"Fitness" as a concept might not even show up on the scale.
Indeed, it does not. The BMI is an abstracted height-weight chart condensed into a single number. Even the Wikipedia article on it contains statements such as "BMI is a statistical categorisation and therefore is not appropriate for diagnosing individuals." It makes no allowance for sex, frame size, muscle density, etc.
I want to do some research into who decided which BMI numbers allegedly correlated to medical conditions; I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies figured into that somehow, given the old principle of "follow the money." I do know that about 10 years ago, the low-end BMI boundary of "overweight" got changed from around 27 to the current 25, but I don't know why. The result was a sudden increase in the number of overweight people, much like my normal blood pressure is now "pre-hypertensive," and women between menarche and menopause are now "pre-pregnant." Perhaps we should just rename the BMI categories from "underweight" to "hott", from "normal" to "pre-overweight," and from "overweight" to "pre-obese," and be done with it. Or better still, let's just label everybody as "pre-dead."
I agree that the relationship between health and weight is a complicated issue. It's pretty clear that neither being starvation-thin nor immobilized by fat is healthy, but what goes on between those extremes is not so cut and dried. I think that concentrating on being more active is probably going to result in better health for most fat people than trying to diet down to a certain magic size. However, a fat person who exercises still looks fat, while a sedentary skinny person looks "better" by today's standards, and it's all about looking good, after all.
Instead of trying to re-type the various arguments from "the other side," I'll throw in this pointer. Yes, it's biased, but consider it a counterpoint to the current media-hype "obesity epidemic" hysteria. Maybe "the truth" can be found somewhere in between.
Let me also recommend the book Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink, or at least the parts where he discusses the various food-consumption experiments his lab has done (such as the bottomless soup bowl). One of the themes that keeps coming through is that pretty much everybody will overeat in certain situations, not just Teh Fattiez. I think the current easy availability of highly-processed, calorie-dense foods is part of the complicated problem, as is the change from eating regular meals to non-stop snacking. Paying attention all the time is hard work; when you're eating while distracted, "serving size = whatever's in front of you" is pretty much a given.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
Re: not BACON!!!! Nooooooooooo!
Date: 2008-01-24 07:19 am (UTC)Indeed, it does not. The BMI is an abstracted height-weight chart condensed into a single number. Even the Wikipedia article on it contains statements such as "BMI is a statistical categorisation and therefore is not appropriate for diagnosing individuals." It makes no allowance for sex, frame size, muscle density, etc.
I want to do some research into who decided which BMI numbers allegedly correlated to medical conditions; I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies figured into that somehow, given the old principle of "follow the money." I do know that about 10 years ago, the low-end BMI boundary of "overweight" got changed from around 27 to the current 25, but I don't know why. The result was a sudden increase in the number of overweight people, much like my normal blood pressure is now "pre-hypertensive," and women between menarche and menopause are now "pre-pregnant." Perhaps we should just rename the BMI categories from "underweight" to "hott", from "normal" to "pre-overweight," and from "overweight" to "pre-obese," and be done with it. Or better still, let's just label everybody as "pre-dead."
I agree that the relationship between health and weight is a complicated issue. It's pretty clear that neither being starvation-thin nor immobilized by fat is healthy, but what goes on between those extremes is not so cut and dried. I think that concentrating on being more active is probably going to result in better health for most fat people than trying to diet down to a certain magic size. However, a fat person who exercises still looks fat, while a sedentary skinny person looks "better" by today's standards, and it's all about looking good, after all.
Instead of trying to re-type the various arguments from "the other side," I'll throw in this pointer. Yes, it's biased, but consider it a counterpoint to the current media-hype "obesity epidemic" hysteria. Maybe "the truth" can be found somewhere in between.
Let me also recommend the book Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink, or at least the parts where he discusses the various food-consumption experiments his lab has done (such as the bottomless soup bowl). One of the themes that keeps coming through is that pretty much everybody will overeat in certain situations, not just Teh Fattiez. I think the current easy availability of highly-processed, calorie-dense foods is part of the complicated problem, as is the change from eating regular meals to non-stop snacking. Paying attention all the time is hard work; when you're eating while distracted, "serving size = whatever's in front of you" is pretty much a given.