Slashdot Mirror

I'm going to say that this being considered obese has far more to do with it than angery birds or sedentary jobs.

Greater muscle mass could easily explain it. Most people don't realize that our current definition of 'obese' puts this as one of those 'lazy fat asses'.

An even easier answer would be that there has been a massive shift our countries genetic makeup in the last 20 years.

http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html
Height: 6' 2"
Off Season Weight: 260 lbs
Competition Weight: 235 lbs

http://stanfordhospital.org/clinicsmedServices/COE/surgicalServices/generalSurgery/bariatricsurgery/resources/bmi_calculator.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=body%20mass%20index&utm_content=!acq!v2!s-b-13529620060-1678836940&utm_campaign=Bariatric+-+Search&gclid=CKKEoK2ayK4CFaJeTAodUWZV-w


Calling you out on your intellectually dishonest statement where you tried to claim that eating carbs is really eating fat is not "Obnoxious". Asking for a reference while implying that when it is presented, it doesn't count IS obnoxious. The fact is that pretty much every Mr Universe is now classified as "Obese", and that means the word no longer has meaning. Besides, your claim that "It's only recently that we are seeing the kind of science-fiction fat that is common." isn't even accurate. It is made up.

You are wrong about that though. While we have been getting the word out on obesity for decades, we have also seen HUGE changes in behavior from it. The problem is that much of the advice is counter productive, and a major reason for people getting heavier.

First, the normally accepted definition of "obese" is stupid to begin with. This is what is considered obese by our government/medical/insurance industries: http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html

That's right. 100% of the time that Arnold Schwarzenegger was Mr. Universe, he was considered "obese".

Then you have to look at how people are told to avoid "obesity". Exercise more, eat less, avoid fat, stick to sugar. That is the advice they are given. This advice is actively harmful. Not everyone has the same genetics. I, for example, have a lean body mass that places me only 10 pounds below the "overweight" mark. That is with very little exercise. I also pack on muscle extremely easily form exercise, so if I were to actually go to the gym 3 times a week, my lean body mass would be pushing me over the "overweight" mark. My body fat on the other hand is regulated almost exclusively by diet. A lack of fat, and almost any sugar makes my body store fat.

So, the currently "accepted" healthy lifestyle that is supposed to keep me from being fat has me starving (in the literal sense, not the "I'm really hunger" sense) in an attempt to force my body burn fat that my body is storing due to a diet that is exactly the opposite of what it needs. Then if I successfully starve off my fat, I am starving (again literally) my body in an attempt to remove the muscle that the exercise is putting on. I would be waging a battle in my body between putting muscle on through exercise, and eating it away through starvation to get below the "overweight" threshold.

No sane person could see that as healthy. All the while, our society/government/medical/insurance industries would be patting the guy next to me on the back while he sits with this 30% body fat because he happens to be a couple of inches taller, and his body doesn't produce muscle.

Using fear as a motivator doesn't solve a problem if you are using fear to chase people directly into the problem you are trying to avoid.

I have no problem conceding that "Natural" foods are not unhealthy because they are "natural". They are frequently unhealthy because they are loaded with sugar to make palatable something that otherwise would be healthy and bad tasting. Or, it is just sugar being sold as "healthy".

It is sad that there are huge portions of the population that has had it drilled into them that they should eat an almost exclusively sugar diet, and that when it makes them fat they are told that they are bad people. Then they are told that they should starve themselves while continuing to eat a diet that is incompatible with their biology.

I don't have any fear of cholesterol or kidney problems. My cholesterol is a little better than it was 15 years ago when I started eating this way. Much like worrying about salt, the only people that need to worry about kidney problems due to high fat/protien are people with pre-existing conditions. Since I don't have pre-existing kidney problems, there is no reason for me to eat an unhealthy diet out of fear from it.

On the other hand, I do have concerns about being obese. Carrying around an extra 60 lbs of fat is not healthy. Of course, there are plenty of healthy people being told that they are obese when they are not, and that is a whole other problem. I have been hydrostatically weighed, so I know exactly how much of my body is fat, and how much is lean. To reach what the medical/government/insurance industry consider a normal weight, I have to be at 3% bodyfat. At 4% bodyfat, they declare me "overweight". They claim that I am at a healthy weight at -15% body fat. Yep. that is a negative sign. The only reason I could even reach the BMI's "normal" weight is because I don't work out. During the times that I have done moderate workouts, my lean body mass exceeded the BMI's maximum "normal" weight. That means that if I exercise, I would have to literally amputate body parts to reach a "normal" weight. When I am just below the BMI's "obese" rating, at the peak of the "overweight", my ab muscles are all clearly visible.

Our health/government/insurance industries have created a totally unrealistic ideal of what they think human biology is, and then went out and found the people who match it and declared them as evidence they were right. They have picked their data to match their conclusion, and go into full tilt denial when faced with evidence that contradicts it.

