Obesity crisis in Ireland Mod Note post 1

worded · 20-02-2019 9:09pm

Doctor explains ...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-02-2019 11:40pm

Lillyfae wrote: »

How else would I respond? I don't get it, this is a thread about the obesity crisis in Ireland, is there or isn't there one? I don't see my siblings walking or cycling to work within the same city, and I would wager that it's pretty much the same with people that they know.

If experience is what we're talking about then I have little to no experience of rural Ireland, I come from a city and only really visit there when I'm back now. Plenty of infrastructure there for walking and while the infrastructure for cycling isn't well connected, it does exist- this should be solved. As for rural Ireland, their definitely needs to be more bus routes and decentralisation should occur so that people have viable options and don't have to travel so far. Otherwise people need to take a bit of responsibility and if they decide to live in the middle of nowhere, they also have to realise that they're not going to have everything on their doorstep- maybe jog around the house a few times in the lovely, fresh, rural air.

That’s a small sample size!

I’d say your wager is quite wrong. Anyone I know within walking distance of work does so especially as parking can be a nightmare and buses and trains can take longer as routes might be indirect. Cycling to work is popular and growing in popularity all the time. My husband has to bus it to work as it’s just too far to walk. He would love to live within walking distance. He’s not overweight, I’m just using him as an example.

By your own admission, you don’t live in Ireland. You admit you don’t have much experience of the realities of rural living in Ireland. You also don’t seem to have taken into account how much more densely populated the Benelux countries are and how that helps to improve both public transport and cycling infrastructure (economies of scale).

You are generalising based on one Irish couple you saw and your siblings. As said, that’s a tiny sample size from which nothing useful can be concluded.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-02-2019 11:50pm

Augeo wrote: »

It takes 40 mins to walk two miles, there's very few folk walking anything over 20 minutes to work.

I walked that distance to work for a year and it was grand. Walking that distance or more to work has been something I’ve experienced across housemates (~50 people over the years) and colleagues a lot over the years. I’m amazed that anyone would think a 40 minute walk to work is excessive or out of the ordinary.

And cycling that distance cuts down the time greatly.

nice_guy80 · 20-02-2019 11:50pm

Park the car further from the supermarket door

That's one simple thing I do every time I go shopping.
Carry the shopping bags out to the car.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-02-2019 11:54pm

Lillyfae wrote: »

Couldn't agree more- that seems to be the norm around here recently, anyone expressing an opinion on a specific topic when asked is told to stop as soon as they do. No room for polite disagreement, just "no- you're wrong/ sexist/ a nazi/ triggering me".

It's obvious that there's a problem with obesity, more than in some other countries and less than in some other countries. I would never dream of shaming anyone for their size, hell I could probably do with dropping a few pounds, but if there's a conversation about it then I'm not going to stop offering my views on solutions in case I offend someone. I don't think it's constructive to throw obstacles in front of anyone else's ideas if I disagree with them.

Eat less, move more, leave the car at home if you can do without it. Leave out all the denial because it doesn't achieve anything.

Don’t be so brittle. Nobody is required to agree with what you say.

Lillyfae · 21-02-2019 8:44am

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Somehow I think the people of Belgium, a country famous for its beer, chocolate, and waffles, wouldn’t need to look for Irish tourists if they wanted to see an obese person.

Any stats for obesity rates in Ireland versus Benelux? Which is 3 countries, by the way, not just Beerland :rolleyes:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Don’t be so brittle. Nobody is required to agree with what you say.

Indeed they're not. But if I want to deny the problem I'll open a thread about the lack of an obesity problem.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s a small sample size! I’d say your wager is quite wrong.
You are generalising based on one Irish couple you saw and your siblings. As said, that’s a tiny sample size from which nothing useful can be concluded.

Touché. In order to get some real information, here's a link:

https://obesity.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006032

Dtp1979 · 21-02-2019 8:49am

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Park the car further from the supermarket door

That's one simple thing I do every time I go shopping.
Carry the shopping bags out to the car.

That’s cute, but won’t make a Shjte of a difference if the shopping bags are packed with crap

cjragoo · 21-02-2019 8:54am

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Park the car further from the supermarket door

That's one simple thing I do every time I go shopping.
Carry the shopping bags out to the car.

Which would burn about 20 extra calories. Then you sit in the car and rummage through one of the bags and pop open the box of malteasers to nibble on as you drive..

