New at Reason
Jacob Sullum makes his debut as an average American waistline model.
Comments to "New at Reason":
M | November 14, 2007, 7:29am | #
Yo, I'm all about government is bad (no sarcasm here), but wouldn't that statement be true only if you substituted for "normal" some word like "average" or "common" or "typical"?
Yet that weight is not normal, since two-thirds of American adults exceed it.
Doesn't the normalcy of 98.6 as the human body temperature persist even in a febrile community?
Ayn_Randian | November 14, 2007, 8:45am | #
M - the point of that statement was that perhaps the BMI is too stringent with its requirements.I'm 5-10, 175 and BMI calls me "overweight". What a load of shit science the whole thing is, really.
tijjer | November 14, 2007, 8:52am | #
I think more informative than evaluating longevity based upon one's fit in one of four broad, somewhat arbitrary categories would be to just release projected (or observed) longevity based on the actual BMI.For someone who is 5'9", both 125 lbs and 168 lbs are in the same category. This, to me, is kind of silly. It'd be nice to see the data at a BMI of 18, at 19, at 20, etc.
Episiarch | November 14, 2007, 9:06am | #
I can't understand why anyone could think that BMI is even slightly legitimate. The only reason that comes to mind is that it provides a tool for authoritarian nanny-statists to use to control people.And I'm saying this as somebody who could never be mistaken for fat, and am either just within the normal range or just barely into the overweight range because of muscle mass, so I'm not whining because BMI called me fat.
jimmy smith | November 14, 2007, 9:08am | #
Hey, is there no adjustment for age? I'm 70 years old, many places give me a discount for age. At 6'3 1/2" and 205, my BMI is 25.9, (overweight). Am I gonna have to get AARP involved ? Call in the Americans with Disabilities Act people? Oh well, at my age it's good to get screwed again. I'll take anything at this point.Episiarch | November 14, 2007, 9:18am | #
Hey, is there no adjustment for age? I'm 70 years oldSilly rabbit, you can't be 70--people that old think the intarweb is a "series of tubes" and can't figure out how to use it.
An Ottawa Reader | November 14, 2007, 9:45am | #
Folks,BMI's only one factor to consider when figuring out if you're overweight and by how much. Obviously body frame is a factor (people with bigger frames should be heavier). Body fat is another.
The quickest way to tell if you're fat, honestly, is by taking a good look at yourself. People at a healthy weight should have a lean (not skinny) look. If you have a gut, you need to lose weight. Simple as that.
For the record, 31, 5'6", 152 lb. Supposedly in the healthy range, but as a matter of fact still fatter than I'd like to be, which is to say I still have a gut. I have a small frame; by some calculations I should be about 128 lb, certainly no more than 140.
BMI isn't a Communist plot. Don't be silly, Episiarch.
Episiarch | November 14, 2007, 9:50am | #
BMI isn't a Communist plot. Don't be silly, Episiarch.Hmm, never said anything about Communists. I did notice that as soon as the BMI was adopted, 30 million Americans became "overweight" literally overnight, and immediately nanny-statists started using this as a call for controlling people's eating habits with government force.
That seems pretty convenient.
Quit Being A Fat Fuck | November 14, 2007, 9:51am | #
We don't like looking at you. Thank you.Sincerely,
The Government
VM | November 14, 2007, 10:15am | #
"I did notice that as soon as the BMI was adopted, 30 million Americans became "overweight" literally overnight"not exactly accurate but good enough, what did happen in the late 90s was that the NIH changed the criteria (lowered from 30 to 27.5 or 25 or something like that).
The BMI was actually used in the 80s, but it became media mainstream in the 90s - and like all things that become media mainstream, it became misunderstood, twisted, blown completely out of proportion, and used for different people's agendas.
Eliminate the nanny state elements from the BMI, and it's (use of the BMI) no big deal. You need to determine what health risks you have, and you need to select your own health inputs. The BMI might be a helpful data point. That's up to you and your MD. Or just you.
But, on the bright side, having consensual sex as a teen makes good citizens. hier
(such studies generally seem to be silly)
Dan T. | November 14, 2007, 10:25am | #
Hmm, never said anything about Communists. I did notice that as soon as the BMI was adopted, 30 million Americans became "overweight" literally overnight, and immediately nanny-statists started using this as a call for controlling people's eating habits with government force.Nanny-statists, communists, Al Qaeda, the Illuminati, whatever you want to call the phantom group that wants nothing more than to control your life for no reason.
