PDA

View Full Version : Re: "Fat and fit" athletes according to a fat acceptor


Jim
July 29th 04, 02:47 AM
I got this pop up add from weigh****chers. They wanted me to put my height
and weight to figure out my BMI or whatever its called. I'm 6 ft tall and
185 pounds. I'm at the high end of being tooo fat. LOL...I gotta get some
pics online.

Jim

bc
July 29th 04, 05:46 AM
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:47:18 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:

>I got this pop up add from weigh****chers. They wanted me to put my height
>and weight to figure out my BMI or whatever its called. I'm 6 ft tall and
>185 pounds. I'm at the high end of being tooo fat. LOL...I gotta get some
>pics online.
>
>Jim
>

puffball.
- bc

Will Brink
July 29th 04, 03:02 PM
In article >,
(NR) wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "davenpork" > put down her box of doughnuts to oink in
> message om...
> >
> > The following is a list of professional athletes who, are fat [i.e.
> > classified as overweight or obese]:
> >
> > BMI Classifications
> > Underweight BMI less than 18.5
> > Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
> > Obese BMI of 30.0 or more
>
> http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/calculatebodyfat.html
>
> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>
> Athletes such as bodybuilders, football players, throwing athletes and
> anyone on a weight training program should avoid using BMI as a way to
> calculate body fat. "
>
> Dumbass

BMI does not apply well to athletic people, in particular strength
athletes, as a measure of BF% or health, that's for sure.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Jeff Finlayson
July 29th 04, 04:06 PM
NR wrote:
> davenpork wrote:
>
>>The following is a list of professional athletes who, are fat [i.e.
>>classified as overweight or obese]:
>>
>>BMI Classifications
>>Underweight BMI less than 18.5
>>Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
>>Obese BMI of 30.0 or more
>
> http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/calculatebodyfat.html
>
> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>
> Athletes such as bodybuilders, football players, throwing athletes and
> anyone on a weight training program should avoid using BMI as a way to
> calculate body fat. "
>
> Dumbass
>
>>Lakers 2003-04 roster
>>Only 3 of the LA Lakers qualify as "normal" weight!
>>Jannero Pargo* 6-2 175 22.5
>>Kareem Rush 6-6 215 24.8
>>Brian Shaw 6-6 205 23.7
>>Kobe Bryant 6 6 220 BMI 25.4 overweight
>>Derick Fisher 6 1 210 BMI 27 overweight
>>Rick Fox 6-7 235 BMI 26.5 overweight
>>Devean George 6-8 240 BMI 26.4 overweight
>>Robert Horry 6-10 240 BMI 25.1 overweight
>>Mark Madsen 6-9 245 BMI 26.3 overweight
>>Stanislav Medvedenko 6-10 250 BMI 26.1 overweight
>>Tracy Murray 6-7 230 BMI 25.9 overweight
>>Samaki Walker 6-9 255 BMI 27.3 overweight
>>Shaquille O'Neal 7-1 338 BMI 32.9 Obese
>>
>>Other Basketball players qualified as overweight:
>>Jason Kidd BMI 25.8 overweight
>>Yao Ming Height: 7-5 296 BMI 26.3 Overweight
>>
>>Some examples from the SF 49's Football team:
>>Jeff Chandler 6 2 218 BMI 28 Overweight
>>Jeff Garcia 6-1 195 BMI 25.7 Overweight
>>Eric Heitmann 6 3 305 BMI 38.1 Obese
>>Jeremy Newberry 6-5 310 BMI 36.8 obese
>>
>>Baseball players
>>Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
>>Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
>>Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
>>
>>This doesn't even include sumo wrestlers, weightlifters, shot putters,
>>or hurlers who as a general rule of thumb are fat in conjunction with
>>the design needs of their sport.
>>
>>All too easy.
>>Compelling proof that fit and fat is possible.

Well duh, they aren't fat.

> That is hilarious, moron.
> NR

Word!

JPM III
July 29th 04, 08:27 PM
> > Baseball players
> > Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
> > Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
> > Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight

HAH! Sosa at 185?! Maybe ten years ago...

Sosa can't be a pound lighter than 220--I'd say about Barry's size--and I
remember McGwire being talked about as weighing around 250.

RS990
July 29th 04, 09:24 PM
"JPM III" > wrote in message
...
>
> HAH! Sosa at 185?! Maybe ten years ago...
>
>

According to the Cubs website Sosa is 6'0 and 220lbs.

Greg Maddux is 6'0 and 185lbs, and I can't remember Sosa ever looking that
small.

Tom MacIntyre
July 29th 04, 10:25 PM
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:27:23 -0400, "JPM III" >
wrote:

>> > Baseball players
>> > Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
>> > Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
>> > Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
>
>HAH! Sosa at 185?! Maybe ten years ago...
>
>Sosa can't be a pound lighter than 220--I'd say about Barry's size--and I
>remember McGwire being talked about as weighing around 250.
>

The BMI is a crock of dung in many instances. It is based on a simple
calculation using height, weight, and round numbers, including a round
number exponent. It's contrived, and the taller you get, the more you
are penalized, or so it appears. Here are some examples for their
treasured 24.9 for a variety of heights...it's a straight line graph.
How often is a straight line graph correct for this type of
assessment?

4'....... 81' 11".....
4' 6".. 103' 6".....
5'....... 127' 11"...
5' 6".. 154' 8".....
6'....... 183' 14"...
6' 6".. 215' 14"...
7'....... 250' 5".....
7' 6".. 287' 5".....
8'....... 327'.........

My 73 pound 4' 8' son could pack on about 33 pounds and still be okay.
Our Cape Breton giant, Angus MacAskill, at 7' 9" and 425 pounds the
tallest true giant in history,

http://www.macaskill.com/GeneralTallTales/Angus/angus3.html

has a BMI of 34.5. He'd look good at 306 and 24.9 BMI, though,
wouldn't he? :-)

A friend of my brother in the military here in Canada was a muscular
man, 235 or so at 5' 10". He was an avid weightlifter, runner, and
squash player, but they were going to toss him if he didn't get his
BMI under control. A squash-playing acquaintance (5' 8", 185', 28.1
BMI) of a squash-playing and very athletic friend (6'3", 185', 23.1
BMI) of mine had no problem beating the "fitter" man on a regular
basis. In my doctor's waiting room there is a poster featuring about
half a dozen people, all different body types, some appear slim, some
obviously a bit on the heavy side. All, though, are judged to be in
danger by BMI.

BMI maybe was fine when spreadsheets and instant calculation was not
possible, but it needs to be replaced.

I'd love to see the comparison for a hummingbird and an elephant. :-)

Tom

Ron
July 30th 04, 02:04 AM
In article >,
Tom MacIntyre > wrote:


> My 73 pound 4' 8' son could pack on about 33 pounds and still be okay.
> Our Cape Breton giant, Angus MacAskill, at 7' 9" and 425 pounds the
> tallest true giant in history,

Right, but of course the BMI is supposed to be used for talking about
adults.

So an exception like this is really pretty meaningless.

Pat Styles
July 30th 04, 02:57 AM
"RS990" > wrote in message
...
> "JPM III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > HAH! Sosa at 185?! Maybe ten years ago...
> >
> >
>
> According to the Cubs website Sosa is 6'0 and 220lbs.
>
> Greg Maddux is 6'0 and 185lbs, and I can't remember Sosa ever looking that
> small.

Try to find some pictures of him with the Rangers; it's shocking to see the
difference between then and now.
ps

Roger Moore
July 30th 04, 06:59 AM
Will Brink > writes:

>BMI does not apply well to athletic people, in particular strength
>athletes, as a measure of BF% or health, that's for sure.

There's some question about BMI as a measure in general or whether it just
looks good because of a post hoc ergo prompter hoc reasoning. The
argument is that the real factor controlling health is physical fitness.
Unfortunately, fitness is hard to measure, so it's difficult to use it in
epidemiological studies. BMI, OTOH, is easy to measure and has a decent
correlation with fitness (there are far more people with really high BMI
because they're couch potatoes than because they're super buff) so it's
easy to use epidemiologically and tends to turn up statistically
significant results. But (according to the theory) those results might be
even stronger if they used fitness directly rather than BMI as a proxy.
If this argument is correct, you're better off going to the gym than going
on a diet.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | )
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison

Roger Moore
July 30th 04, 07:05 AM
(Roger Moore) writes:

>There's some question about BMI as a measure in general or whether it just
>looks good because of a post hoc ergo prompter hoc reasoning.

I know that it's bad form to follow up one's own post, but I thought that
I should correct myself. The falacy in question is _cum_ hoc ergo
prompter hoc, not _post_ hoc ergo prompter hoc.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | )
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison

Donovan Rebbechi
July 30th 04, 02:07 PM
On 2004-07-30, Roger Moore > wrote:
> (Roger Moore) writes:
>
>>There's some question about BMI as a measure in general or whether it just
>>looks good because of a post hoc ergo prompter hoc reasoning.
>
> I know that it's bad form to follow up one's own post, but I thought that
> I should correct myself. The falacy in question is _cum_ hoc ergo
> prompter hoc, not _post_ hoc ergo prompter hoc.

I think it's *propter*, not *prompter*

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 30th 04, 02:16 PM
On 2004-07-29, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:27:23 -0400, "JPM III" >
> wrote:
>
>>> > Baseball players
>>> > Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
>>> > Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
>>> > Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
>>
>>HAH! Sosa at 185?! Maybe ten years ago...
>>
>>Sosa can't be a pound lighter than 220--I'd say about Barry's size--and I
>>remember McGwire being talked about as weighing around 250.
>
> The BMI is a crock of dung in many instances.

That's like saying height and weight are a crock of dung. It would be more
accurate to say that it's often misused.

> It is based on a simple
> calculation using height, weight, and round numbers, including a round
> number exponent. It's contrived, and the taller you get, the more you
> are penalized, or so it appears.

You'd need to use weight against height cubed if you wanted a "rescaling"
effect. But tall people generally have different structures, so the quadratic
makes more sense.

> Here are some examples for their
> treasured 24.9 for a variety of heights...it's a straight line graph.
> How often is a straight line graph correct for this type of
> assessment?

Since BMI is essentially just height-normalised weight, when you hold
height constant it is just a measure of weight. In which case, you may
as well just just weight instead. So it is perfectly correct for BMI
vs weight to be a line, since BMI *is* weight, adjusted for height.

On the other hand, if you keep BMI constant (as you did), then you get

weight / (height * height) = constant

or,

weight = constant * height * height

This is a parabola (assuming nonzero height), *NOT* a straight line graph.