21-02-2019 9:14am

A random thought jumped into my head this morning. Maybe some people have more information on this?

I ran 11km this morning while using an App called Strava. The app informs me this cost me 1100Calories. I suspect the algorithm used for this is really simple - it seems to take nothing into account but distance and elevation gain and not speed, body weight, terrain or anything else.

But I just randomly googled giving blood. And the first result I saw suggests that you burn 650 calories giving a pint. More than half of the effort of my run.

Given I know doctors who moan about the shortage of blood donations all the time - should we be selling blood donation as a viable part of a whole body weight loss plan? Would it motivate more blood donations? Would it actually assist in weight loss?

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Park the car further from the supermarket door

Since someone pointed it out to me I always get a laugh out of the lengths some people go to to park - sometimes entirely illegally to the point of taking the piss - as close to the door of the gym door as possible and then queue for the elevator instead of the stairs to get up to it.

21-02-2019 9:21am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I walked that distance to work for a year and it was grand. Walking that distance or more to work has been something I’ve experienced across housemates (~50 people over the years) and colleagues a lot over the years. I’m amazed that anyone would think a 40 minute walk to work is excessive or out of the ordinary.

And cycling that distance cuts down the time greatly.

Lol....I pick 2 miles & 40mins and coincidentally you and your 50 housemates all walk that and more.
You couldn't make up this rubbish.

Wibbs · 21-02-2019 9:42am

Augeo wrote: »

lolers

I only mentioned I lost weight as some knowfnckall claimed fatfolk are forever fat due to an insatiable hunger, that same person said they were never fat themselved iirc.

For a start I never said someone is forever fat. I did say that solid research over many years in animal and human models shows the human body has a set point of weight it is comfortable at which makes it significantly more difficult to keep weight off if that set point has been significantly raised over many years.

Secondly there's a large difference between someone who is a few stones overweight and someone who is ten stones or more properly obese. There's a difference between someone who put on weight in a couple of years and someone who has been fat for decades. There are also differences between men and women and the young and old. Now you can lolers all you like, but this is actual science, y'know the hard sums stuff.

Cryptopagan · 21-02-2019 10:01am

Lillyfae wrote: »

Any stats for obesity rates in Ireland versus Benelux? Which is 3 countries, by the way, not just Beerland :rolleyes:

Yes, and Ireland fares worse than them, because it has some of the worst statistics in Europe for this. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has some of the best, and significantly their numbers are moving in the right direction, but half the adult population are still classed as overweight, and 13% as obese. You talk as if the “natives” had never seen a fat person until a couple of Irish people waddled onto a bus, and that’s just stupid.

Lillyfae · 21-02-2019 10:22am

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Yes, and Ireland fares worse than them, because it has some of the worst statistics in Europe for this. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has some of the best, and significantly their numbers are moving in the right direction, but half the adult population are still classed as overweight, and 13% as obese. You talk as if the “natives” had never seen a fat person until a couple of Irish people waddled onto a bus, and that’s just stupid.

OK. My evidence was too anecdotal so I provided scientific evidence, can't see a point now if that's not good enough and you'd rather go back to my anecdotal evidence.

As I said, I find solutions far more useful than denial.

Ariadne · 21-02-2019 10:33am

Lillyfae wrote: »

OK. My evidence was too anecdotal so I provided scientific evidence, can't see a point now if that's not good enough and you'd rather go back to my anecdotal evidence.

As I said, I find solutions far more useful than denial.

There's a difference between understanding and denial though. Because looking for "solutions" such as "eat less, move more" is obviously not working as obesity is still a problem. It's only if you understand what causes obesity, and not just physically, that you can hope to tackle it. It isn't about making excuses or denial, It's about understanding the issue and then you'll be able to address it. It won't be a quick fix. I say this as someone who has gained and lost huge amounts of weight in my life, I know exactly what I need to do to lose weight from a physical perspective (and have done it in the past and I am currently doing it again) and yet I've still ended up obese again. It's no harm to look into the reasons why this is the case rather than saying "walk to work and put down the pies, fatty".

21-02-2019 10:38am

Succubus_ wrote: »

I know exactly what I need to do to lose weight from a physical perspective (and have done it in the past and I am currently doing it again) and yet I've still ended up obese again. It's no harm to look into the reasons why this is the case rather than saying "walk to work and put down the pies, fatty".

