Nearly half of America’s overweight people don’t realize they’re overweight(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Nearly half of America’s overweight people don’t realize they’re overweight
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/01/nearly-half-of-americas-overweight-people-dont-realize-theyre-overweight/
62 comments
So is greed. Yet “greed is good” is a common mantra in the US.
There's money to be made off 6 of the 7 deadly sins, and they are strongly. Not much room for sloth, though. Gotta work to afford indulging in the other 6.
I think that is really only a “common mantra” for many business owners/executives and the Fox News crowd. I like to think that most of us that contribute to society don’t feel that way.
Extreme obesity is a chronic disease. Is not "just a life choice" and definitely is not a sin.
The bible authors didn't knew a single thing about human metabolism, leptine role in fat cells, or gut corrective surgery. Searching for medical advice in the bible would end with proposing trepanation to cure a migraine.
The bible authors didn't knew a single thing about human metabolism, leptine role in fat cells, or gut corrective surgery. Searching for medical advice in the bible would end with proposing trepanation to cure a migraine.
Many obese people need proper help and treatment just like any other addict. We’ve somehow managed to make obesity a protected class in our society which in turns makes it worse. It’s absolutely crazy to hear an obese person pass judgement on a meth head or an alcoholic or a heroin addict. They all need treatment. One is no better than the other. They need medical attention.
I agree. Everyone around them should encourage extremely obese people to get immediate treatment. It’s a deadly disease.
Many think the deadly seven are recorded in the Bible. Even though each of the seven is a sin, this list is not contained in Scripture. The history of this sin categorization began in the year 400.
Evagrius Ponticus, a fourth-century monk, described eight evils to resist. Two centuries later, Pope Gregory 1 refined the inventory to seven. [0]
[0]https://www.christianity.com/wiki/sin/what-are-the-seven-dea...
Evagrius Ponticus, a fourth-century monk, described eight evils to resist. Two centuries later, Pope Gregory 1 refined the inventory to seven. [0]
[0]https://www.christianity.com/wiki/sin/what-are-the-seven-dea...
Plastic Might Be Making You Obese
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-09-11/plasti...
It would be great if we could blame our surroundings.
I stand corrected. However, in the US, gluttony is certainly the most deadly sin.
One of the last things people are allowed to be shamed for it would seem. That and baldness.
There are plenty of things people are shamed for. Your list includes some of them but is more insightful about your perspective than society’s.
I’m never met anyone who was shamed for being bald. Being bald isn’t much of a choice.
there are ads where bald guy is sad and lonely then gets a hairtransplant and lands a beautiful lady. I started balding in my teens. I remember visiting my extended family and that ad came on TV, they all at me with 'see there is hope' look.
Spoken like someone who's never been overweight.
Overweight and bald, thanks. One by choice, one by genetics.
It’s actually sloth.
Somewhat related, I am puzzled that we still use BMI with a quadratic exponent for height. We are not flat creatures, but we also don't grow linearly either. The actual exponent is closer to 2.5 - this was even known to the creator of the BMI in the 19th century, but I guess that calculation was considered too tedious back then.
What it means is that people taller than the average are in fact less overweight than the BMI suggests, and shorter people more so. This mathematician suggests using 1.3*weight[kg]/height[m]^2.5 to align the corrected score with the established BMI scale:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
What it means is that people taller than the average are in fact less overweight than the BMI suggests, and shorter people more so. This mathematician suggests using 1.3*weight[kg]/height[m]^2.5 to align the corrected score with the established BMI scale:
https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html
Actually there have been arguments that the standards are actually too low. And to prevent heart disease the score should be adjusted down by 3-5. In the categories.
Interesting, do you have references? I am only aware of these discussions: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/ethni...
Weight: 3D measurement
Height: 1D measurement
Better to use Waist circumference, since it's a 2D measurement, combined with one of the others if you want a linear scale. The Japanese fat tax uses waist measurement alone.
Height: 1D measurement
Better to use Waist circumference, since it's a 2D measurement, combined with one of the others if you want a linear scale. The Japanese fat tax uses waist measurement alone.
Technically, circumference is a 1D measurement.
Waist circumference is a good metric for a different reason, because belly fat is the most dangerous type of fat (specifically visceral fat, which is stored between the inner organs and next to impossible to measure without lab-grade equipment, but the idea is that it correlates with circumference).
Never heard of a fat tax, but it sounds dystopian.