> My 73 pound 4' 8' son could pack on about 33 pounds and still be okay.
> Our Cape Breton giant, Angus MacAskill, at 7' 9" and 425 pounds the
> tallest true giant in history,
>
> http://www.macaskill.com/GeneralTallTales/Angus/angus3.html
>
> has a BMI of 34.5. He'd look good at 306 and 24.9 BMI, though,
> wouldn't he? :-)

Saying someone has a high BMI is not much different from saying that they
have a high weight, except that BMI takes height into account (so it can
detect short people who are heavy for their height, and excuse people who
are just heavy because they are tall).

Generally speaking, people who weigh 300lb or more are not built like
Ronnie Coleman. But there are of course exceptions.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 30th 04, 02:23 PM
On 2004-07-30, Roger Moore > wrote:
> Will Brink > writes:
>
>>BMI does not apply well to athletic people, in particular strength
>>athletes, as a measure of BF% or health, that's for sure.
>
> There's some question about BMI as a measure in general or whether it just
> looks good because of a post hoc ergo prompter hoc reasoning. The

BMI was first used by life insurance companies. They are not interested in
causality, or advancing the field of exercise physiology, they are interested
in finding factors that are strongly associated with mortality.

> argument is that the real factor controlling health is physical fitness.
> Unfortunately, fitness is hard to measure, so it's difficult to use it in
> epidemiological studies. BMI, OTOH, is easy to measure and has a decent
> correlation with fitness (there are far more people with really high BMI

BMI just measures how heavy you are. For a runner, a BMI of 19-21 is good
for performance. For a cyclist, the number is larger, maybe 20-22. For a
100m sprinter, it's more like 24-25.

One thing the sprinter number tells us is that people with a BMI of over 25
are either very well built, or just fat (the vast majority are just fat)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Will Brink
July 30th 04, 02:29 PM
In article >,
(Roger Moore) wrote:

> Will Brink > writes:
>
> >BMI does not apply well to athletic people, in particular strength
> >athletes, as a measure of BF% or health, that's for sure.
>
> There's some question about BMI as a measure in general or whether it just
> looks good because of a post hoc ergo prompter hoc reasoning.

What?

> The
> argument is that the real factor controlling health is physical fitness.
> Unfortunately, fitness is hard to measure,

Err, no, it's not hard to measure. It's detailed and lengthy, but not
hard to do. The issue often becomes what exactly is "fitness" and what
aspect should be looked at, but getting an overall picture of a person's
general fitness is is not hard to do.People can also be "fit" in one
aspect but not in another, and so on.

> so it's difficult to use it in
> epidemiological studies.

That's a totally different issue.

> BMI, OTOH, is easy to measure and has a decent
> correlation with fitness (there are far more people with really high BMI
> because they're couch potatoes than because they're super buff) so it's
> easy to use epidemiologically and tends to turn up statistically
> significant results.

But is of limited use as epi studies are of limited use in making
recommendations as cause and effect can't be made, or at least shou;d
not be made, from them.

> But (according to the theory) those results might be
> even stronger if they used fitness directly rather than BMI as a proxy.

The more measures you test the better your results.

> If this argument is correct, you're better off going to the gym than going
> on a diet.

vs what?

>
> --
> Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | )
> I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
> people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
> violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

rick++
July 30th 04, 04:32 PM
> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...

Also BMI is only accurate for people between 5' and 6'2".
It has a power of two of height in it.
Weight increases as approximately power of three of height (actualy 2 3/4).
So short people and tall people are automatically off-scale. Athletes are
often off the top end.

Its amusing to see BMI charts for infants and children. The weird
numbers show how an inaccurate formula can be mis-interpreted.

Ron
July 30th 04, 07:36 PM
In article >,
(Roger Moore) wrote:

> But (according to the theory) those results might be
> even stronger if they used fitness directly rather than BMI as a proxy.
> If this argument is correct, you're better off going to the gym than going
> on a diet.

At least on the margins, it's pretty unambiguous: being very heavy is
bad for you, even if it's muscle. Professional weightlifters are NOT, by
and large, healthy people overall.

BMI is a statistic. It has a PROVEN correlation with health. Like all
statistics, these correlations are absolutely true in the context of a
population, but may not be true in the case of any individual. eg "Dutch
are taller than Americans" is a true statement, which is not invalidated
by the fact that Shaq is taller than 99.99% (if not more) of the Dutch
population.

Given that there is also plenty of evidence that a high-fat, high-sugar
diet is bad for you in ways that have nothing to do with weight, it
seems like wishful thinking to claim, "oh, I don't need to worry about
what I eat, I'm fit!"

To say nothing of the fact that it's simply impossible, given our
overabundance of food, to work out enough to make it okay to eat
anything you want to eat.

Is being fit good for you? Unambiguously. Measures of fitness such as
lower heart rate correlate very strongly with long-term health.

However, even when you control for those factors, you still see
negative effects from a high BMI in large studies.

Is BMI a perfect stat? Of course not. But the vast majority of people
with a BMI over 25 would be better served by losing a few pounds than by
worrying about if it's a perfect statistic.

So much of the BMI-attacking sounds a hell of a lot like typical
American male denial. (American men tend to claim a body with a BMI from
24-27 or so is ideal.) This is particularly true when the
counterexamples people come up with are world-class athletes or children.

-Ron

Seth Breidbart
July 30th 04, 09:18 PM
In article >,
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>BMI was first used by life insurance companies. They are not interested in
>causality, or advancing the field of exercise physiology, they are interested
>in finding factors that are strongly associated with mortality.

Correlated rather than "associated".

They also wanted numbers that are easy and cheap to get, and prefer
those that are objective and not subject to rapid change (unlike, say,
heartrate or blood pressure which can change 10% in a minute).

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink
Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

Paul G. Wenthold
July 30th 04, 09:34 PM
Seth Breidbart wrote:

> In article >,
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>
>>BMI was first used by life insurance companies. They are not interested in
>>causality, or advancing the field of exercise physiology, they are interested
>>in finding factors that are strongly associated with mortality.
>
>
> Correlated rather than "associated".
>

I doubt that I am going out on a limb to suggest that "strongly"
correlated is a fairly relative term?

How strong is that correlation in an absolute sense?

It works well for the insurance company who can look at sample sizes of
millions. However, when you try to apply it to individuals, the
variation will be too large to tell you anything.

In a sample of a million, there will be 50 000 who are outside of 2
standard deviations away from optimal but are still perfectly normal.

paul

Tom MacIntyre
July 30th 04, 09:41 PM
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:04:33 -0700, Ron >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>
>
>> My 73 pound 4' 8' son could pack on about 33 pounds and still be okay.
>> Our Cape Breton giant, Angus MacAskill, at 7' 9" and 425 pounds the
>> tallest true giant in history,
>
> Right, but of course the BMI is supposed to be used for talking about
>adults.
>
> So an exception like this is really pretty meaningless.

Angus MacAskill was an adult. Upon what do you base your "meaningless"
assertion? There are kids his age and height who easily are 33 pounds
heavier...are they okay? Do you think the rest of the list I posted,
which you snipped, is incorrect also?

Tom

Tom MacIntyre
July 30th 04, 09:43 PM
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:52:00 GMT, "Dvd Avins"
> wrote:

>"Tom MacIntyre" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>
>> My 73 pound 4' 8' son could pack on about 33 pounds and still be okay.
>> Our Cape Breton giant, Angus MacAskill, at 7' 9" and 425 pounds the
>> tallest true giant in history,
>
>Is there some special definition of a true giant? Didn't the Chinese
>basketball team have an 8' Center about 15 years ago?

I'm not 100% on this, but I think it has to do with body proportions
versus height. The 8' Chinese guy may have trumped our Angus by now. I
certainly don't think he has our man's strength, though. :-)

Tom

Tom MacIntyre
July 30th 04, 09:49 PM
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:16:43 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:

>On 2004-07-29, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:27:23 -0400, "JPM III" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> > Baseball players
>>>> > Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
>>>> > Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
>>>> > Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
>>>
>>>HAH! Sosa at 185?! Maybe ten years ago...
>>>
>>>Sosa can't be a pound lighter than 220--I'd say about Barry's size--and I
>>>remember McGwire being talked about as weighing around 250.
>>
>> The BMI is a crock of dung in many instances.
>
>That's like saying height and weight are a crock of dung. It would be more
>accurate to say that it's often misused.
>
>> It is based on a simple
>> calculation using height, weight, and round numbers, including a round
>> number exponent. It's contrived, and the taller you get, the more you
>> are penalized, or so it appears.
>
>You'd need to use weight against height cubed if you wanted a "rescaling"
>effect. But tall people generally have different structures, so the quadratic
>makes more sense.

Why? Exponents with decimals are possible also, and equations that
accurately reflect reality using complex variations are easily put
into a spreadsheet.

Years ago, I had a book from the Weider company, a weightlifting
company from Quebec, Canada. They had a bunch of formulas for
calculating "ideal" body dimensions based on height and bone
structure, and used 4 or more places after the decimal. This was
before the days of even hand-held calculators, back in the days when
we did calculations by hand, ar possibly using a slide rule. Now we
have spreadsheets, and have to resort to simple round numbers? I don't
buy it.

Tom

Tom MacIntyre
July 30th 04, 09:51 PM
On 30 Jul 2004 08:32:17 -0700, (rick++) wrote:

>> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
>> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>
>Also BMI is only accurate for people between 5' and 6'2".
>It has a power of two of height in it.
>Weight increases as approximately power of three of height (actualy 2 3/4).
>So short people and tall people are automatically off-scale. Athletes are
>often off the top end.
>
>Its amusing to see BMI charts for infants and children. The weird
>numbers show how an inaccurate formula can be mis-interpreted.

The fact that it yields a straight line on a linear graph is enough
for me to not trust its veracity.

Tom

Will Brink
July 30th 04, 10:30 PM
In article >,
Ron > wrote:

> In article >,
> (Roger Moore) wrote:
>
> > But (according to the theory) those results might be
> > even stronger if they used fitness directly rather than BMI as a proxy.
> > If this argument is correct, you're better off going to the gym than going
> > on a diet.
>
> At least on the margins, it's pretty unambiguous: being very heavy is
> bad for you, even if it's muscle.

Data please.

>Professional weightlifters are NOT, by
> and large, healthy people overall.

Compared to who? Compared to Joe schmoe average American they are, on
average, healthy, or at least in better health then the average.

>
> BMI is a statistic.

No, it's a measure based on a formula. A formula that does not apply
well to athletic types but has some use in the general population.


> It has a PROVEN correlation with health.

Wrong, and correlation does not = causation. Page 1 of any decent epi
book will tell you that. In some populations, yes, you can find a
correlation to some health related issues and BMI, NOT a causation by
default however.

>Like all
> statistics, these correlations are absolutely true in the context of a
> population,

There are no absolute truths.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Ron
July 30th 04, 10:50 PM
In article >,
Will Brink > wrote:


> > It has a PROVEN correlation with health.
>
> Wrong, and correlation does not = causation. Page 1 of any decent epi
> book will tell you that. In some populations, yes, you can find a
> correlation to some health related issues and BMI, NOT a causation by
> default however.

