I'd agree. Honestly I always thought that trend was a bit suspect in terms of how "real" it was.Dad bod probably fits in the low end of overweight at its worst (hell, i'm developing dad bod and have a near-ideal weight for my height).
I'd agree. Honestly I always thought that trend was a bit suspect in terms of how "real" it was.Dad bod probably fits in the low end of overweight at its worst (hell, i'm developing dad bod and have a near-ideal weight for my height).
Girthness achieved.
Incorporating walking into your daily life is different from going out for a walk.Yes they do. Every suburb in the tristate area I have lived in has/had access trails or walking paths.
Fatty foods are cheaper while the healthier foods are more expensive. That's one of the main reasons.
Bring obese seems like such a damper on quality of life. I feel bad for anyone who has to live like that.
Exactly. I scanned through the posts, and virtually every single person who poo-poos BMI follows the same tired, unscientific, response:It's always hilarious how people hate on BMI. Like everybody's a fucking bodybuilder all of a sudden lol.
People really can't help themselves but to use personal anecdote to argue against a scientifically-established measurement. It's almost like they're forced to.Wouldn't body fat % be a more accurate measurement of whether you're considered 'healthy, overweight, obese'?
I'm 177cm, my weight fluctuates between 84.7 to 85.3 That puts my BMI at 27; which would make me close to overweight according to the BMI chart. But if you actually look at my body shape, it's anything but. Body fat percentage measured by a DEXA scan is at 13%, no gut whatsoever, can fit into a tight shirt comfortably.
Wouldn't body fat % be a more accurate measurement of whether you're considered 'healthy, overweight, obese'?
I'm 177cm, my weight fluctuates between 84.7 to 85.3 That puts my BMI at 27; which would make me close to overweight according to the BMI chart. But if you actually look at my body shape, it's anything but. Body fat percentage measured by a DEXA scan is at 13%, no gut whatsoever, can fit into a tight shirt comfortably.
Waist size is a pretty good predictor of health. Maybe more so than BMI.Wouldn't body fat % be a more accurate measurement of whether you're considered 'healthy, overweight, obese'?
I'm 177cm, my weight fluctuates between 84.7 to 85.3 That puts my BMI at 27; which would make me close to overweight according to the BMI chart. But if you actually look at my body shape, it's anything but. Body fat percentage measured by a DEXA scan is at 13%, no gut whatsoever, can fit into a tight shirt comfortably.
People really can't help themselves but to use personal anecdote to argue against a scientifically-established measurement. It's almost like they're forced to.
When you figure out a way to measure body fat % as accurately and cost-effectively as BMI, let me know. You know something cheaper than a measuring stick and a weight scale? Let me know. I'll become a billionaire and retire early.
They are not really reliable (bia scales I mean), but they are consistent, so it can be used to asses progress, just dont go saying you are X% bodyfat because that wont be probably true.Skin fold calipers can be had pretty cheap. There are some scales that can also 'measure' body fat, but no idea how reliable they are.
This is a great post.Exactly. I scanned through the posts, and virtually every single person who poo-poos BMI follows the same tired, unscientific, response:
...
Yeah, as an european I find shocking too the consumption of candy as an adult the americans make, I havent eat those things since 11 or something.
It's fine as long as you're sitting down. You only encounter problem once you have to move (or god forbid go up a set of stairs).
Exactly my situation. I'm 5'11 and currently fluctuate between 185 and 190lbs of mostly muscle mass with little fat percentage due to doing full body workouts 5 days a week and am considered overweight by BMI. No way in hell anyone with eyes who've seen me would consider me anywhere near overweight.
That's because basically all of your food is engineered to make you craving more very shortly after eating. It's not hunger, it's appetite fueled by addictive substances.As an obese person myself I don't think anything is going to change anytime soon. I know I'm sending myself to a very early grave with my diet but I only think about that (and all the other consequences of being fat) after I'm done eating. In the actual moment of eating I'm too focused on the food to care what happens. Fucked up (and disgusting) I know, but I'm just being honest. I'm not saying I'd rather die young and fat then live long and thin but that's basically the choice I make every day when I decide to stuff my face.
