why is ireland so behind the times when it comes to fitness knowledge

timetogetfit

Well 2 things that stand out for me is the food pyramid and the BMI system of measurement.The food pyramid which is so low in protein recomendations and high in starchy carbs is so downright putting out the wrong info about good nutrition and not only are the macronutrients wrong there is no indivdualisation with it, what constitutes a portion.

Another area is the BMI sytem of measuring, I was in the docters the other day and she said I was borderline gastric surgery.Now I know I am overweight but I am a long ways off from gastric surgery .An Example is that if I was 14% bodyfat I would still be 230lbs .Imagine if I went into a docter with those stats, the docter would still say I would need to lose weight because they are so ignorant and so set in there ways.They dont realise that the bmi scle of measure ment doesnt distingush between what weight is fat and what is lean mass.

Imagine a guy of 200lbs and 29% bodyfat got his bmi checked, those in the know,know that this guy is called skinny fat, has very little lean mass and is generally unhealthy but under the BMI system he would be perfectly healthy because he fits within there rigid bmi structure

Its the same with the creatine scare mongering, if you dont understand it slate it.Complete and utter ignorance

rubadub

It is not just Ireland. You get "professionals" who are ignorant, and only do their job for the money, in all sorts of sectors, using tools available blindly with no actual knowledge of the fundamental principles behind them.

The food pyramid is a US invention AFAIK

Hanley

timetogetfit wrote: »

Well 2 things that stand out for me is the food pyramid and the BMI system of measurement.The food pyramid which is so low in protein recomendations and high in starchy carbs is so downright putting out the wrong info about good nutrition and not only are the macronutrients wrong there is no indivdualisation with it, what constitutes a portion.

Another area is the BMI sytem of measuring, I was in the docters the other day and she said I was borderline gastric surgery.Now I know I am overweight but I am a long ways off from gastric surgery .An Example is that if I was 14% bodyfat I would still be 230lbs .Imagine if I went into a docter with those stats, the docter would still say I would need to lose weight because they are so ignorant and so set in there ways.They dont realise that the bmi scle of measure ment doesnt distingush between what weight is fat and what is lean mass.

Imagine a guy of 200lbs and 29% bodyfat got his bmi checked, those in the know,know that this guy is called skinny fat, has very little lean mass and is generally unhealthy but under the BMI system he would be perfectly healthy because he fits within there rigid bmi structure

Its the same with the creatine scare mongering, if you dont understand it slate it.Complete and utter ignorance

You do realise the food pyramid's a US invention?

I'm pretty sure a doctor knows the difference between 200lbs w/ 8% bf and 200lbs w/ 29% bf (btw, 200lbs is in no way "skinny fat" unless the person's 20 feet tall. You must be confusing it with the look people with a low bodyweight and small amount of muscle mass have). You have to realise the majority of people they see are "normal" in that they don't carry all that much muscle at all. So to that end the scale isn't TOTALLY worthless.

And as for creatine, hey it could be worse. We could be French.

timetogetfit

I know its a usa invention but I dont think they use it anymore

hardtrainer

First off, the food pyramid is not wrong and nor is the BMI. They are both convenient ways of simplifying things so that they can be easily understood with the least amount of specialised knowledge possible, which lets face it, applies to the majority of the population. The flaws of course, are that it can be difficult to fit a square peg into a round hole and so as individuals, it's up to us to apply the information about bodymass and food pyramid to our own individual case (or perhaps our primary health care worker should be, but then we have to question their training too!).

Starchy carbs are a good source of slow release energy and should be a main component of most people's diet. Even today, with obesity on the rise, starchy carbs are not the problem. Sugary drinks, sugar laden fast food and snacks and a lack of basic nutritional knowledge is more to blame, and that is not unique to Ireland.

The problem, as I see it, in Ireland is that the education system has become so skewed towards points, that the level of general education has fallen by the wayside. Even primary school education needs a serious overhaul. I guess most people are just too busy trying to keep up with the jones' and buying bigger and bigger cars and TVs to think much about it.

</end rant>

timetogetfit

There are alot of people that have never lifted a weight in there lives and because there bodyweight in generally low its fits into the rigid BMI structure but alot of these people can of bodyfats of 20% plus.A simple 3 site pinch test using bodyfat calipers isnt that complicated to learn and would give alot more accurate results.