I didn't say a thing about causation. And as a former professional
statistician, I know all abou thow that works.

The CORRELATION is indisputable. And it holds when you control for
other simple measures of fitness (such as resting pulse rate).

Of course, if you want to talk about causality, we can do that, too.
While many of the issues that invariable cause the correlation are
related to fat percentage, it's also indisputable that somebody with an
extremely large amount of muscle is placing unusual stresses on their
cardiovascular system.

> >Like all
> > statistics, these correlations are absolutely true in the context of a
> > population,
>
> There are no absolute truths.

Hey, look, if you want to bury your head in the sand go right ahead.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of people with BMIs over 25
would improve the chances for a long, healthy, and mobile life by
shedding a few pounds.

You want to argue about the exceptions? Point conceded. They exist.
Exceptions exist in any sort of statistical analysis. The use of such
anecdotal evidence to try to invalidate statistical tests is no better
than peddling snake oil.

I see this is crossposted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, but I'm sorry,
the problem isn't insufficient sociological support for fat people, the
problem is that too many people spend too much time stuffing their faces
and not enough time working out.

The notion that you can address the epidemic of obesity in this country
only by attacking the "exercise" half of the equation is silly. Of
course, it's equally silly to address the epidemic only by attacking the
"diet" half of it, too. But we live in a society of such abundance that
it is simply not possible for most adults to exercise enough to allow
them to eat whatever they want with no consequence.

The truly pathetic thing about our obesity epidemic (and I write this
as someone who was, a year ago, significantly overweight) is how easy it
is to do something about your weight and overall health by making small
and almost painless changes in your diet and activity levels.

Of course, it requires a little discipline. But the wonderful thing is
that, for many people, good habits are self-reinforcing. Stop drinking
soda and in not too long you may well stop craving it. Cut back on the
fatty foods and pretty soon they're a whole lot less appealing.

-Ron

Donovan Rebbechi
July 30th 04, 11:48 PM
On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:

> Why? Exponents with decimals are possible also,

Having decimals doesn't make them better though.

> and equations that accurately reflect reality

Not sure what you mean by this.

One could estimate an exponent by doing a log-log regression plot of the data.
In practice, the right exponent to use would depend on what you were using the
index for. Life insurance companies were interested in predicting mortality.
Small tweaks to the exponent do not change the picture a whole lot for these
purposes (because most of the population lie within a narrow height range). I
think at one stage, they used a different number for women (maybe 2.3) but it
never caught on.

> using complex variations are
> easily put into a spreadsheet.
>
> Years ago, I had a book from the Weider company, a weightlifting
> company from Quebec, Canada. They had a bunch of formulas for
> calculating "ideal" body dimensions based on height and bone
> structure, and used 4 or more places after the decimal. This was

Well, that's just dumb.

> before the days of even hand-held calculators, back in the days when
> we did calculations by hand, ar possibly using a slide rule. Now we
> have spreadsheets, and have to resort to simple round numbers?

You were probably the guy who turned in an answer that had 10 significant
digits to an empirical physics problem where all the measurements had 2
significant digits, right ?

The precision of the measurement doesn't matter a whole lot -- as far as
the life insurance companies are concerned, an index that was equal to
1 if weight/height^2 > 25, or 0 otherwise, would serve their purpose.

It doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be good enough to account for
a reasonable portion of the variation in mortality.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 30th 04, 11:51 PM
On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2004 08:32:17 -0700, (rick++) wrote:
>
>>> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
>>> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>>
>>Also BMI is only accurate for people between 5' and 6'2".
>>It has a power of two of height in it.
>>Weight increases as approximately power of three of height (actualy 2 3/4).
>>So short people and tall people are automatically off-scale. Athletes are
>>often off the top end.
>>
>>Its amusing to see BMI charts for infants and children. The weird
>>numbers show how an inaccurate formula can be mis-interpreted.
>
> The fact that it yields a straight line on a linear graph is enough
> for me to not trust its veracity.

I already addressed this. BMI against weight is linear. It's supposed to be
linear. It's an index of body mass (that's what BMI stands for), so it makes
sense for it to be some sort of normalized weight measurement.

As I pointed out, if you fix body mass index, you get a parabola and not a
line.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tom MacIntyre
July 31st 04, 12:00 AM
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:

>On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>
>> Why? Exponents with decimals are possible also,
>
>Having decimals doesn't make them better though.

What?? If 2 is too low and 3 is too high, 2.?? is the correct
exponent.

>
>> and equations that accurately reflect reality
>
>Not sure what you mean by this.

Sure you do. Do you think we landed men on the moon using round whole
numbers?

>One could estimate an exponent by doing a log-log regression plot of the data.
>In practice, the right exponent to use would depend on what you were using the
>index for. Life insurance companies were interested in predicting mortality.
>Small tweaks to the exponent do not change the picture a whole lot for these
>purposes (because most of the population lie within a narrow height range). I
>think at one stage, they used a different number for women (maybe 2.3) but it
>never caught on.

That's why exponents with decimals are better. Never caught on?
Beta>>VHS, but VHS is still the inferior format. Do we let public
opinion sway scientific matters?

At least OPS makes some sense, since it combines numbers that have
already been calculated based on sound thought.

>
>> using complex variations are
>> easily put into a spreadsheet.
>>
>> Years ago, I had a book from the Weider company, a weightlifting
>> company from Quebec, Canada. They had a bunch of formulas for
>> calculating "ideal" body dimensions based on height and bone
>> structure, and used 4 or more places after the decimal. This was
>
>Well, that's just dumb.

No, it is wise. Make the calculation, then get the final answer down
to the number of significant digits you need. Gets rid of any
cumulative error you might run into.

>
>> before the days of even hand-held calculators, back in the days when
>> we did calculations by hand, ar possibly using a slide rule. Now we
>> have spreadsheets, and have to resort to simple round numbers?
>
>You were probably the guy who turned in an answer that had 10 significant
>digits to an empirical physics problem where all the measurements had 2
>significant digits, right ?

No. Get the right answer, then put it into proper perspective. I
understand the principles behind precision and accuracy.

>
>The precision of the measurement doesn't matter a whole lot -- as far as
>the life insurance companies are concerned, an index that was equal to
>1 if weight/height^2 > 25, or 0 otherwise, would serve their purpose.
>
>It doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be good enough to account for
>a reasonable portion of the variation in mortality.

Right...that's why the skinny 29 guy and the fat 25.3 woman are
equally at risk for problems.

Tom

>
>Cheers,

Tom MacIntyre
July 31st 04, 12:02 AM
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:51:26 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:

>On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>> On 30 Jul 2004 08:32:17 -0700, (rick++) wrote:
>>
>>>> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
>>>> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>>>
>>>Also BMI is only accurate for people between 5' and 6'2".
>>>It has a power of two of height in it.
>>>Weight increases as approximately power of three of height (actualy 2 3/4).
>>>So short people and tall people are automatically off-scale. Athletes are
>>>often off the top end.
>>>
>>>Its amusing to see BMI charts for infants and children. The weird
>>>numbers show how an inaccurate formula can be mis-interpreted.
>>
>> The fact that it yields a straight line on a linear graph is enough
>> for me to not trust its veracity.
>
>I already addressed this. BMI against weight is linear. It's supposed to be
>linear. It's an index of body mass (that's what BMI stands for), so it makes
>sense for it to be some sort of normalized weight measurement.
>
>As I pointed out, if you fix body mass index, you get a parabola and not a
>line.
>
>Cheers,

Is canary versus elephant a straight line also? Were we to contrive
this straight line, how much should I weigh at 5' 6'? A ton?

Tom

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 12:30 AM
On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:51:26 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:
>
>>On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>>> On 30 Jul 2004 08:32:17 -0700, (rick++) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
>>>>> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>>>>
>>>>Also BMI is only accurate for people between 5' and 6'2".
>>>>It has a power of two of height in it.
>>>>Weight increases as approximately power of three of height (actualy 2 3/4).
>>>>So short people and tall people are automatically off-scale. Athletes are
>>>>often off the top end.
>>>>
>>>>Its amusing to see BMI charts for infants and children. The weird
>>>>numbers show how an inaccurate formula can be mis-interpreted.
>>>
>>> The fact that it yields a straight line on a linear graph is enough
>>> for me to not trust its veracity.
>>
>>I already addressed this. BMI against weight is linear. It's supposed to be
>>linear. It's an index of body mass (that's what BMI stands for), so it makes
>>sense for it to be some sort of normalized weight measurement.
>>
>>As I pointed out, if you fix body mass index, you get a parabola and not a
>>line.
>>
>>Cheers,
>
> Is canary versus elephant a straight line also?

I don't understand your point. Do you have one ? You didn't address anything
I wrote:

(1) you were wrong. For a fixed body mass, weight vs height is a parabola, not a
straight line.

(2) it makes sense for a measure of normalised weight to be a linear function of
weight.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 12:54 AM
On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:
>
>>On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Exponents with decimals are possible also,
>>
>>Having decimals doesn't make them better though.
>
> What?? If 2 is too low and 3 is too high, 2.?? is the correct
> exponent.

Yet you have not demonstrated that 2 is too low.

There have been studies where they compared exponents of 2,3 and a log-log
estimate based on height/weight relationship (which came to 2.7) and found
that neither was substantially better at predicting health related variables.

It may be more "correct" in some abstract sense to use an empirically fitted
exponent, but then you have to content with the difficulties of estimating the
exponent in the first place (e.g. sampling bias, etc) and then when all is said
and done, if the new exponent does not improve the fit of your (mortality-BMI)
model, then it doesn't count for a whole lot.

>>> and equations that accurately reflect reality
>>
>>Not sure what you mean by this.
>
> Sure you do. Do you think we landed men on the moon using round whole
> numbers?

The original usage of BMI was as a factor in multiple regression (or some
sort of correlation/factor analysis). In multiple regression, it's not unusual
to use "inaccurate formulas" (e.g. with whole number exponents) or even simple
round whole numbers themselves as regressors. Correlation works well at
detecting relationships between factors, even when the relationship is not
perfectly linear.

So for example, if the BMI-mortality relationship is polynomial in some
fractional power close to 1 (because your exponent isn't quite optimal), it
doesn't matter a whole lot to a regression, especially if your correlation
coefficient isn't all that large anyway (mortality is multi-factorial, so
being overweight only counts for one of many parts of the variation in the
mortality picture).

[snippage]

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

A J Davenport
July 31st 04, 01:25 AM
(NR) wrote in message >...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "davenport" > put down the absudity of BMI as a measure of fitness in
> message om...
> >
> > The following is a list of professional athletes who, are fat [i.e.
> > classified as overweight or obese]:

Notice that I didn't say the list of atheletes is fat, I said they
were fat by the criteria of BMI.

