We're number 5, we're number 5!!

Corkgirl18 · 20-08-2014 7:16pm

MaceFace wrote: »

And as for the 5 a day...
Why 5? The Japanese go for 17 a day. These are all just arbritary numbers based off what people believe at one moment in time and are often misguided by bad studies, lobbyists or sticking a finger in the air.

It's meant as a minimum. I would be hoping everyone would be getting their 5 a day in fruit and veg.

rubadub · 20-08-2014 8:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If we apply the same principle to the entire population then there can never be an increase in the proportion of people who are overweight/obese.

There can be an increase, as I said the "recommended classification" side would have to change if there was a drastic increase in obese people, so the BMI ranges would change e.g. "severe obesity" might have to change to >95.

If we stick to that graph and rules then yes there can never be an increase. I assume it was correct at the time, and that there was not some weird thing going on at that time in that population where say 90% of 18 year olds were obese and 90% of 19 year olds were underweight.

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "wrong"?.

By wrong I mean a "normal" chart for 3 year olds 100 years ago might not be applicable today.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's still complete nonsense to go by percentiles.

The graph demonstrates differing BMIs by age, thats what I wanted to show, wish I never posted it now, if I could have found a BMI for 3 year olds and 10 year olds it would have demonstrated the same point I wanted to make.

Deleted User wrote: »

Body composition has an effect, but by 20 someone is fully-grown. Also puberty is the main effect on body composition. Their height is accounted for in the calculation of BMI already and I don't think there's been a massive increase in muscularity in the under-10s.

So I will take that as a yes? they should have different charts?

cletus van damme · 20-08-2014 8:34pm

kevpants wrote: »

What sickens me is the smug "kids love parsnip fries just as much as real fries!" brigade. They do in their hoop. Single people in their 20's have literally no clue how much work it is feeding kids the right stuff and they need to shut up about it.

LOL

only a flute would feed their kids parsnips and say they were fries.
fries are fries.

of course it's work - but ffs everything is work and hard.
that is no excuse really.

20-08-2014 10:04pm

rubadub wrote: »

There can be an increase, as I said the "recommended classification" side would have to change if there was a drastic increase in obese people, so the BMI ranges would change e.g. "severe obesity" might have to change to >95.

If we stick to that graph and rules then yes there can never be an increase. I assume it was correct at the time, and that there was not some weird thing going on at that time in that population where say 90% of 18 year olds were obese and 90% of 19 year olds were underweight.

By wrong I mean a "normal" chart for 3 year olds 100 years ago might not be applicable today.

The graph demonstrates differing BMIs by age, thats what I wanted to show, wish I never posted it now, if I could have found a BMI for 3 year olds and 10 year olds it would have demonstrated the same point I wanted to make.

Fair enough, I just think those graphs are unhelpful as a diagnostic tool. :P

So I will take that as a yes? they should have different charts?

To some extent, but those graphs don't address changing body composition compared to years ago, they only track some average from some dataset.

Mellor · 21-08-2014 12:10am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fair enough, I just think those graphs are unhelpful as a diagnostic tool. :P

To some extent, but those graphs don't address changing body composition compared to years ago, they only track some average from some dataset.

I think you are misunderstanding.

Somebody mentioned BMI<30 was obese.
The chart just highlights why that can't hold true for kids due to relatively skewed BMI ranges. Kids need a different range, I don't think they even use BMI for kids, i thinks it's based on SD in the WHO reports.

It's not saying 95th+ is obese, that would be useless as you say

rubadub · 21-08-2014 5:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

but those graphs don't address changing body composition compared to years ago, they only track some average from some dataset.

exactly what I am getting at. Old graphs need to be updated.

What I was saying is those graphs DO show is how BMI differs with age, if the graphs were from a time & place where everyone was overweight then it doesn't really matter, the 50th percentile 10 year old was likely overweight and the 50th percentile 15 year old was likely overweight to a simlar degree but had very different BMIs.