W. Kone | November 14, 2007, 10:26am | #
As a 6’ 2” 40 year old male who has had to argue with the Army for the last 11 years about being “over weight” and in the last seven years for being “obese”. I agree that what the government says is normal is not normal.I have a BMI of 30.1, I’m 240 pounds which is over my “max allowed weight” of 207. The Army says I have a body fat content of 24.87% (I’m allowed 26%). I run four to five marathons a year, score between 250 and 280 on the Army Physical Fitness Test, I regularly do 12 mile road marches with 80+ pounds of equipment in less than four hours and do missions afterwards and I bike to work. But the Army says I’m fat and the government says I’m obese.
I’m told I need to get down to a “healthy” weight of 175 for my height. I have a guy in my unit that is 6’2” and 185. I carry half his mission load on marches because he can’t. He’s skin and bone. (he is also 19, and can’t seem to get above 260 on the tests.) I don’t think height/weight is a good determining factor for health. Kudos to Mr. Sullivan for exploring this.
Most people don’t think they are overweight/obese, but are surprised to find that the government’s BMI says they are.
mk | November 14, 2007, 10:30am | #
I have been both painfully thin and obese at different points in my life.At 5.7 and change, I've been everything from 135 to 235 in weight. If I could choose, I would put myself right at 165 as that was the weight at which I thought I looked the best; A flat stomach without looking malnourished. By BMI standards I would still be "overweight".
As Ottawa reader said, I, like many guys my height, am built a bit like a tank. I have a big chest so I need that extra twenty pounds or so to look right.
My question is, who are the people for whom the BMI is a good measure? I imagine they are a minority.
VM | November 14, 2007, 10:33am | #
"but are surprised to find that the government’s BMI says they are."it's not the government's BMI. Jeez. The BMI might not be used well (for agendas, etc), and it might not be appropriate for you - there are other measures and ways to determine if you're obese.
Mellow out, dudes.
prolefeed | November 14, 2007, 10:43am | #
I'm precisely at the borderline between what the government considers overweight and obese -- a BMI of 29.9 or 30.0, depending on what day or time I weigh myself. A year ago I weighed the same as I do now, but due to daily strenuous workouts, perhaps 20 pounds of fat have been converted to muscle. Way different levels of health now versus then, but in the eyes of folks like HRC I need an intervention to get me to a "healthy" weight because of the costs they think I'll impose on the precious socialized medicine system they lust after.Anyone think that the nanny-statist researchers in denial about what is average weight, and the politicians supporting them, ought to be given even more control over health care, since then they will feel justified in trying to control your level of health because the costs will affect the other taxpayers forced to pay for the consequences of your personal behavior?
Jim Bob | November 14, 2007, 10:49am | #
Ah, more BMI scale fun. The thing is pure bunk, as W.Kone above explains.If the BMI scale were to be taken seriously, a guy like Tom Platz would be told he needs gastric bypass surgery to overcome his crippling, er, obesity.
Height and weight by themselves are poor indicators of body composition, and the BMI scale in general fails to take into account the amount of a person's weight that comes from lean muscle mass.
prolefeed | November 14, 2007, 10:50am | #
Nanny-statists, communists, Al Qaeda, the Illuminati, whatever you want to call the phantom group that wants nothing more than to control your life for no reason.Oh, they bloody well have a reason for wanting to control our lives, Danno. They think they're better able to run our lives than us. My mother-in-law, a nanny-statist elected official, is visting our house, and to keep the peace I decided to stay off the topic of politics. But last night she said something that I couldn't let go, and unloaded on her.
Do you seriously believe the shite you just spewed there, Dan T., or are you back to trolling? There really are people who want to control our lives, with the best of intentions and the worst results.
thoreau | November 14, 2007, 10:52am | #
Obviously human weight is too complex of a matter to distill down to a single variable. However, a scale with 2 variables might be useful. Randian, I'm guessing that you're pretty muscular, given your job. So perhaps a scale that combines BMI with some variable that measures muscle vs. fat might be useful.(And yes, I condemn the misuse of BMI to promote junk food taxes and whatnot.)
Jim Bob | November 14, 2007, 10:54am | #
Dan T., you can be a big boy and admit that the BMI scale is arbitrary at best and capricious at worst, seeing as how it is being used to tell otherwise healthy, active people that they're not within some magically acceptable "ideal weight range," and that they therefore aren't good Americans.How much do you weigh, Dan T.? I'll wager you a beer you've hardly ever done any physical exercise in your life, preferring instead to exercise your jaw muscles when you tell people how the benevolent federal government knows what's best for them.