Indeed - Actually some recent science round up I was reading on the issue suggests that current data points to it being harder to lose weight a second time or subsequent times having done so once.

It is also easier to put weight back on faster - with less food - for someone who has lost weight than for someone else.

Basically your body is pushing back all the time. Both against weight loss and against the things that stop you putting it back on. And meanwhile your brain is not helping by seemingly making you more aware of what you are not eating - and rewarding you more than usual when you do.

Which kinda puts paid to the "A calorie is a calorie" thinking someone have thrown onto the thread. When two otherwise identical people can gain weight at different rates from the same number of calories - then the old mantra does not hold up. Even your metabolic rate at rest is lower as someone who has lost a lot of weight - than someone who is the same weight as you now but never lost any. Which is fecked up in a way!

Wibbs · 21-02-2019 11:19am

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed - Actually some recent science round up I was reading on the issue suggests that current data points to it being harder to lose weight a second time or subsequent times having done so once.

Would make some sense evolutionary speaking. The body is primed to keep some spare fat for lean times. Lean times we don't have these days. In the past in a stable environment where food was pretty reliable the body wouldn't go into lay down fat mode, or starvation mode. Whereas in an environment where food was regularly unreliable and people ate as much as they could when they could to get them through lean periods it would be in those modes. The more times fat was laid down and then lost the body would figure this is a regular thing and so prepare for the future by keeping the lay down fat mode more active. Given our history as a species and the lean times we survived through it's actually a bit of a wonder that there are any naturally skinny or underweight people left, because they'd be the first to drop off the twig in an unstable environment.

Old Rudge · 21-02-2019 11:40am

Wibbs wrote: »

Would make some sense evolutionary speaking. The body is primed to keep some spare fat for lean times. Lean times we don't have these days. In the past in a stable environment where food was pretty reliable the body wouldn't go into lay down fat mode, or starvation mode. Whereas in an environment where food was regularly unreliable and people ate as much as they could when they could to get them through lean periods it would be in those modes. The more times fat was laid down and then lost the body would figure this is a regular thing and so prepare for the future by keeping the lay down fat mode more active. Given our history as a species and the lean times we survived through it's actually a bit of a wonder that there are any naturally skinny or underweight people left, because they'd be the first to drop off the twig in an unstable environment.

If the only driver for system was to keep fat for lean times you might be right but a opposing pressure was a need to be lean/athletic to lift stuff/run/track for days/get pregnant/give birth etc.

That pressure is considerable as in native folk in the main, body fat in males is typically around 10% or so. Fat isn't just for energy, its massively hormonally active, used for heat generation(brown fat) etc and once you are down to 5% as a man things are starting to look bleak and you will be super motivated to get food as efficiently as possible and to conserve energy as much as possible.

A long term obese person, yo yo ing losing weight and gaining might have that system active at 20/25%. Calorie dense food even for the poorest in the West isn't exactly hard to come by

Wibbs · 21-02-2019 12:03pm

Old Rudge wrote: »

If the only driver for system was to keep fat for lean times you might be right but a opposing pressure was a need to be lean/athletic to lift stuff/run/track for days/get pregnant/give birth etc.

I'd agree with you 100% for the men alright, with women it's more complex. If you look at hunter gatherer types today the men tend to be overwhelmingly lean with good muscled definition and low body fat percentages like you say, the women tend to be heavier and the ideal for women is heavier agin all the way up to what we would term obese.

In quite the number of such cultures young women are fattened up before marriage to have those extra reserves for pregnancy and nursing. Their families will even go short themselves to feed them up. In some populations(San Bushmen as an example) the women lay down fat in huge arses as a local genetic adaptation. Look at palaeolithic Venus figures from Europe and they're all obese, even massively obese. Fat on women was seen as a plus point because they faced unreliable food supplies and women's bodies because of child bearing required more reserves*.

That's a major aspect to the whole losing weight thing, the gender differences. Men are not "designed" to carry much extra body fat, women are. Even thin women have more subcutaneous body fat than men. The hormone profiles are quite different too. Testosterone in very basic terms burns fat and builds muscle(which in turn uses more calories, even at rest). Oestrogen in very basic terms lays down fat. This could be seen with eunuchs in the past, they were known for being fat compared to the background population. No nuts so bugger all testosterone. So for a man and woman of 30 who are both say four stones overweight, the guy has more advantages in weight loss on the physiological front out of the box.

