BMI scale as an actual predictor of body fat based on where you fell on the scale. And I don't know that any changes were made, I think it was just found to be the most accurate formula for prediction. And again, its main bonus is that its cheap and easy compared to other methods, especially for mass application.

 

If memory serves, it should be noted that the very first study didn't actually define obesity. He was only hunting for "normal". And that's another critique, how normal is defined on the scale and by whom. Other critiques include making allowances for gender and age. And finally, issues with predictions in certain outliers as I mentioned in a previous post, i.e. you can be predicted that have more or less fat than you do, or get screwy (technical term) readings when comparing a body fat test to a BMI prediction, though again I think those tend to be outliers.

You mean Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He wasn't a scientist, he was a mathematician. He never meant for it to be used this way.

[Vella]

Thanks!  I understand this entire conversation better now ... *goes off to Google more info*

[Dleffe]

Ah seems I remembered some of it wrong, but the main point remains. The formula was made to fit the results, thats never a good way to work

[Kaylya]

Go read the Wikipedia article on BMI for better info, but one thing I can say for sure is that it is not and has never been intended to be an estimate of body fat %. The numbers are similar in some people but not most.

[Waldo]

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.

It was developed from averages from decades ago.

The human form has changed a bit. Our lifestyle has become more sedentary, with the caveat that a decent chunk of the population fights that tendency with targeted exercise.

People HAVE gotten bigger, both in a good way and bad way.

For example, I would wager that over 50% of adult US males under 40 have spent some time doing regular weight training, with at least of portion of that time spent "bulking". Only a tiny handful of people had done this around the time the BMI charts were developed.

[Noname123]

For example, I would wager that over 50% of adult US males under 40 have spent some time doing regular weight training, with at least of portion of that time spent "bulking". Only a tiny handful of people had done this around the time the BMI charts were developed.

 

Would be fun to see numbers on this- however as mentioned before self-reporting is always an issue. I know this is biased, but simply based on where I live I'd say it's a gross over estimation. I caught myself thinking 'yeah, that could be right' and then realized I was basing my assumption on the gym crowd I see every day. I doubt that the general population is going to look even close to that let alone have that kind of lifestyle. I started thinking about the people I see at surrounding stores, work places and events and realized that 'bulking' and lifting isn't the average lifestyle as trendy as it is becoming. I'm sure places like Southern California and maybe even the Jersey shore would have a different populace, but the MD/VA areas and midwest states I've lived do not boast the same lifestyle. 

[Waldo]

Well for starters, the whole HS football team and wrestling team, give or take a few. Add to that group a decent chunk of the guys that join the armed forces. Then you can add in another decent sized chuck of 18-25ish somethings that realize that lifting weights regularly is the single best thing you can do to get laid, many of whom hadn't yet figured this out in HS. Finally add in the soon to be and recently back on the market (divorced) crowd that realizes that same thing.

LIS, at least 50% of males under 40 have "scars" from time spent lifting.

[Noname123]

I didn't even think of HS/College sports. I'm still thinking of the older crowd!

[dasitman]

I think in general people need to stop being such pussies but at the end of the day I could care less, I invest my energy into bettering myself and thats all that I need to be concerned with

[RoryAverage]

I started thinking about the people I see at surrounding stores, work places and events and realized that 'bulking' and lifting isn't the average lifestyle as trendy as it is becoming. I'm sure places like Southern California and maybe even the Jersey shore would have a different populace, but the MD/VA areas and mid-west states I've lived do not boast the same lifestyle.

 

This is something I can personally attest to. I'm from Cajun Country, South Louisiana originally. No joke, hyperbole, or exaggeration, but back home its not unusual to go into a convenience store and see 3-4 people who all weigh over 300lbs. I've been in rooms with friends where the next skinniest person after me is literally twice my bodywieght. My best bud's wife is literally heavier than me and him put together. Another close friend and his family's (3 people, including the 12 year old) total weight is somewhere near 900 lbs.

 

Contrast this with Austin TX where I live now. It's unusual to see anyone even near to the size of "average" Louisianians. Healthy living and good eating are super trendy here, and it is rare to see someone who would qualify as obese.

 

one definitely has to be careful not to say "This is what I see daily, therefore the whole world must be this way".

[RoryAverage]

Doble desplazamiento es molesto

[Waldo]

I didn't even think of HS/College sports. I'm still thinking of the older crowd!

Remember that you don't have to look like you lift or actively do it. Mass gained doesn't go away. If you put on 15 lbs of muscle in the gym 10 years ago, chances are you still have it, or most of it, even if covered in a layer of fat. This is still more than plenty to skew high of the population averages from decades ago that BMI was based on.

Even when it was developed, BMI wasn't particularly good for the taller side of the scale; the equation chosen does not scale correctly with height and never did.