And about the food pyramid the protein recommendations are just downright too low, weight trainer or not

Bodybuilding nutrition has still got a stigma attached to because of alot of people associate bodybuilding with narsisism.

Oh I dont have to eat that much protein because im not a bodybuilder, but the thing is bodybuilders dont eat the way they eat because they are bodybuilders they eat that way because its the best way to build muscle and lose fat and be HEALTHY.They are not only maximising there physical appearance but there building and maximising there internal health

Money Shot

timetogetfit wrote: »

There are alot of people that have never lifted a weight in there lives and because there bodyweight in generally low its fits into the rigid BMI structure but alot of these people can of bodyfats of 20% plus.A simple 3 site pinch test using bodyfat calipers isnt that complicated to learn and would give alot more accurate results.


And about the food pyramid the protein recommendations are just downright too low, weight trainer or not

Bodybuilding nutrition has still got a stigma attached to because of alot of people associate bodybuilding with narsisism.

Oh I dont have to eat that much protein because im not a bodybuilder, but the thing is bodybuilders dont eat the way they eat because they are bodybuilders they eat that way because its the best way to build muscle and lose fat and be HEALTHY.They are not only maximising there physical appearance but there building and maximising there internal health

OP, Not everyone wants to stuff their face with protein and build large amounts of muscle. Protein and muscle aint the be all and end all of being healthy. I know people, believe it or not, that don't touch weights at all and are very fit, very healthy, look good and are happy. They don't eat much protein either, one of them is even a vegetarian.
To be honest, I'm a bit confused about what you are actually trying to say other than to start another "nobody understands us bodybuilders even though we're heavy with lots of lean mass and creatine is good" rant.

Hanley

Money Shot wrote: »

To be honest, I'm a bit confused about what you are actually trying to say other than to start another "nobody understands us bodybuilders even though we're heavy with lots of lean mass and creatine is good" rant.

I think it was more along the lines of... "Hey look guys, I know stuff too. Lets all slag the things that don't conform to our fitness goals so we can look really bada$$ and hardcore".

How Strange

Coincidentally, I was looking at the food pyramid chart today in the gym and I noticed how carb orientated it is.

Other posters have said that not everyone wants to eat protein but most dieticians will now advise you to cut back on the carb intake and eat more vegetables and lean protein at dinner.

There was also a poster about foods to eat before and after exercising. For before and after it advocated lots of carbs and nothing about protein.

I'm not a body builder and would consider myself as indicative of a person who is relatively fit and healthy and I would say that the food pyramid is very much outdated. If I ate 6 portions of carbs every day I would be very bloated. If I restrict (not cut out) my carbs in the evening I find I'm not nearly as bloated.

Boru.

As mentioned it's not just Ireland. Unfortunately medical research and scientific studies are funded by people with a vested interest in a specific result. Thus the research and information extrapolated from that is baised. As such the inforamtion later taught to instructors is incorrect. But then my own research would lead me to conclude that the vast majority of training information and dietary advice is incorrect and unhealthy, not just in Ireland, but globally.

As always the best advice is to research, experiment on yourself, record success and failure, test again and use what works, ditch what doesn't.

Reg'stoy

I'd be very interested in seeing a food pyramid or similar chart that the posters above would recommend to a normal person. By normal I mean works 9-5, is fairly healthy but likes pints and the odd take away. I realise that some people are on specific diets for their own reasons but I would hope this new pyramid would include carbs, protein etc that most people would consider are needed in a normal diet.

Hanley

The Harvard Food Pyramid is generally accept as being the best, I believe.

g'em

Hanley wrote: »

I think it was more along the lines of... "Hey look guys, I know stuff too. Lets all slag the things that don't conform to our fitness goals so we can look really bada$$ and hardcore".

Much like you taking the proverbials out of the OP with this comment?

Be civil please folks.

Degsy

Hey,OP,instead of saying everybody is wrong,would it not occur to you to try and lose some weight so that you're no longer 'borderline gastric band'?.I can tell by lookig at myself where i need to lose weight and how much i need to lose,its up to me to do summat about it,not the internet.

Lothaar

RE: BMI.

My mate's dad is one of the top Doctors in the country. He told me once that, clinically, BMI doesn't lie. If your BMI is above the recommended range, regardless of your body composition, you are putting undue stress on your organs. Your organs are only designed to cope with a certain body mass.