Waist circumference is a good metric for a different reason, because belly fat is the most dangerous type of fat (specifically visceral fat, which is stored between the inner organs and next to impossible to measure without lab-grade equipment, but the idea is that it correlates with circumference).
Never heard of a fat tax, but it sounds dystopian.
I was in denial about how much I bloated during the pandemic. It took a physical report and a few deaths in my family to finally start shedding the excess sugar and carbs. Now I am at BMI range and very happy.
I was surprised to learn that I’m technically “overweight” according to BMI charts. I’m 5’8” and 165 lbs, but I have a slightly muscular build and fairly lean at 12% body fat. I have visible abdominal muscles, yet I don’t lift weights or do any body building either.
If I’m overweight by those standards, it makes me skeptical of articles like this, and sometimes I even question the validity of the entire obesity epidemic.
If I’m overweight by those standards, it makes me skeptical of articles like this, and sometimes I even question the validity of the entire obesity epidemic.
No health professional would categorize you as overweight.
Anyone who knows their bodyfat percentage doesn't need to be concerned about BMI. They already have better information.
BMI is just something healthcare providers can do quickly in an office, or people at home, to get a general idea of what is going on.
At 12%, you are the exception.
For a male 12% is an athletic level of body fat, with ideal being (depending on who you ask) 16-20%.
12% is an extraordinarily low, and rare, for a male in the US in 2022. You are either genetically gifted, have a very, VERY, good diet, or are otherwise athletic.
The obesity epidemic is extremely real. The average body fat percentage for American males today is somewhere between 26-30%.
Of course, it may also be the case that you are very young. No child should have a bodyfat percentage higher than 16% with an "ideal" bodyfat percentage for an 18 year old being <10%.
Even back in the days before obesity engulfed the US, you would have been very rare.
During WWII, adult males being underweight was a very serious problem.
At 5'8", 165lbs, and 12% body fat with the amount of lean muscle you possess if you had been drafted into service you would have automatically been steered towards commando/airborne forces as an extremely fit person, whereas most other males were scrawny wrecks the army was worried about bulking up to get ready for combat.
The average weight for a serviceman in WWII was ~145lbs, so you have 20 lbs more muscle than a typical inductee in 1942.
Anyone who knows their bodyfat percentage doesn't need to be concerned about BMI. They already have better information.
BMI is just something healthcare providers can do quickly in an office, or people at home, to get a general idea of what is going on.
At 12%, you are the exception.
For a male 12% is an athletic level of body fat, with ideal being (depending on who you ask) 16-20%.
12% is an extraordinarily low, and rare, for a male in the US in 2022. You are either genetically gifted, have a very, VERY, good diet, or are otherwise athletic.
The obesity epidemic is extremely real. The average body fat percentage for American males today is somewhere between 26-30%.
Of course, it may also be the case that you are very young. No child should have a bodyfat percentage higher than 16% with an "ideal" bodyfat percentage for an 18 year old being <10%.
Even back in the days before obesity engulfed the US, you would have been very rare.
During WWII, adult males being underweight was a very serious problem.
At 5'8", 165lbs, and 12% body fat with the amount of lean muscle you possess if you had been drafted into service you would have automatically been steered towards commando/airborne forces as an extremely fit person, whereas most other males were scrawny wrecks the army was worried about bulking up to get ready for combat.
The average weight for a serviceman in WWII was ~145lbs, so you have 20 lbs more muscle than a typical inductee in 1942.
I’ve had a few dexa scans. It’s been as low as 10% and as high as 15%, so I split the difference.
I rock climb or ski 3 times a week for exercise. That’s it. I’m definitely not the most fit in my friend group by a long shot, but yeah it’s a fairly active social group.
Also I’m 40 years old.
I rock climb or ski 3 times a week for exercise. That’s it. I’m definitely not the most fit in my friend group by a long shot, but yeah it’s a fairly active social group.
Also I’m 40 years old.
Where do you live and can I join your friend group? /s
I'm 37 and I cannot find people my age who consistently do anything physically demanding apart from hiking. There are plenty of people who will do once a month cycling or something but no one who hits the gym three times a week.
I'm 37 and I cannot find people my age who consistently do anything physically demanding apart from hiking. There are plenty of people who will do once a month cycling or something but no one who hits the gym three times a week.
Do you live near mountains? Join a mountaineering club and take their classes. I was an instructor for years and it became a sort of a joke that the intro courses were transplants looking to make friends.