> > BMI Classifications
> > Underweight BMI less than 18.5
> > Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
> > Obese BMI of 30.0 or more

LOL! Man that was a walk in the park! Did you stop to think why I
used BMI as my criteria? Of course you didn't that would require more
brain power than you have at your command.

I didn't make up this absurd measure. I used it because it is the
yardstick by which most people decide if somebody is skinny, normal or
fat.

> http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/calculatebodyfat.html
>
> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>
> Athletes such as bodybuilders, football players, throwing athletes and
> anyone on a weight training program should avoid using BMI as a way to
> calculate body fat. "

You know when you crosspost you expand the number of people who see
you making yourself look stupid.

> Dumbass

ROTFFLMSS!

My point obvious to anybody with a larger brain than yours is crystal
clear. It is telling that the army of 3 all jumped to the very same
wrong conclusion [that I think the atheletes are fat] and then
proceeded to attempt to flame in your usual inept way.

If you all weren't so busy trying to accumulate troll points and
really read and comprehended you would have understood what my point
was. After all Ralph got it right on the first read, as did the
posters from the weightlifting groups who have more civility and
intelligence individually than the three of you collectively.

> >
> > Lakers 2003-04 roster
> > Only 3 of the LA Lakers qualify as "normal" weight!
> > Jannero Pargo* 6-2 175 22.5
> > Kareem Rush 6-6 215 24.8
> > Brian Shaw 6-6 205 23.7
> > Kobe Bryant 6 6 220 BMI 25.4 overweight
> > Derick Fisher 6 1 210 BMI 27 overweight
> > Rick Fox 6-7 235 BMI 26.5 overweight
> > Devean George 6-8 240 BMI 26.4 overweight
> > Robert Horry 6-10 240 BMI 25.1 overweight
> > Mark Madsen 6-9 245 BMI 26.3 overweight
> > Stanislav Medvedenko 6-10 250 BMI 26.1 overweight
> > Tracy Murray 6-7 230 BMI 25.9 overweight
> > Samaki Walker 6-9 255 BMI 27.3 overweight
> > Shaquille O'Neal 7-1 338 BMI 32.9 Obese
> >
> > Other Basketball players qualified as overweight:
> > Jason Kidd BMI 25.8 overweight
> > Yao Ming Height: 7-5 296 BMI 26.3 Overweight
> >
> > Some examples from the SF 49's Football team:
> > Jeff Chandler 6 2 218 BMI 28 Overweight
> > Jeff Garcia 6-1 195 BMI 25.7 Overweight
> > Eric Heitmann 6 3 305 BMI 38.1 Obese
> > Jeremy Newberry 6-5 310 BMI 36.8 obese
> >
> > Baseball players
> > Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
> > Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
> > Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
> >
> > This doesn't even include sumo wrestlers, weightlifters, shot putters,
> > or hurlers who as a general rule of thumb are fat in conjunction with
> > the design needs of their sport.
> >
> > All too easy.
> >
> > Compelling proof that fit and fat is possible.
>
> That is hilarious, moron.

Fat acceptors, have for years declared that BMI is a intrinsically
flawed measure of a person fitness level.

Fat acceptors have, for years, stated that muscle is denser than fat
and on that basis alone dismisses BMI as any good at determining how
fat a person is.

My examples were to point out just how flawed BMI as a measure of a
body's fitness is. Yet you and the rest of your fr/idiot/troll army
of three have and continue to use that flawed measure to justify your
contempt for anybody with a BMI over 25.

On a side note, I've seen Barry Bonds several times in person [since
the Giants are the local team]. While I know that he is fit, if a fat
hating person [random example like, say YOU!]on the street were to see
him, not know who he was, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the fat
hater would view him as fat, as he does have a noticable belly in
addition to a very thick body. Not that you would have the guts to
say anything to him to his face. You can only talk smack about fat
people here where you can hide behind a monitor.

AJ
Because, somebody has to be the Diva!

Wayne S. Hill
July 31st 04, 02:05 AM
Ron wrote:

> Will Brink > wrote:
>
>> > It has a PROVEN correlation with health.
>>
>> Wrong, and correlation does not = causation. Page 1 of any
>> decent epi book will tell you that. In some populations,
>> yes, you can find a correlation to some health related
>> issues and BMI, NOT a causation by default however.
>
> I didn't say a thing about causation. And as a former
> professional statistician, I know all abou thow that works.

Then you should know to be careful about drawing conclusions,
given its limitations.

> The CORRELATION is indisputable. And it holds when you
> control for other simple measures of fitness (such as
> resting pulse rate).

Balderdash. The FDA's report on obesity states clearly
that BMI is being used as a proxy for bodyfat, and that it
isn't appropriate to draw conclusions based on BMI for
individuals with higher than usual muscle mass.

> Of course, if you want to talk about causality, we can do
> that, too. While many of the issues that invariable cause
> the correlation are related to fat percentage, it's also
> indisputable that somebody with an extremely large amount of
> muscle is placing unusual stresses on their cardiovascular
> system.

So does running.

>> >Like all
>> > statistics, these correlations are absolutely true in the
>> > context of a population,
>>
>> There are no absolute truths.
>
> Hey, look, if you want to bury your head in the sand go
> right ahead.

Please provide references for your claim that weight per se is
a health risk.

> The simple fact is that the vast majority of people with
> BMIs over 25 would improve the chances for a long, healthy,
> and mobile life by shedding a few pounds.

That is true, but to tell someone to shed weight because their
BMI is high could be dead wrong.

> You want to argue about the exceptions? Point conceded.
> They exist. Exceptions exist in any sort of statistical
> analysis. The use of such anecdotal evidence to try to
> invalidate statistical tests is no better than peddling
> snake oil.

A large part of MFW regulars are such exceptions.

> The notion that you can address the epidemic of obesity in
> this country only by attacking the "exercise" half of the
> equation is silly. Of course, it's equally silly to address
> the epidemic only by attacking the "diet" half of it, too.
> But we live in a society of such abundance that it is simply
> not possible for most adults to exercise enough to allow
> them to eat whatever they want with no consequence.

That depends. When I started weight training, I lost about 20
lbs over a period of about 6 months. Of course, I gradually
put it back on, so my weight is roughly the same as before I
started. What I put back on was muscle, so I now eat more
than I did to begin with.

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
July 31st 04, 02:09 AM
Paul G. Wenthold wrote:

> Seth Breidbart wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>
>>>BMI was first used by life insurance companies. They are
>>>not interested in causality, or advancing the field of
>>>exercise physiology, they are interested in finding factors
>>>that are strongly associated with mortality.
>>
>> Correlated rather than "associated".
>
> I doubt that I am going out on a limb to suggest that
> "strongly" correlated is a fairly relative term?

Yes. A "strong" correlation in biology would be considered
quite weak in engineering.

> How strong is that correlation in an absolute sense?

Typically, a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.7, meaning that
the standard deviation of error is about 70% of the standard
deviation of the database.

> It works well for the insurance company who can look at
> sample sizes of millions. However, when you try to apply it
> to individuals, the variation will be too large to tell you
> anything.

And yet, they'll refuse to insure you based on BMI.

--
-Wayne

Lady Veteran
July 31st 04, 02:59 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:36:27 -0700, Ron >
wrote:

>In article >,
> (Roger Moore) wrote:
>
>> But (according to the theory) those results might be
>> even stronger if they used fitness directly rather than BMI as a
>> proxy. If this argument is correct, you're better off going to
>> the gym than going on a diet.
>
> At least on the margins, it's pretty unambiguous: being very heavy
> is
>bad for you, even if it's muscle. Professional weightlifters are
>NOT, by and large, healthy people overall.
>
> BMI is a statistic. It has a PROVEN correlation with health.


It makes sense, really. That is why soldiers who lift weights are
regularly shuffled of to the "fat" squad because their BMI is to high
and they are overweight.

The army is a very logical organization.......what color is the sky in
your world?

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
For every person with a spark of genius, there
are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
- -Unknown
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQQr8tsjazA1WMM1JEQJTNwCglV8CBhNpzjKSWuI1yyt8iv QzvUIAoPQC
Sl9ty5o+XBtnrlLeKb33H9Cc
=/nZy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 02:59 AM
On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:

> Balderdash. The FDA's report on obesity states clearly
> that BMI is being used as a proxy for bodyfat, and that it
> isn't appropriate to draw conclusions based on BMI for
> individuals with higher than usual muscle mass.

FYI: There's an online article which discusses how good the fit is:

http://www.halls.md/bmi/fat.htm

> Please provide references for your claim that weight per se is
> a health risk.

But surely it would be better for us to provide him with a reference
to show that it (lean body mass) isn't.

http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 03:58 AM
On 2004-07-30, Ron > wrote:

> At least on the margins, it's pretty unambiguous: being very heavy is
> bad for you, even if it's muscle. Professional weightlifters are NOT, by
> and large, healthy people overall.

I've posted elsewhere in this thread-- LBM does not in itself increase
mortality.

> BMI is a statistic. It has a PROVEN correlation with health. Like all
> statistics, these correlations are absolutely true in the context of a
> population, but may not be true in the case of any individual. eg "Dutch
> are taller than Americans" is a true statement, which is not invalidated
> by the fact that Shaq is taller than 99.99% (if not more) of the Dutch
> population.

As you know, the exceptions are not entirely random. They may be clustered
in little groups. For example, it's not just Shaq who's taller than the
typical Dutchman, but most of the players on his team.

Likewise, there's not just one person on a weightlifting forum who has a
high BMI but good overall fitness -- there are a bunch of them.

> Given that there is also plenty of evidence that a high-fat, high-sugar
> diet is bad for you in ways that have nothing to do with weight, it
> seems like wishful thinking to claim, "oh, I don't need to worry about
> what I eat, I'm fit!"

I don't think that is the position of the posters on the weightlifting
forum. If you read here more often, you'd see that the posters here are
very health conscious and attentive to their diet. Many of them avoid sugar
and refined carbs, even though they could maintain good body composition
without this.

> However, even when you control for those factors, you still see
> negative effects from a high BMI in large studies.

Could you cite some such studies ? It contradicts the evidence I've seen.

> Is BMI a perfect stat? Of course not. But the vast majority of people
> with a BMI over 25 would be better served by losing a few pounds than by
> worrying about if it's a perfect statistic.

Yes, and the vast majority of Americans are shorter than the average Dutchman.
But you'll still get laughed at if you walk in on Shaq and his teammates and
tell them that the vast majority of *them* are shorter than the average Dutchman.

> So much of the BMI-attacking sounds a hell of a lot like typical American
> male denial.