This came up in conversation about American Football. He mentioned that a lot of the players - who would be perfect physical specimens, yet clinically obese according to BMI - suffer from things like sleep apnea (I know this to be true), and a host of other ailments, particularly later in life. Indeed, Reggie White famously died of a fatal cardia arrhythmia... which has been linked to the sleep apnea he had long suffered from.

Anyway - does anybody here have evidence that BMI should be ignored in favour of body composition as a scale of measurement?

PS: No, I don't have evidence to back up what my mate's da said. I'm just wondering.

timetogetfit

I think it was more along the lines of... "Hey look guys, I know stuff too. Lets all slag the things that don't conform to our fitness goals so we can look really bada$$ and hardcore".

I was only trying to stress the importance of protein in everyones diet. you are beginning to strike me as a bit if a **** stirrer.Whats the point of boards at all if you cant express your views

Thanks for backing me up Gem

RE: BMI.

My mate's dad is one of the top Doctors in the country. He told me once that, clinically, BMI doesn't lie. If your BMI is above the recommended range, regardless of your body composition, you are putting undue stress on your organs. Your organs are only designed to cope with a certain body mass.

This came up in conversation about American Football. He mentioned that a lot of the players - who would be perfect physical specimens, yet clinically obese according to BMI - suffer from things like sleep apnea (I know this to be true), and a host of other ailments, particularly later in life. Indeed, Reggie White famously died of a fatal cardia arrhythmia... which has been linked to the sleep apnea he had long suffered from.

Anyway - does anybody here have evidence that BMI should be ignored in favour of body composition as a scale of measurement?

PS: No, I don't have evidence to back up what my mate's da said. I'm just wondering.

So every natural bodybuilder, powerlifter, with a low body fat% is unhealthy .I think not buddy, your mates dad is downright wrong.Muscle weight does not stress the heart or the other organs in the body

Just Because GP's are docters of medicine people treat them like as if they have this aura about them that they know everything.What about sports scientists, docters of nutrition.Does their opinion not matter

timetogetfit

heres some good info for the misinformed

http://www.snac.ucla.edu/pages/Weight_Fitness/Weight_Managment.htm

thirtyfoot

If we are behind its ok because in 50 years man will be at his physical peak and us Paddies will have loads of time to catch up:D

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1CA1E492-1EF4-48FE-93E2-D5864300583F.htm

On the topic of the thread title, I don't think Ireland is worse than anyone else. In my sport athletics, Irish coaches have transformed Irish sprinting into something that we are now respectable at from a base were all we had was middle and long distance athletes. 30 years ago we would have maybe 1 sprinter at an Olympics, we now have 'skinny' white Irish guys and gals running serious times and the possibility of up to 5 or 6 sprinters in Beijing and a relay team too, something that would have been laughed at 30 years ago. These improvements have permeated other sports too in Ireland (Kilty & Hennessey being at its core) and now top GAA teams and rugby clubs are playing at a much higher level of physical condition than say 20-30 years ago. This in turn feeds down to the general population.

Transform

My mates da is not a good way of getting or even starting a discussion.

My two cents - there are plenty of good trainers in ireland just like there are plenty of great plasterers, painters, accountants etc you just may need to get a recomendation for one.

Waist to hip ratio is a better predictor to health and CHD.
1: Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Dec 15;164(12):1150-9. Epub 2006 Oct 13
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17041127?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

So if you have a fat belly you are at a higher risk of CHD regardless of BMI and this is a better predictor for younger people also.

g'em

Lothaar wrote: »

My mate's dad is one of the top Doctors in the country. He told me once that, clinically, BMI doesn't lie. If your BMI is above the recommended range, regardless of your body composition, you are putting undue stress on your organs. Your organs are only designed to cope with a certain body mass.

I'll go looking for something in a minute, but anecdotally I'd still struggle with a blanket statement like that. I'm borderline obese according to the BMI but at 5'6" with a 30 inch waist and size 12 clothes I appear very healthy. Obviously in my case my weight is a direct reflection of my lean muscle mass and low body fat, and I can't for the life of me imagine that my bodyframe is stressing my organs.

