Posted on 12/13/2004 3:41:22 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
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:
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.
BMI goes out the window for people that lift weights.
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.
Pile o' links in that article, CC! I'm working through it.
A very Merry Christmas to you and yours.
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.
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.
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?
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
Men and women don't share the same tissue density, but women can handle extra fat a lot better than men can.
Obviously, if you are a bodybuilder with more muscle mass, the index is going to look incorrect.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The old scale with Snoopy on it died.
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.
Check your body fat percentage... then you'll know if you are a glutton... also check your blood pressure and heart rate.
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.