Jim Bob | November 14, 2007, 10:56am | #
Obviously human weight is too complex of a matter to distill down to a single variable.Just as obviously, that fact is either unknown or unacknowledged by people coming up with things like the BMI.
thoreau | November 14, 2007, 11:02am | #
The fact that a variable is insufficient to explain all the data does not mean that it is completely useless.Quantitative tools can be useful, as long as you exercise some care in the application. (Or just exercise, and then you don't have to worry about BMI.)
BMI can be useful when combined with body fat percentages. I'm 5'9, 173, "overweight". I'm not a lard ass but I'll be honest in saying I could stand to loose a few extra pounds.
anneftx | November 14, 2007, 11:41am | #
I'm always amused when the term 'mortality rate' is cited. With no disrespect for Mr. Sullum, I'd point out that heavy, obese, malnourished or underweight, smoker, heavy drinker or fatally ill, we all have the same mortality rate -- it is precisely 100%As well, longevity is a spurious factor. If I die of sudden cardiac arrest at age 59 while enjoying an active, entertaining life, I'd generally prefer that to lingering to age 89 with limited mobility, pain and dementia.
As noted in earlier posts, when official BMI guesstimates were changed, a large portion of the population became overweight overnight. The same thing happened when smokers were deemed addicts. Suddenly 25% of the population was demonized and 'denormalized.' Children who are enrolled at too young an age are deemed 'hyperactive' and medicated. People who are occasionally 'blue' are medicated. People who experience sleeplessness during times of stress when their minds race are medicated. Please understand that I'm familiar with ongoing mental illness and do not intend to demean these conditions. They are serious and require medical attention.
Blood pressure and cholesterol goals have decreased incrementally over the past 10 years. I have nightmares about prohibitions on transfats, alcohol, and prepared or fast foods. As a nation we're abjured to avoid fried foods of any kind. Yet the recent hectoring about stunningly "unhealthy" foods at State Fairs never acknowledged the fact that these events occur but once each year. When else will you ever encounter a deep fried Snickers bar? One or two a year are hardly a death sentence.
My apologies for rambling on about such a variety of practices denounced by Aunties. I've been around long enough to see a seemingly never-ending trend to make people feel guilty about enjoying 'vices' and losing the simple pleasures of a fine meal, followed by a relaxing cigar or cigarette and a snifter of brandy.
Christ on a Cracker | November 14, 2007, 12:00pm | #
I am 6'4", 240 pounds = BMI of 29.2OK, I can stand to loose a few. I think it's interesting I have to get down to 145# to have a BMI of 18.3 before being "underweight".
Why does the government want everyone to look like cancer patients?
Coc
ce | November 14, 2007, 12:21pm | #
I've never understood why they don't use body fat percentage over BMI.You can lose fat and put on lots of muscle and watch your BMI get worse, but body fat percentage is a true measure of how much of which substances your body is made up of.
LarryA | November 14, 2007, 1:13pm | #
I've never understood why they don't use body fat percentage over BMI.It's harder to calculate.
The nannies can get height and weight from records and bitch at all of us. They can do an article like this one and, because everyone knows their height and can guess their weight, include a calculation that has everyone comparing and talking about BMIs.
They'd have to convince each of us to get tested (involving getting naked and floating in a tank of water, if I remember correctly) before they could similarly abuse body fat percentage.
ce | November 14, 2007, 2:14pm | #
LarryA - You're right, it is harder to calculate, but not that much harder. I remember our high school gym teacher had a plastic caliper you could measure with. Maybe not as accurate as the tank, but still better than a BMI.William Kone | November 14, 2007, 2:25pm | #
Their are three ways that I know of to do body fat, the water tank (most accurate), the Pinch Caliper not as accurate, and the "tape test".The Pinch Caliper takes a bit of training and some skill to use right and wear can affect the caliper too.
the tape test is done by putting a tape about the neck and waist, running that through a chart and some simple math to come up with some pretty silly amounts of body fat. The army uses this method and "allows" a 40 year old to have a max body fat of 26% because the method is so off.
That one could be abused.
Mike Fagan | November 14, 2007, 6:10pm | #
I always wonder how statistics are gathered. In gathering the underlying mortality statistics, did they use weight at the time of death? If so, don't many people get sick, lose weight, and then die? So their BMI at time of death is lower than before they becme ill from their terminal illness. Maybe adjustments are made, but how good are they?Lou Skannen | November 14, 2007, 10:14pm | #
For years I drove myself to distraction about my weight, or, more precisely, its distribution. After all that agony, I have just decided it is too much and I vowed never to think about it ever again. A waist is a terrible thing to mind.Lou
Crilltog | November 15, 2007, 1:05pm | #
"people in the government-recommended BMI range of 18.5 to 24.9 are more likely to die from a variety of diseases than people with BMIs of 25 to 30."Maybe that's why the government recommends it.