Personally, for quick measurement/ health correlations I prefer the hip:waist ratio. Fat carried around the middle is high risk factor for cardiovascular disease so ratios of under 0.9 for men and 0.75 for women are considered healthy (and attractive!).

timetogetfit wrote: »

Thanks for backing me up Gem

I'm not necessarily agreeing with your post, just keeping things polite

Degsy

timetogetfit wrote: »

I was only trying to stress the importance of protein in everyones diet. you are beginning to strike me as a bit if a **** stirrer.Whats the point of boards at all if you cant express your views

Thanks for backing me up Gem



So every natural bodybuilder, powerlifter, with a low body fat% is unhealthy .I think not buddy, your mates dad is downright wrong.Muscle weight does not stress the heart or the other organs in the body

Just Because GP's are docters of medicine people treat them like as if they have this aura about them that they know everything.What about sports scientists, docters of nutrition.Does their opinion not matter

How do you know so much about weightlifting and bodybuilding?have you ever actually set foot in a gym Juan?

davyjose

timetogetfit wrote: »

So every natural bodybuilder, powerlifter, with a low body fat% is unhealthy .I think not buddy,

Eh, have you any idea of the stresses these people put their bodies through? IMO the body isn't designed for such unnecessary strain.

g'em

Degsy, please, enough. I asked for civility, respect that.

Jimmy Bottlehead

davyjose wrote: »

Eh, have you any idea of the stresses these people put their bodies through? IMO the body isn't designed for such unnecessary strain.

Ah but I've heard it said that the human body isn't designed to operate on two legs, but instead all fours. If that is the case, shouldn't we all be gambolling (what a word!) along?:)

Roper

Methinks you were offended and maybe a little shocked at the suggestion you might be dangerously out of shape, and now you're looking for someone else to blame.

"It's not me who is wrong it's the SYSTEM man!"

Basically, BMI isn't for powerlifters and bodybuilders. It's for Joseph T. Soap. If you can deadlift 200kgs+, bench 140+ and squat 200+, or you're a prop forward or an NFL tackle, or a heavyweight fighter, don't bother with BMI you're a different animal. You still have to watch your health of course but you need mass.

As for the rest of us, since we don't require huge amounts of mass to carry out our jobs or to perform in our sports, we should pay attention to BMI. I'd say it's a safe bet that there are a lot of gym goers out there who are fat, just fat mind, but say to themselves "hey it's okay that my BMI is through the roof and I have to book 2 seats on Ryanair, because most of it is muscle baby yeah!"

timetogetfit

Eh, have you any idea of the stresses these people put their bodies through? IMO the body isn't designed for such unnecessary strain.

The preparation that goes into running a maraton puts much more strain on the body than brief intense weightraining workouts

I agree that hardcore bodybuilding is unhealthy because they take things to the extreme with the drugs they take and high volume of training but I was refering to natural bodybuilding

cowzerp

Excess weight (muscle or fat) can put pressure on the cardio system and lead to heart problems, but most well muscled individuals are some way fit so its not a problem, know if your unfit and heavy (either way, fat or muscle) it can be a problem, so the doctor is not technically wrong!

Bmi is accepted as a basic way of measuring with non athlethes, its an o'k method if the doctor understands this.

The food pyramid is probably a bit outdated but is still o'k if its used by people in present good shape! if its an average person trying to lose weight-its pretty bad, way to much starchy carbs..

its better to have basic healthy guidelines than none, but just remember there not the be all and end all of everything!!

timetogetfit

How do you know so much about weightlifting and bodybuilding?have you ever actually set foot in a gym Juan?

I have actually been to a gym and I do admit I am out of shape but I know the information I put up on this board is correct

How about this degsy, we both take before pics you apply what you belief and ill apply what I belief and we both take after pics in 12 weeks time and we will see who makes the best progress.We can document here on the boards

Are You Man enough to accept the challenge?

g'em

timetogetfit - it's a discussion board not a pi$$ing contest. Stick to the topic at hand.

Hanley

timetogetfit wrote: »

I was only trying to stress the importance of protein in everyones diet. you are beginning to strike me as a bit if a **** stirrer.Whats the point of boards at all if you cant express your views

I'M a **** stirrer? Look, as I've said time and time again, everyone should be free to express any view they want. But if somebody posts something that is so obviously self-evident that it goes without saying, or just plain false then I will have absolutey no hesitation on calling them to back up their "view".

