Why do obese people in the US always say they don't eat much?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] what the BMI IS and how it was created and the theory behind it are not up for debate, and yet you are debating it. weight and height are not measures of health, they cant be as those things are not material to ones health. ignoring body composition, nutrition, and other factors like age genetics and history all of whom are measures of health. what about vitals? blood pressure, sugar levels, hell water consumption has more to do with general health than weight and height. surrealnumber5

Watching you and Nicbroc arguing different points and butting heads is pretty fun to read, but alas I have questions.

BMI was originally designed for a standard for health and body composition that could be applied to a large population and be relatively easy to understand and apply. Studies still use it to this day to talk about body fat %. Is this not mostly correct?

Now, your measures of health, I agree that there are many things as important as bodyfat%, blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose, reactions to exercise, exercise/activity as a lifestyle, blood triglyceride levels (not sure if it's been confirmed this is bad necessarily, but it is a marker correlated with poor health at the moment), hormone levels, especially CRP, IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, adiponectine, leptin, and many, many more that I cant think off the top of my head. My question is, these are much better than the classic body fat% or BMI measurements, BUT the time and money for these measurements aren't very realistic. Doing this yourself would be costly, doctors don't want to spend time doing this, NHANES does a decent job getting snapshots of the population, but this is random sampling. HOW would it be possible to impliment a system that looks at these variables if we don't have money behind it? I am guessing BMI has stuck around so long because it has such a high correlation with these other problems, and is drastically cheaper than testing for all the different markers.

There are some MD's that have started asking about exercise level and activity, which is a good first step, but progress is slow.

To those saying overweight/obese people don't affect others, it does. Healthcare costs are HUGE for those with co-mobidities tied with obesity in America alone, falls in the older population takes up 50 something billion dollars a year, 1 million people every year join the ranks of survivors of miocardial infarction and jack up healthcare costs, those with chronic/congestive heart failure spend millions on drives. Coronary artery bypass graphing and the more controversial percutaneus transluminal coronary angioplasty are thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, all related to obesity. Once again this is off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm missing plenty of other problems, like hypertension, neuropathy, other diabetes complications, cholesterol, and billions of dollars in medication (that could be replaced with something like exercise and have similar results, but this is America, why should we exercise when we can pop a pill that works almost as well, and then we can eat a cheeseburger guilt free! [This can probably be applied to other western countries as well, though I am not as knowledgeable about other countries as I am America]).

We're talking like half the people by 2020. That is getting worrisome. I have seen a good video on obesitas not too long ago. It's such a horrible affliction. The worst part was the woman whose leg exploded because of her weight. Ugh. People who aren't of moderate healthy weight, please take it seriously cause you don't want to get to know the future ahead of you.

Seriously just being reminded by that fricking video I am now going for another run cause ewwww.

Well ever stop to think maybe there metabolism just went? Some people genetically have that problem it just stops and they gain weight from everything they eat

Well ever stop to think maybe there metabolism just went? Some people genetically have that problem it just stops and they gain weight from everything they eat

kickingcarpet

That's like the most overused excuse ever. It's true different people have different metabolisms. But we're supposed to adjust our diet according to how much our body can burn off the calories. Some people can literally gorge down as much food as they want and still won't put on an ounce of weight. But we can't all make that person a standard and say that we want to be able to eat as much as him and expect to not gain weight as well.

This is where I think the American 'entitlement' attitude comes in full force. Everyone thinks they're entitled to something. So if someone has higher metabolism than me, I should be entitled to that same amount of metabolism as well. And since I'm not, then I'm under privilege and need help.

Because to them they don't.

Most people aren't even aware of the amount of calories they consume on average.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Which gimmick? Who's buying what? If you're of a healthy weight, and you dont live a sedentary lifestyle, you shouldn't be using BMI anyways.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="kickingcarpet"]

Well ever stop to think maybe there metabolism just went? Some people genetically have that problem it just stops and they gain weight from everything they eat

jhcho2

That's like the most overused excuse ever. It's true different people have different metabolisms. But we're supposed to adjust our diet according to how much our body can burn off the calories. Some people can literally gorge down as much food as they want and still won't put on an ounce of weight. But we can't all make that person a standard and say that we want to be able to eat as much as him and expect to not gain weight as well.

This is where I think the American 'entitlement' attitude comes in full force. Everyone thinks they're entitled to something. So if someone has higher metabolism than me, I should be entitled to that same amount of metabolism as well. And since I'm not, then I'm under privilege and need help.