*We can even see that to some degree in women's fashion and ideal figures that changes over time. When times are tough economically the ideal tends towards heavier, when times are good, it tends towards thinner. The same basic ideal shape in men barely changes or has changed in millennia.

21-02-2019 12:56pm

Wibbs wrote: »

For a start I never said someone is forever fat...............

For a start I wasn't referring to you

21-02-2019 12:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

.............

Which kinda puts paid to the "A calorie is a calorie" thinking someone have thrown onto the thread. When two otherwise identical people can gain weight at different rates from the same number of calories - then the old mantra does not hold up. Even your metabolic rate at rest is lower as someone who has lost a lot of weight - than someone who is the same weight as you now but never lost any. Which is fecked up in a way!

The weight gain will be due to different calories out if the calories in are identical.
No one is disputing that.
A calorie is still a calorie, and 3500kcals is a pound of fat.

21-02-2019 1:02pm

Augeo wrote: »

The weight gain will be due to different calories out if the calories in are identical.

Well no according to the science round up I was reading it was hormonal in nature. Certain hormones come into play when you lose a lot of weight in a relatively short amount of time. And those hormones have the effect that two people with the same weight taking in the same calories will lay down fat in different quantities.

So regardless of the "A calorie is a calorie" mantra - mere differences in hormones rubbishes the idea and two different people with the same calories going in and out will have equal weight effects based on it. They can be very different.

As for "calories out" as you put it - even that at rest can be different. It has been shown that the energy your body requires at rest merely to exist goes actively down if you are someone who was once much heavier - compared to someone who is the same weight as you who was never heavier.

21-02-2019 1:10pm

I imagine the difference is how hormones effect calories out, different metabolic rate etc etc leads to different calorie use.........more calories not burned.

Two people doing the exact same activity who are identical in height, weight, age etc won't burn the same calories....... we are not machines obviously.
Basic enough concepts.

21-02-2019 1:12pm

Augeo wrote: »

The weight gain will be due to different calories out if the calories in are identical.
No one is disputing that.
A calorie is still a calorie, and 3500kcals is a pound of fat.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well no according to the science round up I was reading it was hormonal in nature. Certain hormones come into play when you lose a lot of weight in a relatively short amount of time. And those hormones have the effect that two people with the same weight taking in the same calories will lay down fat in different quantities.

So regardless of the "A calorie is a calorie" mantra - mere differences in hormones rubbishes the idea and two different people with the same calories going in and out will have equal weight effects based on it. They can be very different.

As for "calories out" as you put it - even that at rest can be different. It has been shown that the energy your body requires at rest merely to exist goes actively down if you are someone who was once much heavier - compared to someone who is the same weight as you who was never heavier.

21-02-2019 1:13pm

^ No idea whatsoever what your point was in the second post above. But as the for the first -

Augeo wrote: »

I imagine the difference is how hormones effect calories out, different metabolic rate etc etc leads to different calorie use.........more calories not burned.

Two people doing the exact same activity who are identical in height, weight, age etc won't burn the same calories....... we are not machines obviously.

^ Then it is not clear what you are replying to, agreeing with, or disagreeing with in the post you replied to above to be honest. Because we are seemingly now saying the exact same thing just in different ways.

The message however is that losing weight is not as simple as merely eating less and moving more. If you reduce what you are eating - get to the weight you want - and then slightly increase what you are eating but not to the level it was before - it has been shown the body weight piles back on much easier than someone who is the same weight as you eating the exact same stuff and doing the exact same exercise.

The fact that two people at rest - just their basic metabolic rate at rest - can require significantly different calories just to exist based purely on whether one of them was heavier in the past and the other was not - is messed up. It is not at all intuitive. Yet the facts are in and we know it is true.

21-02-2019 1:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

^ No idea whatsoever what your point was in the second post above. But as the for the first - .................... Because we are seemingly now saying the exact same thing just in different ways...............

that was my point, by calories out I include all the different calorie burn at rest etc etc. Whether someone was 20 stone or 30 stone or 10 stone.

Two 10 stoners won't have identical calories burns at rest either even if they were both always 10 stoners.

differences in calorie burns at rest for folk of the same sex, similar hts, weights and age won't be humongous to be fair. It won't be 300kcals/day for folk (99%) that are normal ish weights.

The below I do not think can be disputed.