All the kids graphs seem to be of that percentile type, searching google images for BMI children charts I found this page from this year. She says her husband and herself are short and broad shouldered, so the kids are also be below average height, and deemed obese

http://www.yummyinspirations.net/2014/01/bmi-charts-say-children-obese-and-im-angry/#sthash.uBFHArgI.dpbs

So to reiterate the point, say the kid is 3ft & 4 years old and considered short nowadays, 50 years ago this might have been considered tall for his age, and a tall lanky kid 50 years ago of the same weight could well have been overly fat.

I have seen this criticism before for overly short or overly tall people too (regardless of when the chart was made). The squaring ratio/forumla falls down, as its based on fairly normal height. Also older people will typically have lower muscle mass, so if they same weight and height at 30 as at 70 they would generally have more fat.

21-08-2014 7:56pm

rubadub wrote: »

exactly what I am getting at. Old graphs need to be updated.

What I was saying is those graphs DO show is how BMI differs with age, if the graphs were from a time & place where everyone was overweight then it doesn't really matter, the 50th percentile 10 year old was likely overweight and the 50th percentile 15 year old was likely overweight to a simlar degree but had very different BMIs.

All the kids graphs seem to be of that percentile type, searching google images for BMI children charts I found this page from this year. She says her husband and herself are short and broad shouldered, so the kids are also be below average height, and deemed obese

http://www.yummyinspirations.net/2014/01/bmi-charts-say-children-obese-and-im-angry/#sthash.uBFHArgI.dpbs

So to reiterate the point, say the kid is 3ft & 4 years old and considered short nowadays, 50 years ago this might have been considered tall for his age, and a tall lanky kid 50 years ago of the same weight could well have been overly fat.

I have seen this criticism before for overly short or overly tall people too (regardless of when the chart was made). The squaring ratio/forumla falls down, as its based on fairly normal height. Also older people will typically have lower muscle mass, so if they same weight and height at 30 as at 70 they would generally have more fat.

That diagnosis was made on the percentile basis again, I'd be interested in what their readings were. Again, that's my point about diagnosing based on percentiles and averages for age. What age are those kids? The 25th percentile (I assume they mean 25th from the top) is under 25 for everyone under the age of 19 on that chart you posted. The 95th percentile is below 25 for up til 10/11 years old. I'll bet one of those kids has a BMI of under 20 and the other is at or under 25. Plot it on a graph of some population's normalised data and it all changes and they're "overweight".

evo2000 · 22-08-2014 10:41pm

I dunno how people let themselves go so much with out realizing it, i mean if you see yourself getting fat, its time to put down the fork and change the ole eating habbits! i reckon alot has to do with the convience of the place with the big neon M over it and there tasty food lol

MaceFace · 22-08-2014 11:53pm

evo2000 wrote: »

I dunno how people let themselves go so much with out realizing it, i mean if you see yourself getting fat, its time to put down the fork and change the ole eating habbits! i reckon alot has to do with the convience of the place with the big neon M over it and there tasty food lol

For someone who doesn't know, you are very quick to pass judgement. Must be great to be you

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 12:04am

MaceFace wrote: »

For someone who doesn't know, you are very quick to pass judgement. Must be great to be you

Is alot of it not self inflicted tho? i understand some people have a genuine problem but for the majority... lets not cod ourselves, i havent much sympathy for people that know theres something wrong and refuse to help themselves or even try.

Ralphdejones · 23-08-2014 11:24am

evo2000 wrote: »

I dunno how people let themselves go so much with out realizing it, i mean if you see yourself getting fat, its time to put down the fork and change the ole eating habbits! i reckon alot has to do with the convience of the place with the big neon M over it and there tasty food lol

People who know should also put down the ole needle, ciggarette and pint, but the real world is not that simplistic.

Blacktie. · 23-08-2014 11:44am

evo2000 wrote: »

Is alot of it not self inflicted tho? i understand some people have a genuine problem but for the majority... lets not cod ourselves, i havent much sympathy for people that know theres something wrong and refuse to help themselves or even try.