The public needs to be better educated about food in general. In the past we were much more active in the workplace and at home, coupled with an increased average caloric intake per person, we are obviously going to gain weight. People see weight gain as an inevitable part of life, those who didn't grow up in a family who had labor intensive work don't realize that weight gain is kind of a modern thing. Plus it's the whole "kick the can down the street" mentality, why deal with it now when it doesn't appear to hurt them? It takes decades for plaque to form and rupture to cause cardiovascular disease, it's not like the flu where it's instantly noticeable. People don't know the caloric density of foods, or their makeup, and if they don't know that, how can they make informed decisions about what to eat?

Also as people age, their metabolism slows, correcting for mode composition and activity level. Our bodies cant maintain the same level of cellular reproduction as it could when we were younger. Some people don't realize this, or care, and that's where there's a problem. Others have problems with their weight. My mom for example, she walks probably 7 miles a day on average, she has been struggling with her weight for years, she watches what she eats pretty carefully, and has a diet that SHOULD reduce her weight, yet she has not really lost weight in the 2 years since she started walking (she cant run as of right now because of her hip, and she does do resistance training twice a week). Rather than demonizing these people, we should try to help them, don't you agree?

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

[QUOTE="lonewolf604"]It annoys me how people can judge people just by looks. For example, I bet none of you judge a skinny person who has the same diet as a 300lbs man. rocinante_

well, being fat is usually a choice, while people are born with a certain skin colour...

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I'm not going to argue with you, you have the internet, you clearly have some grasp of the english language. I will tell you, when people who're exercising regularly start using a BMI chart, they're using a BMI chart wrong. BMI's are used on an individual basis when talking about SEDENTARY PEOPLE, not those gym nuts who are 6'0 and have 250lbs of muscle. They can also be used to talk about the general health/fitness levels of a group of people. IE: A group of kids entering Fat-camp, should have have a higher BMI than when they're leaving that fat-camp. Yes, levels of nutrition in the body in regards to sugar/water/blood pressure are all very important, but how does one obtain that in a 15 minute consultation?Zlurodirom

Watching you and Nicbroc arguing different points and butting heads is pretty fun to read, but alas I have questions.

BMI was originally designed for a standard for health and body composition that could be applied to a large population and be relatively easy to understand and apply. Studies still use it to this day to talk about body fat %. Is this not mostly correct?

Now, your measures of health, I agree that there are many things as important as bodyfat%, blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose, reactions to exercise, exercise/activity as a lifestyle, blood triglyceride levels (not sure if it's been confirmed this is bad necessarily, but it is a marker correlated with poor health at the moment), hormone levels, especially CRP, IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, adiponectine, leptin, and many, many more that I cant think off the top of my head. My question is, these are much better than the classic body fat% or BMI measurements, BUT the time and money for these measurements aren't very realistic. Doing this yourself would be costly, doctors don't want to spend time doing this, NHANES does a decent job getting snapshots of the population, but this is random sampling. HOW would it be possible to impliment a system that looks at these variables if we don't have money behind it? I am guessing BMI has stuck around so long because it has such a high correlation with these other problems, and is drastically cheaper than testing for all the different markers.

There are some MD's that have started asking about exercise level and activity, which is a good first step, but progress is slow.

To those saying overweight/obese people don't affect others, it does. Healthcare costs are HUGE for those with co-mobidities tied with obesity in America alone, falls in the older population takes up 50 something billion dollars a year, 1 million people every year join the ranks of survivors of miocardial infarction and jack up healthcare costs, those with chronic/congestive heart failure spend millions on drives. Coronary artery bypass graphing and the more controversial percutaneus transluminal coronary angioplasty are thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, all related to obesity. Once again this is off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm missing plenty of other problems, like hypertension, neuropathy, other diabetes complications, cholesterol, and billions of dollars in medication (that could be replaced with something like exercise and have similar results, but this is America, why should we exercise when we can pop a pill that works almost as well, and then we can eat a cheeseburger guilt free! [This can probably be applied to other western countries as well, though I am not as knowledgeable about other countries as I am America]).

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

189 pounds is rather fair for an average male. Obese people easily weigh 300 pounds. I'm not even going to the extreme of 500 or 600 pounds. Those are contenders for being top 100 fattest people in the world. But even for 300 pounds, that's not merely several 'deviations' away from 189 pounds. Again this could turn into a semantical debate about what one deviation means in this context. Since the obesity rate in America is incresing, it is also becoming more and more common, meaning that normal distribution curve would flatten out, and the magnitude of one deviation would be larger. But I don't think that's the point.

