Damned if you do, damned if you don't - Page 3 - Snowboarding Forum

nzboardlife · 01-12-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phenom

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.

Never said i knew what i was talking about, just spewing theories, doesn't sound like your too clued up either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggs

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.

I agree shitty chart but the article in question is relative to the rest of the world. The chart was created in then 1800's when i believe people where generally smaller in size and if you use the chart relative to the size of everyone on earth i think you'll find it is still some what relavent with a large percentage of the world made up from the asian and middle eastern areas were people are generally smaller in build. Americans are a large race (in terms of general build not just fat) but so are many of the other countries in the top ten fattest so relative to their counter parts their still as fat as their made out to be.

Phenom · 01-12-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nzboardlife

doesn't sound like your too clued up either.

What makes you say that?

nzboardlife · 01-12-2011, 09:04 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phenom

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.

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

Because this doesn't convey confidence or add anything new and if you were clued up i'd have expected you to drop some knowledge in at least one of your 4 or 5 last posts. Also the dunno symbol

leads me to believe you don't know

**HoboMaster** · 01-12-2011, 09:14 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.

Yea, but very few people are on that level where their weight is mostly muscle mass. If you compare the number of overweight and obese people from 1970, and 2010, it's a huge difference. Our culture supports it, everything is about convenience, and doing shit fast because you have no time to do any normal things like cook or exercise.

Shit, I noticed a huge difference in the last 10 years. I use to be like 1 of 5 fat kids in my whole elementary school, and now I'm skinny and the tables have turned, making me a minority again amongst a bunch of chubby young adults. Wtf

It's not healthy and it's a waste of a life to be seriously overweight. We shouldn't just act like it's no big deal, because it is. You go to the midwest and nearly everyone is at least overweight, (got a sizable gut).

cifex · 01-12-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoboMaster

Shit, I noticed a huge difference in the last 10 years. I use to be like 1 of 5 fat kids in my whole elementary school, and now I'm skinny and the tables have turned, making me a minority again amongst a bunch of chubby young adults. Wtf

There were about 5 fat kids in your elementary school because children have an extremely high metabolic rate. Parents have to be feeding the kid some really disgusting crap to get an obese child. Bad example.

**HoboMaster** · 01-12-2011, 10:49 PM

Really? Go into an elementary school and see how many fat kids there are now. Fat kids are more often then not also a simple reflection of their parent's convienance lifestyles.

"The prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 6.5% in 1980 to 19.6% in 2008. The prevalence of obesity among adolescents aged 12 to 19 years increased from 5.0% to 18.1%.1,2"

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/

That's just obesity, which is an extreme of the equation.

"among American children ages 2–19, the following are overweight or obese, using the 95th percentile or higher of body mass index (BMI) values on the CDC growth chart:

For non-Hispanic whites, 31.9 percent of males and 29.5 percent of females.
For non-Hispanic blacks, 30.8 percent of males and 39.2 percent of females.
For Mexican Americans, 40.8 percent of males and 35.0 percent of females."

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Gettin...54_Article.jsp

That's basically 1 out of 3 children. 33.3%

Snowfox · 01-13-2011, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoboMaster

Really? Go into an elementary school and see how many fat kids there are now. Fat kids are more often then not also a simple reflection of their parent's convienance lifestyles.

"The prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 6.5% in 1980 to 19.6% in 2008. The prevalence of obesity among adolescents aged 12 to 19 years increased from 5.0% to 18.1%.1,2"

Childhood Obesity - DASH/HealthyYouth

That's just obesity, which is an extreme of the equation.

"among American children ages 2–19, the following are overweight or obese, using the 95th percentile or higher of body mass index (BMI) values on the CDC growth chart:

For non-Hispanic whites, 31.9 percent of males and 29.5 percent of females.
For non-Hispanic blacks, 30.8 percent of males and 39.2 percent of females.
For Mexican Americans, 40.8 percent of males and 35.0 percent of females."

Overweight in Children

That's basically 1 out of 3 children. 33.3%

Good news for the chubby chasers!

razzle · 01-13-2011, 05:00 AM

I can answer this one. America is simply at the fat, rich stage of its development as a society.

Hear me out. I'm only half serious but I think there is truth in this argument. The story goes like this:

You find a new continent that is not being used to its full potential so you colonise it and create a completely new society from scratch. People come to your "Land of Plenty" and for a couple of hundred years they work hard because they are motivated by building their new nation. Some find ways to tap unexploited riches in the land and they become an example to the rest who work hard for the "Dream." Huge wealth is created during this growth phase but it is not widely distributed.

Eventually people realise that the dream is pretty much exhausted so they look for other ways to catch up. They form trade unions and win more equitable conditions for the working class thereby creating a massive middle class and establishing a consumer age in the economy. Wealth is still created but it is widely distributed and increasing standards of living fund consumption. Wages rise so prices rise in a vicious cycle so consumer goods begin coming in from less developed countries that have cost advantages.