That could be part of it. Some people who attack BMI really are just fat ****s.
But most of the people in this forum (misc.fitness.weights) are not.

> is ideal.) This is particularly true when the counterexamples people come up
> with are world-class athletes or children.

Don't know about "world class", but some of the posters in mfw are pretty
athletic. You've got to keep in mind that you're posting in a forum where several
(most ?) of the regulars are amateur athletes.

There are also a number of athletes in the running forums who have
low BMI (around 19). Even athletes at a moderately competitive level may have
unusual BMIs. Some competitive sports make certain builds mechanically
advantageous, so the athletes in those sports (even at an amateur level) may
have proportions that predispose them to high or low BMI regardless of body fat
levels.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Larry Hodges
July 31st 04, 06:07 AM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2004-07-30, Ron > wrote:
>
>> At least on the margins, it's pretty unambiguous: being very heavy
>> is
>> bad for you, even if it's muscle. Professional weightlifters are
>> NOT, by
>> and large, healthy people overall.
>
> I've posted elsewhere in this thread-- LBM does not in itself increase
> mortality.
>
>> BMI is a statistic. It has a PROVEN correlation with health. Like
>> all statistics, these correlations are absolutely true in the
>> context of a population, but may not be true in the case of any
>> individual. eg "Dutch
>> are taller than Americans" is a true statement, which is not
>> invalidated
>> by the fact that Shaq is taller than 99.99% (if not more) of the
>> Dutch population.
>
> As you know, the exceptions are not entirely random. They may be
> clustered
> in little groups. For example, it's not just Shaq who's taller than
> the
> typical Dutchman, but most of the players on his team.
>
> Likewise, there's not just one person on a weightlifting forum who
> has a
> high BMI but good overall fitness -- there are a bunch of them.
>
>> Given that there is also plenty of evidence that a high-fat,
>> high-sugar diet is bad for you in ways that have nothing to do with
>> weight, it
>> seems like wishful thinking to claim, "oh, I don't need to worry
>> about
>> what I eat, I'm fit!"
>
> I don't think that is the position of the posters on the weightlifting
> forum. If you read here more often, you'd see that the posters here
> are
> very health conscious and attentive to their diet. Many of them avoid
> sugar
> and refined carbs, even though they could maintain good body
> composition
> without this.
>
>> However, even when you control for those factors, you still see
>> negative effects from a high BMI in large studies.
>
> Could you cite some such studies ? It contradicts the evidence I've
> seen.
>
>> Is BMI a perfect stat? Of course not. But the vast majority of
>> people
>> with a BMI over 25 would be better served by losing a few pounds
>> than by worrying about if it's a perfect statistic.
>
> Yes, and the vast majority of Americans are shorter than the average
> Dutchman. But you'll still get laughed at if you walk in on Shaq and
> his teammates and tell them that the vast majority of *them* are
> shorter than the average Dutchman.
>
>> So much of the BMI-attacking sounds a hell of a lot like typical
>> American male denial.
>
> That could be part of it. Some people who attack BMI really are just
> fat ****s. But most of the people in this forum
> (misc.fitness.weights) are not.
>
>> is ideal.) This is particularly true when the counterexamples
>> people come up with are world-class athletes or children.
>
> Don't know about "world class", but some of the posters in mfw are
> pretty athletic. You've got to keep in mind that you're posting in a
> forum where several (most ?) of the regulars are amateur athletes.
>
> There are also a number of athletes in the running forums who have
> low BMI (around 19). Even athletes at a moderately competitive level
> may have unusual BMIs. Some competitive sports make certain builds
> mechanically advantageous, so the athletes in those sports (even at
> an amateur level) may have proportions that predispose them to high
> or low BMI regardless of body fat levels.
>
> Cheers,

All good points Donovan. I'm 5' 10", 194 lbs and 14% BF with a 33" waist.
My resting heart rate is 56, and I run 8 1/2 minute miles for as long as I
want. I'm 47. But according to BMI, I'm obese.
--
-Larry

ray miller
July 31st 04, 09:35 AM
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:59:23 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:

>On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:
>
>> Balderdash. The FDA's report on obesity states clearly
>> that BMI is being used as a proxy for bodyfat, and that it
>> isn't appropriate to draw conclusions based on BMI for
>> individuals with higher than usual muscle mass.
>
>FYI: There's an online article which discusses how good the fit is:
>
>http://www.halls.md/bmi/fat.htm

Just done the calculation and it works for me to one decimal place!

Better keep lifting

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/190/182

ray miller
July 31st 04, 09:59 AM
>Sure you do. Do you think we landed men on the moon using round whole
>numbers?

Yes. Computers use only 1 and 0, which for all practical purposes are
whole numbers.

According to the film, we got one of the apollos back to earth by
keeping the earth in the middle of the little window thingy.

Ray



--
rmnsuk
273/190/182

Wayne S. Hill
July 31st 04, 02:54 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:
>
>> Balderdash. The FDA's report on obesity states clearly
>> that BMI is being used as a proxy for bodyfat, and that it
>> isn't appropriate to draw conclusions based on BMI for
>> individuals with higher than usual muscle mass.
>
> FYI: There's an online article which discusses how good the
> fit is:
>
> http://www.halls.md/bmi/fat.htm

You certainly realize that this merely correlates bodyfat to
body size and the lifestyle of the population or, in another way
of looking at it, merely states how rare it is for someone to
have significant muscle mass.

>> Please provide references for your claim that weight per se
>> is a health risk.
>
> But surely it would be better for us to provide him with a
> reference to show that it (lean body mass) isn't.
>
> http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm

What fun is that?

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
July 31st 04, 02:55 PM
ray miller wrote:

> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:
>>
>>> Balderdash. The FDA's report on obesity states clearly
>>> that BMI is being used as a proxy for bodyfat, and that it
>>> isn't appropriate to draw conclusions based on BMI for
>>> individuals with higher than usual muscle mass.
>>
>>FYI: There's an online article which discusses how good the
>>fit is:
>>
>>http://www.halls.md/bmi/fat.htm
>
> Just done the calculation and it works for me to one decimal
> place!
>
> Better keep lifting

No, you'd better keep lifting. It overestimates my BF% by a
factor of 2.

--
-Wayne

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 03:59 PM
On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:
>>
>>> Balderdash. The FDA's report on obesity states clearly
>>> that BMI is being used as a proxy for bodyfat, and that it
>>> isn't appropriate to draw conclusions based on BMI for
>>> individuals with higher than usual muscle mass.
>>
>> FYI: There's an online article which discusses how good the
>> fit is:
>>
>> http://www.halls.md/bmi/fat.htm
>
> You certainly realize that this merely correlates bodyfat to
> body size and the lifestyle of the population or, in another way
> of looking at it, merely states how rare it is for someone to
> have significant muscle mass.

Yep.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 05:06 PM
On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:

>> Better keep lifting
>
> No, you'd better keep lifting. It overestimates my BF% by a
> factor of 2.

The formula gives me 16-17%. Last I checked on the Tanita, it gave
4.5%. And my BMI is not very high (21-22)

It would be interesting to see what was driving the error variance.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tom MacIntyre
July 31st 04, 05:10 PM
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:59:11 GMT, Lady Veteran >
wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:36:27 -0700, Ron >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> (Roger Moore) wrote:
>>
>>> But (according to the theory) those results might be
>>> even stronger if they used fitness directly rather than BMI as a
>>> proxy. If this argument is correct, you're better off going to
>>> the gym than going on a diet.
>>
>> At least on the margins, it's pretty unambiguous: being very heavy
>> is
>>bad for you, even if it's muscle. Professional weightlifters are
>>NOT, by and large, healthy people overall.
>>
>> BMI is a statistic. It has a PROVEN correlation with health.
>
>
>It makes sense, really. That is why soldiers who lift weights are
>regularly shuffled of to the "fat" squad because their BMI is to high
>and they are overweight.
>
>The army is a very logical organization.......what color is the sky in
>your world?
>
>LV

Hey LV...thanks for backing up one aspect of an earlier post I made.
:-)

I'd love to see the BMI of prison inmates, as a population.

Tom

>
>
>Lady Veteran
>- -----------------------------------
>"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
>when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
>- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
>- ------------------------------------------------
>People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
>ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
>motive but malice.
>- ---------------------------------------------
>For every person with a spark of genius, there
>are a hundred more with ignition trouble.
>- -Unknown
>- -------------------------------
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
>
>iQA/AwUBQQr8tsjazA1WMM1JEQJTNwCglV8CBhNpzjKSWuI1yyt8iv QzvUIAoPQC
>Sl9ty5o+XBtnrlLeKb33H9Cc
>=/nZy
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom MacIntyre
July 31st 04, 05:35 PM
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:07:16 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote:

>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> Don't know about "world class", but some of the posters in mfw are
>> pretty athletic. You've got to keep in mind that you're posting in a
>> forum where several (most ?) of the regulars are amateur athletes.
>>
>> There are also a number of athletes in the running forums who have
>> low BMI (around 19). Even athletes at a moderately competitive level
>> may have unusual BMIs. Some competitive sports make certain builds
>> mechanically advantageous, so the athletes in those sports (even at
>> an amateur level) may have proportions that predispose them to high
>> or low BMI regardless of body fat levels.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
>All good points Donovan. I'm 5' 10", 194 lbs and 14% BF with a 33" waist.
>My resting heart rate is 56, and I run 8 1/2 minute miles for as long as I
>want. I'm 47. But according to BMI, I'm obese.

:-)

Not quite in your class as a runner, but I'm under 5'6", I pinch about
1.25" on my belly, less than 1/4" on my upper arm, a bit over 1/4" on
my thigh, and I weigh about 173 pounds. My chest is 45" or so. I can't
run because it hurts my ailing joints, but my NORMAL walking pace
covers 2 miles for me in about 26-29 minutes. I could up it a notch if
I had to do so. I'll be 48 in a little over 3 weeks. My BMI says that
I am at risk, at 28.1, and closer to obese than okay. They want me,
with my girth, to get down to about 153 pounds. I've been there once
in the last 10 or more years, and it was at a time when I was being
very unkind to myself in some ways.

BMI is a crock of dung. At least for me, personally...how can rounded
whole numbers possibly apply to an individual in a general and large
population? There are far too many variables that are not being taken
into consideration. Bone structure? Genetics? Go into a Seniors'
Home...look at pictures of them when they were young. Were they all
"skinny-minnies"?

Proton Soup
July 31st 04, 05:36 PM
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 08:59:01 GMT, ray miller
> wrote:

>>Sure you do. Do you think we landed men on the moon using round whole
>>numbers?
>
>Yes. Computers use only 1 and 0, which for all practical purposes are
>whole numbers.

It all depends on the representation. Is 10110 / 111 a whole number?