Augeo wrote: »

The weight gain will be due to different calories out if the calories in are identical.
No one is disputing that.
A calorie is still a calorie, and 3500kcals is a pound of fat.

21-02-2019 1:23pm

Augeo wrote: »

that was my point, by calories out I include all the different calorie burn at rest etc etc. Whether someone was 20 stone or 30 stone or 10 stone.

Sure if we get pedantic and go down to the absolute basic physics of it all then we can defend the "A calorie is a calorie" mantra. But that does not appear to be what people mean or take from it when the mantra is trotted out. If that is all we are saying with the mantra, why even trot it out at all? What use does it have? It would seem to be like entering a discussion about swimming and insisting on letting everyone know that all swimmers get wet.

It is useless really and in some ways misleading because _before_ you eat a "calorie is a calorie" is not accurate at all in terms of diet. 1000 calories from protein and 1000 calories from fruit will have markedly different effects in the body. So if we tell people simply "a calorie is a calorie" this might mislead them in terms of diet. When they would be better informed that taking carlories in different forms will better support different kinds of weight loss.

Rather the mantra appears to just be supporting the "eat less move more and it will all work out" narrative that we often see. So it hovers somewhere between useless and meaningless really. So why use it?

Augeo wrote: »

Two 10 stoners won't have identical calories burns at rest either even if they were both always 10 stoners.

Nor did I anywhere suggest they would so we risk mediating on points no one actually made here.

There is always going to be _some_ variance based on pure individuality. More to the point is that there is a markedly more significant difference between two 10 stoners with different history than those with the same history. And even more interesting is the science suggests it never goes back to "normal". Someone who was once much heavier takes less energy at rest and in other situations pretty much forever.

I am not sure if reading science papers is your thing. It is mine so I sometimes trot out citations without thinking the toher person might not be equipped to read them. But rather than fling just opinions around here is some of the round up I was reading recently:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6694559
http://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2926239&blobtype=pdf
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199503093321001#t=article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039924/
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199503093321001#t=article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.12255
https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpregu.00755.2010
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236233/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2019 1:34pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I walked that distance to work for a year and it was grand. Walking that distance or more to work has been something I’ve experienced across housemates (~50 people over the years) and colleagues a lot over the years. I’m amazed that anyone would think a 40 minute walk to work is excessive or out of the ordinary.

And cycling that distance cuts down the time greatly.

Augeo wrote: »

Lol....I pick 2 miles & 40mins and coincidentally you and your 50 housemates all walk that and more.
You couldn't make up this rubbish.

I said I’ve had around 50 housemates. I didn’t say they all walked to work. But a lot of them did. Ditto colleagues. Walking and cycling was very common amongst people who didn’t live far away. And obviously people who live far away aren’t going to walk or cycle. They’ll drive or take public transport as would anyone anywhere in the world.

Oh and if you’re going to pick a supposedly fantastical distance to walk to work, don’t pick a distance that is not very far at all. And any cyclist amongst us here would be especially perplexed at two miles being a supposedly fantastical distance to travel to work by any method other than car or public transport.

Augeo wrote: »

lolers

I only mentioned I lost weight as some knowfnckall claimed fatfolk are forever fat due to an insatiable hunger, that same person said they were never fat themselved iirc.

I don’t know if I’m the know-it-all to which you refer but if I am - I have been overweight and nudged into the obese BMI for a while (I already said this at some point in the thread). But the crucial point is that I was not that way long-term and I was slim in my formative years.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2019 1:46pm

Lillyfae wrote: »

OK. My evidence was too anecdotal so I provided scientific evidence, can't see a point now if that's not good enough and you'd rather go back to my anecdotal evidence.

As I said, I find solutions far more useful than denial.

Obesity levels in Ireland and the Benelux countries according to the link you provided:

Ireland: 25.3%
Luxembourg: 22.6%
Belgium: 22.1%
Netherlands: 20.4%

Not much of a difference between Ireland and the Benelux nations going by your own stats. They won’t have had to chance upon an Irish tourist couple to witness obesity in their home countries.

Lillyfae · 21-02-2019 2:07pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Obesity levels in Ireland and the Benelux countries according to the link you provided:

Ireland: 25.3%
Luxembourg: 22.6%
Belgium: 22.1%
Netherlands: 20.4%

Not much of a difference between Ireland and the Benelux nations going by your own stats. They won’t have had to chance upon an Irish tourist couple to witness obesity in their home countries.