Waist size is a pretty good predictor of health. Maybe more so than BMI.
Does not work on people with abdominal hernias.I reckon height/waist index is a better method to measure obesity.
Not really reliable, compared to BMI. Where is the standardized area to pinch the skin? There isn't one.Skin fold calipers can be had pretty cheap. There are some scales that can also 'measure' body fat, but no idea how reliable they are.
Skin fold calipers can be had pretty cheap. There are some scales that can also 'measure' body fat, but no idea how reliable they are.
Does not work on people with abdominal hernias.
Does not work on people with stomas/colostomies/poop bag.
Does not work during pregnancy.
There are no universal standardized cut-offs for waist sizes. What's normal for an American man may not be normal for a Japanese woman. Great, now you have to make up tables for different ethnic groups.
Once you get above BMI 35, it becomes more difficult to measure the rotund waist in a reproducible way between examiners. At least with BMI, you still get a discrete number. With waist circumference, it's "oh fuck it. It's somewhere between 50 and 55 inches."
BMI works on all of them.
"But hockeypuck, what about paralyzed and kyphotic bed-bound people? You can't measure their heights!"
True, but oftentimes you know their heights before they became paralyzed/bed-bound. Moreover, body fat % is the least of their worries. Preventing pressure ulcers will always be on the forefront of that group's health.
If researchers cared about waist circumference being more useful than BMI, then I would expect to see the number of published articles using that measurement to increase. Instead, it's been dropping since 2014. Use of BMI continues to climb. Again, if you have seen a peer-reviewed article that shows the merits of waist circumference over BMI, feel free to post it in this thread.
Not really reliable, compared to BMI. Where is the standardized area to pinch the skin? There isn't one.
instead of the useless "per serving" table, there should be a "per 100 g" table so you can easily calculate percentages and compare percentages between different brands
American portions are out of fucking control.
Even at the grocery store, it's like how much fucking food do I even need?
Also one thing I noticed that's different from when I left America in the mid 00s to now, the portions for fast food somehow got even bigger. Like bigass thick burgers are the default. I haven't finished a single hamburger since I got here.
It makes no sense at all. But it makes a lot of sense when you look at how fucking fat everyone is.
If I ever need to argue why BMI is a "good-enough" obesity indicator that is closely associated with a health-based measurement, this graph is a good enough one to post:
First link is an excellent study that is literally the first real argument in >400 posts to argue against BMI. Well done.
I do agree and acknowledge that there are other contributing factors like metabolism and genetics. But your case, if as extreme as it sounds in your first post, I have a really hard time believing you aren't the exception rather than the norm. The simple explanation is most likely that most of the obesity numbers are caused by poor lifestyle choices.
I'm still not going to believe that anyone with a daily caloric deficit doesn't lose weight over time, unless I see some empirical data from a completely controlled study.
Most folks gain weight due to lack of activity and poor eating. Obesity has risen, not remained stagnant. That only shows that our overall diets and activity isn't working for the body. You probably have a metabolic problem, your case isn't the majority or even the norm.
This isn't true. The majority of the populations bmr is within 200 cal of each other. There isn't more than a few percentage points difference between one person's metabolism and another.
People are fact because they eat too much and because they don't move enough.
