[Closed] This Obesity Thing

BMI is just a guide though

Doesn't universally work

I thought we'd established ages ago (and maybe even agreed upon on singletrack world if such a thing is believable) that BMI is a broken measurement system as it doesn't take muscle mass into account?

bmi is boolax isn't it? Shirley.

Using 25% body fat as a definition of obesity, I'd be obese at 11 stone 11 assuming I didn't also gain any muscle mass. That's less than a stone over what I weigh now, and I'm a skinny bugger.

That's only 23.4 BMI, so I'd be obese by fat% while being fine using BMI.

Bottom of page 8....

BMI has some "interesting" calculations in it to make it work that may be a bit suss...plus it was developed for measuring populations rather than individuals, and in the ninties the bands were shifted. As Mike has pointed out suddenly normal weight folk were slightly overweight. Who might have benefitted from that sort of change do we think....

bmi is boolax isn't it? Shirley

Its a guide.

If you were above 30 then its a "guide" that you might need to look at your weight.

Chris Hoy's BMI was around 30 but he's not typical of the general population.

So you maintain that of they ate less and moved more so they had a calorie imbalance it would not work?
No. It might work - it could well work, depending on the person,

but that's not a problem with the fndamental concept, it's a problem with the execution

Molly I agree wiht your broad point that it may be easier for some than others but the ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less than you use unless you wish to break the laws of the universe

Of course, BMI is not a perfect measurement, but always laugh at the speed with which it is rejected out-of-hand. How many couch potatoes come out with the lines about pro rugby players or cyclists. Hmm, take people at the extremes of sporting body shapes and extrapolate.....

For the most part, BMI is a pretty good indicator and IMO is rejected largely because of the uncomfortable but true reflection it gives most of us.

Ditto diet and weight. Yes it is correct to highlight external factors (and many are listed above) but they are all at the margin. The key factor above all other remains individual choices. It really is that simple. What goes in and how much (quality and quantity) v what goes out has worked thru history but sadly doesn't sell the latest best selling fad book.

Recently been clearing out family photos. The size, or lack of size, of most people in the 1950s-70s is startling. It's like comparing an old whickers world shot of people on the beach with current ones.

Molly you are a physicist

I am too. Physicists might need to consult biologists when it comes to digestion, because we're not spheres in a vacuum.

If you eat 1000 calories of refined sugar, pretty much all of them are available to your body.

If you eat 1000 calories of almonds, you don't digest them until very near the end of your gut, once some bacteria get in on the act. These bacteria will presumably also use some of the energy.

If you eat 1000 calories of coal, it'll probably pass right through you.

Shit floats because fat passes through you; it's partly why there's a problem with fatbergs in sewers.

Can the ELMM 'it's simple' advocates please answer the point of why they think this kind of simplification is any more helpful than telling alcoholics just to not drink, telling depressed people to cheer up, telling smokers to stop smoking, telling unemployed people to get a job, etc?

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

Good post by molly a couple of pages back.

Also good post by lmp on the ELMM.

Sadly, the belief most people have is that you "do" a diet for a bit, then you're fixed and can go back to "normal".

Hence why 99% of January gym joiners have failed before they start.

If they really wanted to change their health prospects, they wouldn't be pissing about waiting until Jan 1st to do it.

Dieting and deprivation doesn't work. A balanced and healthy lifestyle is what is required to be a healthy weight and in a healthy condition. Life in the first world means that frequently, it is harder to maintain a balanced lifestyle either for optimum physical or mental health.

IIRC, 'simple' low fat calorie-deficit diets result in a loss of lean mass as well as fat, so aren't particularly great.

BMI measures how thick or thin you are. End. As a measure of health outcomes for individuals it's pretty pointless

Life in the first world means that frequently, it is harder to maintain a balanced lifestyle either for optimum physical or mental health.

It isn't though, just another excuse. If you really want to be healthy you'll make the effort or sacrifice other things. I'm just repeating myself now so I can't even be bothered with this thread any more 😆

I am now nibbling on a chorizo.... 8)

Eat Less, Move More is overly simplified but as a rule if you burn more calories than you take in you will lose FAT, but you need to make it sustainable it needs to be a lifestyle change rather than a fad.

You also have to realise it will be hard work.

Physicists might need to consult biologists when it comes to digestion, because we're not spheres in a vacuum.

why they think this kind of simplification is any more helpful than telling alcoholics just to not drink, telling depressed people to cheer up, telling smokers to stop smoking, telling unemployed people to get a job, etc?

