Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hail to the Blimp? (Absurd govt Body Mass Index standards)
Center for Consumer Freedom ^ | December 13, 2004

Posted on 12/13/2004 3:41:22 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative

Hail To The Blimp? Even as his doctors announced that he had "superior" fitness, President George W. Bush said yesterday that he's now "a little overweight" after putting on about five pounds during the last 17 months of campaigning. Actually, the president's own government has considered him officially overweight for quite some time -- probably as early as 1998, when a grand redefinition cast more than 30 million Americans from the "normal" into the "overweight" category without gaining an ounce. With a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 27, the supposedly bloated six-foot, two-hundred pound Bush would have to lose 20 pounds to be considered a "normal" weight under the government's absurd standard.

At the beginning of his portly presidency, Bush's workout routine included more than 20 miles of jogging per week. He told Runner's World magazine that exercise is a central part of his daily routine:

I make time to run or exercise every day. There's never a question in my mind that I'll exercise. Even when I travel, there's always a treadmill in my room. I have a treadmill on Air Force One.

These days the president bikes instead of jogging. According to the Associated Press, "his doctors reported that he exercises six times a week by biking 15-20 miles at 15 miles per hour." And Bush bench presses a very respectable 200 pounds.

Last month the CDC recanted its bogus statistic that dramatically overstated the number of people whose death was supposedly related to obesity. Now it's time for health officials to change the standard for measuring "normal," "overweight," and "obese," which is responsible for Bush's long-term misclassification, as well as the myth that 65 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. The president should demand a recount.

Based on weak evidence, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel in 1998, chaired by pharmaceutically-funded obesity researcher Xavier Pi-Sunyer, shifted the definition of "overweight" from a BMI of 27.8 for men and 27.3 for women all the way down to 25 for both genders. You'd think that a monumental change that made millions of Americans "overweight" would be based on a fat load of evidence. But you'd be wrong.

No less than Judith Stern of the American Obesity Association -- the scaremongering lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical and weight-loss industry -- came out against the redefinition. In 1999, American Fitness magazine reported:

Even Judith Stern, M.D., a staunch advocate for the "weight-loss-at-any-cost" point of view and a member of the NIH Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity, publicly criticized the new guidelines. "They have misquoted the data. If they are going to do it scientifically, they should do it scientifically. There will be a big push to lower the BMI at which we treat with drugs, and that's not justified given the current drugs."

And Barbara Moore, CEO of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's "Shape Up America!," was another early critic of the NIH's move that made President Bush overweight. She told PBS in 1998:

[W]e know that one out of ten 18-year-old girls is already indulging in very unhealthy practices like fasting, purging, taking laxatives, because they think that they're too fat. Now, I think that this is a nation that's obsessed with thinness, and to have the NIH, the prestige of the NIH added to this obsession by calling the BMI of 25 and 26 overweight is, I think, adding to that pressure and adding to that obsession.
 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: bush43; cdc; health; medicalrecords; obesity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

1 posted on 12/13/2004 3:41:23 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

The government standards are a bit ridiculous. While I am not a fan of the epedemic of overweight kids eating nothing but Big Macs and playing X-Box, I also don't think that everyone should be reed-thin.


2 posted on 12/13/2004 3:43:48 PM PST by RockinRight (Liberals are OK with racism and sexism, as long as it is aimed at a Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

BMI goes out the window for people that lift weights.


3 posted on 12/13/2004 3:45:45 PM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Arnold Schwarzeneggar is 6'2" and 257 pounds, which computes to a BMI of 33.0. According to the National Institute of Health, Arnold is obese.


4 posted on 12/13/2004 3:48:39 PM PST by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Pile o' links in that article, CC! I'm working through it.

A very Merry Christmas to you and yours.


5 posted on 12/13/2004 3:50:31 PM PST by 7.62 x 51mm (• veni • vidi • vino • visa • "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

The BMI isn't realistic for 'moms' either. When I was on my fitness high, I just about lost my breasts and my menses

My ob gyn made me gain weight otherwise I would have trouble breast feeding.

The BMI isn't realistic for 'maternal use'. It is marketing not norm.


6 posted on 12/13/2004 3:50:51 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

The NIH has to justify it's payroll and will keep coming up with study after study,ad nauseam,and most of them should be ignored.