Easy to judge when you're not in their situation isn't it.

cletus van damme · 23-08-2014 1:11pm

evo2000 wrote: »

I dunno how people let themselves go so much with out realizing it, i mean if you see yourself getting fat, its time to put down the fork and change the ole eating habbits! i reckon alot has to do with the convience of the place with the big neon M over it and there tasty food lol

As somebody who was overweight once . I'll tell you.

I loved eating , drinking and partying. and never ate mcD's btw.

weight gain never bothered me in my 20's cos I was getting laid, quite a bit too.

as I got older priorities and opportunities changed.

It's not important to some people but you appear to think everybody should inhabit your world which is fairly sad imo.

being fat was actually good fun for me, it was a really enjoyable.
it's just being a beast of man is more important to me now.

walshb · 23-08-2014 3:27pm

It seems simple to just tell an obese (or heading to obesity) person to stop eating in excess. But the word excess is so very complex and subjective when speaking abut 7 billion humans. Appetite is so instrumental. Two people eat a plate of something, and one feels full, and other is still ravenous. To ignore and suppress this ravenous feeling is no different than trying to ignore the urge to smoke a cigarette or down a pint for those afflicted with those issues.

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 4:38pm

Ralphdejones wrote: »

People who know should also put down the ole needle, ciggarette and pint, but the real world is not that simplistic.

So you re comparing food to highly addictive substances, seems legit, it really is that simple if you re getting ridiculously overweight, rein it in abit, is there some other complex way ye are suggesting lol seriously...

Alf Veedersane · 23-08-2014 4:54pm

evo2000 wrote: »

So you re comparing food to highly addictive substances, seems legit, it really is that simple if you re getting ridiculously overweight, rein it in abit, is there some other complex way ye are suggesting lol seriously...

I'd suggest dropping to Ordinary Level Trolling for your Leaving Cert.

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 4:59pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'd suggest dropping to Ordinary Level Trolling for your Leaving Cert.

Cool.

roseybear · 23-08-2014 5:17pm

Just throwing in my 2 cents... trained as a children's and general nurse. in general nursing u have an assessment tool called a waterlow that measures a patients risk of pressure sores. one of the questions is is the patient underweight, average, overweight or obese - it is becoming increasingly difficult to say whether someone is average or overweight as the average now is quite often overweight. took a few yrs off the children's nursing and just back in to it to meet a 74kg 12 yr old and 95kg 13yr old. would have seen 60-70kg in the past but this is a diff ball game. I know 1st hand how difficult eating and weight management is, having been overweight and underweight so understand that it is as much an emotional and mental challenge as a physical 1 but I don't understand why things haven't changed? The rates are worsening even with all these tv shows and local initiatives encouraging getting active and eating well. Maybe ppl need a better incentive then feeling better about themselves or increasing their life expectancy?

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 5:22pm

roseybear wrote: »

Just throwing in my 2 cents... trained as a children's and general nurse. in general nursing u have an assessment tool called a waterlow that measures a patients risk of pressure sores. one of the questions is is the patient underweight, average, overweight or obese - it is becoming increasingly difficult to say whether someone is average or overweight as the average now is quite often overweight. took a few yrs off the children's nursing and just back in to it to meet a 74kg 12 yr old and 95kg 13yr old. would have seen 60-70kg in the past but this is a diff ball game. I know 1st hand how difficult eating and weight management is, having been overweight and underweight so understand that it is as much an emotional and mental challenge as a physical 1 but I don't understand why things haven't changed? The rates are worsening even with all these tv shows and local initiatives encouraging getting active and eating well. Maybe ppl need a better incentive then feeling better about themselves or increasing their life expectancy?

Apprently according to an above poster people enjoy being obese its ment to be great fun, i guess that could be it? it is abit of a joke that kids are gone the way they are the health problems attached to it aswell arent going to help em any bit, i hope it does change and people do get healthier for it,

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 5:25pm

23-08-2014 7:42pm

walshb wrote: »

It seems simple to just tell an obese (or heading to obesity) person to stop eating in excess. But the word excess is so very complex and subjective when speaking abut 7 billion humans. Appetite is so instrumental. Two people eat a plate of something, and one feels full, and other is still ravenous. To ignore and suppress this ravenous feeling is no different than trying to ignore the urge to smoke a cigarette or down a pint for those afflicted with those issues.

