Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stop the spread!!!

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Roger Marbles
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Roger Marbles


    Jazblifta wrote: »
    This ad is more depressing than anything its meant to encourage people to lose weight not remind them that there overweight and spreading fat fat to their friends and loved ones! Why should an 18 year old woman have the same waist measurement as a 50 year old woman http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/577150/?sc=mwhn this link proves with age your bone structure changes which is conflicting information alongside with having a healthy bmi but being overweight.

    That link proves nothing of the sort.

    It says that pelvic width increases with age and then makes an almighty leap to correlate it with increasing waist size with age.

    Anyone who knows the smallest bit about measuring waists, knows that the pelvic bones do not contribute to it whatsoever, only to hip size.

    Even the abstract concedes that pevlic inlet size didn't change and only the distance between the femoral heads did with age and mentions nothing about waist size.

    Furthermore, the full study has not been published yet and only an abstract is available.

    Surprising evidence of pelvic growth (widening) after skeletal maturity. Alexander A. Berger, Ryan May, Jordan B. Renner, Neal Viradia, Laurence E. Dahners. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2011; ePub ahead of print. doi:10.1002/jor.2146
    Following an increase in length and width during childhood and adolescence, skeletal growth is generally assumed to stop. This study investigates the influence of aging on the dimensions of the pelvis and the L4 lumbar vertebra during adulthood. The dimensions of the pelvis, L4 vertebra, and femoral heads were calculated for 246 patients who had received pelvic and abdominal Computed Tomography scans from the UNC Health Care System. Linear regression analysis determined the significance of relationships between age and width of the pelvis. There was a strong correlation between increasing patient age and increasing width of the pelvis at the trochanters, (0.333 mm/year of age p<0.0001), at the iliac wings, (0.371 mm/year of age p < 0.0002), and between the femoral heads, indicating that the bony pelvis widens over 20 mm between the ages of 20 and 80. The pelvic inlet did not enlarge over time while the distance between the hips and the femoral head diameter did significantly increase. The height of L4 did not increase over time, but the L4 width did increase. These correlations were seen in both genders. Surprisingly, our results suggest that the pelvis and L4 vertebra increase in width after skeletal maturity and cessation of longitudinal growth.

    An example of not to read into newspaper headlines if ever there was one.


  • Options
    #63
    Jazblifta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭Jazblifta


    @ roger marbles I have read the article and will quote "Our findings suggest that pelvic growth may contribute to people becoming wider and having a larger waist size as they get older, whether or not they also have an increase in body fat,” Dahners said."

    This campaign is not to going to make miracles. Its simplified to the point were its dangerous. I think safefoods campaign has not been successful in bringing a great message across and its not going to combat obesity. I am not the only who thinks this a lot of others of a huge concern as to whether this campaign is actually doing more harm than good.

    When they come up with something that i find genuinely helpful to those rather than 'breaking the bad news', I will personally congradulate safefood.


  • Options
    #64
    Roger Marbles
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Roger Marbles


    Jazblifta wrote: »
    @ roger marbles I have read the article and will quote "Our findings suggest that pelvic growth may contribute to people becoming wider and having a larger waist size as they get older, whether or not they also have an increase in body fat,” Dahners said."

    Yet the abstract of the study which has not even been fully published yet suggests nothing of the sort.

    You do realise that pelvic measurements contribute nothing to waist measurements right?

    To me it's sounds like you are making excuses. It's quite clear that females with a waist over 32 inches and males with one over 37 inches are unhealthy. This might hurt some people's feelings, but people have been molly coddled too long and it's time for a wake up call.

    You've conveniently ignored the study Transform posted, you've used a newspaper article of an abstract that has nothing to do with waist measurements to try and support your argument and you've got no suggestions as to what would be helpful.

    Btw it's not safefoods job to 'combat obesity'. Ultimately it's up to the individual, and the only thing safefoods can do is get people who are in denial to wake up. Your youtube video is completely erroneous..."promoting eating disorders" "encouraging people to lose ridiculous amounts of weight" "pro-anorexic"...I'd like you to point out where safefoods have promoted this.


  • Options
    #65
    Transform
    Registered Users Posts: 6,394 ✭✭✭Transform


    Roger Marbles wrote: »
    Yet the abstract of the study which has not even been fully published yet suggests nothing of the sort.

    You do realise that pelvic measurements contribute nothing to waist measurements right?

    To me it's sounds like you are making excuses. It's quite clear that females with a waist over 32 inches and males with one over 37 inches are unhealthy. This might hurt some people's feelings, but people have been molly coddled too long and it's time for a wake up call.

    You've conveniently ignored the study Transform posted, you've used a newspaper article of an abstract that has nothing to do with waist measurements to try and support your argument and you've got no suggestions as to what would be helpful.

    Btw it's not safefoods job to 'combat obesity'. Ultimately it's up to the individual, and the only thing safefoods can do is get people who are in denial to wake up. Your youtube video is completely erroneous..."promoting eating disorders" "encouraging people to lose ridiculous amounts of weight" "pro-anorexic"...I'd like you to point out where safefoods have promoted this.
    totally agree and as i have said many many times - we are at epidemic proportions of obesity and syndrome x levels so we need people to take action NOW and stop the hand holding

    Also as i also said i could point you to any number of studies that show the validity of the WH ratio or abdominal fat being a good predictor of disease


  • Options
    #66
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    @ Jazblifta. I disagree that the campaign has simplified weight loss to the point that it is dangerous? Why should this campaign be dangerous?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    I kind of think these campaigns don't seem to get through to the people they're aimed at. I'd say overweight/obese people just think "meh"

    Maybe it would be better if they focused on the positives of being slim rather than the negatives of being fat. Highlight how easy it is to get to a healthy weight with a sensible diet and exercise.