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

Why dont you explain why its wrong?
What do you want to hear - no you can eat however you like and live as you please and still lose weight. its a myth that you need to eat less than you use to lose weight so have another pie
Is that somehow kinder and wiser?
Some bright folk on here denying the obvious

Yes as molly and mike above note other factors impact on this but there is no other way to lose weight than to use more calories than you consume. No amount of emotional appeals and gentle ad homs from Grum will change this basic fact.
It may be harsh, it may be simplistic but it is also true

Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, lead author and associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine, said:

"We typically consider obesity an epidemic grounded in unhealthy diet and exercise, yet increasingly studies suggest it's more complicated. Microbes in our intestines may play critical roles in how we absorb calories, and exposure to antibiotics, especially early in life, may kill off healthy bacteria that influence how we absorb nutrients into our bodies, and would otherwise keep us lean."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249289.php

But still, what's the point in all this stupid research - it's just taking away personal responsibility. 🙄

Obviously it's completely impossible to have a nuanced view where people should take personal responsibility AND we look at other underlying factors. That seems to be too much for some people's tabloid newspaper view of the world.

Why dont you explain why its wrong?

Straw man yet again. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying its crude and unhelpful. You haven't answered the question BTW. And where are the ad homs?

Chris Hoy's BMI was around 30 but he's not typical of the general population.

Hang on. You're saying that we are not all built like an outlier like Sir Chris, and that BMI may actually be a good rule of thumb for 90% of the population?

Madness.

I am now nibbling on a chorizo....

*insert [s]chorizo[/s] joke here*

littlemisspanda - Member
Life in the first world means that frequently, it is harder to maintain a balanced lifestyle either for optimum physical or mental health.

Having spent most if my professional life in the second/third worlds, I would respectfully dispute that notion. In relative terms (and as folk like gee etc have noted above in absolute terms) we have pretty much everything that we need (and don't need) and in varieties that are mind boggling. We then have to make the right choices but rarely do.

On the simple stuff Grum, there was that quit smoking book in the 1990s that was the big bit. My colleagues used it successfully. The first step was to decide that you were a non-smoker. From that point, everything else followed.

Grum you have shown how things can affect this[ I am not denying this] and how it may be more difficult for some than other BUT you have not shown that you can lose weight by getting more calories [ energy] than you use and no research ever will.

I wonder how many people my height are over 12.5 stone; I'd guess most men?

I suspect that you are correct, or at least certainly for men middle age and above. That's why the 60% of the uk are overweight or obese is a little misleading as the terms overweight and obese are a long way apart and fat is a subjective term as far as I can see

But even though BMI isn't accurate and I ride a lot, whenever my weight pushes me into the overweight category it's a flag to me that it's time to look at what I'm eating/drinking before it's too late as it's way harder to lose it than avoid putting it on in the first place

Grum you have shown how things can affect this[ I am not denying this] and how it may be more difficult for some than other BUT you have not shown that you can lose weight by getting more calories [ energy] than you use and no research ever will.

Lucky I've never claimed this then. Why keep saying it as if I have? 😕

I'm saying its crude and unhelpful.

I remember why i dont bother with these threads

Again, why is it any more useful than saying depressed people need to cheer up?

That's also true, is it not?

They need to stop thinking sad thoughts, and think happy ones instead - simple eh?

I remember why i dont bother with these threads

Ooh was that a flounce? 🙂

good point by miketually about us not being little isolated systems of energy exchange.

not forgetting; a massive amount of energy is expended by your body keeping it at a lovely warm 37 degrees C.

If its 35 degrees outside, its not difficult to see that isn't going to take much energy to achieve, when compared to freezing or subzero midwinter conditions.

Indeed but again the rule os the amount of calories you get has to be less than you use to loose weight - I accept other factors can affect this but the rule remains as it is a fundamental rule of nature regarding energy - unless you wish to claim we can somehow destroy energy by eating too many calories

If a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, why are we advised to get certain percentages from different macronutrients? Surely eating 2500 calories of refined sugar a day is the same as eating 2500 calories of butter every day? Or 2500 calories of petrol. Or wood.

I ate at least 30% more calories in December than usual, while doing less exercise than usual. I didn't gain weight.

Can the ELMM 'it's simple' advocates please answer the point of why they think this kind of simplification is any more helpful than telling alcoholics just to not drink, telling depressed people to cheer up, telling smokers to stop smoking, telling unemployed people to get a job, etc?

