[Still Thinking]

"What Nestle won't tell you is that in 1998 the government arbitrarily shifted the BMI scale, instantly casting 39 million previously government-approved Americans into the "overweight" category."

One of the most infuriating tactics of CSPI, MADD, and other freedom thieves literally ad nauseum is to quietly lower the threshold of the "problem" (thus creating more of it with no actual change in the measured data), then decry from the rooftops the exploding (obesity/drunk driving/freedom/whatever) problem. Just chaps my hide.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Quiet... How can the bogus Atkins fad continue if you keep throwing out facts?

[BlueLancer]

"... to quietly lower the threshold of the "problem"

They did this to me during my time in the Army. I was going along well within my height/weight limits when, all of a sudden, before the next PT test, I was classed as "overweight" by five or so pounds. Now, this can be a death sentence in the New Army, requiring counseling, additional training, additional testing, and a fast discharge if you don't reduce your weight, unless you still pass your body-fat percentage test.

So, a week or so before every PT test for the next several years, I'd starve myself and eat nothing but light soups and salads and purge myself with ex-lax so that I could come in underweight at the weigh-in. However, this also caused me to catch every cold, sore throat, or flu that was within a 12-state area during that time.

Finally, the last five years in, I just gave up trying to make my weight because I knew that I was well under the allowance for body-fat percentage. Since that time, I haven't been sick or missed a day of work for an illness. If Tom Cruise is 5/7" and 201, I didn't know that I looked that well at 5'6" and 205. Anyway, I still run PT with my subordinates and can finish my two miles in right at 10 minutes, still doing 75 push-ups and 75 sit-ups before each run.

Yet, by my height/weight limits, I would be considered "morbidly obese" or at best simply "obese".

Screw 'em ...

[hobbes1]

Seeking a response from a noted obesity warrior, the Times quotes fat tax advocate Marion Nestle: "It's one thing to talk about statistics and another to talk about what's happening to individuals

Apparently The Times saw fit to educate neither it's readers, or the good Dr.Marion about the Fallacy of Composition

The Favorite Propoganda tool of Leftists everywhere.

[cinFLA]

It is not all hype. When I see the kids getting out of school in my old home town, I see lot's of fatsos much worse than the worst fatso we had in our class.

[GovernmentShrinker]

people today are just 6 or 7 pounds heavier than they were in 1991

That's not insignificant. For example, a recent study found that a 5% weight gain since college put women at a substantially higher risk for breast cancer. Furthermore, clothing manufacturers have been steadily increasing clothing sizes (both the actual sizes of labelled numerical sizes, and the output of clothing with larger labelled numerical sizes) for a number of years, and children's clothing has been a major part of this trend. So I don't buy that Americans aren't really getting a lot fatter on average.

However, there is no need for government action, except to stop using tax dollars to pay people's medical bills. When people have to pay their own way, they'll start being more careful.

[cinFLA]

"The flaws in the government scale can bee seen just by flicking the remote. A BMI of 30 or more tags you as obese. And at 5 feet, 7 inches and 201 pounds, Tom Cruise scores a BMI of 31. Likewise, back in his homerun-hitting days, Mark McGwire (6-5, 250 lbs.) was considered "obese" due to his BMI of 30. Our super-fit President Bush and Michael Jordan are only slightly better off, according to the BMI scale. They score 26 and 25 respectively, and are therefore "overweight.""

Typical journalistic hype. The BMI guidelines specifically state very clearly that they do not account for increased muscle mass, pregnancy, etc. The author goes for sensation over truth.

[Xenalyte]

"What Nestle won't tell you is that in 1998 the government arbitrarily shifted the BMI scale, instantly casting 39 million previously government-approved Americans into the "overweight" category."

I'm five-ten, and my weight fluctuates between 130 and 150. Although tall, I'm fine-boned; I can circle my wrist with my thumb and middle finger with quite a bit of overlap.

In 1998, the new BMI declared me overweight and recommended that I lose 15 pounds. At 115, I would look scary and Pelosi-like.

[Xenalyte]

And at 5 feet, 7 inches and 201 pounds, Tom Cruise scores a BMI of 31.

For the record, there's no way the little, um, heterosexual is five-seven. Five-five, more like.

[hopespringseternal]

And at 5 feet, 7 inches and 201 pounds, Tom Cruise scores a BMI of 31.

My exact height and weight, and due to the magic of bodybuilding, I too am obese. Ban exercise now! It makes you obese! Sheesh.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Extremely poorly written article. First, saying 5-7 lbs is indicated in the "midrange" (not given.) If midrange is 100-140 lbs, this is substantial. Next "very top" is given as being overweight byt 25-30 lbs; even at 300 lbs, this is high. What about those 15-20 lbs overweight? What is the body weight percentage here?

What percentage of people have this extra weight? The article makes it seem as if 100% of the midrange people are 7 lbs high. (That would be a national problem.) Is the median being used? If so, then 1/2 the people in midrange are more than 7 lbs heavy.

The author is using 1991 as a baseline. If people were (for example) already 5 lbs overweight in 1991 (compared to what?) then we're looking at about a 10-12 lb excess in 2004.

Is there a trend? Are weights getting worse? No information here; just a hint that things are getting worse from the few numbers give.

This article criticizes junk science but is one of the most egregious examples of such. I would venture that 98.6° of the statistics in the article were made up on the spot.

[Know your rights]

Only with the massively obese, the very top of the distribution, is there a substantial increase in weight, about 25 to 30 pounds.

I wonder why that's happened.

[Right Wing Professor]

As you move up the scale, a few additional pounds start to show up, but even at midrange, people today are just 6 or 7 pounds heavier than they were in 1991.

This is supposed to be negligible? Averaged over a population, and for a mere 10 year span, this is a huge change.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Old Professer]

Must be all that extra ozone after they changed that index, too.

[aruanan]

The flaws in the government scale can bee seen just by flicking the remote. A BMI of 30 or more tags you as obese. And at 5 feet, 7 inches and 201 pounds, Tom Cruise scores a BMI of 31. Likewise, back in his homerun-hitting days, Mark McGwire (6-5, 250 lbs.) was considered "obese" due to his BMI of 30. Our super-fit President Bush and Michael Jordan are only slightly better off, according to the BMI scale. They score 26 and 25 respectively, and are therefore "overweight." (To see how the government's dubious scale rates you, click here.)

No flaws here. Just stupid people misusing perfectly adequate guidelines. No one in nutritional science claims that the BMI is uniformly adequate at describing obesity for all individuals. It automatically excludes people who are out of the normal range due to muscular development. If, however, someone is not an athlete or is or has not been pursuing a vigorous program of resistance training and his BMI is approaching 30, then it is almost a certainty that that person is approaching a state of obesity. And, yes, I speak as an expert.