Keroin
aKwatic
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Posts
- 8,154
This is why I'm irritated at the statistic. The whole idea was based off of actuarial tables used in health insurance from decades ago. It has nothing to do with health and everything to do with risk. SKinny people aren't necessarily more healthy, but they are less risky overall. And that risk is not just from weight-related health issues. It's also from activity-related issues. Some skinny-fat latte-sipping cafe-potato may have horrible muscle tone, be weak, and no ability to run, but he's also not likely to get crushed by a load of gravel on the work site.
What pisses me off about it is the usage of "obese" itself. Let's take one of my favourite examples, Pyrros Dimas. Dimas is the greatest olympic lifter of modern times and a fantastically healthy guy. At the last olympics he competed in, he was 5'8" and 187lbs of pure olympian bad-ass. That is a BMI of 28.4 and that is "overweight". At his height, 197lbs would be "obese".
This guy is 10lbs from "obese"? Gimme a fuckin break.
I would rather see "obese" changed to "at risk", which is more accurate a reflection of the original idea behind BMI. Even then, it's insulting , because it does not even remotely take into account build, muscle, or bodyfat percentage.
You, at 20.8, are brilliantly healthy and active. Most people at that BMI aren't. They are just fast metabolism types who don't work to maintain weight and are no more active than the typical first-worlder. You actually squirrel those actuarial tables because your level of activity leads to greater risk of injury that makes up for general healthy resistance to the malaises that plague fatties like Pyrros Dimas.
Here's a good bit from Wiki about BMI, (note the bold)...
While the formula for BMI dates to the 19th century, the term "body mass index" for the ratio and its popularity date to a 1972 paper by Ancel Keys, which found the BMI to be the best proxy for body fat percentage among ratios of weight and height;[3][4] the interest in measuring body fat being due to obesity becoming a discernible issue in prosperous Western societies. BMI was explicitly cited by Keys as being appropriate for population studies, and inappropriate for individual diagnosis. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it came to be widely used for individual diagnosis, despite its inappropriateness.
BMI provided a simple numeric measure of a person's "fatness" or "thinness", allowing health professionals to discuss over- and under-weight problems more objectively with their patients. However, BMI has become controversial because many people, including physicians, have come to rely on its apparent numerical authority for medical diagnosis, but that was never the BMI's purpose; it is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals with an average body composition.
You are correct, it isn't the best means to determine individual health.