The classic "I can eat what I want and not put on weight". Yeah, eat what I want and see what happens. :pac:

Cill94 · 23-08-2014 8:24pm

I think people tend to overanalyse the causes of an issue like obesity. It really boils down to people stopped moving, and started eating more (and worse quality) food in the last 100 years.

Unless we can reverse the advent of main culprits like cars, office jobs, TV/internet and cheap addictive foods, it's a case of constantly fighting a losing battle. Our minds are programmed to choose doing as little as possible to survive. Exercising regularly and eating well is sound advice to give the masses but until those things become a necessity and not a choice (like in olden times when people had to walk places, didn't have access to so much mass produced and rubbish food, and kids played outside to entertain themselves), I can only see the problem getting worse.

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 8:28pm

Cill94 wrote: »

I think people tend to overanalyse the causes of an issue like obesity. It really boils down to people stopped moving, and started eating more (and worse quality) food in the last 100 years.

Unless we can reverse the advent of main culprits like cars, office jobs, TV/internet and cheap addictive foods, it's a case of constantly fighting a losing battle. Our minds are programmed to choose doing as little as possible to survive. Exercising regularly and eating well is sound advice to give the masses but until those things become a necessity and not a choice (like in olden times when people had to walk places, didn't have access to so much mass produced and rubbish food, and kids played outside to entertain themselves), I can only see the problem getting worse.

Now you hit the nail on the head for alot of cases! alot of people on here just like to come up with ridiculous complex reasons as to why people are obese when its simple.

Alf Veedersane · 23-08-2014 9:04pm

Cill94 wrote: »

I think people tend to overanalyse the causes of an issue like obesity. It really boils down to people stopped moving, and started eating more (and worse quality) food in the last 100 years.

Well, yes that would be the cause. It affects people differently. If it was a simple issue, there probably wouldn't be eating disorders.

But I agree that the cause needs to be tackled. There is worse food but people don't realise what they're eating is utter shi*e a lot of the time. A bit of education wouldn't go astray.

Bruno26 · 23-08-2014 9:07pm

evo2000 wrote: »

So you re comparing food to highly addictive substances, seems legit, it really is that simple if you re getting ridiculously overweight, rein it in abit, is there some other complex way ye are suggesting lol seriously...

Highly processed food is addictive . It can be similarly addictive as drugs like heroine.

People are fat because they don't eat real food like we used to eat. They eat and drink highly processed addictive edible food like products. The only way to reverse the trend is by banning these products which would result in the end of large supermarkets. Is this ever going to happen? Too many vested interests.

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 9:17pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Highly processed food is addictive . It can be similarly addictive as drugs like heroine.

People are fat because they don't eat real food like we used to eat. They eat and drink highly processed addictive edible food like products. The only way to reverse the trend is by banning these products which would result in the end of large supermarkets. Is this ever going to happen? Too many vested interests.

I think alot of people are fat because they choose to be fat via the decisions they make every day, processed food doesn't help but it certainly isnt the sole cause, i think laziness gluttony and the likes all have a major part to play and i think its being overlooked,

Its the same as a drug user saying drugs are the cause of his misfortune, when he choose to use em!

Of course theres exceptions to what im saying and people with legitimate problems, but i think by in large its down to the individual to decide they dont want to be overweight anymore.

Bruno26 · 23-08-2014 9:23pm

evo2000 wrote: »

I think alot of people are fat because they choose to be fat via the decisions they make every day, processed food doesn't help but it certainly isnt the sole cause, i think laziness gluttony and the likes all have a major part to play and i think its being overlooked,

Its the same as a drug user saying drugs are the cause of his misfortune, when he choose to use em!

Of course theres exceptions to what im saying and people with legitimate problems, but i think by in large its down to the individual to decide they dont want to be overweight anymore.

Processed food & processed drinks are the only reason people are fat. You don't get fat eating real food.

