here we go again

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Dronak

That body mass index (BMI) is a rather simplistic way of making a measurement of obesity. It only uses height and weight, nothing else. There's not even something to account for body type. Two people of the same height, say, but one with a thin build and another with a larger build will not have the same weight, and thus different BMIs. But both could be perfectly healthy because of their difference in body build. And as lvwhitebir notes, body fat percentage affects things, too. Muscle weighs more than fat as I recall, so someone very muscular with low body fat could be perfectly healthy, but the BMI might say this person is overweight or obese because it only looks at height and weight and that's it. While the BMI may be a nice, quick guideline, it can't possibly be one of the most accurate measurements out there.

FWIW, since I've lost some weight, I expect due to my taking up MA and getting a lot more regular hard exercise, I now weigh about 160lbs (about 72.5 kg). With my height of about 5'8" (almost 173cm), my BMI is 24; healthy, but on the high side of the range. I used to be closer to 170lbs which would have made a BMI of 26; overweight, but barely so. I think Rich Parsons has a point -- generalizing, most of us can probably afford to lose some weight. Enough to reach what the BMI considers healthy? I think that's debatable. If you really want to know if you're overweight or obese, you should use something more accurate than this simple BMI.

Dronak,

Thank you for clearly stating what I tried too in my Rant.

Good points

Rich
:asian:

 

[Dronak]

Rich, I've been following sumo for a couple years now and at some point along the way I checked the entry requirements for new recruits. I would have just made the height and weight requirements, but not the age one (too old to start). It's kind of interesting to think of someone like me starting in sumo and then ending up like some of the big names. As for "the figures do not lie, but Liers sure can figure" that's something my dad used to say, but in a slightly shorter form -- figures don't lie but liars do figure. Basically, if you do enough looking and selection and whatnot you can find a set of figures/data that will support just about any hypothesis. Of course in order to do so it usually means you have a rotten data set with horrible error bars and no real validity, but if people don't pay attention to that sort of thing, you can get them with it. And I'm glad my previous comments helped although I don't think I was adding much new information.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

I Figure the people who put together the stats do not look at the % fat or % muscle of the person/people in question.

I think the US government originally went to the BMI as a very easy way for the average Joe to find out if they're overweight or not. I've heard recently that they're going back to %Fat instead because BMI doesn't take into account what the mass is.

As long as people stopping looking at their scale and notice their body fat percentage more, then I'm happy. I read an article recently saying that fat people that are more fit are more likely to live longer than thin people who are unfit. This gives a lot more credence to the issue of FITNESS than FATNESS.

Back on topic, anyone have more information on the content of the lawsuit? Is it really the misinformation about the food's content or is this guy just blowing smoke?

WhiteBirch