It is my view that people are so concerned with appearing like they have superior knowledge than the average Joe in the street, that they are willing to make blanket assertions dismissing different techniques used to measure and guide the general populous so that they can appear more "elite" themselves. It's like the normal rules don't apply to them because they step foot in a gym and eat "healthily". I see this as being a thinly veiled excuse to look down their noses at others while explaining their poor BMI readings, while empirical evidence shows little or no achievement to warrant such an attitude.

So every natural bodybuilder, powerlifter, with a low body fat% is unhealthy .I think not buddy, your mates dad is downright wrong.Muscle weight does not stress the heart or the other organs in the body

Trust me, when you move up a weight class your body does notice. I went from low 90's to 100kg over the last 6-8 months and I can tell you one thing for certain, it was taxing on my body. It took a while to adjust to having a larger body mass (regardless of source).

Trying to compete at the top level in ANY sport is unhealthy. You have to push your body past normal limits. Last Monday after my bench training day I sat in the toilets with a wet t-shirt around my neck for 15 mins afraid to move becuase I could feel the vomit coming. Are you trying to tell the kind of training that leads to large amounts of muscle mass and a low bodyfat% is somehow "healthy"??

Scottty2Hottty

g'em wrote: »

timetogetfit - it's a discussion board not a pi$$ing contest. Stick to the topic at hand.

Does anybody else remember the days when you were a kid, when you actually used to have Pi$$ing contests??

As for the BMI discussion it comes back to keeping things simple IMO, If you have a lot of Bodyfat and your well outside the recommended BMI then it would be a worthy goal to get yourself back into the 'healthy' range.

Once again its about being honest with yourself and not hiding behind notions that generic measures of health like the BMI are wrong or right as the case may be!!

Dragan

Jesus H Christ on a skateboard this is getting pathetic.

To date we have always managed to avoid the whole "you do this and i'll do that" internet bull**** and i'll not have it creeping in here.

If either Timetogetfit or Degsy posts ONCE MORE along the lines of childish call outs then your gone.

End of.

If you want to prove how big your nuts are then call around to the offices of the Guiness Book of World Records and see how they compare.

Otherwise just leave it.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Dragan, for someone who was reprimanding the bould pair, you still made me laugh.

And it brings us back to hanleys thread a while back about not getting bogged down in specific stuff. Most people, myself included, will see the changes just by hitting the gym and eating well. i don't think there's any need to worry about BMI or who knows what, or anything else. If you're getting in shape and improving yourself, then that should be all that matters. My brain is a bit fried so hopefully the scattered message in there will come through.

davyjose

Hanley wrote: »

Trust me, when you move up a weight class your body does notice. I went from low 90's to 100kg over the last 6-8 months and I can tell you one thing for certain, it was taxing on my body. It took a while to adjust to having a larger body mass (regardless of source).

I think this is what Lothaar was on about. If your heart is pumping a certain amount of blood around a body of a certain size, and months later that same heart has to pump more blood aorund a larger body, then how can that not put more strain on the heart regardless of the composition. Now really it's all swings and roundabouts, because certainly there is an improvement in other areas. But it surely is a valid argument (or something to be discussed on these here boards) whether or not t came from a "friends da".

Hanley

davyjose wrote: »

I think this is what Lothaar was on about. If your heart is pumping a certain amount of blood around a body of a certain size, and months later that same heart has to pump more blood aorund a larger body, then how can that not put more strain on the heart regardless of the composition. Now really it's all swings and roundabouts, because certainly there is an improvement in other areas. But it surely is a valid argument (or something to be discussed on these here boards) whether or not t came from a "friends da".

It is absolutely an valid argument. It defies logic that your heart WOULDN'T have to work any harder to pump more blood around a larger body. Of course you can argue that the heart size will increase, it will become more efficent etc but I'm not a cardiologist so I dunno the ins and outs and whether this is "healthy" or not.

g'em

davyjose wrote: »

I think this is what Lothaar was on about. If your heart is pumping a certain amount of blood around a body of a certain size, and months later that same heart has to pump more blood aorund a larger body, then how can that not put more strain on the heart regardless of the composition.

Aye, that is true, I'm having flashbacks of a zoology lecture discussing heart rates in mice vs elephants and the influence on body surface area versus volume for cardiac capacity...