[Waldo]

This is something I can personally attest to. I'm from Cajun Country, South Louisiana originally. No joke, hyperbole, or exaggeration, but back home its not unusual to go into a convenience store and see 3-4 people who all weigh over 300lbs. I've been in rooms with friends where the next skinniest person after me is literally twice my bodywieght. My best bud's wife is literally heavier than me and him put together. Another close friend and his family's (3 people, including the 12 year old) total weight is somewhere near 900 lbs.

 

Contrast this with Austin TX where I live now. It's unusual to see anyone even near to the size of "average" Louisianians. Healthy living and good eating are super trendy here, and it is rare to see someone who would qualify as obese.

 

one definitely has to be careful not to say "This is what I see daily, therefore the whole world must be this way".

How fat you are, or lack thereof, really doesn't have much relationship to time spent lifting weights and muscle gained because of it, thus the relevance to the BMI charts.

The charts were developed at a time where almost noone did, and excluded the groups (young people, strength athletes) that actually did (the idea that BMI was based off a complete population average is incorrect).

BMI was based on population averages of 25-59 yr olds in 1943. Revised slightly using measurements of the same age groups in 1979.

[Noname123]

Just because it's been an interesting convo, thought I'd post this here. This uses BMI which most seem to agree isn't useful for individual use. However the renderings across country comparisons I thought were really interesting. 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/this-is-the-average-mans-body/280194/

[Silo]

I like BMI as a very general guide but not as a specific goal. By that, I mean that when I had a lot of weight to lose, I used the "normal" BMI range for my height as a first goal as far as where I was aiming. I'm an average height (5'6") and was not in an outlier population (I was just plain fat, there wasn't a ton of muscle hiding under it.) So as far as giving me a general idea of a weight range, it was good. But as far as a specific guideline for determining whether people are heavy or not, I don't like it.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

I didn't even think of HS/College sports. I'm still thinking of the older crowd!

 

Most people I've met with any type of blue collar work involving lifting things often (farmers, contracters, contruction workers, movers) aer typically muscled more than BMI would work for as well. It really comes down to having any kind of muscle mass "above average" being unsuitable for the metric, and as Waldo has indicated, the % of the population in that range has likely grown over the years.

 

I think in general people need to stop being such pussies but at the end of the day I could care less, I invest my energy into bettering myself and thats all that I need to be concerned with

 

You should also be concerned with presenting yourself like a dick. Watch this kind of language, I've banned people for it before.

[Noname123]

I like BMI as a very general guide but not as a specific goal. By that, I mean that when I had a lot of weight to lose, I used the "normal" BMI range for my height as a first goal as far as where I was aiming. I'm an average height (5'6") and was not in an outlier population (I was just plain fat, there wasn't a ton of muscle hiding under it.) So as far as giving me a general idea of a weight range, it was good. But as far as a specific guideline for determining whether people are heavy or not, I don't like it.

 

I think this is the best response I've seen to it yet. Used as a general guide for those looking to drop or gain some weight but not as a black and white rule to determine the health of weight. As usual you're a smartie pants Silo!

[Nubbins McGee]

According to the current BMI calculators, I should weigh between 142 and 191 pounds to be considered in the "normal" range for my height.  That would give me a BMI of 24.9 at the top end of that scale, before I become "overweight".  

 

Various seven site skin fold tests have put me at sub 10% body fat at 190 pounds.  At 205, which is a good walking around weight for me--and one where I have no shame taking my shirt off at the beach-- I am considered "overweight".  Yet at that weight, I have a sub 60 resting heart rate, and resting blood pressure bordering on "low".  I'm a middle aged man too, not a twenty year old who hasn't had time for accumulated damage to build up.  

 

I use that as additional data points that neither the number on a scale nor what a BMI chart tells you is a very good indicator by itself of health.  There is so much more to look at and I wish we would.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:  The only way I could ever be 142 pounds at my height would be if I got limbs amputated.  142?  Are you kidding me?  I'm nearly 6'2"!

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

Edit:  The only way I could ever be 142 pounds at my height would be if I got limbs amputated.  142?  Are you kidding me?  I'm nearly 6'2"!

 

Depending on the limbs, you wouldn't be 6'2" anymore.

[Nubbins McGee]

True that.  

[Noname123]

 

 

Edit:  The only way I could ever be 142 pounds at my height would be if I got limbs amputated.  142?  Are you kidding me?  I'm nearly 6'2"!

 

I think the other shortcoming of the BMI method is that it doesn't differentiate between male and females and they're built in totally different ways- while being slim I can easily see a female around 6 feet being around 150. I did a quick search on mybodygallery and the only girl listed as 6'2" and 140 lbs looks thin but in shape.