Obese people are just really fat people who we can identify as being fat just by a single glance. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. And we don't even have to talk about those on the borderline of being obese. Many people are clearly way pass the borderline and are downright obese. The labeling and stimatization arises due to these people being way heavier than a normal human being should be. 40 to 50 years ago, this kind of weight and size was unheard of. Only now, is it becoming commonplace. And these obese people are trying to claim that it's somewhat 'normal' to be such. Any kind of pressure is interpreted as an insult or stigma. The cause is blamed on food companies and genetics. It's just the American way. What do we do when we have school shootings? Blame the NRA. Blame video games. Blame Hollywood. Err....why isn't parenthood ever mentioned? The fear of victimizing people the way fat people are being victimized? Probably. Coincidence? Nope.

jhcho2

Once again, you stray from the main point and instead prefer to argue semantics. The example you gave are people who are at the borderline, ie. BMI = 30. I believe I explicitly said that we are not necessarily talking about people who are at borderline because there's too much room for debate on whether they actually fall under the category of overweight or obese. There are clearly so many obese people who have BMIs above 40, and just by one glance, you know they're obese. This entire thread was about such obese people, but somehow your method or debating is about taking a small point relatively out of context from and entire post, srutinize it in isolation, and then use it to discredit the entire post by arguing semantics.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] obese starts at 143 lbs @ 4'10" and goes up to 243 lbs for 6'4, if you think those are obese that is why i am deriding you. But who needs to argue what is when you can cry emotion and feelings.

surrealnumber5

Once again, you stray from the main point and instead prefer to argue semantics. The example you gave are people who are at the borderline, ie. BMI = 30. I believe I explicitly said that we are not necessarily talking about people who are at borderline because there's too much room for debate on whether they actually fall under the category of overweight or obese. There are clearly so many obese people who have BMIs above 40, and just by one glance, you know they're obese. This entire thread was about such obese people, but somehow your method or debating is about taking a small point relatively out of context from and entire post, srutinize it in isolation, and then use it to discredit the entire post by arguing semantics.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="jhcho2"]

Once again, you stray from the main point and instead prefer to argue semantics. The example you gave are people who are at the borderline, ie. BMI = 30. I believe I explicitly said that we are not necessarily talking about people who are at borderline because there's too much room for debate on whether they actually fall under the category of overweight or obese. There are clearly so many obese people who have BMIs above 40, and just by one glance, you know they're obese. This entire thread was about such obese people, but somehow your method or debating is about taking a small point relatively out of context from and entire post, srutinize it in isolation, and then use it to discredit the entire post by arguing semantics.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]so in order to use this flawed measure you toss out all data you dont want and then project it on the whole of the population even though you just admitted to removing all of the population that you did not wish to include, and then you tell the entire population they are fat.... great logic train theresurrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i dont use it at all, i would be wrong in doing so and intellectually dishonest to my training. surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

Watching you and Nicbroc arguing different points and butting heads is pretty fun to read, but alas I have questions.

BMI was originally designed for a standard for health and body composition that could be applied to a large population and be relatively easy to understand and apply. Studies still use it to this day to talk about body fat %. Is this not mostly correct?

Now, your measures of health, I agree that there are many things as important as bodyfat%, blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose, reactions to exercise, exercise/activity as a lifestyle, blood triglyceride levels (not sure if it's been confirmed this is bad necessarily, but it is a marker correlated with poor health at the moment), hormone levels, especially CRP, IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, adiponectine, leptin, and many, many more that I cant think off the top of my head. My question is, these are much better than the classic body fat% or BMI measurements, BUT the time and money for these measurements aren't very realistic. Doing this yourself would be costly, doctors don't want to spend time doing this, NHANES does a decent job getting snapshots of the population, but this is random sampling. HOW would it be possible to impliment a system that looks at these variables if we don't have money behind it? I am guessing BMI has stuck around so long because it has such a high correlation with these other problems, and is drastically cheaper than testing for all the different markers.

There are some MD's that have started asking about exercise level and activity, which is a good first step, but progress is slow.

To those saying overweight/obese people don't affect others, it does. Healthcare costs are HUGE for those with co-mobidities tied with obesity in America alone, falls in the older population takes up 50 something billion dollars a year, 1 million people every year join the ranks of survivors of miocardial infarction and jack up healthcare costs, those with chronic/congestive heart failure spend millions on drives. Coronary artery bypass graphing and the more controversial percutaneus transluminal coronary angioplasty are thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, all related to obesity. Once again this is off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm missing plenty of other problems, like hypertension, neuropathy, other diabetes complications, cholesterol, and billions of dollars in medication (that could be replaced with something like exercise and have similar results, but this is America, why should we exercise when we can pop a pill that works almost as well, and then we can eat a cheeseburger guilt free! [This can probably be applied to other western countries as well, though I am not as knowledgeable about other countries as I am America]).

surrealnumber5

BMI is a rough measurement of body fat %, which itself can be used as a measurement for risk of mortality, because of the several co-morbidities it carries with it. As I stated earlier, it is hard to apply these specific measurements to a large population, that is why the BMI was established if I am not mistaken. A person's health is their own concern, but it can also be their friends, family, or others who depend on them and their profession. Because we live in a society with communities, people care and worry about others. Originally it cost you money to purchase a device to measure your resting heart rate, as well as blood pressure, and any other home measurements someone might undergo. It costs money to do the same at a doctor's office.