Still trying to find those bloody BMI studies, I *know* there's some around. Incidentally Shaquille O'Neal is 31.8 on the BMI scale. Bloody obese baxstard

Dragan

Hanley wrote: »

It is absolutely an valid argument. It defies logic that your heart WOULDN'T have to work any harder to pump more blood around a larger body. Of course you can argue that the heart size will increase, it will become more efficent etc but I'm not a cardiologist so I dunno the ins and outs and whether this is "healthy" or not.

Really the last thing that people want is a bigger heart! You can see this a lot of the time in the cases of retired high end athletes ( like that English Rower fella being a prime example - cannot for the life of me remember his name mind! ) and they cannot just STOP training, they need to cycle down for months to return to body to a more "normal" state to avoid complications.

In short, it's foolish to belief that you can push your body to the levels of world class athletes and somehow not have to pay a physical price for it.

Degsy

My apologies to all concerned,my point was merely this:If you go to a doctor and he tells you you're a snatch hair away from needing a potentially life-threatening operation in order to lose weight,do you a)leave ashen-faced,determined to do something about it or b)sit on google for an hour determined to prove the doctor wrong?.Life gives us too many choices,a heart attack limits them quite a bit.

cowzerp

Dragan wrote: »

Really the last thing that people want is a bigger heart! You can see this a lot of the time in the cases of retired high end athletes ( like that English Rower fella being a prime example - cannot for the life of me remember his name mind! ) and they cannot just STOP training, they need to cycle down for months to return to body to a more "normal" state to avoid complications.

In short, it's foolish to belief that you can push your body to the levels of world class athletes and somehow not have to pay a physical price for it.

I think Hanley meant stronger heart, the heart does not increas much in size when it becomes stronger, but usually gets enlarged due to steroid use which actually weakens the heart if enlarged as you know because its a weaker pump..

celestial

Well I think this argument has gone off the rails altogether.

The OP made a valid point and I don't see where the 'blanket statements' accusation is coming from really?

BMI is a crude measurement IMO. To illustrate the point being made, Schwarzenegger was classed as obese when he was in his prime - he had a BMI of around 33. However this is the thing - if someone who has plenty of muscle mass and little fat is told they are overweight or obese because their BMI is something like 28-30+, then they are prob clued in enough to know the limitations of the measurement. For most other folks it is useful, if your BMI says you're fat, and you can see you're fat, then it is valuable and can act as a wake-up call.

I am 5'9" and 13.5 stone. However I have two less inches of fat on my waist compared with this time last year, when I was also 13.5 stone, or even less, prob more like 13 stone. So my BMI hasn't changed, in fact it may have gone up, but am I slimmer, leaner? Yes. Am I healthier because of that? I should hope so.

Degsy

celestial wrote: »

Well I think this argument has gone off the rails altogether.

The OP made a valid point and I don't see where the 'blanket statements' accusation is coming from really?

BMI is a crude measurement IMO. To illustrate the point being made, Schwarzenegger was classed as obese when he was in his prime - he had a BMI of around 33. However this is the thing - if someone who has plenty of muscle mass and little fat is told they are overweight or obese because their BMI is something like 28-30+, then they are prob clued in enough to know the limitations of the measurement. For most other folks it is useful, if your BMI says you're fat, and you can see you're fat, then it is valuable and can act as a wake-up call.

I am 5'9" and 13.5 stone. However I have two less inches of fat on my waist compared with this time last year, when I was also 13.5 stone, or even less, prob more like 13 stone. So my BMI hasn't changed, in fact it may have gone up, but am I slimmer, leaner? Yes. Am I healthier because of that? I should hope so.

Look at the title of this thread.Some bloke gets told he's overweight and next thing the whole country is living in the dark ages.The mirror will tell you if you need to lose weight,why else would you go to the doctor in the first place?

Lothaar

davyjose - that's exactly what I was talking about. The heart, and other organs, is not designed to support a body outside the healthy BMI range (according to my mate's da!).

I know referencing "my mate's da" as a source isn't exactly watertight. But that's the truth, and I haven't seen him since so I haven't been able to ask him to elaborate. I personally haven't studied this area at all so I don't want to make out that I am putting across my opinion.

Thing is, anytime I read about BMI, somebody invariably dismisses it because so many great athletes are classed as obese according to their BMI. They're obviously not obese... in fact, they're usually ripped.