I don't think it's particularly helpful, any more than telling an acoholic or a smoker to stop drinking or smoking, but (within the scope of Miketually's interesting observation on the digestable qualities of calories consumed in different forms), I don't understand how it can be argued that it's inaccurate. If you consume 2000 calories of sugar every day, and burn only 1500, all other things being equal you'll put weight on, surely? At the opposite end, if you consume 1500 calories of sugar and bang out 2000 calories through your active lifestyle, you'll lose weight, no?

Everything else is detail - that's not to say that detail isn't important, but it is just detail. I'm sorry if it seems unhelpful or stating it won't help people lose weight in a/some/most cases, but I'm not selling it as a dietry plan.

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

leffeboy - Member
But even though BMI isn't accurate and I ride a lot, whenever my weight pushes me into the overweight category it's a flag to me that it's time to look at what I'm eating/drinking before it's too late

+1

Everything else is detail - that's not to say that detail isn't important, but it is just detail.

Feedback loops.

If you're running at a calorie deficit, your body will do everything it can to hang on to those calories.

Or do you actually crudely over-simplify every issue in life?

yes bring it down to the simplest form i.e. 'this needs to change, it will not happen unless i do X'
so eat less (better) do more. anything else is a small part of the main issue. i could have one sugar instead of 2 but if i'm eating a cheese stuffed crust pizza every night i have ignored the biggest factor that will instigate change.

it's interesting that most of the anecdotal 15-20 stone people in this thread who have lost or are losing weight seem to realise how they got there and exactly how to get where they feel they need to be weight wise.
you can gloss over it with theory and science but it's hard to ignore the fact that for many people if they have the desire to lose it they can. but i'm just basing that on people i know who lost weight through eating less/exercising more and the real life examples in this thread. i haven't done a peer reviewed medical study of at least 1000 people over 5 years or anything like that though.
and i am not a qualified health professional

[b]Feed[/b]back, being the operative word!! 😉

So you do tell depressed people to cheer up MrSmith - not a massive surprise.

you can gloss over it with theory and science

You can prove anything with facts.

If you're running at a calorie deficit, your body will do everything it can to hang on to those calories.

...but eventually it will have to give in to the inevitable and let go of them, right?

it's interesting that most of the anecdotal 15-20 stone people in this thread who have lost or are losing weight seem to realise how they got there and exactly how to get where they feel they need to be weight wise.

What about all the 15-20 stone people who have tried to lose weight through eating less and moving more, but failed? Obviously, if you only count the ones for whom it's worked, it works. Once you include those that it's not worked for, it ceases to work.

I'm not even arguing that eat less move more is a bad principle - what I'm arguing is that it's bad when shouted repeatedly by people who don't find it difficult to manage their weight and judgementally assume anyone that does is pathetic.

Personally I've found it far easier to lose weight by eating a low GI diet and not calorie counting. The amount of exercise I do seems to have little to do with it. But obviously I'm overcomplicating it. 🙄

...but eventually it will have to give in to the inevitable and let go of them, right?

From where will it let go? What happens when they eat again?

what I'm arguing is that it's bad when shouted repeatedly by people who don't find it difficult to manage their weight and judgementally assume anyone that does is pathetic.

First, I would check the details of their regime, mike? How many times do you see folk coming out of a gym with a latte in their hands or drinking unnecessary sports (sugar) drinks????

FFS it's not bloody rocket science.

CV Exercise - gently at first, ramping up.
Do resistance exercise - more muscle mass, the higher your metabolism.
Eat Low-GI carbs, when eating carbs.
Eat Healthy Fats.
Take measurements, waist, hips, thighs, chest etc.
Ignore the bloody scales apart from a monthly weigh in.
Write everything down. Exercise, what you eat, drink, everything.

I'm not even arguing that eat less move more is a bad principle - what I'm arguing is that it's bad when shouted repeatedly by people who don't find it difficult to manage their weight and judgementally assume anyone that does is pathetic.

^this^

Also, remember we were initially talking about effective public policy. Shouting "put down the burger and go for a run, fatty" doesn't really work as a way of effecting change at a population level. Enabling people to be active as part of their everyday lives does.

as a former 23 stone person, you do not need to eat less and move more.
you just need to eat right, and do a bit of exercise.

What about all the 15-20 stone people who have tried to lose weight through eating less and moving more, but failed? Obviously, if you only count the ones for whom it's worked, it works. Once you include those that it's not worked for, it ceases to work.

it ceases to work for [i][b]some[/b][/i]
i would guess they stay fat?

What about all the 15-20 stone people who have tried to lose weight through eating less and moving more, but failed? Obviously, if you only count the ones for whom it's worked, it works. Once you include those that it's not worked for, it ceases to work.