Someone's poor health impacts others in the population, do you not understand this? I never said it was a political issue, why are we bringing this up? It's a community issue. If we don't care about others in the country, then why live in this or any organized country?

I'm not exactly arguing with you, I like your idea of not using BMI as a measure because I know it's not the most accurate on an individual basis, but right now it's one of the more feasible measurements. It is time consuming checking vitals on a person versus plugging in a couple numbers, and that is partially where the problem lies. I figured as someone who claims to have previously worked in the fitness industry you would appreciate this, but I guess not.

it's called cognitive dissonance.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

Watching you and Nicbroc arguing different points and butting heads is pretty fun to read, but alas I have questions.

BMI was originally designed for a standard for health and body composition that could be applied to a large population and be relatively easy to understand and apply. Studies still use it to this day to talk about body fat %. Is this not mostly correct?

Now, your measures of health, I agree that there are many things as important as bodyfat%, blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose, reactions to exercise, exercise/activity as a lifestyle, blood triglyceride levels (not sure if it's been confirmed this is bad necessarily, but it is a marker correlated with poor health at the moment), hormone levels, especially CRP, IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, adiponectine, leptin, and many, many more that I cant think off the top of my head. My question is, these are much better than the classic body fat% or BMI measurements, BUT the time and money for these measurements aren't very realistic. Doing this yourself would be costly, doctors don't want to spend time doing this, NHANES does a decent job getting snapshots of the population, but this is random sampling. HOW would it be possible to impliment a system that looks at these variables if we don't have money behind it? I am guessing BMI has stuck around so long because it has such a high correlation with these other problems, and is drastically cheaper than testing for all the different markers.

There are some MD's that have started asking about exercise level and activity, which is a good first step, but progress is slow.

To those saying overweight/obese people don't affect others, it does. Healthcare costs are HUGE for those with co-mobidities tied with obesity in America alone, falls in the older population takes up 50 something billion dollars a year, 1 million people every year join the ranks of survivors of miocardial infarction and jack up healthcare costs, those with chronic/congestive heart failure spend millions on drives. Coronary artery bypass graphing and the more controversial percutaneus transluminal coronary angioplasty are thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, all related to obesity. Once again this is off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm missing plenty of other problems, like hypertension, neuropathy, other diabetes complications, cholesterol, and billions of dollars in medication (that could be replaced with something like exercise and have similar results, but this is America, why should we exercise when we can pop a pill that works almost as well, and then we can eat a cheeseburger guilt free! [This can probably be applied to other western countries as well, though I am not as knowledgeable about other countries as I am America]).

Zlurodirom

BMI is a rough measurement of body fat %, which itself can be used as a measurement for risk of mortality, because of the several co-morbidities it carries with it. As I stated earlier, it is hard to apply these specific measurements to a large population, that is why the BMI was established if I am not mistaken. A person's health is their own concern, but it can also be their friends, family, or others who depend on them and their profession. Because we live in a society with communities, people care and worry about others. Originally it cost you money to purchase a device to measure your resting heart rate, as well as blood pressure, and any other home measurements someone might undergo. It costs money to do the same at a doctor's office.

Someone's poor health impacts others in the population, do you not understand this? I never said it was a political issue, why are we bringing this up? It's a community issue. If we don't care about others in the country, then why live in this or any organized country?

I'm not exactly arguing with you, I like your idea of not using BMI as a measure because I know it's not the most accurate on an individual basis, but right now it's one of the more feasible measurements. It is time consuming checking vitals on a person versus plugging in a couple numbers, and that is partially where the problem lies. I figured as someone who claims to have previously worked in the fitness industry you would appreciate this, but I guess not.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]people who hold up the BMI do so as a measure of health, and it is in no way that, all i want from people is consistency, if you want people to be healthier, dont use a measure that does not measure health to judge health. what is this about implementing systems, a persons health is their concern, only they can change their life style and choices. it takes me 30 seconds to take my resting heart rate, not money, it takes me about 60 seconds to take my blood pressure not money. it takes me about an hour to run about an hour, not money. people have been living for a really long time, longer than there has been "money" and 'we' made it this far without other people demanding and forcing other people to do as they order. health is not a political issues except to the extent that politicians have looted the people to the point where they must work long and harder and they take less home and healthy food have sky rocked in price because of inflation, so aside from all the ways politicians have made it harder for people to be healthy they have no place in the health discussion. humans have been around longer than politicians and they will be here long after politicians. have fun with you political faith, i am not in the mood to play along with it today. surrealnumber5