I've never had weight problems(thanks to my genes) and I have friends who have spent their entire lives worrying about a few extra pounds. It just isn't worth it---they are all healthy and look just fine.


7 posted on 12/13/2004 3:53:15 PM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
BMI is a measurement, not a standard.

Any "standard" that pretends men and women share the same relative tissue density is idiotic on its face.

By failing to account for gender, the gov't BMI "standard" resigns itself to junk science status.

Given normal body fat percentages, a man 6ft/180lb is unlikely to be considered overweight, by any definition. A women, 6ft and 180lb, biologically has a much larger fat proportion, and would likely be considered overweight. Both share an identical BMI.

Who could possibly think that makes any sort of sense?

8 posted on 12/13/2004 3:55:13 PM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smogger

it also makes men and tall people seem fatter than they are. it looks scientific to people unnerved by math but is nothing more than a glorified weight table with the common sense taken out.

Mrs VS


9 posted on 12/13/2004 3:55:49 PM PST by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
"Liberals. Making the every day a crisis for 40 years."
10 posted on 12/13/2004 3:56:49 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx

Men and women don't share the same tissue density, but women can handle extra fat a lot better than men can.


11 posted on 12/13/2004 3:57:57 PM PST by Nataku X (For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
I don't know, I'm at a BMI of 23.6 and I've still got more fat on me than I would like. I used to think the BMI was way off, but after losing almost sixty pounds on Atkins last year, I don't think that any more - I think the index is a pretty accurate indicator of where I should be. I know I have about ten more pounds I should burn off before next summer.

Obviously, if you are a bodybuilder with more muscle mass, the index is going to look incorrect.

12 posted on 12/13/2004 3:58:12 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

I am supposed to lose about 27 lbs to not be overweight. While I admit I have a bit of a gut, I am pretty muscular and from what I hear muscle weighs more than fat. So I don't bother worrying about it. When I get "dunlap" disease then I will worry.


13 posted on 12/13/2004 3:59:00 PM PST by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

BMI is BS. People are built differently; if two men are both six feet tall and weigh 215 pounds, it is entirely possible for one to be in great shape with 10% body fat and the other to be obese with 30% body fat. Bone stucture, musculature, head size, etc. can all throw off BMI. Body fat as a measure makes sense; BMI is a crap measurement worth basically nothing.


14 posted on 12/13/2004 4:01:41 PM PST by xjcsa (Everything matters if anything matters at all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Men don't have to be body-builders to be considered fat by this measurement-- my sweetie is a naturally big guy, 6'1" with broad shoulders, and he runs some, walks a lot, and does some upper body weights, so he's fit all over, but the BMI tables call him fat.


15 posted on 12/13/2004 4:03:31 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Or, if you have a heavy body structure, it's also thrown off. Some men are built much heavier than others without even significant weight-lifting.


16 posted on 12/13/2004 4:06:43 PM PST by SoDak (home of Senator John Thune)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Smogger

True. BMI doesn't account for lean body mass, so many weightlifters and other athletes would be misclassified as overweight or obese. The calculation is intended as a guide to help average Americans determine whether or not they ought to lose a few pounds. For that purpose, it works well. Most Americans are not overweight owing to unusual muscular development, but those who are can disregard the classification.


17 posted on 12/13/2004 4:07:08 PM PST by Innisfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Anybody had any experience with the newer bathroom scales that compute body fat, etc?

The old scale with Snoopy on it died.

18 posted on 12/13/2004 4:09:05 PM PST by N. Theknow (Proud psychiatric parasite of the DU since 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: walden

My friend is 6' 5" and 220#, muscular and athletic, and his BMI came up 26.1 (overweight). I am 5' 7", 118", skinny as a rail, and mine came up 18.5 (lowest "normal" score). His is absurd but mine is pretty accurate. Probably is something to that skewing of the scale for taller, heavier men.


19 posted on 12/13/2004 4:10:39 PM PST by closet freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Check your body fat percentage... then you'll know if you are a glutton... also check your blood pressure and heart rate.


20 posted on 12/13/2004 4:11:54 PM PST by Porterville (Liberal babyboomers... creating hoops for professionals, to protect their unqualified positions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson