US No Longer Most Obese Country In The World

Mr. Pedantic said:

Can you post a link or a photograph of the original source? I don't believe those are BMI numbers.

Click to expand...

I can, I already have, and I won't again. This is ridiculous.

Mr. Pedantic said:

Can you post a link or a photograph of the original source? I don't believe those are BMI numbers.

Click to expand...

That is because they are not. And he can't seem to get his head that there is a difference between the percentage of people in a group that are in the average range and the average BMI.

BlandOatmeal said:

I can, I already have, and I won't again. This is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Doesn't help.

Proxy Error

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET /bmi/index.jsp.

Reason: Error reading from remote server

Click to expand...

No way the people of Ghana has an average BMI of 72.4! Heck almost all of those numbers can't be average BMI numbers.

BlandOatmeal said:

If Keith is right, that would be a good explanation. Whatever my numbers are, they are "correct", and the Chinese are indeed thinner than Americans...

Click to expand...

Again, I will supply the link:

http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp

Simply clicking on the "Tables" tab will get you exactly the numbers I presented for you -- presented, I might add, with considerable effort to help the reader understand the relative rankings.

The "Tables" section begins,

"BMI adults % normal (18.5-24.99)... Caveat: The national BMI data displayed in this table

I have given Keith credit for being correct, yet the so-called "Christians" here have used this rather insignificant thread to display an orgy of mean-spiritedness (and the atheists, their inability to read). Please examine yourselves before God; and do not expect me to add further to this foolishness.

BMI is a joke to even determine obesity and things of this nature. Most bodybuilders in the Mr. Olympia competition would be considered obese under BMI, but in the real world, are some of the trimmest individuals on the planet.

well BMI (body mass index) is simply a matter of taking your weight versus how tall you are.

now for an average person this is a semi decent way of seeing if where you are.

but if you're talking about a person who is somewhat muscular or building muscle mass then it is wrong to take the raw data and apply it to yourself since muscle weighs more than fat.

and from what i recall of the link the numbers he gave are percentages i believe
as in not an average bmi of 72 but somewhat about 72% of the population being one thing or the other.

heck for me to have a bmi of 72 i would need to weigh in excess of 500 lbs........
if that is an average then wow indeed

BlandOatmeal said:

Again, I will supply the link:

WHO :: Global Database on Body Mass Index

Simply clicking on the "Tables" tab will get you exactly the numbers I presented for you -- presented, I might add, with considerable effort to help the reader understand the relative rankings.

The "Tables" section begins,

"BMI adults % normal (18.5-24.99)... Caveat: The national BMI data displayed in this table

I have given Keith credit for being correct, yet the so-called "Christians" here have used this rather insignificant thread to display an orgy of mean-spiritedness (and the atheists, their inability to read). Please examine yourselves before God; and do not expect me to add further to this foolishness.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're wrong. The numbers represent the percentage population with the given BMI, not the average BMI.

Most of the obesity hype is a joke anyway.

They show pictures of morbidly obese people in those "neck down" camera shots in the news from a mall food court, and follow it up by saying "XX% of Americans are obese"

...meanwhile, the part they don't tell you is that the classification system for determining who is and isn't overweight or obese is extremely flimsy. They base it solely on BMI which is a terrible classification system. According to that system, someone who's 6' 2" and 190lbs is part of the "epidemic" whether they're a lean 190 or not. Plus, there's no scientific data to support the notion that a person who's that height weighing 190 is at any more risk than a person of that height weighing 170.

I read in another study where the actual number of people who look like the people in those news videos is actually <5%.

According to the current ranking system, Drew Carey is in better shape than The Rock.

miniverchivi said:

I read in another study where the actual number of people who look like the people in those news videos is actually <5%

Click to expand...

uhmmm i think it is quite a bit more than 5% and i base this on what i see in the world around me when i walk down a city street.

miniverchivi said:

Most of the obesity hype is a joke anyway.

They show pictures of morbidly obese people in those "neck down" camera shots in the news from a mall food court, and follow it up by saying "XX% of Americans are obese"

...meanwhile, the part they don't tell you is that the classification system for determining who is and isn't overweight or obese is extremely flimsy. They base it solely on BMI which is a terrible classification system. According to that system, someone who's 6' 2" and 190lbs is part of the "epidemic" whether they're a lean 190 or not. Plus, there's no scientific data to support the notion that a person who's that height weighing 190 is at any more risk than a person of that height weighing 170.

I read in another study where the actual number of people who look like the people in those news videos is actually <5%.

According to the current ranking system, Drew Carey is in better shape than The Rock.

Click to expand...

So by this standard Marcel Kittel is fat!

Marcel Kittel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admittedly he is not an climber who looks more like a skeleton than a normal person. But hardly fat.

keith99 said:

So by this standard Marcel Kittel is fat!

Marcel Kittel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admittedly he is not an climber who looks more like a skeleton than a normal person. But hardly fat.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of this kind of argument. Could you possibly elaborate?

miniverchivi said:

Most of the obesity hype is a joke anyway.

They show pictures of morbidly obese people in those "neck down" camera shots in the news from a mall food court, and follow it up by saying "XX% of Americans are obese"

...meanwhile, the part they don't tell you is that the classification system for determining who is and isn't overweight or obese is extremely flimsy. They base it solely on BMI which is a terrible classification system. According to that system, someone who's 6' 2" and 190lbs is part of the "epidemic" whether they're a lean 190 or not.

<snip>

According to the current ranking system, Drew Carey is in better shape than The Rock.

Click to expand...