The difference between country 1 and 100 on that table is a mere 16%, if you're insisting on splitting hairs.

51. Ireland
74. Luxembourg
81. Belgium
99. Netherlands

Ergo there is a higher prevalence of obesity in Ireland than in the Benelux region

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2019 2:19pm

Lillyfae wrote: »

The difference between country 1 and 100 on that table is a mere 16%, if you're insisting on splitting hairs.

51. Ireland
74. Luxembourg
81. Belgium
99. Netherlands

Ergo there is a higher prevalence of obesity in Ireland than in the Benelux region

The rankings aren’t as telling as the actual obesity levels in each country in relation to your initial tale.

You basically tried to make out that people would have been shocked at the sight of the Irish couple. The percentage obesity levels in the Benelux countries dispel that notion entirely. Even in the country with the lowest percentage of obese people, a fifth of the population is obese.

I’m going to repost the obesity levels in Ireland and the Benelux countries to show how meaningless the rankings are.

Ireland: 25.3%
Luxembourg: 22.6%
Belgium: 22.1%
Netherlands: 20.4%

TerrorFirmer · 21-02-2019 3:29pm

What you're missing is that obesity is a clinical term used to describe someone of a certain weight above their normal BMI.

So if your natural frame is 12st, whether you're 14 or 24 stone, you're classified as obese.

I would say Ireland and the UK, broadly speaking, have more of the very obese class of people than on the continent.

The word has a different meaning in common understanding. Nobody would look at someone carrying a stone or two think they're obese, we'd just say chubby, or carrying a few - fat would be the next step, but we tend to reserve obese for those who are extremely overweight.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 21-02-2019 4:12pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

What you're missing is that obesity is a clinical term used to describe someone of a certain weight above their normal BMI.

Exactly. BMI (kg/m^2) cut-off points of 25 and 30 are used to classify adults as overweight or obese, respectively. On the other end of the scale, a BMI under 18.5 is considered underweight.

These are just mathematical formulas, not value judgments.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2019 4:21pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

What you're missing is that obesity is a clinical term used to describe someone of a certain weight above their normal BMI.

So if your natural frame is 12st, whether you're 14 or 24 stone, you're classified as obese.

I would say Ireland and the UK, broadly speaking, have more of the very obese class of people than on the continent.

The word has a different meaning in common understanding. Nobody would look at someone carrying a stone or two think they're obese, we'd just say chubby, or carrying a few - fat would be the next step, but we tend to reserve obese for those who are extremely overweight.

When I briefly nudged into the obese BMI range (I was 30.8 at my largest, I recall), I didn’t just look a bit chubby, I didn’t just look fat, I looked really, really fat. And my clothing size at that time confirmed it. I doubt many people would have been surprised that I was clinically obese. I saw some genuine, unmistakable double-takes and eye-widening from people I hadn’t seen in a while. I was visibly obese. And I have an average frame, not petite or not large.

And to achieve that very, very fat look, I only had to gain a mere two stone over the upper range of a heathy BMI for my height. So I’d have to disagree with you there. Gaining two stone over the upper reaches of the healthy range had me looking very fat, not chubby.

And I’m not a special case in any way. Anyone who is BMI 30 won’t just look a bit chubby, if I’m anything to go by, excepting the odd few muscle-bound athletes. And I’m short but being taller wouldn’t make a difference because the taller you are, the more weight you have to gain to reach BMI 30.

So, if we take the obesity rankings, anyone who has been included as obese is BMI 30 at least. Based on my own experience of being BMI 30, I don’t believe that it’s something that people would pass off as just a bit chubby. I absolutely guarantee you would have thought I looked very fat when I was at that weight.

So, I believe the Benelux countries have plenty of visibly very fat people strolling around, based on the percentages of obese people given for each country. Even if BMI 30 predominates, it still looks fat.

21-02-2019 4:50pm

Plenty of 16 stone chaps who are 6 foot tall don't look obese.
IMO

DEFTLEFTHAND · 21-02-2019 4:54pm

Augeo wrote: »

Plenty of 16 stone chaps who are 6 foot tall don't look obese.
IMO

BMI is a bit hit or miss. It doesn't seem to account for muscle mass.

The likes of Brian O'Driscoll would have been considered obese back in the day at 5'10 and 15st.

21-02-2019 5:00pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

BMI is a bit hit or miss.........