>According to the film, we got one of the apollos back to earth by
>keeping the earth in the middle of the little window thingy.

So they improvised a simple tracker feedback controller. While I am
not a celestial mechanic, I somehow doubt it was an optimal
trajectory, though.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Tom MacIntyre
July 31st 04, 05:39 PM
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:30:02 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:

>On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:51:26 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2004-07-30, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>>>> On 30 Jul 2004 08:32:17 -0700, (rick++) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
>>>>>> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>>>>>
>>>>>Also BMI is only accurate for people between 5' and 6'2".
>>>>>It has a power of two of height in it.
>>>>>Weight increases as approximately power of three of height (actualy 2 3/4).
>>>>>So short people and tall people are automatically off-scale. Athletes are
>>>>>often off the top end.
>>>>>
>>>>>Its amusing to see BMI charts for infants and children. The weird
>>>>>numbers show how an inaccurate formula can be mis-interpreted.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that it yields a straight line on a linear graph is enough
>>>> for me to not trust its veracity.
>>>
>>>I already addressed this. BMI against weight is linear. It's supposed to be
>>>linear. It's an index of body mass (that's what BMI stands for), so it makes
>>>sense for it to be some sort of normalized weight measurement.
>>>
>>>As I pointed out, if you fix body mass index, you get a parabola and not a
>>>line.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>
>> Is canary versus elephant a straight line also?
>
>I don't understand your point. Do you have one ? You didn't address anything
>I wrote:
>
>(1) you were wrong. For a fixed body mass, weight vs height is a parabola, not a
>straight line.

BMI yields a straight line, unless I am having spreadsheet
difficulties.

>
>(2) it makes sense for a measure of normalised weight to be a linear function of
>weight.

No...what do you base this on?

Tom

>
>Cheers,

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 05:42 PM
On 2004-07-31, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:

> Hey LV...thanks for backing up one aspect of an earlier post I made.
> :-)
>
> I'd love to see the BMI of prison inmates, as a population.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2000/08/02/current/ipage_2.htm

Less are overweight by BMI criterion 36% as opposed to 2/3 of the general
population. This is unsurprising to me anyway. All it says is that generally,
fat slobs weigh more than athletes.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tom MacIntyre
July 31st 04, 05:44 PM
Well...I am coward enough to top-post, or lazy enough, but you are
mostly right, in my opinion. BMI is not only a crock for athletes,
it's a crock for regular Joe's also.

Tom

On 30 Jul 2004 17:25:11 -0700, (A J Davenport)
wrote:

(NR) wrote in message >...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> "davenport" > put down the absudity of BMI as a measure of fitness in
>> message om...
>> >
>> > The following is a list of professional athletes who, are fat [i.e.
>> > classified as overweight or obese]:
>
>Notice that I didn't say the list of atheletes is fat, I said they
>were fat by the criteria of BMI.
>
>> > BMI Classifications
>> > Underweight BMI less than 18.5
>> > Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
>> > Obese BMI of 30.0 or more
>
>LOL! Man that was a walk in the park! Did you stop to think why I
>used BMI as my criteria? Of course you didn't that would require more
>brain power than you have at your command.
>
>I didn't make up this absurd measure. I used it because it is the
>yardstick by which most people decide if somebody is skinny, normal or
>fat.
>
>> http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/calculatebodyfat.html
>>
>> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
>> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
>>
>> Athletes such as bodybuilders, football players, throwing athletes and
>> anyone on a weight training program should avoid using BMI as a way to
>> calculate body fat. "
>
>You know when you crosspost you expand the number of people who see
>you making yourself look stupid.
>
>> Dumbass
>
>ROTFFLMSS!
>
>My point obvious to anybody with a larger brain than yours is crystal
>clear. It is telling that the army of 3 all jumped to the very same
>wrong conclusion [that I think the atheletes are fat] and then
>proceeded to attempt to flame in your usual inept way.
>
>If you all weren't so busy trying to accumulate troll points and
>really read and comprehended you would have understood what my point
>was. After all Ralph got it right on the first read, as did the
>posters from the weightlifting groups who have more civility and
>intelligence individually than the three of you collectively.
>
>> >
>> > Lakers 2003-04 roster
>> > Only 3 of the LA Lakers qualify as "normal" weight!
>> > Jannero Pargo* 6-2 175 22.5
>> > Kareem Rush 6-6 215 24.8
>> > Brian Shaw 6-6 205 23.7
>> > Kobe Bryant 6 6 220 BMI 25.4 overweight
>> > Derick Fisher 6 1 210 BMI 27 overweight
>> > Rick Fox 6-7 235 BMI 26.5 overweight
>> > Devean George 6-8 240 BMI 26.4 overweight
>> > Robert Horry 6-10 240 BMI 25.1 overweight
>> > Mark Madsen 6-9 245 BMI 26.3 overweight
>> > Stanislav Medvedenko 6-10 250 BMI 26.1 overweight
>> > Tracy Murray 6-7 230 BMI 25.9 overweight
>> > Samaki Walker 6-9 255 BMI 27.3 overweight
>> > Shaquille O'Neal 7-1 338 BMI 32.9 Obese
>> >
>> > Other Basketball players qualified as overweight:
>> > Jason Kidd BMI 25.8 overweight
>> > Yao Ming Height: 7-5 296 BMI 26.3 Overweight
>> >
>> > Some examples from the SF 49's Football team:
>> > Jeff Chandler 6 2 218 BMI 28 Overweight
>> > Jeff Garcia 6-1 195 BMI 25.7 Overweight
>> > Eric Heitmann 6 3 305 BMI 38.1 Obese
>> > Jeremy Newberry 6-5 310 BMI 36.8 obese
>> >
>> > Baseball players
>> > Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
>> > Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
>> > Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
>> >
>> > This doesn't even include sumo wrestlers, weightlifters, shot putters,
>> > or hurlers who as a general rule of thumb are fat in conjunction with
>> > the design needs of their sport.
>> >
>> > All too easy.
>> >
>> > Compelling proof that fit and fat is possible.
>>
>> That is hilarious, moron.
>
>Fat acceptors, have for years declared that BMI is a intrinsically
>flawed measure of a person fitness level.
>
>Fat acceptors have, for years, stated that muscle is denser than fat
>and on that basis alone dismisses BMI as any good at determining how
>fat a person is.
>
>My examples were to point out just how flawed BMI as a measure of a
>body's fitness is. Yet you and the rest of your fr/idiot/troll army
>of three have and continue to use that flawed measure to justify your
>contempt for anybody with a BMI over 25.
>
>On a side note, I've seen Barry Bonds several times in person [since
>the Giants are the local team]. While I know that he is fit, if a fat
>hating person [random example like, say YOU!]on the street were to see
>him, not know who he was, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the fat
>hater would view him as fat, as he does have a noticable belly in
>addition to a very thick body. Not that you would have the guts to
>say anything to him to his face. You can only talk smack about fat
>people here where you can hide behind a monitor.
>
>AJ
>Because, somebody has to be the Diva!

Lyle McDonald
July 31st 04, 05:53 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2004-07-31, Wayne S. Hill > wrote:
>
>
>>>Better keep lifting
>>
>>No, you'd better keep lifting. It overestimates my BF% by a
>>factor of 2.
>
>
> The formula gives me 16-17%. Last I checked on the Tanita, it gave
> 4.5%. And my BMI is not very high (21-22)

Well, Tanita kind of sucks but the equation on that page puts me at
double my true BF% (sys I'm about 20%, I'm sub 10% right now).

Using BMI to estimate BF%age is only accurate for non-active
individuals. Even then it's only a very rough estimate.

>
> It would be interesting to see what was driving the error variance.

Muscle is denser than fat.

Remember that BF%age estimations (true estimations) are usually
measuring body density and then estimating BF% from that.

At 200 lbs and the same height, someone with 10% bodyfat has a different
body density than someone with 20% bodyfat, a fact that BMI won't take
into account.

Lyle

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 06:46 PM
On 2004-07-31, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:

>>I don't understand your point. Do you have one ? You didn't address anything
>>I wrote:
>>
>>(1) you were wrong. For a fixed body mass, weight vs height is a parabola, not a
>>straight line.
>
> BMI yields a straight line, unless I am having spreadsheet
> difficulties.

Let's go through this again:

BMI = weight/ (height*height)

so

weight = BMI * height * height

So if BMI is held constant, and you plot weight against height, you
will get a parabola.

>>(2) it makes sense for a measure of normalised weight to be a linear function of
>>weight.
>
> No...what do you base this on?

All units of weight are linear functions of weight (weight in kg, weight
in lb, etc). It's almost tautological.

Normalising just means rescaling by an appropriate parameter (e.g. some function
of height). Rescaled weight is also a linear function of weight.

It's reasonable to complain about the usefulness of BMI as a tool for diagnosing
obesity. But it's disingenious IMO to criticise it as a tool for measuring weight
for height, which it does quite well.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 04, 06:55 PM
On 2004-07-31, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:

> BMI is a crock of dung. At least for me, personally...how can rounded

It accurately characterises you as heavy for your height. The index itself
is just fine, the prediction equation is what's inaccurate. The prediction
equation overestimates the bodyfat % level of nearly everyone in the weights
newsgroup.

> whole numbers possibly apply to an individual in a general and large
> population?

In general, the prediction equation does not apply to individuals. It is
only "reasonably accurate most of the time" (I posted a URL elsewhere in
this thread)

When you consider the origins in the insurance business, they are more like
gamblers placing a bet than doctors making diagnoses. The gambler is happy
with better-than-chance performance. But we expect much better than this of
the medical profession.

> There are far too many variables that are not being taken
> into consideration. Bone structure? Genetics?

I think life insurance take other factors risk factors into account in
mortality assesment.

As far as measuring fatness is concerned, you're best off going for simplicity
and using factors known to be good predictors (such as skinfold measurements)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Ron
July 31st 04, 09:11 PM
In article >,
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:


> Don't know about "world class", but some of the posters in mfw are pretty
> athletic. You've got to keep in mind that you're posting in a forum where
> several
> (most ?) of the regulars are amateur athletes.

Hey, I'm an amateur athlete myself.

And I'll happily concede that somebody who spends a lot of time lifting
weights is going to tend to have a high BMI with relatively little of
the health problems traditionally associated with high BMI. But there
are still issues that are endemic to the weight-lifting community.

Wayne S. Hill
July 31st 04, 09:32 PM
Ron wrote:

> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>> Don't know about "world class", but some of the posters in
>> mfw are pretty athletic. You've got to keep in mind that
>> you're posting in a forum where several (most ?) of the
>> regulars are amateur athletes.
>
> Hey, I'm an amateur athlete myself.
>
> And I'll happily concede that somebody who spends a lot of
> time lifting weights is going to tend to have a high BMI
> with relatively little of the health problems traditionally
> associated with high BMI. But there are still issues that
> are endemic to the weight-lifting community.