No, that isn't correct. It's widely known that BMI is only applicable to people with average body types, and no one in their right mind would say that Drew Carrey is healthier than the Rock.

BMI is useful when describing the general population, because most people are of average builds - they aren't bodybuilders or professional cyclists. Nor are they really tall, like me (the BMI formula also doesn't scale properly for people of extreme heights). They're in the middle, where BMI is reasonably accurate.

That's why the US are letting all the Mexicans over the border...to get back their obesity title back by stealth.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

According to a new UN study, the US no longer leads the world in obesity rates.

Click to expand...

Mr. Pedantic said:

I don't understand the point of this kind of argument. Could you possibly elaborate?

Click to expand...

It is the old argument of reduction to absurdity. One of many arguments regarding BMI. I picked an extreme cardio athlete, and one currently in the news who happened to match EXACTLY the numbers for the post preceding mine.

An example where no one would even think of arguing that BMI was an accurate measure.

I've also argued that BMI fails to scale, keep the same build at 4'6" and 7'2" and the short person comes out as underweight and the tall one as obese. Part of the 'obesity epidemic' is nothing of the sort, it is a proper childhood nutrition 'epidemic' which resulted in generations post WW II reaching their full height potential.

As a college athlete (in a time well before BMI was popular) my height and weight worked out to almost obese. If I had been a football player, where power was more important than endurance I surely would have put on a few more pounds (mainly muscle) and crossed that line. (Thinking back I just remembered I could barely fit in a suit off the rack. My first suit had to be taken in all that it could be at the waist and had absolutely no extra space in the shoulders.)

It is a poor measure than makes no distinction between a guy who puts a beer belly and one who lifts heavy has muscles on his muscles.

By BMI most athletes are overweight and many are obese. That is absurd.

HorsieJuice said:

No, that isn't correct. It's widely known that BMI is only applicable to people with average body types, and no one in their right mind would say that Drew Carrey is healthier than the Rock.

BMI is useful when describing the general population, because most people are of average builds - they aren't bodybuilders or professional cyclists. Nor are they really tall, like me (the BMI formula also doesn't scale properly for people of extreme heights). They're in the middle, where BMI is reasonably accurate.

Click to expand...

So you agree with their assessment that a person who's 6 foot tall and 185 pounds is "overweight"?

keith99 said:

It is the old argument of reduction to absurdity. One of many arguments regarding BMI. I picked an extreme cardio athlete, and one currently in the news who happened to match EXACTLY the numbers for the post preceding mine.

An example where no one would even think of arguing that BMI was an accurate measure.

I've also argued that BMI fails to scale, keep the same build at 4'6" and 7'2" and the short person comes out as underweight and the tall one as obese. Part of the 'obesity epidemic' is nothing of the sort, it is a proper childhood nutrition 'epidemic' which resulted in generations post WW II reaching their full height potential.

As a college athlete (in a time well before BMI was popular) my height and weight worked out to almost obese. If I had been a football player, where power was more important than endurance I surely would have put on a few more pounds (mainly muscle) and crossed that line. (Thinking back I just remembered I could barely fit in a suit off the rack. My first suit had to be taken in all that it could be at the waist and had absolutely no extra space in the shoulders.)

It is a poor measure than makes no distinction between a guy who puts a beer belly and one who lifts heavy has muscles on his muscles.

By BMI most athletes are overweight and many are obese. That is absurd.

Click to expand...

1. BMI is a population measure of obesity, just as GDP is a population measure of wealth. Nobody would argue that a high-BMI person is necessarily obese, just as nobody in their right mind would argue that a person living in a high-GDP country is necessarily wealthy. Straw man.

2. How many standard deviations away from the mean male height is 7'2", exactly? What about 4'6"?

You are confusing what BMI was designed for - it is a screening tool, nothing more. BMI screening for obesity fills all the WHO criteria for screening - it is cheap, it is easy, it is relatively specific and sensitive, it identifies a serious condition that can be treated, and it is easily applicable to the majority of the population. I don't know why you think arguing that BMI is invalid in professional athletes invalidates BMI for everyone else.

miniverchivi said:

So you agree with their assessment that a person who's 6 foot tall and 185 pounds is "overweight"?

Click to expand...

they very well can be if that weight it fat and not muscle
i am actually that height and i weigh 179 pounds and i am working to drop a last 5 pounds to get around 175 whilst building some more muscle

Mr. Pedantic said:

You are confusing what BMI was designed for - it is a screening tool, nothing more. BMI screening for obesity fills all the WHO criteria for screening - it is cheap, it is easy, it is relatively specific and sensitive, it identifies a serious condition that can be treated, and it is easily applicable to the majority of the population. I don't know why you think arguing that BMI is invalid in professional athletes invalidates BMI for everyone else.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what BMI was designed for, scientific data has shown that a person who falls in the BMI range for "overweight" is a no greater risk of health problems than a person who falls in the "normal" range...so I guess the biggest flaw with it is that they have their numbers set too low in terms of their classification groups. On top of that, the ranges they provide are too broad to be useful in most cases.

If we took 4 people weighing 160, 165, 170, 280 respectively...

And we said "okay, the 160 & 165 guy are going to be in one group, and the 170 & 280 guy are going to be in the other group and we're going to evaluate the health risks by group"...at the end of the study, we'd end up with results that suggest that the 170 guys is at far greater risk for health problems than the 165 guy which would be simply untrue. So that leaves us with a couple possible conclusions...A) Either they need to break it out into more granular groups or B) the group they currently have as "overweight", isn't actually "overweight" and they need to redefine the terms they're using.