You’ll meet people involved in a wide variety of mountain sports. The bulk is climbers, skiers, and mountain bikers but a lot of unlikely overlap in paragliders/BASE jumpers (want to hike further and higher) and kite surfers for some reason.
You’ll meet people involved in a wide variety of mountain sports. The bulk is climbers, skiers, and mountain bikers but a lot of unlikely overlap in paragliders/BASE jumpers (want to hike further and higher) and kite surfers for some reason.
Unfortunately not. I suppose that answers the question then.
>> I rock climb or ski 3 times a week for exercise.
That puts you in top 1-2% of most physically active people in the world. The rest of us dreads the thought of exercising 3 times a week :)
That puts you in top 1-2% of most physically active people in the world. The rest of us dreads the thought of exercising 3 times a week :)
>> If I’m overweight by those standards, it makes me skeptical of articles like this, and sometimes I even question the validity of the entire obesity epidemic
Based on your description, you are not overweight. The most concerning part of your comment however is that you would jump to question the entire obesity epidemic?
I mean seriously, just look around, particularly outside your own circles and where social deprestion exists in your town.
Based on your description, you are not overweight. The most concerning part of your comment however is that you would jump to question the entire obesity epidemic?
I mean seriously, just look around, particularly outside your own circles and where social deprestion exists in your town.
No I’m not overweight, that’s the point. But I could be statistically counted as being overweight when my weight is recorded at a doctor visit.
I don’t have a particularly abnormal body, which leads me to believe there is a large margin of error when measuring the number of overweight people.
“Looking around” and personally observing is wrought with bias. I’d prefer we use a more useful metric than BMI to get an accurate data on obesity.
I don’t have a particularly abnormal body, which leads me to believe there is a large margin of error when measuring the number of overweight people.
“Looking around” and personally observing is wrought with bias. I’d prefer we use a more useful metric than BMI to get an accurate data on obesity.
> I don’t have a particularly abnormal body, which leads me to believe there is a large margin of error when measuring the number of overweight people
The NYT looked at this and found that BMI is more likely to underestimate body fat than overestimate it. So while your experience is valid, when you look at the population as a whole, BMI tends to be a problem because it convinces unhealthy people that they're healthy rather than the other way around.
(That said, it's split by gender. Men are slightly more likely to be healthy with "overweight" BMIs than vice versa, but women are significantly more likely to have excess body fat at a "healthy" BMI than vice versa.)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-sc...
The NYT looked at this and found that BMI is more likely to underestimate body fat than overestimate it. So while your experience is valid, when you look at the population as a whole, BMI tends to be a problem because it convinces unhealthy people that they're healthy rather than the other way around.
(That said, it's split by gender. Men are slightly more likely to be healthy with "overweight" BMIs than vice versa, but women are significantly more likely to have excess body fat at a "healthy" BMI than vice versa.)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-sc...
I'm over six feet tall, and the CDC BMI calculator says 140 lbs is a "Healthy Weight" for an adult of my height.
140lbs is at the extreme low end for healthy 72” males.
And it is correct.
It is extremely, very, no-good bad to have excess body fat and if you are a 72” tall male who is not physically active that is where you should be.
Of course, for athletes, BMI is not relevant but those people are edge cases not worthy of discussion when you it comes to BMI.
The fact that people think it is unreasonable shows how perceptions on weight have been warped over the last 20-40 years.
At 6” tall and 140lbs you probably would have been the target audience for the “pack on some beefcake muscle with Joe Rock’s muscleman workout” ads in the back of comic books and magazines. But you would have been healthy.
The median weight of a 72” tall college-aged male in the 1950s was 167lbs. Almost exactly in the middle of the “healthy” BMI range.
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43861419/PDF
And it is correct.
It is extremely, very, no-good bad to have excess body fat and if you are a 72” tall male who is not physically active that is where you should be.
Of course, for athletes, BMI is not relevant but those people are edge cases not worthy of discussion when you it comes to BMI.
The fact that people think it is unreasonable shows how perceptions on weight have been warped over the last 20-40 years.
At 6” tall and 140lbs you probably would have been the target audience for the “pack on some beefcake muscle with Joe Rock’s muscleman workout” ads in the back of comic books and magazines. But you would have been healthy.
The median weight of a 72” tall college-aged male in the 1950s was 167lbs. Almost exactly in the middle of the “healthy” BMI range.