BMI is a rough measurement of body fat %, which itself can be used as a measurement for risk of mortality, because of the several co-morbidities it carries with it. As I stated earlier, it is hard to apply these specific measurements to a large population, that is why the BMI was established if I am not mistaken. A person's health is their own concern, but it can also be their friends, family, or others who depend on them and their profession. Because we live in a society with communities, people care and worry about others. Originally it cost you money to purchase a device to measure your resting heart rate, as well as blood pressure, and any other home measurements someone might undergo. It costs money to do the same at a doctor's office.

Someone's poor health impacts others in the population, do you not understand this? I never said it was a political issue, why are we bringing this up? It's a community issue. If we don't care about others in the country, then why live in this or any organized country?

I'm not exactly arguing with you, I like your idea of not using BMI as a measure because I know it's not the most accurate on an individual basis, but right now it's one of the more feasible measurements. It is time consuming checking vitals on a person versus plugging in a couple numbers, and that is partially where the problem lies. I figured as someone who claims to have previously worked in the fitness industry you would appreciate this, but I guess not.

For the general population, it is quite applicable. As I said when applied to the individualit loses some validity.

I'm surprised you hate on BMI, but support measuring body fat%, as the Siri equation used to calculate body fat % from the body density obtained through calipers (also bod pod, hydrostatic weighing, and other body density estimate methods) was derived from 5 cadavers, one of which was a female. This is a tiny sample size and cadavers are not live people. I agree it is more accurate than BMI, but it's not leaps and bounds better.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

BMI is a rough measurement of body fat %, which itself can be used as a measurement for risk of mortality, because of the several co-morbidities it carries with it. As I stated earlier, it is hard to apply these specific measurements to a large population, that is why the BMI was established if I am not mistaken. A person's health is their own concern, but it can also be their friends, family, or others who depend on them and their profession. Because we live in a society with communities, people care and worry about others. Originally it cost you money to purchase a device to measure your resting heart rate, as well as blood pressure, and any other home measurements someone might undergo. It costs money to do the same at a doctor's office.

Someone's poor health impacts others in the population, do you not understand this? I never said it was a political issue, why are we bringing this up? It's a community issue. If we don't care about others in the country, then why live in this or any organized country?

I'm not exactly arguing with you, I like your idea of not using BMI as a measure because I know it's not the most accurate on an individual basis, but right now it's one of the more feasible measurements. It is time consuming checking vitals on a person versus plugging in a couple numbers, and that is partially where the problem lies. I figured as someone who claims to have previously worked in the fitness industry you would appreciate this, but I guess not.

Zlurodirom

For the general population, it is quite applicable. As I said when applied to the individualit loses some validity.

I'm surprised you hate on BMI, but support measuring body fat%, as the Siri equation used to calculate body fat % from the body density obtained through calipers (also bod pod, hydrostatic weighing, and other body density estimate methods) was derived from 5 cadavers, one of which was a female. This is a tiny sample size and cadavers are not live people. I agree it is more accurate than BMI, but it's not leaps and bounds better.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] BMI tells you nothing about body fat, that is not one of its metrics, its two metrics are height and weight. if you want to use body fat, a measure i am not apposed to, it is simple, buy some calibers or some other device to measure it. surrealnumber5

For the general population, it is quite applicable. As I said when applied to the individualit loses some validity.

I'm surprised you hate on BMI, but support measuring body fat%, as the Siri equation used to calculate body fat % from the body density obtained through calipers (also bod pod, hydrostatic weighing, and other body density estimate methods) was derived from 5 cadavers, one of which was a female. This is a tiny sample size and cadavers are not live people. I agree it is more accurate than BMI, but it's not leaps and bounds better.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

For the general population, it is quite applicable. As I said when applied to the individualit loses some validity.

I'm surprised you hate on BMI, but support measuring body fat%, as the Siri equation used to calculate body fat % from the body density obtained through calipers (also bod pod, hydrostatic weighing, and other body density estimate methods) was derived from 5 cadavers, one of which was a female. This is a tiny sample size and cadavers are not live people. I agree it is more accurate than BMI, but it's not leaps and bounds better.

Nibroc420

People lie