When you operate in a high cost environment, there are few ways to compete with low cost environments. You either work harder (for the same money) or you develop technological advantages that boost your efficiency. Neither of these work forever.

Your workers still feel rich but their standard of living gradually declines as they lose jobs or work harder and harder to keep up. They sacrifice leisure time, health and family to produce the efficiencies that they need to to enable them to continue to consume at their previous rate.

This is about where the US is at the moment. People are tired, fat, unhealthy and confused relative to 50 years ago.

I have no idea where the story goes from here but plenty of empires have risen and fallen throughout history. The difference is that it hasn't happened on a global scale, at least not in recorded history.

When it comes down to it, people only need food and shelter. All the rest is artificial. Most of our careers and industries and economic endeavour are simply providing luxuries that didn't exist a few generations ago. I can't see it all disappearing but I can't see it going on forever either.

Sorry for the long post.

cifex · 01-13-2011, 07:04 AM

Those stats are pretty horrifying.

Flick Montana · 01-13-2011, 08:41 AM

lol, I'm 6'3 190 lbs. They say that is the healthy range, but they haven't seen the way I jiggle when I brush my teeth. Oh well, marathon training starts in 2 weeks. Here's hoping I don't have a heart attack.

01-12-2011, 10:49 PM	#26 (permalink)
HoboMaster Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Sandpoint / Moscow, ID Posts: 2,301	Really? Go into an elementary school and see how many fat kids there are now. Fat kids are more often then not also a simple reflection of their parent's convienance lifestyles. "The prevalence of obesity among children aged 6 to 11 years increased from 6.5% in 1980 to 19.6% in 2008. The prevalence of obesity among adolescents aged 12 to 19 years increased from 5.0% to 18.1%.1,2" http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/ That's just obesity, which is an extreme of the equation. "among American children ages 2–19, the following are overweight or obese, using the 95th percentile or higher of body mass index (BMI) values on the CDC growth chart: For non-Hispanic whites, 31.9 percent of males and 29.5 percent of females. For non-Hispanic blacks, 30.8 percent of males and 39.2 percent of females. For Mexican Americans, 40.8 percent of males and 35.0 percent of females." http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Gettin...54_Article.jsp That's basically 1 out of 3 children. 33.3% __________________ PowderHound and TreeNinja Last edited by HoboMaster; 01-12-2011 at 11:00 PM.

01-13-2011, 07:04 AM	#29 (permalink)
cifex -LIFETIME MEMBER- Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New York Posts: 2,933	Those stats are pretty horrifying. __________________

01-13-2011, 08:41 AM	#30 (permalink)
Flick Montana Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Beech Grove, Indiana sigh Posts: 4,168	lol, I'm 6'3 190 lbs. They say that is the healthy range, but they haven't seen the way I jiggle when I brush my teeth. Oh well, marathon training starts in 2 weeks. Here's hoping I don't have a heart attack. __________________ Zombie Nation Gear: Rome Design 165 / Rome Arsenals Rome Anthem 158

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

01-13-2011, 05:00 AM	#28 (permalink)
razzle Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 22	I can answer this one. America is simply at the fat, rich stage of its development as a society. Hear me out. I'm only half serious but I think there is truth in this argument. The story goes like this: You find a new continent that is not being used to its full potential so you colonise it and create a completely new society from scratch. People come to your "Land of Plenty" and for a couple of hundred years they work hard because they are motivated by building their new nation. Some find ways to tap unexploited riches in the land and they become an example to the rest who work hard for the "Dream." Huge wealth is created during this growth phase but it is not widely distributed. Eventually people realise that the dream is pretty much exhausted so they look for other ways to catch up. They form trade unions and win more equitable conditions for the working class thereby creating a massive middle class and establishing a consumer age in the economy. Wealth is still created but it is widely distributed and increasing standards of living fund consumption. Wages rise so prices rise in a vicious cycle so consumer goods begin coming in from less developed countries that have cost advantages. When you operate in a high cost environment, there are few ways to compete with low cost environments. You either work harder (for the same money) or you develop technological advantages that boost your efficiency. Neither of these work forever. Your workers still feel rich but their standard of living gradually declines as they lose jobs or work harder and harder to keep up. They sacrifice leisure time, health and family to produce the efficiencies that they need to to enable them to continue to consume at their previous rate. This is about where the US is at the moment. People are tired, fat, unhealthy and confused relative to 50 years ago. I have no idea where the story goes from here but plenty of empires have risen and fallen throughout history. The difference is that it hasn't happened on a global scale, at least not in recorded history. When it comes down to it, people only need food and shelter. All the rest is artificial. Most of our careers and industries and economic endeavour are simply providing luxuries that didn't exist a few generations ago. I can't see it all disappearing but I can't see it going on forever either. Sorry for the long post.