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43861419/PDF
>And it is correct.
With a fairly inactive lifestyle, I would still only be able to get to ~150 by losing all my body fat. 100%.
The final ten pounds would have to come out of muscle, organ, or bone. It doesn't sound healthy.
Also, I have been around 140 lbs as an adult, many years ago, and it did immediately precede my hospitalization, although it wasn't exactly due to an eating disorder.
Official sources give 2% body fat as the minimum for men, but that also sounds a bit extreme.
>The median weight of a 72” tall college-aged male in the 1950s was 167lbs.
It's almost as though cigarettes and leaded gas had some positive effect...
With a fairly inactive lifestyle, I would still only be able to get to ~150 by losing all my body fat. 100%.
The final ten pounds would have to come out of muscle, organ, or bone. It doesn't sound healthy.
Also, I have been around 140 lbs as an adult, many years ago, and it did immediately precede my hospitalization, although it wasn't exactly due to an eating disorder.
Official sources give 2% body fat as the minimum for men, but that also sounds a bit extreme.
>The median weight of a 72” tall college-aged male in the 1950s was 167lbs.
It's almost as though cigarettes and leaded gas had some positive effect...
It is fairly well-known, at least in the bodybuilding community, that BMI isn't accurate for fairly muscular people. It's a good first indicator for a majority of the population, that's it.
That said, the range that BMI defines as overweight is 25-29, and your BMI is 25.1. So while, yes, you are technically overweight, it's by a tiny margin. And you are nowhere near being obese.
> sometimes I even question the validity of the entire obesity epidemic.
That is... unfortunate. You haven't just been the discoverer of the issues with BMI. They're very well known and talked about. The researchers studying things like the obesity epidemic obviously know about them.
Besides, as others have said, just look around. In most places it's not hard to see that many people are overweight or obese.
That said, the range that BMI defines as overweight is 25-29, and your BMI is 25.1. So while, yes, you are technically overweight, it's by a tiny margin. And you are nowhere near being obese.
> sometimes I even question the validity of the entire obesity epidemic.
That is... unfortunate. You haven't just been the discoverer of the issues with BMI. They're very well known and talked about. The researchers studying things like the obesity epidemic obviously know about them.
Besides, as others have said, just look around. In most places it's not hard to see that many people are overweight or obese.
> You haven't just been the discoverer of the issues with BMI. They're very well known and talked about.
Everything I wrote above occurred to me 20 years ago, when I first learned about BMI as a teenager. It’s not like it happened yesterday. Although I don’t recall the obesity epidemic being a thing back then, probably because we were all preoccupied with 9/11 and the Iraq war. But I digress.
I now regret writing this post because the point I was trying to make apparently wasn’t conveyed well.
Let me try again:
I’m not overweight, but I could be a statistic in the overweight category because I qualify as such. This is a fact, and it’s true for every male with my same height and weight.
Furthermore, I’m nowhere near being fat. Like not even close. That means in the neighborhood of similar heights and weights, every male is also nowhere near being overweight. How statistically large of an error is that?
If we’re overestimating by 10%, is this still an “epidemic”? Or do we really have a normal distribution with a mean of “kinda pudgy, not unhealthy”, and all the really obese people a standard deviation or more away?
Everything I wrote above occurred to me 20 years ago, when I first learned about BMI as a teenager. It’s not like it happened yesterday. Although I don’t recall the obesity epidemic being a thing back then, probably because we were all preoccupied with 9/11 and the Iraq war. But I digress.
I now regret writing this post because the point I was trying to make apparently wasn’t conveyed well.
Let me try again:
I’m not overweight, but I could be a statistic in the overweight category because I qualify as such. This is a fact, and it’s true for every male with my same height and weight.
Furthermore, I’m nowhere near being fat. Like not even close. That means in the neighborhood of similar heights and weights, every male is also nowhere near being overweight. How statistically large of an error is that?
If we’re overestimating by 10%, is this still an “epidemic”? Or do we really have a normal distribution with a mean of “kinda pudgy, not unhealthy”, and all the really obese people a standard deviation or more away?
Emphasis added:
> Furthermore, I’m nowhere near being fat. Like not even close. That means in the neighborhood of similar heights and weights, every male is also nowhere near being overweight.
This is the part I disagree with. In the neighborhood of similar heights and weights, most males are overweight. I believe you are the outlier here. Though obviously I don't know you, so... I might be wrong?