Like...

--
-Wayne

Will Brink
August 1st 04, 03:12 PM
In article >,
Ron > wrote:

> In article >,
> Will Brink > wrote:
>
>
> > > It has a PROVEN correlation with health.
> >
> > Wrong, and correlation does not = causation. Page 1 of any decent epi
> > book will tell you that. In some populations, yes, you can find a
> > correlation to some health related issues and BMI, NOT a causation by
> > default however.
>
> I didn't say a thing about causation. And as a former professional
> statistician, I know all abou thow that works.

As a statistician, you should have been very clear on that issue as to
not lead people to conclude there was a proven causation.

>
> The CORRELATION is indisputable. And it holds when you control for
> other simple measures of fitness (such as resting pulse rate).
>
> Of course, if you want to talk about causality, we can do that, too.

Why bother?

> While many of the issues that invariable cause the correlation are
> related to fat percentage, it's also indisputable that somebody with an
> extremely large amount of muscle is placing unusual stresses on their
> cardiovascular system.

Again, cite a study please.

>
> > >Like all
> > > statistics, these correlations are absolutely true in the context of a
> > > population,
> >
> > There are no absolute truths.
>
> Hey, look, if you want to bury your head in the sand go right ahead.
>
> The simple fact is that the vast majority of people with BMIs over 25
> would improve the chances for a long, healthy, and mobile life by
> shedding a few pounds.

Agreed.

>
> You want to argue about the exceptions? Point conceded. They exist.
> Exceptions exist in any sort of statistical analysis. The use of such
> anecdotal evidence to try to invalidate statistical tests is no better
> than peddling snake oil.

Excuse me? Making the statement increased LBM places "unusual stresses
on their cardiovascular system" is anecdotal evidence. Your double
standard is clear here. Second, there is nothing anecdotal about about
the drawbacks of the BMI with athletic people who are rated obese due to
high LBM and low BF%.


> I see this is crossposted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, but I'm sorry,
> the problem isn't insufficient sociological support for fat people,

I aint posting from soc.support.fat-acceptance and none of my comments
would in any way be "sociological support for fat people"

>the
> problem is that too many people spend too much time stuffing their faces
> and not enough time working out.

All true.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

ray miller
August 1st 04, 06:25 PM
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:36:22 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 08:59:01 GMT, ray miller
> wrote:
>
>>>Sure you do. Do you think we landed men on the moon using round whole
>>>numbers?
>>
>>Yes. Computers use only 1 and 0, which for all practical purposes are
>>whole numbers.
>
>It all depends on the representation. Is 10110 / 111 a whole number?

Yes. it's 11 :)

Ray
--
rmnsuk
273/189/182

Seth Breidbart
August 1st 04, 06:52 PM
In article >,
Ron > wrote:

> The simple fact is that the vast majority of people with BMIs over 25
>would improve the chances for a long, healthy, and mobile life by
>shedding a few pounds.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of Americans would improve
their chances for a long, healthy, and mobile life by shedding a few
pounds. So?

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

Larry Hodges
August 1st 04, 06:55 PM
NR wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, "Larry Hodges" >
> wrote:
>>
>> All good points Donovan. I'm 5' 10", 194 lbs and 14% BF with a 33"
>> waist. My resting heart rate is 56, and I run 8 1/2 minute miles for
>> as long as I want. I'm 47. But according to BMI, I'm obese.
>
> You're either embellishing to make a point or have challenges using a
> simple BMI calculator.
>
> NR

Thanks for the correction. I'm only overweight according to BMI at 27.8.
Been awhile since I check.
--
-Larry

Donovan Rebbechi
August 1st 04, 10:47 PM
On 2004-08-01, Larry Hodges > wrote:
> NR wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, "Larry Hodges" >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> All good points Donovan. I'm 5' 10", 194 lbs and 14% BF with a 33"
>>> waist. My resting heart rate is 56, and I run 8 1/2 minute miles for
>>> as long as I want. I'm 47. But according to BMI, I'm obese.
>>
>> You're either embellishing to make a point or have challenges using a
>> simple BMI calculator.
>>
>> NR
>
> Thanks for the correction. I'm only overweight according to BMI at 27.8.
> Been awhile since I check.

Even then, only according to the suspect criterion used by the CDC and WHO.
And the CDC go to great pains to downplay the importance of the BMI on
their website, and to point out that it misclassifies athletic individuals.

Published work on mortality/BMI suggests that 22.5 is not optimal, and that BF%
is a risk factor, not FFM.

http://www.halls.md/bmi/mort.htm

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dvd Avins
August 2nd 04, 04:14 AM
"Ron" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> The simple fact is that the vast majority of people with BMIs over 25
> would improve the chances for a long, healthy, and mobile life by
> shedding a few pounds.

The more fat one carries, the more unpleasant aerobic exercize is likely to
become. In that way, at least, shedding weight even by diet is likely to
make a difference. However I've never seen anyting that convinced me that
for most people shedding weight without changing one's level of physical
activity will prolong life. If you claim it's a "simple fact", why don't you
try to support it.

--
Dvd Avins

Tom MacIntyre
August 2nd 04, 05:06 PM
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:46:08 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:

>On 2004-07-31, Tom MacIntyre > wrote:
>
>>>I don't understand your point. Do you have one ? You didn't address anything
>>>I wrote:
>>>
>>>(1) you were wrong. For a fixed body mass, weight vs height is a parabola, not a
>>>straight line.
>>
>> BMI yields a straight line, unless I am having spreadsheet
>> difficulties.
>
>Let's go through this again:
>
>BMI = weight/ (height*height)
>
>so
>
>weight = BMI * height * height
>
>So if BMI is held constant, and you plot weight against height, you
>will get a parabola.

Good old Excel, it appears, normalized the curve I plotted. :-)

Tom

A J Davenport
August 7th 04, 01:13 AM
(NR) wrote in message >...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On 30 Jul 2004, (davenport) inked:
> >
> (NR) wrote in message
> >...
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>
> >> "davenport" > put down the absurdity of BMI as a
> >> measure of fitness in
> >> message om...
> >> >
> >> > The following is a list of professional athletes who, are fat [i.e.
> >> > classified as overweight or obese]:
> >
> >Notice that I didn't say the list of athletes is fat, I said they
> >were fat by the criteria of BMI.
>
> That is your interpretation of the classifications.

Actually it isn't, it is your rather self serving assumption of how I
interpret BMI, but hey, nice try.

> >
> >> > BMI Classifications
> >> > Underweight BMI less than 18.5
> >> > Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
> >> > Obese BMI of 30.0 or more
> >
> >LOL! Man that was a walk in the park! Did you stop to think why I
> >used BMI as my criteria? Of course you didn't that would require more
> >brain power than you have at your command.
> >
> >I didn't make up this absurd measure. I used it because it is the
> >yardstick by which most people decide if somebody is skinny, normal or
> >fat.
>
> Did you conduct a poll to draw your conclusion?

Just reading many posts in this group as well as other groups on the
web it is quite obvious that this is the measure most people use,
including the CDC, WHO and other health organizations.

> >
> >> http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/calculatebodyfat.html
> >>
> >> "BMI will be inaccurate for many athletes. BMI doesn't calculate body fat
> >> so it can't make allowances for muscular development. That's why...
> >>
> >> Athletes such as bodybuilders, football players, throwing athletes and
> >> anyone on a weight training program should avoid using BMI as a way to
> >> calculate body fat. "
> >
> >You know when you crosspost you expand the number of people who see
> >me making myself look stupid.
>
> !!!

Ah, the all too predictable, NR can't debate, re-write tact.

Imitation they say is the most sincere form of flattery.

> >> Dumbass
> >
> >ROTFFLMSS!
> >
> >My point obvious to anybody with a larger brain than yours is crystal
> >clear. It is telling that the army of 3 all jumped to the very same
> >wrong conclusion [that I think the athletes are fat] and then
> >proceeded to attempt to flame in your usual inept way.
>
> Your terminal stupidity is not our crisis.

Projection noted.

> >If you all weren't so busy trying to accumulate troll points and
> >really read and comprehended you would have understood what my point
> >was. After all Ralph got it right on the first read, as did the
> >posters from the weightlifting groups who have more civility and
> >intelligence individually than the three of you collectively.
>
> Which, if you had any reading comprehension, is consistent with what I
> wrote.

What you wrote, oh reading challenged one was that I said the athletes
were fat. My intent was clear, not that it surprised me that you
missed it even after my post to Ralph.

Tell me, do you have to work at being this idiotic or does it come
naturally?

<Rhetorical>

> >
> >> >
> >> > Lakers 2003-04 roster
> >> > Only 3 of the LA Lakers qualify as "normal" weight!
> >> > Jannero Pargo* 6-2 175 22.5
> >> > Kareem Rush 6-6 215 24.8
> >> > Brian Shaw 6-6 205 23.7
> >> > Kobe Bryant 6 6 220 BMI 25.4 overweight
> >> > Derick Fisher 6 1 210 BMI 27 overweight
> >> > Rick Fox 6-7 235 BMI 26.5 overweight
> >> > Devean George 6-8 240 BMI 26.4 overweight
> >> > Robert Horry 6-10 240 BMI 25.1 overweight
> >> > Mark Madsen 6-9 245 BMI 26.3 overweight
> >> > Stanislav Medvedenko 6-10 250 BMI 26.1 overweight
> >> > Tracy Murray 6-7 230 BMI 25.9 overweight
> >> > Samaki Walker 6-9 255 BMI 27.3 overweight
> >> > Shaquille O'Neal 7-1 338 BMI 32.9 Obese
> >> >
> >> > Other Basketball players qualified as overweight:
> >> > Jason Kidd BMI 25.8 overweight
> >> > Yao Ming Height: 7-5 296 BMI 26.3 Overweight
> >> >
> >> > Some examples from the SF 49's Football team:
> >> > Jeff Chandler 6 2 218 BMI 28 Overweight
> >> > Jeff Garcia 6-1 195 BMI 25.7 Overweight
> >> > Eric Heitmann 6 3 305 BMI 38.1 Obese
> >> > Jeremy Newberry 6-5 310 BMI 36.8 obese
> >> >
> >> > Baseball players
> >> > Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
> >> > Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
> >> > Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't even include sumo wrestlers, weightlifters, shot putters,
> >> > or hurlers who as a general rule of thumb are fat in conjunction with
> >> > the design needs of their sport.
> >> >
> >> > All too easy.
> >> >
> >> > Compelling proof that fit and fat is possible.
> >>
> >> That is hilarious, moron.
> >
> >Fat acceptors, have for years declared that BMI is a intrinsically
> >flawed measure of a person fitness level.
>
> BMI is not a measure of person[sic] fitness, moron. Never has been.