Indeed
I think the waist to height ratio along with bodyfat measurments are far more indicative of someone's actual conditioning.

_Brian · 21-02-2019 5:02pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

BMI is a bit hit or miss. It doesn't seem to account for muscle mass.

The likes of Brian O'Driscoll would have been considered obese back in the day at 5'10 and 15st.

It takes account of the muscle mass of the ordinary person.

It’s stupid to talk about elite athletes regarding BMI, these tiny portion of the population are no where near standard make up.

For the ordinary person in the street BMI is an excellent guideline.

If someone is doing 8-10 hours in the gym pumping weights it is less useful, but that’s not ordinary behaviour.

So many obease people take the hump at being called so amd this elite athlete point is rolled out as if it somehow justified their massively out of control weight.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2019 5:08pm

Augeo wrote: »

Plenty of 16 stone chaps who are 6 foot tall don't look obese.
IMO

My fella is 6’2” and he is 13 st 8lbs, up from around 11st 12lbs if I recall. That makes him BMI 24.4. It’s been a concerted effort on his part to gain weight and muscle. He looks great. But I could see him looking fat if he put another 2.5 stone on top of what he weighs now. He already has the makings of a wee belly, as he has noted himself.

All I know is, I looked obese at BMI 30 and height doesn’t matter because anyone taller has to pile on even more pounds to hit 30. So they are taller but probably wider at BMI 30 than someone shorter.

So the idea that more continentals might be in the lower obese range and therefore aren’t noticeably really fat doesn’t ring true to me at all. If you’re BMI 30, it’s noticeable. Again, apart from the odd athlete-type.

Someone in this thread said she was size 8-10 and was nearing 30 on the BMI scale. But then she said another BMI measured her as 26. BMI is a formula so it doesn’t make sense that she would get two different results if she was plugging the same numbers into each. I’m guessing the BMI 26 measurement was the correct one based on her size.

I agree with Brian that for your average Joe or Josephine, BMI is a very good guideline.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2019 5:24pm

Le Bruise wrote: »

This is one of truest statements I've ever read! Some people just have an innate hatred of all things that don't fit into their 'perfect' size category....and it's usually down to massive insecurities of their own that aren't as noticeable on the outside.

When I was a huskier gent a few years back, I was best man at my older brothers wedding in Bali. My brother lived in Australia and competed in iron man comps and thus, had friends of a similar ilk i.e. very fit, bordering on the obsessively so.

Now I play a good bit of rugby, so would have a level of fitness, but I'd always been a fairly big guy. At that time, however, I'd let my weight creep up after being out with an injury for a season and not curtailing my large appetite to match my lack of movement.

Unfortunately, one particular triathalony chap I'd never met took it upon himself to make constant snide comments about my size. I was first introduced to him 10 minutes before making my speech (to a load of people I didn't know), and the first words out of his mouth were 'I was expecting a slimmer, better looking man'. Did my confidence and nerves the world of good!

He then referred to me as Shrek for the rest of the night, so I just stayed away as much as I could. Eventually, my brother told him I was going to hit him if he kept on (I wouldn't have), but at least he stopped. Never understood why he held his little campaign against me, and I never saw him again.

I've since lost the excess weight (most of it anyway)......but I'm quite sure he's still an ass-hat. People like that surely can't be happy in themselves.

Yup, that guy sounds like a monumental **** stain. I’d be happy to be you and not him, no matter how buff he was.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 21-02-2019 5:27pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yup, that guy sounds like a monumental **** stain. I’d be happy to be you and not him, no matter how buff he was.

Typical Aussie.

moonage · 21-02-2019 6:48pm

Amaris Repulsive Golfer wrote: »

BMI (kg/m^2) cut-off points of 25 and 30 are used to classify adults as overweight or obese, respectively.

It's a bit fishy that the BMI cut-off points are such nice round numbers. Another reason why one's BMI shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 21-02-2019 7:32pm

moonage wrote: »

It's a bit fishy that the BMI cut-off points are such nice round numbers. Another reason why one's BMI shouldn't be taken too seriously.

It’s hardly fishy. Everyone knows that anything around the fringes of the healthy range is grand. Anyone who is a BMI of, say, 25.8 or 26.2 shouldn’t be too worried. At 25.8, I’d be only 4lbs overweight. At 26.2, I’d only be 6lbs overweight. Common sense will tell you there’s not much of a problem there. The BMI scale is a guideline, so naturally they will round the figures off a bit. It will just help you figure out what, give or take a few pounds, your healthy weight range is.