Case in point. This is considered "Obese" by our medical/governemtn/insurance industries: http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html

A very good example is when you look at weight. There is a large percentage of people who would say that I don't take part because my lean body mass, as in not counting any fat on my body, puts me in the "overweight" category. Ironically, I know plenty of people that are in the "normal" category who easily have 30 or 35 pounds of excess body fat.

This http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html would be considered "not participating" by a huge portion of our population because he is obese.

Absolute BS. Looking like a starving refuge is not healthy.

I am one of those "obese" by government, medical, and insurance standards. Yet, my stomach muscles stand out just fine. The statistics on 'overweight' and 'obesity' are simply wrong. The BMI is a joke.

I have been hydrostatically weighed, and my lean muscle mass alone puts me into the 'overweight' category for the BMI. The only way for me to have a 'normal' weight per the BMI is to literally amputate body parts. If I amputated a leg, I might make it, but I would have to watch my amputations, because if I took off both legs, I would be 'obese' again. Here is a good example of what is called 'obese' by US standards.

Eating meat is not unhealthy. Avoiding meat is what is unhealthy.

Personally, I'm not impressed by the 'obese' title. I am 'obese' by the definition that the government, insurance and health industries use. While I could lose a couple of pounds, you can still see my stomach muscles. There is this myth that those of use that are naturally muscular don't exist. It is important to note that this is our definition of 'obese'.

Well, to be fair, the government (as well as the medical and insurance industries) are batshit insane when it comes to defining "fat", "overweight", and "obese".

At 5'11" the insurance, medical and government accepted standard, the BMI, says that I would not be "normal" weight until I reached 178 pounds. Just yesterday I was hydrostatically weighed. My lean body mass was 164 pounds. That means that at 8% body fat, I would be considered "overweight" or "fat". This is with virtually no exercise. I build muscle REALLY fast. If I worked out with any kind of weight training for 3 or 4 months, I could easily break the 178 pounds that defines me as "fat" in lean body mass. The BMI would also call my weight "normal" at 133 pounds. The government, medical, and insurance industries declare that not only should I reach 0% body fat (which will kill you by the way), but that to be "normal", I should start deciding what body parts I want amputated. Maybe an arm and a leg would do it. I have to be careful not to choose both legs though, because then I would be "fat" again.

Just to put it in perspective, this is what the government, medical and insurance industries call "obese".

So, is the OP crazy for wanting the government out of the weight loss game, or are the people supporting them?

Bingo. Of course "obese" is a worthless word at this point. It as been solidly linked to BMI which is a total joke. Heck, I was "obese" just this last weekend, yet somehow you could see every muscle of my ripped legs, and the majority of my stomach muscles. Just to show how stupid BMI and the new definition of "obese" is, here is what obese can look like.

Here is my favorite example of an 'Obese' lardass per the BMI.

Yeah, maybe this device could help prevent us from having obese people like this.

Maybe this would be sane if this was not an example of an "obese" man.

Now, I'm no Mr. Olympia, but when I stand relaxed, you can see my stomach muscles, yet I am almost universally considered well into the obese category. In fact, by by almost all weight charts, I would literally have to start amputating body parts to get to what they claim my 'ideal weight' is.

Please recognize that I do understand that we agree on the primary issue, so please take this as it is intended, which is debating the details combined with a digression to a whole other subject.

The obesity rate in America is a joke. In October I reached a weight that I considered to be obese. I defined it as a weight where I became winded doing a normal activity that should not have winded me. So, I decided to lose weight. To have a yardstick to measure my weight loss by, I looked up what is considered overweight, and what is considered obese. The numbers are absolutely ridiculous. Using a scale that uses electrical impulses to measure body fat, I show as having 160 pounds of lean body mass. I know that these scales can very based on hydration and some other factors, so, I am using the highest fat reading it ever shows. Now, the BMI charts like to show my ideal weight at 157 pounds. This would not only require me to lose 100% of my body fat which would kill me, but I would also have to start choosing body parts to amputate. This gets even worse we take into account that I build muscle extremely fast if I exercise. Right now, I'm actually making a point not to get much exercise, and I would have to amputate to reach my 'ideal' weight. With even a moderate amount of exercise, I would have to amputate to get out of the 'overweight' range dictated by the doctors and government.

Now, I have certainly heard the argument "Well, your no body builder". But, that is a ridiculous argument. If Schwarzenegger put on 20 pounds during that time, he wouldn't have been a body builder anymore either, but that certainly would not have meant that he was out of shape. Any scale that could call that man obese is simply not worth even considering. As a good example of how absurd the obesity scales are, you can just look at Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 6 year winning streak of the Mr. Olypia competition. According to the CDC, he was obese the entire time.

I ran cross country, and I assure you that while those numbers are low, they are far from atypical. You run 15-25 miles a day for months at a time, and there isn't much fat left, regardless of how much you eat.

Unless those tests were conducted using a water displacement test, I would tend to believe testing error accounts for the discrepancy.

It's not a tumor!