http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-heav ... 1puti.html
(7th paragraph)
How much of these increases are fat versus muscle bulk? The average is no longer slim 59 and 72kg couples.

Latest Reviews and Articles
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:52 pm
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby Strawburger » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:11 pm
Postby im_no_pro » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:25 pm
Strawburger wrote:it would be interesting to know how average heights have increased or decreased to compare with those weight gains.
master6 wrote: Moderators are like Club Handicappers; I often think they are wrong, but I dont want the job.
Postby rkelsen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:48 pm
Postby vander » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:57 pm
Postby ozdavo » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:05 pm
Postby rkelsen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:14 pm
vander wrote:BMI is utterly useless just saying.
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:15 pm
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:44 pm
vander wrote:BMI is utterly useless just saying. I know plenty of people with six packs and BMIs in the 30s.
I would say for guys it is more fashionable to be muscly now as opposed to ever 30 or 40 years ago.
Postby dynamictiger » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:50 pm
Postby vander » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:01 pm
Postby Addictr3 » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:58 pm
sogood wrote:Just read a news article that reported b/n 1926 to 2008, the average weight of Aust male increased from 72 to 85kg. Female increased from 59 to 71kg.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-heav ... 1puti.html
(7th paragraph)
How much of these increases are fat versus muscle bulk? The average is no longer slim 59 and 72kg couples.
Postby rkelsen » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:28 pm
dynamictiger wrote:According to my BMI my doctor told me I should be 85kg.
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:33 pm
dynamictiger wrote:I have to question the use of BMI even as a population tool. To apply it to an individual is laughable in the extreme...
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby simonn » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:38 pm
vander wrote:BMI is only used because it is easy to do that is it. It tells you little information at all. Any person in any health profession that knows anything knows this. Seriously a tape measure around the waste is much better.
Postby sogood » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:40 pm
rkelsen wrote:If it wasn't relevant or applicable to the majority of the population, then why would doctors continue to use it?
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby dynamictiger » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:53 pm
sogood wrote:dynamictiger wrote:I have to question the use of BMI even as a population tool. To apply it to an individual is laughable in the extreme...
Not really. BMI is used at the individual level in clinical practice all the time, and mostly correct. Fact is, the great majority of people aren't muscle builders. So it's a useful tool.
Postby simonn » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:49 pm
dynamictiger wrote:For the same reason comparing 1926 to 2008 is verging on ridiculous. There was a depression on, people were unemployed and many missed meals etc. So what has that got to do with 2008?
Postby vander » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:59 pm
rkelsen wrote:dynamictiger wrote:According to my BMI my doctor told me I should be 85kg.
And you're questioning your doctor? There's a reason he/she has that title, you know.
BMI isn't perfect, but the simple fact is that it works for 80% of the population. If you're not an athlete, then you should probably count yourself in that 80%.
If it wasn't relevant or applicable to the majority of the population, then why would doctors continue to use it?
Postby simonn » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:39 am
vander wrote:Not at all. BMI is quite bad at detecting a level of health of a person. Even calipers arent very good as they measure subcutaneous fat which is only loosely linked to health problems. Visceral fat is the true indicator of future health problems and often subcutaneous and visceral fat levels are very different. This is where a tape measure can actually be quite handy especially if used with calipers. If my doctor baised everything on BMI I would be finding a new doctor. Doctors arent infallible and from what I hear from people doing medicine is they actually dont get enough training in a lot of things and exercise and nutrition are one of those things they just get the bare minimum in.
Postby wombatK » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:02 am
dynamictiger wrote:I have to question the use of BMI even as a population tool. To apply it to an individual is laughable in the extreme. According to my BMI my doctor told me I should be 85kg. My response to him was that's very nice doctor...can you please tell me what happens when I turn 11.
dynamictiger wrote:I am built more like a rugby player or body builder than an overweight person. I was taller than my parents and heavier in primary school.
Postby skull » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:40 am
Postby Ozkaban » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:41 am
wombatK wrote:Clinicians often find pateints rejecting their suggestion that they are overweight - and offering
all sorts of reasons why their BMI isn't to be relied upon.
Postby Ozkaban » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:20 am
Postby toofat » Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:51 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.