Essien · 23-08-2014 9:27pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

The only way to reverse the trend is by banning these products which would result in the end of large supermarkets. Is this ever going to happen? Too many vested interests.

It's hard to tell when you're being serious or not, I'll bite though.

Nothing needs to be banned. People need to learn to manage what they eat and take responsibility for it.

I had a nice chunk of cake and ice cream last night and I'll continue to lose weight. I don't want to be banned from having nice things because some people can't manage their diet.

Bruno26 · 23-08-2014 9:35pm

Essien wrote: »

People need to learn to manage what they eat and take responsibility for it.

They do but it's never going to happen when supermarkets are full of addictive unnecessary crap.

Ralphdejones · 23-08-2014 9:40pm

evo2000 wrote: »

Its the same as a drug user saying drugs are the cause of his misfortune, when he choose to use em!

And clearly you know nothing about chemical and metal drug addiction either. However the reformed addict can completely avoid drugs, any contact with them, anyone who takes them, and any situation where they might be present.

Alf Veedersane · 23-08-2014 9:43pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

They do but it's never going to happen when supermarkets are full of addictive unnecessary crap.

So legislate for what people can and can't eat?

30 years too late, Bruno.

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 9:43pm

Ralphdejones wrote: »

And clearly you know nothing about drug addiction either.

I know that when a person choose to use drugs the consequences are there own fault.

Difficult for you grasp? or are you just fishing for thanks by attacking everything i say?

And how is it you didnt say that to the person that compared food to drugs above? double standards.

Bruno26 · 23-08-2014 9:51pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So legislate for what people can and can't eat?

30 years too late, Bruno.

Indeed it is too late. It's a drastic solution. I know nothing like that will ever happen. It would work though! Is anything else working or going to work?

Alf Veedersane · 23-08-2014 9:55pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Indeed it is too late. It's a drastic solution. I know nothing like that will ever happen. It would work though! Is anything else working or going to work?

I'd rather not live in Airstrip One.

Bruno26 · 23-08-2014 10:07pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'd rather not live in Airstrip One.

You wouldn't. You'd be in food utopia.

evo2000 · 23-08-2014 10:09pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

Indeed it is too late. It's a drastic solution. I know nothing like that will ever happen. It would work though! Is anything else working or going to work?

Go the whole hog sur controlled diets for everyone down to the last calorie! lol

Bruno26 · 23-08-2014 10:13pm

evo2000 wrote: »

Go the whole hog sur controlled diets for everyone down to the last calorie! lol

That's really funny.

It's not being "on a diet." You don't count calories. You wouldn't need to.

walshb · 24-08-2014 9:55am

evo2000 wrote: »

Now you hit the nail on the head for alot of cases! alot of people on here just like to come up with ridiculous complex reasons as to why people are obese when its simple.

They are obese for one simple reason. They ingest food at a rate/quantity that adds lbs to their frame. The ability to stop and reverse this for some people is where the complexity lies.

Cill94 · 24-08-2014 12:27pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Well, yes that would be the cause. It affects people differently. If it was a simple issue, there probably wouldn't be eating disorders.

But I agree that the cause needs to be tackled. There is worse food but people don't realise what they're eating is utter shi*e a lot of the time. A bit of education wouldn't go astray.

Education is definitely an important aspect, because there are still a lot of people that don't realise how much sugar is in things like 'healthy option' smoothies, breakfast bars, juices, yoghurts etc.

nice_guy80 · 24-08-2014 8:29pm

Where are we at now?

Still squabbling?

Ralphdejones · 24-08-2014 9:21pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Where are we at now?

Still squabbling?

There wouldn't be much need for boards.ie if people agreed

nice_guy80 · 24-08-2014 11:35pm

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There wouldn't be much need for boards.ie if people agreed

Au contrear

Reaching a consensus through discussion can be cool

Ralphdejones · 25-08-2014 8:05pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Au contrear

Reaching a consensus through discussion can be cool

Not quoting some and pretending what they said would be a start

We're number 5, we're number 5!!

Comments