    Its a demonised phrase because of anorexia but I think there could be merit to the "nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" approach


  • Options
    #68
    time42play
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭time42play


    I'd probably "seen" this ad a dozen times before I realised what they were on about. And then it just made me laugh. Many other overweight adults probably react the same way.

    My waist, measured as they indicate, is 31". Yes, I did measure it just for funsies. I am 2.5 stone overweight for my height, so I'll stick to BMI thanks all the same. I've such a messed up sugar metabolism that the diabetes argument doesn't hold up for me.

    My OH is slightly over the 37" for men. But he eats really well, is a healthy weight, and walks everywhere. I think most people would agree he's by far the healthier of the two of us!

    And if there's an "easy" way of losing weight out there somewhere, perhaps they could make an ad about that next time.


  • Options
    #69
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,154 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    time42play wrote: »
    I'd probably "seen" this ad a dozen times before I realised what they were on about. And then it just made me laugh. Many other overweight adults probably react the same way.

    My waist, measured as they indicate, is 31". Yes, I did measure it just for funsies. I am 2.5 stone overweight for my height, so I'll stick to BMI thanks all the same. I've such a messed up sugar metabolism that the diabetes argument doesn't hold up for me.

    My OH is slightly over the 37" for men. But he eats really well, is a healthy weight, and walks everywhere. I think most people would agree he's by far the healthier of the two of us!

    And if there's an "easy" way of losing weight out there somewhere, perhaps they could make an ad about that next time.
    The ad doesn't state that just because you're under 32" that you're not overweight. It says that if you're 32" then you are almost certainly overweight and should address it. The fact that you're 31" and overweight only highlights their point imo.


  • Options
    #70
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Sangre wrote: »
    The ad doesn't state that just because you're under 32" that you're not overweight. It says that if you're 32" then you are almost certainly overweight and should address it. The fact that you're 31" and overweight only highlights their point imo.

    I'd forgive someone for getting the wrong idea about being less than the stated figures to be honest.


  • Options
    #71
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    I'd forgive someone for getting the wrong idea about being less than the stated figures to be honest.

    Exactly. If you go and put your waist measurement in to the website on safefood.ie, 31 inches returns a repsonse of "that's great, you're a healthy weight, your waist is less than 32 inches."

    So I don't think it highlights the point well at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    cocoa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭cocoa


    Malari wrote: »
    Exactly. If you go and put your waist measurement in to the website on safefood.ie, 31 inches returns a repsonse of "that's great, you're a healthy weight, your waist is less than 32 inches."

    So I don't think it highlights the point well at all.

    Well, according to discussions on this thread anyway, it's weight around the waist that poses a serious health risk, you could be holding weight elsewhere but it's still healthier than if it was present around the middle. Assuming this is their logic, I think it's still fairly reasonable, they're not claiming to replace professional, individual advice after all...


  • Options
    #73
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    cocoa wrote: »
    Well, according to discussions on this thread anyway, it's weight around the waist that poses a serious health risk, you could be holding weight elsewhere but it's still healthier than if it was present around the middle. Assuming this is their logic, I think it's still fairly reasonable, they're not claiming to replace professional, individual advice after all...

    Yes, I know this and I'm not disputing it. I was more responding to this post:
    Sangre wrote: »
    The ad doesn't state that just because you're under 32" that you're not overweight. It says that if you're 32" then you are almost certainly overweight and should address it. The fact that you're 31" and overweight only highlights their point imo.

    The ad is not only telling people with waists of 32 inches that they are overweight, it is telling people with waists of 31 inches that they are healthy. It's obviously not that black and white.


  • Options
    #74
    Roger Marbles
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Roger Marbles


    The recommendations by safefood are based on the NICE obesity guidelines, part of which are here:

    http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11000/38295/38295.pdf

    It notes that there is increased health risk above 32 inches for women and 37 inches for men and concedes that BMI while useful, does not allow for interpretation of body composition (how much is lean body mass).

    Btw, I'm not a massive supporter of safefoods in general. Their nutritional advice, particularly on wholegrains as a "superfood" is completely off the mark.


  • Options
    #75
    time42play
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭time42play


    Sangre wrote: »
    The ad doesn't state that just because you're under 32" that you're not overweight. It says that if you're 32" then you are almost certainly overweight and should address it. The fact that you're 31" and overweight only highlights their point imo.

    Fair enough, I did miss that. But people like me already KNOW that we're overweight and won't pay much attention anyway. Then again, I weigh far too much to be in their "target market" of those who are slightly overweight rather than we who are obese/morbidly obese.


  • Options
    #76
    gymsoldier
    Registered Users Posts: 738 ✭✭✭gymsoldier


    This is not meant to sound harsh what so ever, or offend any body.

    But, it seems to me, that the majority (not everybody, but most) of people offended by this ad campaign, are the overweight.


  • Options
    #77
    Transform
    Registered Users Posts: 6,394 ✭✭✭Transform


    time42play wrote: »
    I'd probably "seen" this ad a dozen times before I realised what they were on about. And then it just made me laugh. Many other overweight adults probably react the same way.

    My waist, measured as they indicate, is 31". Yes, I did measure it just for funsies. I am 2.5 stone overweight for my height, so I'll stick to BMI thanks all the same. I've such a messed up sugar metabolism that the diabetes argument doesn't hold up for me.

    My OH is slightly over the 37" for men. But he eats really well, is a healthy weight, and walks everywhere. I think most people would agree he's by far the healthier of the two of us!

    And if there's an "easy" way of losing weight out there somewhere, perhaps they could make an ad about that next time.
    another example of an individual assessment of the situation rather than taking thousands of people and putting forward a proposal or ideal which is what has been done in the research papers on abdominal obesity or waist hip ratio


Advertisement