That makes sense.

However it worries me that there may be an underlying medical standard within BMI that should be adhered to regardless of body composition. If there is, then it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, as it usually is (quite a lot on this forum).

Again, all I have is the word of a guy I know, who is a doctor. He's not a nutritionist or sports scientist or David Banner. But what he said also made sense. I can't see how the components of the human body could support us if we grew to the size of an elephant. At what point do we become too big? Would BMI be an indicator?

When he said that, it was the first time I had ever heard a reasonable argument in support of using BMI. I figured this would be the place to raise the point to see what the knowledgeable users know.

ali.c

Lothaar wrote: »

However it worries me that there may be an underlying medical standard within BMI that should be adhered to regardless of body composition. If there is, then it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, as it usually is (quite a lot on this forum).

I do think though that there is a difference between say being classed as obese with a BMI of 30 and being classed obese with a BMI of say 45.

I can't see how the components of the human body could support us if we grew to the size of an elephant. At what point do we become too big? Would BMI be an indicator?

Just thinking out loud, but the human body does adapt so i would also wonder if the speed of weight gain (in whatever form) would affect the adverse health impacts. Also i know that it is a statistical tool and the ranges are somewhat designed to take build into account but if 2 people at the same height but different builds how would that figure in? Paricularly if most of the difference could be accounted for by the fact that they had different builds.

So for examle if an individual has a larger build can they carry more weight healthly as a result? afterall their natural build is to be larger than average............

Edit: @ the OP if a person are pretty lean and your doctor is telling you to have gastric surgery i think then it would be time to get a new doctor but thats just me!

Roper

ali.c wrote: »

I do think though that there is a difference between say being classed as obese with a BMI of 30 and being classed obese with a BMI of say 45.

Just thinking out loud, but the human body does adapt so i would also wonder if the speed of weight gain (in whatever form) would affect the adverse health impacts. Also i know that it is a statistical tool and the ranges are somewhat designed to take build into account but if 2 people at the same height but different builds how would that figure in? Paricularly if most of the difference could be accounted for by the fact that they had different builds.

So for examle if an individual has a larger build can they carry more weight healthly as a result? afterall their natural build is to be larger than average............

Ali while I think you have a point the LAST thing most people need is to have any more excuses.

I think a few things are clear from this thread:
- timetogetfit is juanveron45
- people don't like the truth
- we'll argue about anything when we are supposed to be working

Degsy

Roper wrote: »

Ali while I think you have a point the LAST thing most people need is to have any more excuses.

I think a few things are clear from this thread:
- timetogetfit is juanveron45
- people don't like the truth
- we'll argue about anything when we are supposed to be working

Dont forget..
-talking about getting fit wont help you get fit.

CerebralCortex

Wow its like I just walked into half a year ago!

Roper

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Wow its like I just walked into half a year ago!

That's some sh1t time travel machine you've got there. It only travels back to when things were basically the same.

If I had one I'd go back to the Jurassic period, just to see Spielberg at work.

ali.c

Roper wrote: »

- we'll argue about anything when we are supposed to be working

Well what else am i meant to do all day??

Seriously though i have a hard time believing that a doctor told someone who was young and midly overweight (hell even just about approaching obesity) that the were approaching a gastric operation.....

walt0r

I'd almost guarantee that half the people arguing on this board have no right to and are out of shape to begin with. Back up the crap talk and post your achievements. I'd only ever bother listening to people who have proven themselves, who are quiet obvious on this forum. The others are the real **** stirrers.

Roper

Well, it IS the internet.

Achievements:
-I once ate 7 big macs in a row. Actually, that's a lie, they were whatever the Supermacs equivalent is
-I once slept for 18 hours, got up, made a cuppa and ate something, and went back to be for another 8.
-If a plate of chocolate cake is left in front of me, I can make it dissappear.

Listing your achievements means nothing as if someone is full of sh1t about their advice they're unlikely to be honest about anything else.

ali.c

walt0r wrote: »

I'd almost guarantee that half the people arguing on this board have no right to and are out of shape to begin with.

Who are you to decide who is worthy of posting and who isnt?

Back up the crap talk and post your achievements.

What the hell is this a call out or something??

Edit: impressive stuff there roper!!! 7 big macs fair play to ya is all i can say