Because smoking itself is related to weight changes and tends to screw up the curve. A 3 pack a day smoker may be rail thin. That's why the authors separated out that group. Don't try to compare between the two curves, only within it. BMI 22.5 is the benchmark within the curves. You're assuming because of the hazard ratio that a non-smoker at BMI 22.5 has the same mortality risk as that of a smoker at BMI 22.5, because both HR are 1. That's not necessarily the case. You know that's not the case.I'm not sure I'm reading this graph right. Why does it seem to show that healthy adults who've never smoked have a worse hazard ratio? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Debate over the importance of overweight and obesity for all-cause mortality generally focuses on whether it is appropriate to exclude from analyses all smokers and persons with prevalent diseases. It is argued that smoking and preexisting illness contribute disproportionately to deaths that occur before average life expectancy, so the results of analyses that exclude them cannot be extrapolated to the general population. The counterargument is that smoking and preexisting conditions that cause weight loss are powerful confounders and analyses that include them lack validity — an attribute that is more important in etiologic studies than is generalizability. Stratification or exclusion rather than adjustment is necessary because smoking is so strongly related to obesity and mortality (Tables 2 and 9 in the Supplementary Appendix), making it difficult to avoid residual confounding by means of typical adjustments for smoking status and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Two aspects of our findings support our approach of focusing on healthy participants who never smoked. First, long-term follow-up strengthened rather than weakened the association between obesity and all-cause mortality, which is the expected result if preexisting illness confounds this association, especially early during follow-up. Second, the relationship between low BMI and all-cause mortality is stronger among former smokers who quit less than 20 years ago than among current smokers (Table 9 in the Supplementary Appendix). This result is probably a reflection of cessation of smoking because of illness.
First link is an excellent study that is literally the first real argument in >400 posts to argue against BMI. Well done.
Second link studies waist circumference after adjusting for BMI. The authors do not argue that BMI should be replaced with waist circumference. They argue that waist circumference should be included in addition to BMI calculations in the clinical setting. Not sure why you included this link.
Third link has a sample size of about 80. Where is the follow-up study with hundreds, if not thousands, of people?
By the way, the authors of the first study measured the waist circumference using a different method than the authors of the second study. Did you pick that up? Now you know why clinicians hate using it.
is the opposite true ? If I want to gain mass because I'm too skinny, do I just have to eat more ? I already have a healthy diet in terms of the quality/variety of my food, and I don't really exercise much, but I still walk like an hour a day. It's just that I don't eat enoughIt's not an in/out problem you can solve by having less in. It never works like that. Yes you can lose weight by having less in and burn calories with exercise, if your body allows that. But 9 times out of 10, it will just slow your metabolism and you'll lose nothing you really want to lose (in example losing muscles but not dad bod) if ever.
is the opposite true ? If I want to gain mass because I'm too skinny, do I just have to eat more ? I already have a healthy diet in terms of the quality/variety of my food, and I don't really exercise much, but I still walk like an hour a day. It's just that I don't eat enough
oh yeah I definitely know my lifestyle isn't the most healthy it could be, but for some reason I often don't feel the need to eat, or choose not to eat because I have to study or something. (I hope I'll manage to better myself when my studies end)Yes. There are people that have difficulties to gain weight.
And you can have a very unhealthy lifestyle without gaining weight.
This is the first time I have ever thought of Homer as a slim person.
Don't want to sound insensitive but this very much looks like classic addiction to me. As someone who has used quite some drugs in my lifetime what ticked me off was the 'I only think about what I'm doing after I had my hit'.My roommate recently moved from California to Missouri and he said to me "wow, there are a lot of fat people here."
American Exceptionalism at the brunch buffet.
As an obese person myself I don't think anything is going to change anytime soon. I know I'm sending myself to a very early grave with my diet but I only think about that (and all the other consequences of being fat) after I'm done eating. In the actual moment of eating I'm too focused on the food to care what happens. Fucked up (and disgusting) I know, but I'm just being honest. I'm not saying I'd rather die young and fat then live long and thin but that's basically the choice I make every day when I decide to stuff my face.
lol
No, it doesn't.It's not an in/out problem you can solve by having less in. It never works like that. Yes you can lose weight by having less in and burn calories with exercise, if your body allows that. But 9 times out of 10, it will just slow your metabolism and you'll lose nothing you really want to lose (in example losing muscles but not dad bod) if ever.
As my nutritionnist says: the solution lies in making the body burn fat it doesn't want to burn, it doesn't succeed to burn. Accessing that fat isn't always easy and varies person by person.
Getting rid of that craving is like having a veil lifted from your eyes. You can think so much more clearly.That's because basically all of your food is engineered to make you craving more very shortly after eating. It's not hunger, it's appetite fueled by addictive substances.
It would take some serious willpower but if you only ate non-processed food for a while, mostly home-cooked meals made out of single ingredients, you can get over that hump in a few weeks or months and the craving for unhealthy food goes away.