As an anecdote, I'm 5'7" and 154 lbs, so I think I'm in your neighborhood of heights/weights. I'm considered just below being overweight... and while I'm certainly not huge or anything, I definitely consider myself to be a bit pudgier than I'd like. I'd say I'm at around 20% body fat right now (This is partially planned in my case since I was doing a bulk.) From what I see in my friend group, I'm definitely on the less-overweight side of things.
As you rightly point out, BMI isn't enough to convey all the information, and I'm guessing in your case it's getting it wrong, probably because you're more muscular than average. Again, I don't know you, I could be wrong, but for sure in my case it's closer-to-accurate than you make it seem and we're not that far apart in numbers.
> Furthermore, I’m nowhere near being fat. Like not even close. That means in the neighborhood of similar heights and weights, every male is also nowhere near being overweight.
This is the part I disagree with. In the neighborhood of similar heights and weights, most males are overweight. I believe you are the outlier here. Though obviously I don't know you, so... I might be wrong?
As an anecdote, I'm 5'7" and 154 lbs, so I think I'm in your neighborhood of heights/weights. I'm considered just below being overweight... and while I'm certainly not huge or anything, I definitely consider myself to be a bit pudgier than I'd like. I'd say I'm at around 20% body fat right now (This is partially planned in my case since I was doing a bulk.) From what I see in my friend group, I'm definitely on the less-overweight side of things.
As you rightly point out, BMI isn't enough to convey all the information, and I'm guessing in your case it's getting it wrong, probably because you're more muscular than average. Again, I don't know you, I could be wrong, but for sure in my case it's closer-to-accurate than you make it seem and we're not that far apart in numbers.
I am sure that you are clever enough to know that there are exceptions for almost every rule. Does not mean that BMI is useless or obesity is not real.
> fairly lean at 12% body fat.
how do ppl usually measure this?
how do ppl usually measure this?
Dexa scan. There are specialized clinics that offer them. I’ve also seen them at really fancy gyms, but that’s uncommon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-energy_X-ray_absorptiom...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-energy_X-ray_absorptiom...
Skin fold calipers are a cheap option.
I believe it but I wonder how accurate these stats are. I'm overweight (barely) by BMI, at 6'2" and 200lbs. But I wear size 32 pants and have 110/70 blood pressure. So I think I'm reasonably healthy. Curious if I'm counted in the 70%.
Plenty of very muscular people would have your BMI as well. I don't think you should ever use BMI as an individual. But I'm told that for a population is provides a reasonably useful signal.
Still - I wish we could use body fat percentage more often for individuals and populations. I don't see it being a perfect metric, but I'd rather see it used than BMI.
Still - I wish we could use body fat percentage more often for individuals and populations. I don't see it being a perfect metric, but I'd rather see it used than BMI.
You're fine. I'm almost identical in measurements and I'm fit. A bit of muscle makes BMI a joke.
Welcome to the physiological equivalent of the ebbinghaus illusion. Take an average overweight American and transplant them to Japan and they'll notice real quick.
Is there any similar data for the opposite end of the spectrum - looking into changes over time in the difference between actual and ideal weights for underweight men and women would be interesting. My guess is that skinny men increasingly wish they were much heavier, while skinny women are either satisfied with current weight or wish they were even skinnier.
BMI risk factors for some races are much earlier too. As an East Asian, triggers at 24. As South Asian, at 23.
My doctor is south Asian and is much more strict in interpreting my labs, particularly with blood sugar and cholesterol. The diagnostic standard for normal blood sugar and A1C can be pre-diabetic for a South Indian male
I didn't realize when you include "overweight", you get 70% of Americans.
Wow. That is so sad.
Wow. That is so sad.
Most people think overweight means “obese or morbidly obese”.
Overweight is a very easy target to hit.
Overweight is a very easy target to hit.
Yes I get overweight after just a few weeks of pausing my exercise regime. Back again after a few back on though.
If a few weeks of pausing your exercise regimen gets you overweight, that might be a sign that you're eating too much because my understanding is that that because that shouldn't be happening generally.
Oh I definitely do but I love to eat!
Note when training I probably eat the right amount.
Note when training I probably eat the right amount.
They are all "Christians" yet they will quickly become offended if you remind them that gluttony is a deadly sin according to their bible.
A little bit of self respect goes a long way.