Damned if you do, damned if you don't - Page 2 - Snowboarding Forum

Phenom · 01-11-2011, 06:23 PM

The guy who wrote the second article, Justin Stoneman, sounds like a condesceding prick. Yeah, obesity is rampant in America (I can't speak on behalf of Europe because I'll be damned if I ever go there), but I don't care what a scrawny European thinks about our eating habits.

Not to mention, the system for determining underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese is seriously such a crappy system. In reality it's not as bad as the numbers might suggest.

Powder Keg · 01-11-2011, 06:23 PM

Yea, thats pretty much how it goes. Personally, I'd take a job I love any day as long as i kept me financially sustained. But if it came down to the money i'd get a better paying/second job.

Biggs · 01-12-2011, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawlo

I don't want 100 hour a week or to be rich. I want time to spend with my kids and on my board. Work to live, not the other way around.
Having time to travel, read, learn, share and be just yourself makes for a more rounded more intelligent and more savy person.

I couldn't agree more -- a company could not pay me enough to only see my family 5-10 hours a week due to my hours at work.

Biggs · 01-12-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phenom

Not to mention, the system for determining underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese is seriously such a crappy system. In reality it's not as bad as the numbers might suggest.

This is a good point and it's the reason I've had a problem with the rampant obesity talk in our country -- I'm not denying that our country is fatter than most, I just simply have a problem with how that is determined.

In most doctor's offices, gyms, physical therapy rooms, etc. you'll find this chart:

Looking at that chart, I'm listed as overweight. Because I do weight training (muscle weighs more than fat) and run (which burns fat when you're adding muscle), I'm listed in the overweight category, halfway to obese. Doctors are not doing an in depth BMI check on all these fat Americans -- so while I dont doubt for a moment (just check out your local WalMart) that the majority of our society is fat, it needs to stop being simplified because any athletic person with a bit of muscle mass is also lumped into that 'fat' category when determining these statistics.

Phenom · 01-12-2011, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggs

This is a good point and it's the reason I've had a problem with the rampant obesity talk in our country -- I'm not denying that our country is fatter than most, I just simply have a problem with how that is determined.

In most doctor's offices, gyms, physical therapy rooms, etc. you'll find this chart:

Looking at that chart, I'm listed as overweight. Because I do weight training (muscle weighs more than fat) and run (which burns fat when you're adding muscle), I'm listed in the overweight category, halfway to obese. Doctors are not doing an in depth BMI check on all these fat Americans -- so while I dont doubt for a moment (just check out your local WalMart) that the majority of our society is fat, it needs to stop being simplified because any athletic person with a bit of muscle mass is also lumped into that 'fat' category when determining these statistics.

This pretty much sums it up. I guess that chart is intended to make people into scrawny/weak people, because according to the BMI chart I would be considered to be at a healthy weight if I was around 145 pounds. I haven't been 145 pounds since probably 10 years ago when I was 13 years old. I'm actually just under obese

. I like to think I'm in pretty good shape. I guess not.

My judgement: 0
Horribly simplified and presumptuous chart: 1

You would think how fat people are would be determined by how much fat they have on their body

nzboardlife · 01-12-2011, 05:12 PM

Im sure the amount of people overweight because of muscle barely skews the data on overweight people at all. Do you know if there samples disregard people with large muscle mass or not?
Also wouldn't you roughly be able to assume every developed country has the same amount of 'over weight because of muscle' people per capita therfor making the statistics of these countries relative and therfor america is a 'fat' nation.

cifex · 01-12-2011, 05:13 PM

5'10 and 130 pounds is healthy!?!?! 140lbs at that height is emaciated.

Phenom · 01-12-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nzboardlife

Im sure the amount of people overweight because of muscle barely skews the data on overweight people at all. Also there samples probably disregard people with large muscle mass.

Ohh ok that makes more sense. The people trying to collect health and fitness data on behalf of the entire country turn away the people that look like they might be in decent shape, but if you look like you've never seen the inside of a gym then you're just what they're looking for. Shouldn't skew the numbers at all.

Phenom · 01-12-2011, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cifex

5'10 and 130 pounds is healthy!?!?! 140lbs at that height is emaciated.

I'm 6'1, so I'm allowed to be 145 and tell people I'm healthy. lawl.

Biggs · 01-12-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nzboardlife

Im sure the amount of people overweight because of muscle barely skews the data on overweight people at all. Do you know if there samples disregard people with large muscle mass or not?
Also wouldn't you roughly be able to assume every developed country has the same amount of 'over weight because of muscle' people per capita therfor making the statistics of these countries relative and therfor america is a 'fat' nation.

If I'm not mistaken, these statistics are taken from patient height and weight measurements collected from hospitals/offices. Never once have I had a real BMI index taken. Calipers would get a 'sort of' reading, whereas a water displacement screening would be the best measure. I've never had either offered to me at any doctor visit and I don't know of anyone who has. This seems to leave a hospital/office's submitting of height and weight readings which would give you the outcome I stated -- I'm halfway through 'overweight' on my way to 'obese', yet in reality have a small body fat percentage.

Like I said, I'm not debating that our country is fat, I just don't think it's as bad as it's made out to be -- the standardized chart that is used is faulty.

01-11-2011, 06:23 PM	#11 (permalink)
Phenom Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New York Posts: 649	The guy who wrote the second article, Justin Stoneman, sounds like a condesceding prick. Yeah, obesity is rampant in America (I can't speak on behalf of Europe because I'll be damned if I ever go there), but I don't care what a scrawny European thinks about our eating habits. Not to mention, the system for determining underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese is seriously such a crappy system. In reality it's not as bad as the numbers might suggest. __________________ East Coast Park Rat 2008 Burton Twin 157 w/ Rome 390 Boss 2005 Burton Canyon 168 w/ Ride LS "its ppl like you, that I would "impact damage" your face if i ever saw you keep your mouth shut. one more time, please and thank you." -user: chingy_

01-12-2011, 05:13 PM	#17 (permalink)
cifex -LIFETIME MEMBER- Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New York Posts: 2,933	5'10 and 130 pounds is healthy!?!?! 140lbs at that height is emaciated. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-11-2011, 06:23 PM	#12 (permalink)
Powder Keg Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: The Praries Posts: 188	Yea, thats pretty much how it goes. Personally, I'd take a job I love any day as long as i kept me financially sustained. But if it came down to the money i'd get a better paying/second job.

01-12-2011, 05:12 PM	#16 (permalink)
nzboardlife -LIFETIME MEMBER- Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,076	Im sure the amount of people overweight because of muscle barely skews the data on overweight people at all. Do you know if there samples disregard people with large muscle mass or not? Also wouldn't you roughly be able to assume every developed country has the same amount of 'over weight because of muscle' people per capita therfor making the statistics of these countries relative and therfor america is a 'fat' nation.