no subject
7 Mar 2004 12:33 pmTom Cruise is obese and Jackie Chan is overweight, according to new standards.
The claim that excess weight kills 300,000 Americans each year is bizarre in its assumption that overweight people are officially immune to all other causes of death. As insane as it sounds, if Cruise were to kick the bucket for any reason, he would count toward the mythical 300,000 total.But wait, there's more!
Still, this flawed number finds its way into nearly every public discussion about obesity -- as does the spurious claim that obesity costs Americans more than $100 billion every year. That figure is derived from a single 1998 study published by the journal Obesity Research. This study had serious limitations. The authors acknowledged that their methods allowed for the "double-counting of costs" that "would inflate the cost estimate." They also admitted that "height and weight are not included in many of the primary data sources" that they relied upon.
Worse yet, these bean-counters used the wrong definition of obesity. Traditionally, a BMI of 30 or more makes you obese, but the authors decided to arbitrarily set their threshold at 29. A small error? Not at all. They wound up wrongly including the health costs of more than 10 million Americans.
no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2004 12:49 pm (UTC)This means that any smoker cannot die from any other cause besides smoking, and any overweight person cannot die from any other cause besdies obesity.
Which means that overweight smokers are immortal!
no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2004 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2004 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2004 12:56 pm (UTC)The BMI is great if you think the number on the scale is the only thing that matters (the few people with eating disorders I've known were obsessed with their BMI). But if your concern is overall health and fitness, it's not that meaningful.
BMI
Date: 7 Mar 2004 01:07 pm (UTC)Body fat analysis is really just about the only way to go. 18-24% is about right for a woman and that is a HUGE range.
no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2004 02:30 pm (UTC)As to the statistical asshattery... why am I suddenly reminded of doctors who used to appear in ads for cigarettes back in the 40s and 50s?
no subject
Date: 7 Mar 2004 03:52 pm (UTC)He's heavier than he was in his high school health class, when they measured body fat using the calipers, but he's not overweight. His metabolism is so high, we have trouble keeping the weight on. And he's got muscle in there, too. According to current calculators, he was at the low end of normal back then--he weighed 124. His pelvic bones used to give me BRUISES because he was so bony. He had stretch marks because he was so skinny and his skin had to stretch over his bones. I've had to feed him for years just to make him not blow away in the wind or break.
Those charts say that my body fat is higher, which we knew. It's all concentrated in two ginormous globules of mammary and doom. And my belly. I'd like to lose a bit of the belly roll, but then my boobs would fall to my knees.
no subject
Date: 8 Mar 2004 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 18 Apr 2004 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 18 Apr 2004 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 18 Apr 2004 10:14 pm (UTC)I was just (http://www.livejournal.com/users/fatmuttony/42591.html) about to re-order my life based on my BMI, before