Then why do you and your fat hating friends rely on it so much?

> >
> >Fat acceptors have, for years, stated that muscle is denser than fat
> >and on that basis alone dismisses BMI as any good at determining how
> >fat a person is.
>
> Which is consistent with what I wrote. How many morbidly obese women have
> low boday fat %'s?

You are the one obsessed with obese women little man, not me.

> >My examples were to point out just how flawed BMI as a measure of a
> >body's fitness is.
>
> False premise, moron. See above.

The only false premise in this thread is yours that I said that the
above athletes were fat.

> > Yet you and the rest of your fr/idiot/troll army
> >of three have and continue to use that flawed measure to justify your
> >contempt for anybody with a BMI over 25.
>
> Prove this claim.

Bitter boy, you long ago established that it is your job to prove my
claims.

> >On a side note, I've seen Barry Bonds several times in person [since
> >the Giants are the local team]. While I know that he is fit, if a fat
> >hating person [random example like, say YOU!]on the street were to see
> >him, not know who he was, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the fat
> >hater would view him as fat, as he does have a noticeable belly in
> >addition to a very thick body. Not that you would have the guts to
> >say anything to him to his face. You can only talk smack about fat
> >people here where you can hide behind a monitor.
>
> Barry Bonds has an extremely low body fat %, moron.

Evasion noted.

> hth

About as much as is usual for you, that is to say, not at all.

AJ
Because, somebody has to be the Diva!

A J Davenport
August 13th 04, 01:20 AM
(NR) wrote in message >...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On 6 Aug 2004, (davenport) as per usual, wrote a bunch
> of things I'm too stupid to understand:
> >
> (NR) wrote in message
> >...
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>
> >> On 30 Jul 2004, (davenpork) inked:
> >> >
> >> (NR) wrote in message
> >> >...
> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >>
> >> >> "davenpork" > put down the absurdity of BMI as a
> >> >> measure of fitness in
> >> >> message om...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The following is a list of professional athletes who, are fat [i.e.
> >> >> > classified as overweight or obese]:
> >> >
> >> >Notice that I didn't say the list of athletes is fat, I said they
> >> >were fat by the criteria of BMI.
> >>
> >> That is your interpretation of the classifications.
> >
> >Actually it isn't, it is your rather self serving assumption of how I
> >interpret BMI, but hey, nice try.
>
> You continue to prove that you have no understanding of BMI.

I understand it quite well. I phrased this post the way I did for a
purpose to see what the reaction would be. Quite telling that you
jumped to the wrong conclusion when other posters understood exactly
what I where I was going with this. Strangely none of the poster from
the multitude of groups you cross posted to felt compelled to name
call in the way you did. But then they haven't had me hand them their
empty heads on a platter as many times as you have over the years.


> >> >> > BMI Classifications
> >> >> > Underweight BMI less than 18.5
> >> >> > Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
> >> >> > Obese BMI of 30.0 or more
> >> >
> >> >LOL! Man that was a walk in the park! Did you stop to think why I
> >> >used BMI as my criteria? Of course you didn't that would require more
> >> >brain power than you have at your command.
> >> >
> >> >I didn't make up this absurd measure. I used it because it is the
> >> >yardstick by which most people decide if somebody is skinny, normal or
> >> >fat.
> >>
> >> Did you conduct a poll to draw your conclusion?
> >
> >Just reading many posts in this group as well as other groups on the
> >web it is quite obvious that this is the measure most people use,
>
> That's not most people, dumbass.

Well there is also the thing called real life, but since you don't
seem to exist except as a usenet construct I didn't see any reason to
bring that into the discussion.

> >including the CDC, WHO and other health organizations.
>
> See above.

These are some of the same sources you use to find your articles to
repost in a pathetic effort to bash fat people.

> <SNIP>
> >> >If you all weren't so busy trying to accumulate troll points and
> >> >really read and comprehended you would have understood what my point
> >> >was. After all Ralph got it right on the first read, as did the
> >> >posters from the weightlifting groups who have more civility and
> >> >intelligence individually than the three of you collectively.
> >>
> >> Which, if you had any reading comprehension, is consistent with what I
> >> wrote.
> >
> >What you wrote, oh reading challenged one was that I said the athletes
> >were fat.
>
> You did.
>
> From: (A J Davenport)
> Newsgroups: soc.support.fat-acceptance
> Subject: Re: Exposing The Hollowness: Part Two -- The Folly of Fat but Fit
> Date: 26 Jul 2004 17:17:43 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> So, if this were the case, Ralph there would be no fat atheletes. A
> quick BMI check of a lot of professional athletes shows that is far
> from the case as a great many professional atheletes are classified as
> overweight and yes, even obese by BMI standards. These people are
> verifiable extreme examples of fit fat people.
>
> **end quote**

I didn't say that the athlete were fat!

I said:
"a great many professional athletes are classified as overweight and
yes, even obese by BMI standards."

Thus if using the BMI to classify somebody as fat then atheletes with
BMI above normal are fat and fit.

> >My intent was clear, not that it surprised me that you
> >missed it even after my post to Ralph.
>
> It is well documented that BMI is not a suitable measure for athletes and
> body builders, dumbass.

Yes, and I knew that going in, wanted to see who would fall for the
war of words. You did, hook line and sinker!

He, he, he.

> >
> >Tell me, do you think that I have to work at being this idiotic or does it come
> >naturally?
>
> !!!

Predicable loss re-write tact once again noted.

You've got to get a new writer.

> ><Rhetorical>
> <SNIP>
>
> >> >Fat acceptors, have for years declared that BMI is a intrinsically
> >> >flawed measure of a person fitness level.
> >>
> >> BMI is not a measure of person[sic] fitness, moron. Never has been.
> >
> >Then why do you and your fat hating friends rely on it so much?
>
> You are the only person that I have ever known to say that BMI is a measure
> of fitness. That proves, once again, you have no understanding how on BMI
> works.

Evasion noted.

> >> >
> >> >Fat acceptors have, for years, stated that muscle is denser than fat
> >> >and on that basis alone dismisses BMI as any good at determining how
> >> >fat a person is.
> >>
> >> Which is consistent with what I wrote. How many morbidly obese women have
> >> low boday fat %'s?
> >
> >You are the one obsessed with obese women little man, not me.
>
> Evasion noted.

You have docmented your obession with fat women quite well.

> >> >My examples were to point out just how flawed BMI as a measure of a
> >> >body's fitness is.
> >>
> >> False premise, moron. See above.
> >
> >The only false premise in this thread is yours that I said that the
> >above athletes were fat.
>
> From: (A J Davenport)
> Newsgroups: soc.support.fat-acceptance
> Subject: fat athletes for tweetledumb and tweetledumber
> Date: 28 Jul 2004 18:01:30 -0700
> Message-ID: >
>
> The following is a list of professional athletes who, are fat :

Regurgitation noted.

You really should do something about your ongoing reading
comprehention problem.

>
> BMI Classifications
> Underweight BMI less than 18.5
> Overweight BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
> Obese BMI of 30.0 or more
>
> Lakers 2003-04 roster
> Only 3 of the LA Lakers qualify as "normal" weight!
> Jannero Pargo* 6-2 175 22.5
> Kareem Rush 6-6 215 24.8
> Brian Shaw 6-6 205 23.7
> Kobe Bryant 6 6 220 BMI 25.4 overweight
> Derick Fisher 6 1 210 BMI 27 overweight
> Rick Fox 6-7 235 BMI 26.5 overweight
> Devean George 6-8 240 BMI 26.4 overweight
> Robert Horry 6-10 240 BMI 25.1 overweight
> Mark Madsen 6-9 245 BMI 26.3 overweight
> Stanislav Medvedenko 6-10 250 BMI 26.1 overweight
> Tracy Murray 6-7 230 BMI 25.9 overweight
> Samaki Walker 6-9 255 BMI 27.3 overweight
> Shaquille O'Neal 7-1 338 BMI 32.9 Obese
>
> Other Basketball players qualified as overweight:
> Jason Kidd BMI 25.8 overweight
> Yao Ming Height: 7-5 296 BMI 26.3 Overweight
>
> Some examples from the SF 49's Football team:
> Jeff Chandler 6 2 218 BMI 28 Overweight
> Jeff Garcia 6-1 195 BMI 25.7 Overweight
> Eric Heitmann 6 3 305 BMI 38.1 Obese
> Jeremy Newberry 6-5 310 BMI 36.8 obese
>
> Baseball players
> Barry Bonds 6-2 228 BMI 29.3 Overweight
> Sammy Sosa 6-0 185 BMI 25.1 Overweight
> Mark McGwire 6-5 225 26.7 Overweight
>
> This doesn't even include sumo wrestlers, weightlifters, shot putters,
> or hurlers who as a general rule of thumb are fat in conjunction with
> the design needs of their sport.
>
> All too easy.
>
> Compelling proof that fit and fat is possible.
>
> **end quote**
>
> Let's see you spin your lying ass out of this one, ****face.

Ah the ****call, you must be really ****ed that you can't pin me down
because I carefully stated the criteria I was using and you were too
stupid to even understand what where it was leading. I can understand
your anger, you jumped right into a carefully laid trap, you must feel
even more moronic than usual.

> >[i]
> >> > Yet you and the rest of your fr/idiot/troll army
> >> >of three have and continue to use that flawed measure to justify your
> >> >contempt for anybody with a BMI over 25.
> >>
> >> Prove this claim.
> >
> >Bitter boy, you long ago established that it is your job to prove my
> >claims.
>
> Second evasion noted.

You know I don't play with you, gave up several years ago when you
lied about your postings. Then in your never ending spin doctoring
denied lying before finally admitting your lies. I didn't have to
even go back and find the proof, you admitted it without any help from
me. That was absolutely classic and it set the benchmark for who has
to provide proof. You've proven over and over again that given enough
rope, you eventually hang yourself with it.

> >> >On a side note, I've seen Barry Bonds several times in person [since
> >> >the Giants are the local team]. While I know that he is fit, if a fat
> >> >hating person [random example like, say YOU!]on the street were to see
> >> >him, not know who he was, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the fat
> >> >hater would view him as fat, as he does have a noticeable belly in
> >> >addition to a very thick body. Not that you would have the guts to
> >> >say anything to him to his face. You can only talk smack about fat
> >> >people here where you can hide behind a monitor.
> >>
> >> Barry Bonds has an extremely low body fat %, moron.
> >
> >Evasion noted.
>
> Reading comprehension issue noted.

Evasion and undenied cowardice, once again noted.

> >
> >> hth
> >
> >About as much as is usual for you, that is to say, not at all.
> >
> >AJ
> >Because, somebody has to be the eater!
> !
>
> NR

No doubt about it, you have GOT to get a new writer.

AJ
Because, somebody has to be NR's better!