Le Bruise · 21-02-2019 9:35pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

BMI is a bit hit or miss. It doesn't seem to account for muscle mass.

The likes of Brian O'Driscoll would have been considered obese back in the day at 5'10 and 15st.

Agreed. I have a BMI that tells me I’m obese, but most people are taken aback when I tell them my actual weight. I’m a big guy, but pretty fit. To get to a ‘safe’ BMI i’d have to drop to a weight I haven’t been since I was doing my junior cert!

silverharp · 21-02-2019 10:07pm

Le Bruise wrote: »

Agreed. I have a BMI that tells me I’m obese, but most people are taken aback when I tell them my actual weight. I’m a big guy, but pretty fit. To get to a ‘safe’ BMI i’d have to drop to a weight I haven’t been since I was doing my junior cert!

if you want a check against bmi , an alternative is that your waist should be at or less than 50% of your height

Le Bruise · 21-02-2019 10:35pm

silverharp wrote: »

if you want a check against bmi , an alternative is that your waist should be at or less than 50% of your height

I’m actually bang on with that calculation! Will go with that in future.

wakka12 · 21-02-2019 11:11pm

Every european country clearly has loads of fat people. Hardly that much of a rare occurence outside the UK and ireland

nice_guy80 · 21-02-2019 11:33pm

Why is McDonald's seen as a treat for kids for just getting through the school week?
I just cannot understand the phenomenon.
I'd bring a child to the pool, park, indoor play centre, playground, any place before a fast food outlet

Most people will lose weight if they just stop eating crap and eating too much
Exercise helps after that

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 22-02-2019 1:32pm

moonage wrote: »

It's a bit fishy that the BMI cut-off points are such nice round numbers. Another reason why one's BMI shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Weight is a continuum, and should be understood as such. BMI markers such as 18.5 for underweight, 25 for overweight, and 30 for obese are designed to give people easy-to-understand markers for where they might fall on the scale and to figure out how much weight they should gain or lose to get back to a healthy range.

For someone my height, anywhere between 10 stone and 14 stone is in the normal range. So there's wide variation there.

wakka12 · 22-02-2019 6:40pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Why is McDonald's seen as a treat for kids for just getting through the school week?
I just cannot understand the phenomenon.
I'd bring a child to the pool, park, indoor play centre, playground, any place before a fast food outlet

Most people will lose weight if they just stop eating crap and eating too much
Exercise helps after that

It is a treat though its enjoyable and pleasurable. But emphasis on treat! As in it isnt done often, if it isnt done often then its fine, sometimes I get fast food to treat myself and Im in excellent health, its a lot more of a treat than going to a pool or park and I would have thought the same as a child
Theres room for some unhealthy food within a balanced and otherwise healthy diet. Pretty much every nutrionist would agree on that, it helps people keep motivated to eat healthy the rest of the time if they indulge the odd time

joeguevara · 23-02-2019 3:50am

wakka12 wrote: »

It is a treat though its enjoyable and pleasurable. But emphasis on treat! As in it isnt done often, if it isnt done often then its fine, sometimes I get fast food to treat myself and Im in excellent health, its a lot more of a treat than going to a pool or park and I would have thought the same as a child
Theres room for some unhealthy food within a balanced and otherwise healthy diet. Pretty much every nutrionist would agree on that, it helps people keep motivated to eat healthy the rest of the time if they indulge the odd time

I was thinking back when i was a kid. I mean 6-10. We went to Dublin twice a year and that’s the only time we’d get a McDonald’s as they weren’t down the country.

It was always a thrill because invariably there would be a helium balloon and a paper hat. I vividly remember saying to myself that I’d be a big boy when I would be able to order a Big Mac, large fries and a large coke instead of a poxy happy meal.

But nowadays when McDonald’s are everywhere it is less of a thrill. I think the big issue is drilling in to kids the idea of a treat meal for just doing a normal thing. Get through the week. Mc Donald’s will turn into went to school...McDonald’s..until it is ingrained that they deserve it for doing nothing.

Now nothing wrong with treats if they aren’t put ona pedestal. If they have it then they should be educated on having less calories for their tea or going for a game of football.

Obesity crisis in Ireland Mod Note post 1

Comments